PDA

View Full Version : Warriors of Chaos - 4 months on...



Odin
12-02-2009, 15:48
Is the Warriors of Chaos book only 4 months old, or am I mistaken? Seems much longer.

Just wanted to guage everyone's opinions now things have settled down a bit.

As far as I can gather they're fairly average, power-wise, and not as easily "abusable" as some armies. There's no Skaven SAD or Bretonnian RAF equivalents as far as I know. But they can be pretty competative against pretty much anyone.

But I have a problem. This is the army I have collected for about 16 years, and whose background material I love. And yet every time I try to write an army list I get an attack of boredom and decide to do something else instead. I'm just not feeling it anymore. Is it just me? Or do other Chaos players have the same problem?

Arguleon-veq
12-02-2009, 16:22
In terms of power they are middle of the road. Right in that 'Everyone Else' Tier that doesn't include all the very hard or very weak armies.

Unlike many of those Everyone Else armies though, Warriors are hard to abuse, they dont have a Thorek Gunline, Teclis List or Twin Steam tank +Alter/OR Franz list.

I dont find the list boring at all, you have strong contenders in all of your core slots, you have strong contenders for all of your special slots too, after Knights they are all about as useful as each other besides Forsaken. We also have a fair few useful rare units, only the Shaggoth being a real dud.

So of the whole book we have these that are rarely or should rarely be taken;

Forsaken,
Shaggoth.

You can go;

Magic Gunline,
All Cav,
Horde,
Heavy Infantry,
Monster Army.

So we have a variety of effective and useful builds and to make those we
have a variety of very usable choices to fill our slots with.

Bac5665
12-02-2009, 16:37
I both like and hate the book. I think they did the Warriors themselves well, but the internal balance in the book is awful, worse than even the new Lizardmen (or the old lizardmen, why can't GW make more than half of lizardmen units worth taking!! Sigh.) Chosen, Forsaken, Shaggoth, Ogres, Trolls, why would you take these units? Really, Knights, Marauders (of all kinds) and some warriors are the best things by far in the book.

Also, I find it hard to build balanced characters. I can either make them really defensive, or really killy, but I have a hard time finding a happy medium. Too many of the cheaper items are simply useless, rather than mildly helpful, and too many of the expensive items are overpriced.

akgaroth
12-02-2009, 16:44
Humm, I have the problem that I can't use all the things I like in 2000 pts.:D
Although is true that the price of some units is injustified (namely chaos lords and forsakens). In any case I like the new army and since there's no no-brainer units and items you can be pretty much sure that your army will be not the same as the other WoC players.

Bac5665
12-02-2009, 16:46
Uh, Chaos Knights are no brainer units. I can't imagine WoC winning without them.

MSU
12-02-2009, 16:53
I want to know why there aren't any skirmishers or flyers (save discs/prince) in the army. It cuts down on what you can do with the list. It wouldn't even have to be flying deamons, maybe Evil Vultures or a swarm of maggots or something like that; earthy evil but not daemonic.

Also, just make the forsaken into skirmishers and people might take them.

My other find with the WoC list is that when army building I often find my self thinking that I want to take ogres or trolls or drogres, but then think to myself "why would I not take knights", they are like those other choices, but better in every respect.

The SkaerKrow
12-02-2009, 16:58
Chaos Knights are just silly, but otherwise it's a good book.

The Red Scourge
12-02-2009, 17:00
WoC were my first. The one thing that attracted me to them was the cool 'super' heroes, the Tzeentch champions. The lore was crappy, the characters horribly expensive, but they had immense coolness factor.

I was just about to expand my warriors with some beastmen (I had gotten a few dragon ogres and was just about to order a few herds), but then the armies split up. So instead of getting beastmen I decided to try out wood elves in the mean time, and going back to the one-way steamroller tactics of the WoC is hard after having tried out a much more 'advanced' army – especially when the 'magic' isn't there.

Granted, the pure WoC has gotten a lot better from the pure mortal HoC list I played. Troops are better and cheaper (It was a bit easier, when everything was core ;)), but it has lost access to skirmish/flying troops. and why oh why did they have to do 10 (TEN???) SCs instead of just a set of ordinairy characters?

So WoC has no access to shooting, skirmish, flying and warrior mages/superheroes, and what do we get for this sacrifice; some high powered CC troops, that can be shot and/or outmaneuvered by most races.

And yes I know that we have axe throwing marauder horsemen and a hellcannon, but a 22" range and a rare and expensive stone thrower doesn't make for a very convincing shooting phase.

Odin
12-02-2009, 17:04
You can go;

Magic Gunline,
All Cav,
Horde,
Heavy Infantry,
Monster Army.

So we have a variety of effective and useful builds and to make those we
have a variety of very usable choices to fill our slots with.


Problem is, none of those are really varied enough to be satisfying.

For example, I like the idea of focusing on Marauders, with maybe just a unit of Warriors as "huscarles". But they missed the opportunity to flesh the Marauders out a bit (some axe-throwing skirmishers perhaps, or a bow option on the horsemen to represent the Hung).

The Red Scourge
12-02-2009, 17:07
My other find with the WoC list is that when army building I often find my self thinking that I want to take ogres or trolls or drogres, but then think to myself "why would I not take knights", they are like those other choices, but better in every respect.

I always value having 3 dragon ogres w. great weapons around. Knights are great, but for heavy armor you really need S6+ :)

Kerill
12-02-2009, 17:08
WOC- A dull failure of a book. Not a weak army per se, but a depressing lack of interesting viable builds.

@Red Scourge, the 10 special characters are there to fill up the pages of the book that otherwise would have seemed even more bare on the armylist front, and I guess even Phil realised how dull a book he had made so tried to throw in some more SC's to "spice it up"

The Red Scourge
12-02-2009, 17:15
@Kerill, Thanks I just thought it was complimentary toilet paper – but now I realize it actually has a function ;)

Weemo
12-02-2009, 17:16
i would have liked the book to be more decisive, i mean it seems phil tried to cover too many aspects of chaos in one book (beasts like dragon ogres, trolls ect, then normal warriors+marauders, then weird stuff like forsaken and the war altar)

my wishlist of chaos would have been:

make monogod armies more competetive and equal (no mxin mgic items ect)

give more options for marauder, not just foot or mounted (skirmisher option?)

focus more on the WARRIORS of chaos aspect, this means shaggoths, trolls and dragon ogres can stay in the BOC book, make chaos ogres better so that they are more usuable

keep warrior mages for tzeentch!!!

dont make wizards have eye of the gods (why would they???)

maybe some flyers, definiately some skirmishers

make less special characters but more usuable ones and cooler (i hate wulfdik)

these are just a few changes i would make, to expand the warior aspect (which would be far more common ofc) and decrease the BOC aspect (dragon ogres+trols would be very rare and powerful)

yeah thats me 2c (maybe more ;))

Odin
12-02-2009, 17:18
It would have been nice to get a different type of standard Hero - you know, like the Dragon Mage, Master Engineer, Assassin... something other than just the normal champion or sorcerer options.

Ultimately though, it's removing the daemons and beasts that has killed it for me. When I started WHFB, I looked at all the different armies, and all of them were made up almost exclusively of a single type of creature (human, elf, greenskin, dwarf, skaven...) armed in a variety of ways. What attracted me to Chaos was that it was made up of all sorts of different creatures making up the army - superhuman warriors, beastmen, daemons etc. That army is dead now.

DTimbro
12-02-2009, 17:31
Having picked up a WoC army and played a bit with it I find it pretty good all around and very viable. I run wizards on disks, and a good deal of cavalry at the moment. Knights are cheap for the models and are awesome to put on the field, easily worth taking two units. Supported with a Warshrine they can become monstrous if you gain things such as +1 Attack or the Ward Saves and have a tough unit to help block rear charges.
Some glaring holes I have found in the army are: Lack of Stubborn troops, or the ability to make troops stubborn except for a 125 point banner. Lack of Hatred / Always strike first options for the most part, both are very powerful tools for a melee heavy army like WoC.

lord mekri
12-02-2009, 17:34
i am going to have to go against the majority on warseer and say i love the new warriors of chaos.
mortal chaos has always been my fisrt army. and while i agree i prefer the old fluff, i have been aorund warhammer fluff liong enough to know that some few things always stay the same, and some things change with each edition. and will change again the next time the book is out. that being said, you can still make an army by old fluff if you choose to.

now , i actually like that there are very few, if any, abusable builds in WOC. i mean, do0nt we complain about DOC and VC, and even DE, because of this? dont we hate the twin stanks and walters, and thorek gunlines? yet we are upset that WOC doesnt have a bulid we can all hate? (btw - if you want a build that is nasty, go 4 units of knights, 3 units of horse, some tzeentch mages on disks, and call it a day. on round two the knights hit the line and slaugheter just about anything they hit).

as far as building lists, if you are thinging just in terms of cost effective tourny build, yes, it can get fairly boring. right up 2-3 lists and you have pretty much tapped it.

if you are looking for interestng themes, then you can have loads of fun. it all depends on what you want out of an army, and a game.

if you used to mix alot between beasts and deomon and mortals (whether for theme or power) then you will of cousre be disappointed - there is far less choice in that regards.
but if you were like, who rarely mixed it up, then you barely notice the difference.

perhaps i liove the list because really, its just taking the army in a direction i ahve alwasy played - mostly umarked barbarians form the north. my currently list usually only uses a mark if i want a hero on a jugger, or a mage with one of the chaos lores.
everythign else is unmarked - which means i really get to play a chaos HORDE. nothing makes me smile more than seeing an empire player's eyes go wide when he realizes my numbers are almost the same as his (or maybe larger, depending on his army).

as for lack of skirmishers and flyers, well, i agree the forasaken shoudl have been skirmishers. not the best idea as far as power (move 6 frienzied skirmishers? good luck with that) but for fluff would be perfect.

but really, the marauder horsemen can do anything we needed flyers and skirmisher for. and they are core, so take as many as you want. they are flexiible in equipment, and can be dirt cheap vanilla, or fully decked and still pretty cheap.

WOC has never been a "tactically flexible" army, and never will. the are the wild men of the north charging full pelt to the slaughter. and have never been better equipt for it than now.

MSU
12-02-2009, 18:55
Heh, yeah, I guess frenzied skirmishers might make some rules problems/questions ... still would like to see it though.

akgaroth
12-02-2009, 19:26
Uh, Chaos Knights are no brainer units. I can't imagine WoC winning without them.

Well, that's true, but in any case they have the weakneses of any other cavalry. They stand out for their stats, not for their special abilities. They rely on splitting the greatest number of heads to win battles and that's it (like the rest of the army).
I don't know what the people keep complaining about: WoC have the best CC units in the game supoorted by a lot of monster units (empire, dwarves, high elves don't have one of them except ogres mercenaries as rare choices), have screening units (hounds) and can have the option to build a strong magic phase. If they had skimrishes they would be nearly invincible (I remind that many units got upgraded from past editions).
The only thing I think GW do wrong is the cost of some units.

Briohmar
12-02-2009, 19:33
I really don't like not having flyers or skirmishers either. And I really can't stand someone turning up his nose at me for playing an all Cavalry build because it is the only way to overcome those two specific short-comings. I also don't like that the only way to get a ward save or a flyer is to take a Tzeentch marked character. They completely weakened the mark of Tzeentch, and then force you to take it.

I think I understand why they broke Chaos apart, though Chaos in Fantasy was no where near as prone to the over-powered builds that it was in 40K. But I'm not quite sure why they fixed it so that you have to take a mix of marks to make up for their short-sightness on how tactically in-flexible they made the list.

As for no-brainers, yep, everyone has said it, Chaos Knights, 1+ armor save, 2 magical attacks at S5 and cause fear, why waste your special slots on anything else. As has been said, the only really viable build for a tournament army is three core slots filled with Marauder Horse, thats 273 points for me, the avid Slaanesh player, three units of hounds, because they're the only throw-away units we have, two spawns, and two units of Chaos Knights, all led by a sorcerer Lord, an Exalted for combat support, and a Lvl 2 Sorcerer, all mounted on steeds, and a Warshrine, because occasionally, that +1 Attack, +1 Armor Save, or +1 Strength for the Knights units is great. I played a tournament using infantry, and I lost two of three games, since I've thrown the infantry away, I haven't lost since, though I did have a draw.

Sarah S
12-02-2009, 19:54
Because of the ridiculous organizational constraints inherent in the book (an almost complete lack of support units), it is one of the least internally balanced armies in the entire game.

The total lack of support units forces the WoC player to take units, and indeed an entire army, that can operate without support.

Valtiel
12-02-2009, 20:05
Don't feel alone Odin, you are certainly not alone. When I started during the 6th edition I picked Chaos because they sounded coolest, and the new Warrior models rocked. As my mortal army grew I quickly got interested in the other aspects of Chaos; Daemons and Beasts. I added them to the list and loved it. Now I had cool Beast Herds, Flying Daemons, an Exalted Daemon/Daemon Prince and was going to add more Daemons such as Nurglings and perhaps Horrors. This was afterall an Undivided army, but I rarely had more than a single god's units in them (this was mostly Tzeentch, Beastmen characters cheap and cool either with Undivided or Tzeentch marks were cool and added something interesting to the army).

As Daemons got out, I quickly expanded with those, I now have a Daemon army and I like how it was done even though all this mixing started and even though it is a powerful army and it has some problems. Sadly my old army was destroyed. Bye bye to my 200£ worth of Beastmen, my 50£ Daemons and all the other plans I had to build on my army...

So I played with the WD list, disliked it slightly for the very boring lists, played more with Daemons, got tired of those because they sometimes were a bit too powerful (I have learned how to tone down now and make the games more enjoyable). Beastmen are a thing of the past sadly, I love the armybook, the fluff, but I don't have money or time to build on the units I have and I am afraid GW will mess the book up as well.

So here comes the new WoC book, I have played several games. It was fun enough in the beginning but making armies is very boring. I really felt so limited in my choices. Characters were expensive and I really felt I didn't get much for the points unless I took Sorcerers. Lords still are too expensive in 2000 points armies, but Sorcerer Lords got so damn good. Warriors were improved but in an army where everything is so damn expensive I see little use for them. We don't have any really cheap support units except Warhounds, Marauders and Horsemen. Spawns to an extent. I miss the cheap Beast Herds that did a lot to the army and the cheap Wargors or Bray-Shamans if I wanted Lore of Beasts. I really miss the Furies, fighting against Warmachines is rather bothersome now since they have become a greater menance than before (more expensive units and models). Marauder Horsemen are not fast enough to deal with them imo, and they die very very easy to shooting.

Now people say: Go for the mark of Nurgle! Sure I would, but another bad thing about the book is how marks were treated. My Undivided army was meaningless. Why not mark all my units now since not having a mark doesn't give me anything like it did before. I could save points sure but it would just make my army slightly worse than before. Also how items, characters joining units etc. was handled disappointed me. I wish they'd do it like Daemons if they chose to go for Rainbow Chaos. Limited items choices and limiting where you put your characters.

To me the whole book looks really rushed and slobby. Actually I don't care if it is a top tier army or not, if it does well it doesn't matter to me. The army I started with is not funny to play as anymore. I don't get the same enjoyment anymore and the way the separation happened... it killed the army. And now I probably only play Daemons and WoC when I feel like it... RIP Chaos.

W0lf
12-02-2009, 20:54
I hate the WoC book.

Ruined my love for chaos. Im sure you all know why if not read tactica its all there.

loveless
12-02-2009, 21:00
I hate the WoC book.

Ruined my love for chaos. Im sure you all know why if not read tactica its all there.

W0lf, your loathing for Chaos Warriors is epic and always amusing.


----


I've found that the book just becomes a bit...tedious...after awhile. The characters feel bland, the lure to take a pure cavalry list is both strong and boring, and frankly I never really feel like I'm getting the right amount of bang for my buck when I write a list.

Very pretty models, though...

decker_cky
12-02-2009, 21:08
If they had skimrishes they would be nearly invincible (I remind that many units got upgraded from past editions).

I call that statement utter BS, and challenge you to take some DoW skirmishers then go out and dominate with this list. You have it available, so let's see what it's made of. Skirmishers not being in the list is silly, and isn't really a case of it making the list overpowered or not.

Einholt
12-02-2009, 21:27
See if people just boycotted the book collectively or in large numbers they would have got the message. I refuse to buy it, I bought their models because like loveless says they are great. We need to vote with our wallets people, if everything sold but the book did not then GW would get the message, as far as I am concerned this book is so bad it requires a move by the community (chaos) so that we get a PDF update much like the DE got previous edition.

Avian
12-02-2009, 21:43
This is the army I have collected for about 16 years, and whose background material I love. And yet every time I try to write an army list I get an attack of boredom and decide to do something else instead. I'm just not feeling it anymore. Is it just me? Or do other Chaos players have the same problem?
Well, after 16 years it is not surprising if some of the spark has gone out. Have you tried leaving the light on for a change? ;)

I quite like it. Much better internal balance than before, lots of nice models and lots of builds I want to try out.

If you are having problems with writing a list, I can suggest choosing a theme for you lists and sticking with that theme for a decent amount of time (I tend to go with 6 months). Choose unusual themes, do some creative conversions, have a go at a campaign, etc, etc.

kramplarv
12-02-2009, 22:14
the thing with WoC I see is that.. the good stuffs became better. (relatively.) the not so good stuff are still the not so good stuff.

But, it's not the WoC books fault that Heavy infantry are less good, and heavy cavalry are to good. It is the core mechanics. marchblocking is silly. And so are the princing. NO CAVALRY in teh game should cost less than 30pts. So elite cavalry like Chaos, Grailknights, etc should cost at least 50-55 pts a piece.

Together with more expensive war machines. (35 pts for a bolthtrower are silly)

Conclusion: WoC are screwed by game mechanics since they rely on the lest favorable one of them all. Close Combat.

and btw; A dragon is still a dragon. No matter what ;)

edit: Actually when i think about it, I believe that the Chaos books are the most difficult to make since they are very focused on one thing. We complain at the lack of support units, but we have supportunits. Both hounds and horsemen, but we have no ranged to get rid of enemy support units. And that is in character with Chaos. (even i never understood why^^) And making an armybook, interesting,balanced to other armies when it lacks the most supportive **** ever, shooting, that is hard. Either it will be as HoC/WoC, unless going knightheavy it is very hard to make the list. Or like demons, where you can't fail to make a good list. No matter.

The DoC have to many excellent supportunits, the WoC has to few...

Mireadur
12-02-2009, 23:12
I've found that the book just becomes a bit...tedious...after awhile.

I agree with this, but I believe this is a problem not of this book, but from Chaos itself.

Lets face it. Chaos has always been an army for players who dont ask much from the tactical side of the game. Simple tactics, simple mechanics...

Now at least they work though.

Axis
12-02-2009, 23:27
I noticed a lot of people complaining they lost beast herds and daemons (usually screamers or furies). It just seems that a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too.

The old system was pretty stupid. You just took the best from everything. Warriors basically didn't have any weakness, the army selection was too big. Other armies never got that much variety. I know old warriors and knights were weaker but imagine if the new warriors had beast herds and a few daemons around. It wouldn't be unbeatable but it would be too powerful.

Also i don't see why people are so hung up over mono god armies. The cynic in me suspects they just want their billion powerdice armies again or something. And people complaining about tzeentch warrior mages. Well lets be honest the chaos mages are still the best in combat compared to all other wizards (except possibly vampire lords).

Arguleon-veq
12-02-2009, 23:27
The only thing I actually dislike about the book is the fact that so many people now thing all Cav is the only way to play competatively with the list because they think there is no way to deal with Skirmishers etc. There are units in the army that deal with march blockers and skirmishers, we can support our infantry and all Cav is not the only way to win.

I think the best choice in the book is the Hellcannon and it is also a choice that goes a long way in solving a lot of the little problems that many people seem to claim are unsolvable with the army.

Dexter099
12-02-2009, 23:30
I've never really found chaos to be a simple army. It's actually complicated screening, moving, and charging effectively to win combats.

They don't 'just' charge forward. If you put it that way, then that's what all the armies do, just on a lesser extent for the most part.

I've always found it boring standing back and shooting, and then losing cc with your combat units, following that, losing cc with shooting units.

Overall, I think the new chaos book is still a good book. They can be pretty powerful if you use them right. The only disappointment was not the flushing out of the marauders. Even since reading rotten fruit by nathan long, I've always wanted to have a unit of slaaneshii archers raining down poisoned arrows upon Reiksguard.

Also, the warhoundsa nd marauder cav are so useful, I don't really feel the loss of skirmishers much at all.

W0lf
12-02-2009, 23:35
Lets face it. Chaos has always been an army for players who dont ask much from the tactical side of the game. Simple tactics, simple mechanics...

Now at least they work though.

How do they work better now? Because knights and chaos warriros got a 'buff' (which just widened the gap between the 2 and made Chaos knight silly).

Oh and you clearly dont know wtf your talking about with reguards to the old hordes book. That was a highly tactical book. Dont think so? Go play it for a bit and tell me what you find.

Godgolden
13-02-2009, 00:07
Combat Wizards are still viable :)

just ask my Gatewaying lord with daemonsword, enchanted shield and a knight unit.

if hes next to nurgle(mark) it effectively makes him WS 6, and the daemonsword buffs all the right areas.

and he can take a punch the same as a normal lord.. which isnt very well but thats not his fault lol.

I still cant figure out how to use a Manticore (theoretically) the utter lack of armour makes it.. very very soft, but the rule of cool demands one.

Warriors are a stable footing, but cav are a problem and they still cost quite alot.

Maurauders are fine

I would love some dragon ogre but the models are the worst sculps in the world and i cant think of a good way to convert some.

The special caracters would make me feel dirty using them.

Forgot about Forsaken.. seems they live up to their name-sake.

Chosen are unessicary but flavourful.
(still cant figure out fi you can make the champ a caster)

Lores are very good.. with the exception of slaanesh 1,2,3,4, as not only are they quite pants, they dont work against 1/2 the armys, but 5 and 6 are sick, and we all know Gateway is the answer for anything and everything., and the nurgle lvl 1 spellis theoretically mint... though i havent got it to work past those darn scolls and wards yet.

Magic weapons are lacking with a few exceptions, armour is fine but the toughness armour is rediculously expensive, every banner is great.

Finding the puppet very handy for said sorc lord.. has saved his life three or so times now.

Knights are godly and its hard to think of an army without a unit of them.

The whole gift section could be torn out and replaced with a childs drawing of a house for all the use it supplies, this in turn applies to the Daemonprince.. this guy is more xpensive than a Slaan (and he starts with wizard lvl 0, boo, hiss) he cannot get his Ethersword no more because he cant have magic items, he cant even get a roll on the Eye of the gods chart HAH.. like what? this Prince blows, ad he blows hard, i mean really really hard.

Sure a prince could be a hard caster.. but for the same price you could have a dragon with lord.. or Kolec, and the prince cant take a punch.. even s3 bows would turn your 500 point unit into a puddle.
if he had access to Daemonbooks items he would of been great.. but no.. Daemons are good.

As i have mentioned the Eye of the gods chart.. may i mention its good but only on theoryhammer.. you never get a roll... and when you do its useless "Woo! magic resistance 3! woo! take that your Dwarf lord!"

or my favourite "Gain +1 armour save.. maxes out at 0+" ....lord: "I have a 0+ save already.. do i re-roll or.. ah crap, you suck chaos, you suck"

and thats if he survives.

Now the Warshrine is theorteically good... but as i have said.. the chart sucks and i havent seen it ever be useful.. not even accidently...

I may seem negative but thats what i am, so thats how it comes off.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 00:15
EoTG = worst rule in fanatsy history.

I actually think its the only rule worse then Animosity (as its not even flavourful imo).

Oh and when i read somewhere that phill kelly increased the points of exalteds to 'compensate for EoTG' i couldnt believe it. Hell can i choose to not have this 'benefit?'. If it really is sposed to be a good thing then make it optional.

Oh and why even print the daemonic gifts, waste of trees....

Godgolden
13-02-2009, 00:23
EoTG = worst rule in fanatsy history.

Oh and when i read somewhere that phill kelly increased the points of exalteds to 'compensate for EoTG' i couldnt believe it.

I did not know this.. indeed it is worse than i thought

i do miss my toughness 5 hero.. that was 10 points cheaper

and i really really miss my Aspiring champion :( he was so cheap and so useful.)

kramplarv
13-02-2009, 00:28
exalteds had T4 last book to.

and Chaos are more players army than most since they lack n many areas only the most skilled generals will accomplish great victories. Comparing to DoC, or VC....

Odin
13-02-2009, 00:53
now , i actually like that there are very few, if any, abusable builds in WOC. i mean, do0nt we complain about DOC and VC, and even DE, because of this? dont we hate the twin stanks and walters, and thorek gunlines? yet we are upset that WOC doesnt have a bulid we can all hate? (btw - if you want a build that is nasty, go 4 units of knights, 3 units of horse, some tzeentch mages on disks, and call it a day. on round two the knights hit the line and slaugheter just about anything they hit).


I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about the lack of abusable options in WoC. It's a good thing, obviously.

Bac5665
13-02-2009, 00:58
It is a pretty bad book. I think the Bret book may be worse, but I will grant that its has a good fluffy feel. The Gifts are trash, the Magic Items are overpriced, and too many units are pointless.

If GW wanted to make 300$ from me, all they need to do is put Tzeentch warrior mages back. I was waiting for the new book to do a chaos army, but now I don't think I will.

Odin
13-02-2009, 01:03
Also i don't see why people are so hung up over mono god armies. The cynic in me suspects they just want their billion powerdice armies again or something. And people complaining about tzeentch warrior mages. Well lets be honest the chaos mages are still the best in combat compared to all other wizards (except possibly vampire lords).

Maybe people just like having a themed army without being horribly penalised?

Einholt
13-02-2009, 01:13
Combat Wizards are still viable :)

just ask my Gatewaying lord with daemonsword, enchanted shield and a knight unit.

if hes next to nurgle(mark) it effectively makes him WS 6, and the daemonsword buffs all the right areas.

and he can take a punch the same as a normal lord.. which isn't very well but that's not his fault lol.



Eh not to say that Chaos wizards are not effective combatants but he is not "like" Ws 6 since he can't benefit from the Mark of Nurgle as it says only models targeting the model with the mark are reduced in WS if in base to base contact with said marked model. Also I don't see how he takes the same punch as a normal lord as he is Toughness 4, and Chaos Lords are toughness 5.

The book itself is a waste of tree's forget the Gifts section.

P.S. I did edit my post since the site is lagging and I had a few unintentional errors.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 01:15
No no.

I obviously just want a billion power dice!!!!

Funny how currently i have 11 PD a bound and a far superiour lore but hate it. Compared to 13 PD and a rather ****** lore.

Arguleon-veq
13-02-2009, 01:26
My Sorc Lord is fairly good in combat with;

4 S5 WS6
1 S4
0+ Save

With spells possibly putting him up to;

5 S5 WS6
2 S4
0+ Save/4+ Regen

Volker the Mad Fiddler
13-02-2009, 01:27
EoTG = worst rule in fanatsy history.

I actually think its the only rule worse then Animosity (as its not even flavourful imo).

Oh and when i read somewhere that phill kelly increased the points of exalteds to 'compensate for EoTG' i couldnt believe it. Hell can i choose to not have this 'benefit?'. If it really is sposed to be a good thing then make it optional.

Oh and why even print the daemonic gifts, waste of trees....

Not even close. Try playing a HE army without knowing who your general will be [Intrigue at Court]. How about the 5th edition- if your general dies everyone takes a panic test [or vanishes, a lot faster than now, in the case of Undead]?

The biggest problem with WoC to my mind are the prices of Warriors and fighting characters- especially when compared to Sauri [who, I would argue, have more options to force people to fight their combat units].

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 01:34
If the FAW brings about certain key RAW/RAi debate changes, then I feel the Warriors Book will be viewed in a much more positive light.

Since inhouse playtesting seems to be congruent with a RAI approach (which players won't know, resorting to RAW, resorting in arguments) I can see Unit Champions being included in the Eye of the Gods calculations (and if so, oh boy will that change things!)

Hellcannon moving and firing? Gets better.

Etc etc.

Wait for FAQ, then continue crying.

Hrogoff the Destructor
13-02-2009, 01:48
It is a pretty bad book. I think the Bret book may be worse, but I will grant that its has a good fluffy feel. The Gifts are trash, the Magic Items are overpriced, and too many units are pointless.

If GW wanted to make 300$ from me, all they need to do is put Tzeentch warrior mages back. I was waiting for the new book to do a chaos army, but now I don't think I will.

The Brets may have a hard time against chaos, especially ones with BotG, but I wouldn't say it's a worse book then WoC. Unlike WoC, they have good magic items, good virtues, and a variety of special rules that make them interesting. They also have skirmishers and range (people underestimate those peasant bowmen). I think it's a very fun army to use, although very straighfoward. They have enough items, special rules, and unit variety to keep them interesting.

In fact, I'd be surprised if they even changed Brettonia all that much when they get redone. I bet it'll be just about as powerful as it is now except with toned down Pegasus knights.

WoC on the other hand lacks intrigue in almost every field (IMO of course). No range, no skirmishers, no fliers, overpriced items, bad gifts, suicidal wizards, so on and so forth. Not to mention there were big issues that weren't even addressed like worthless daemon princes, chaos lords, and shaggoths. While the shaggoth may have uses, it's a complete joke compared to any other armies monsters. We also lost warrior mages, who weren't price inefficient in anyway, but were fun to use regardless. Then theres EotG. One of the single most worthless special rules in the game (unless were talking on trolls). They could have at least given us some challenge related magic items to help our heroes challenge other heroes instead of only god damn champions (I don't want to have to take a special character to do it).

The book is fun once in awhile, but I would never ever make this my main fantasy army.

Bac5665
13-02-2009, 01:59
My point about Brets is that they are a bad army book, not a bad army. As an army they are too good, or at least were until last year. The book has terrible internal balance, as the best two lists involve taking the same unit exclusively. It was also bad for warhammer as a whole, as it gives several sides fits and and dramatically encourages cannons. It should never have been printed as it was.

They are finally no longer the lords of the game, but only because two of the top armies are basically immune to the charge, which makes knights w/lances not worth their points.

WoC is also a bad army book, though its internal balance is worse and its external balance is better.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 02:06
Wait for FAQ, then continue crying.

No FAQ will fix the book.

Oh and FYI my gaming group are playing;

- wizards allowed e.shield
- eotg roll for champs (still largely useless)

and i still hate the book.

Honestly i think WoC > Hordes in power level. Yet i love hordes and hate warriors. Is that hard to understand?

Axis
13-02-2009, 03:02
EoTG = worst rule in fanatsy history.

I actually think its the only rule worse then Animosity (as its not even flavourful imo).

Oh and when i read somewhere that phill kelly increased the points of exalteds to 'compensate for EoTG' i couldnt believe it. Hell can i choose to not have this 'benefit?'. If it really is sposed to be a good thing then make it optional.

Oh and why even print the daemonic gifts, waste of trees....

and


No FAQ will fix the book.

Oh and FYI my gaming group are playing;

- wizards allowed e.shield
- eotg roll for champs (still largely useless)

and i still hate the book.

Honestly i think WoC > Hordes in power level. Yet i love hordes and hate warriors. Is that hard to understand?

To be honest i find your complaints are completely over the top. Either that or the use of the hyperbola of all hyperbola. You make all these complaints and say that you don't mind the powerlevel but you hate the book/list. So give some substantive reasons. As far as i can tell (from this thread and the warriors tactits thread) you just don't like that you can't use beast herds or daemons in the same army as warriors and you think that mono god is the best option in terms of fluff.

It's changed. I think you may have to get over it. You got used to something (and you liked it) it got changed. Every army can make a similar claim at some point in time. A claim that something changed because of a new book and they can't quite do the same thing anymore.

You whinge about the eye of the gods as well. I know it can be annoying and lots of time you would rather fight rank and file or something. It makes your characters a bit more susceptible to death. But you know all these things so make the adjustments accordingly. Play by the new book not by the old book with the new books rules (i.e. you'll need some new/adjusted tactics and army selection).

Axis
13-02-2009, 03:08
Maybe people just like having a themed army without being horribly penalised?

Theme has always penalised people. In a lot of the old codexes/army books the how to collect section often suggested having a themed army but it noted that it may be harder to win (the example i have in mind is the dark eldar codex.. sure its 40k but i think it applies across both systems). You don't build a themed army to dominate everyone. You build a themed army because you like some background/playstyle. Of course you are going to lose some tactical flexibility or power. It is unreasonable to assume you wouldn't.

Why should chaos be the only army to allow theme without penalty? If i want to run a moulder themed skaven force i will lose some power. I won't get jezzails or gutter runners. It is the cost of the themed list. The same goes for mono god chaos list which is just the same as mono clan skaven. The more restrictions you place on yourself the more power you are likely to lose. A theme is just self restrictions, the benefit comes from the aesthetic of the army or the background or something similar.

Neckutter
13-02-2009, 04:40
WOC- A dull failure of a book. Not a weak army per se, but a depressing lack of interesting viable builds.


my sentiments exactly. it is a horribly boring army. it really needs some type of skirmisher(i like the marauder skirmisher idea) before it will be ok to play again.
it has its goodpoints, but it is way too boring and non-tactical. there is no outmaneuvering. there is only "punch you in the face" tactics.

i largely agree with wolf's sentiments. its like eating your favorite ice cream, but it turns out you bought the diet kind :(

things that go against RAW that will make WoC better:
make forsaken skirmish, make them 1 pt cheaper
let a hell cannon move and shoot
let EotG roll happen when you nuke a unit champ
make a chaos lord 20 points cheaper
bring back "blades of ether" for daemonic gifts (daemon prince only)
make the tzeentch 65 point casty daemonic gift 50 points instead
make the book of secrets make you a lvl 1 fire wizard
let one marauder unit in the army skirmish for +3 points/model(maximum unit size of 10 for this unit)

GW wont do the things above, but hey... a WoC fan can wish cant he?

Sarah S
13-02-2009, 06:29
hyperbola of all hyperbola

Hyperbole.

I have attached a hyperbola.

That said, W0lf is spot on.

Angelust
13-02-2009, 06:33
Hyperbole.

I have attached a hyperbola.

That said, W0lf is spot on.

Ultra lolz.

ChaosVC
13-02-2009, 07:13
I love chaos mostly for their artwork and their beautifully sculpted models, fluff is decent, but the execution is bad in terms of game play. Currently what they did for chaos warriors...they actually did right, ok this may get stupid...haha but its exactly what the fluff says about them, crazy mad half naked or amoured horde running or ridding towards you, same boring **** way as they fought in all the novels and fluff.

IVHMO have the designer wanted and got creative,(maybe he did).
Have they made mutated marauders, give them skirmish rules and upgrades like +2 to MV or +1 Toughness or + 1 strenght or reroll to hit, with the choice of throwing axes or Jav and extra hand weapon or great weapon or flail, charge it around 12~13pts, allowed Mark bonus then make them core and disallow them for counting as core like the warhounds. I would gladly have them move my maurader horse man into special slot or not counting as core.

Chosen should be a chaos warrior/knight champion upgrade with strenght 5 WS 6 with 25prs magic item allowance and forsaken are unecessary.

Spawn should be special and move instead of 2d6, have no facing and ignore difficult terrian with flaming template attack at strenght 4. 2 for one speical choice.

Eye of the Gods should not have any penalties, because you are already force into a challenge and you have WON!!! Even with a socerer!!! What is phil kelly thinking!!!:wtf:

If Phil kelly designs were inspired from 40k chaos spazZ malines, why didn't he introduce summon lesser daemons? Make it rare choice and allow the chosen to summon them into play within 6"~8" of the chosen model at the start of the turn. They should be MV4 St4 T3 I4 1A LD7 sturbon 5wards, 16pts. That would be fluffy.

Personally, I don't mind having Dragon ogres, ogres, trolls and shaggoth giant, they make chaos warriors look chaosy in the army, but they suits beastman better.

Edit: Maybe the designer want to do something like that but they can't alias with the scluptor or something went haywire in between the planning and design.

And forget about summoning lesser demons, I wasn't thinking straight...

Einholt
13-02-2009, 07:35
I find it amusing how, some feel we should wait for an FAQ to give us the more powerful interpretations of rules so that the book will be good.

People we know the power level is fine, its not OP its not low tier. That is not the issue.

And this whole OH they changed it so there live with it, is the exact kind of crap argument I got from a staffer. "WELL THIS IS THE NEW FLUFF" ............well GUESS WHAT??? ITS GARBAGE.

Eotg a completely useless concept, it rewards us when? When we already decimated the enemy to get to their heros and killed them... yea we really need to get more powerful after eliminating their Leadership, Magic, or best individual combatants. Not to mention that it throws us into challenges, who gives a flying **** that there's a chaos lord charging me I'll feed him a unit champion, beat his unit down and use my often superior static CR since it cost me less then the chaos players.

It takes away our ability to use characters as Active CR beyond Overkill, we need to be able to carve the unit for god sakes. It then buffs them so that IF they actually get to fight again their Buff can be negated by having to fight a champion, MAN I sure am glad I have this 4+ Ward from my Eotg roll, that unit champion might have messed me up without it.

Philly Kelly must of been thinking along the lines of.

"Oh I know, how bout I get rid of all mark restrictions, because removing them will create crappier internal balance. The players can pick and choose only the best marks for each unit. HMMM that might be too good we better nerf some marks. What about all the players with dedicated armies? How will they function with bad marks? Who cares!!"

"Hey ALL theme LISTS SHOULD BE BAD!! I mean Mono god armies were functional and weren't broken. BUT lets change it so they are nearly unplayable!"

"Oh boy now that I have made all those changes, the armies looking weaker, I better remove mark restrictions on items, that should fix it and while I am at it lets compensate for the removal of Beasts items, by writing some completely useless "gifts" that way whenever chaos players complain other race players can say well you have powers on your characters like vampires, not everyone gets that, it MUST BE better"

In addition here's a list of other things wrong with the book.

Mark of Khorne - no magic Defense. you want to play khorne in competitive settings? DON'T (But make sure to load up on the Knights and use the vastly superior ward saves of Tzeentch Characters or the mark of Nurgle)

Ok so I actually started to realize this post is already too long to explain everything. I'll just use words or names of the things that are Flawed.

Magnificent Bubous (Default and 5+), MoK (MR or DD?), MoS (WTH?), MoT (Sometimes so bad, sometimes better then all), Infernal Gateway (Dice game), Banner of Rage (Benefits Khorne the LEAST?), Rupterous Standard (RIDICULOUS for 20 pts), Forsaken (Why?), Universal Mark Prices/Effects (How does anyone justify this), Eotg, Heros (LACK there of), Daemon Prince, Chosen (poorly executed), Magic Items, Gifts, Knights (too good for the cost), Mark restrictions (Not composition, but the whole 1 mark joining other marks in 1 unit).

The whole thing needs a rewrite. He took a book that needed point rebalancing for 7th, and could have been updated with new and viable options, did a cut and paste job with bad spelling and rule wording and changed everything and anything that was right with it. The only reason we can say it is chaos is because it has pictures of Chaos, the lore is gutted, the rules are gutted, the tactical aspect is GONE!"

And any of you that say chaos was always the least tactical either, DO not play chaos, did not play against chaos enough, or did not face competent chaos generals.

Look not everyone who plays this army will agree with everything I wrote above, but I have NO doubt that anyone will disagree with me when I say, We did not want a point and click move and charge army and that is exactly what we got. It moves forward, it rolls dice for magic and combat and it has flashy rules with no substance.

Sarah S
13-02-2009, 07:41
I agree with everything you say. Except Magnificent Buboes.

Einholt
13-02-2009, 07:47
I just feel its way too consistent and powerful to be default, even if it was still 5+ but the number 2 spell it would be fine. Take a look at every other lore, Bubous and Flicker fire are the most powerful spells, oh yea Don't know what he was thinking making Fire the same cast value when tzeentch gets +1 to cast.

A good example of fun, powerful and balanced custom lore is in the OnG book. They offer different spells from other books without taking it over the top, WAAAAgh is a great spell and this is the type of effect that they should strive to have in the final spell, not Gateway type spells where they balance it's Obscene high end potential with an equal chance of it doing nothing. Honestly what is the point?

Godgolden
13-02-2009, 07:55
exalteds had T4 last book to.


Eh not to say that Chaos wizards are not effective combatants but he is not "like" Ws 6 since he can't benefit from the Mark of Nurgle as it says only models targeting the model with the mark are reduced in WS if in base to base contact with said marked model. Also I don't see how he takes the same punch as a normal lord as he is Toughness 4, and Chaos Lords are toughness 5.

The book itself is a waste of tree's forget the Gifts section.

P.S. I did edit my post since the site is lagging and I had a few unintentional errors.

Exalted had toughness five for 10 points cheaper, i guess i should of made it clear this was the white dwarf army list... which was a fun army and balanced.. oddly..

and yes he is 'like' as you even mention the nurgle mark applies to all enemy models in base to base... like.. say.. nurgle knights (or even give him the nurgle mark gasp)... which would reduce the wizards enemies to ws -1..... forgive me he has toughness 4...

could still have a runesworded sorc lord with nurgle.. makes him quite hitty.

ChaosVC
13-02-2009, 08:03
Unleash the chaos players anguish!!! :D

Volker the Mad Fiddler
13-02-2009, 08:21
SNIP
Eye of the Gods should not have any penalties, because you are already force into a challenge and you have WON!!! Even with a socerer!!! What is phil kelly thinking!!!:wtf:
SNIP

I do feel the need to point out that the Empire book has exactly 1 character [Knightly Grand Master] who actually fights better than a Chaos Sorcerer Lord and 3 [GM, Elector (both lords) and Captain] who fight better than the Sorcerer. Plus, I don't see anything in the book stopping you from challenging with your own champion, and since it is not legal for another challenge to occur, you cannot challenge with the character, so he is free to beat on rank and file.

ChaosVC
13-02-2009, 08:35
I do feel the need to point out that the Empire book has exactly 1 character [Knightly Grand Master] who actually fights better than a Chaos Sorcerer Lord and 3 [GM, Elector (both lords) and Captain] who fight better than the Sorcerer. Plus, I don't see anything in the book stopping you from challenging with your own champion, and since it is not legal for another challenge to occur, you cannot challenge with the character, so he is free to beat on rank and file.

There is really no point in telling me this mate... Of course I know about using my unit champion to challenge trick, but I have been caught in all kinds of situation where my lord must challenge and I have no unit champion to bail me out, from unharmable toad to vonhostmen speculam, you name it, I been there. But it doesn't really make the Gaze of the god rule anymore useful than it already is, like most chaos players, I think its crap and only useful when you take chosens.

Oh and I play fighty lord 90% of the time, don't ask me why, I just love fighty lords...though magicky ones are kinda fun too.

Sarah S
13-02-2009, 08:36
What forces you to challenge with the character is that the champions don't have the rule which forces them to challenge (in the absence of a Crap Wagon).

Since the character's do have the rule, to follow that rule you must issue a challenge with them when they are able, which is when they are in combat. The presence of a champion does nothing.

ChaosVC
13-02-2009, 08:41
What forces you to challenge with the character is that the champions don't have the rule which forces them to challenge (in the absence of a Crap Wagon).

Since the character's do have the rule, to follow that rule you must issue a challenge with them when they are able, which is when they are in combat. The presence of a champion does nothing.

Which you can bypass with issuing a challenge with your unit champ, its call exploting the loop hole.:p

Edit: Because by issuing challenge with the champ, the character is no longer able to issue a challenge. If GW dare to FAQ this lope hole, they are so going to get it...

Volker the Mad Fiddler
13-02-2009, 08:45
Which you can bypass with issuing a challenge with your unit champ, its call exploting the loop hole.:p

Edit: Because by issuing challenge with the champ, the character is no longer able to issue a challenge. If GW dare to FAQ this lope hole, they are so going to get it...

Exactly what I was saying.

I should note that I am not saying that EotG is a good rule, but is not always the liability some are making it out to be [Worst rule in the history of warhammer?]

Kerill
13-02-2009, 08:50
Which you can bypass with issuing a challenge with your unit champ, its call exploting the loop hole.:p

Edit: Because by issuing challenge with the champ, the character is no longer able to issue a challenge. If GW dare to FAQ this lope hole, they are so going to get it...

No, its called cheating since the character HAS to challenge.

ChaosVC
13-02-2009, 08:52
Its not the worst rule, but its bad enough for most chaos players. My lord is a solo dynasty warrior and sometimes he may overun or pursue into Kermit that cannot be killed with non-magical weapon or Mr Vonhostman's best fan!:cries:

ChaosVC
13-02-2009, 08:55
No, its called cheating since the character HAS to challenge.

Nope, because officially your champion also have the right to issue challenge, its not the same as 6th ed blood dragon rule.

Rikkjourd
13-02-2009, 09:20
I haven't actually played WoC yet. That said, while discussing, armybuilding and modelling/painting I think they seem quite interesting.

I build a solid nearly all cav list with two different character sections: one magic heavy with disclord and one more combat oriented with dragon + caddy.

I don't see how this would be less fun than any other army out there... but I normally play OK and all Goblins so this may be more of an improvement than for those of you who are used to better army books.

The conclusion so far seems to be that WoC are somewhere between high and middle tier in power and IMHO that is a good thing.

Whitehorn
13-02-2009, 09:28
So of the whole book we have these that are rarely or should rarely be taken;

Shaggoth.


I've started using a Shaggoth and have to say it's brutal. Hasn't died yet, has eaten through everything it's met in combat. You just have to ensure you make its points back as it can be easy to go chasing a cheaper unit. It's particularly handy as a distraction as I field 2 Chariots, 2 Spawn and an Assassin-style Lord.

The boyz
13-02-2009, 09:52
But I have a problem. This is the army I have collected for about 16 years, and whose background material I love. And yet every time I try to write an army list I get an attack of boredom and decide to do something else instead. I'm just not feeling it anymore. Is it just me? Or do other Chaos players have the same problem?

I have a similar problem too, Odin. I miss the day's when Beastmen, Deamon's and Warrior's of Chaos could all take to the field in one grand army of Chaos, rather then three individual armies.

Everytime I try and write up an army list, I tend to get bored of just choosing Chaos Marauder's or Chaos Warrior's as core choice's. I want beastmen and deamon's in my army as well and not just mortal's. I think it's why, I have never got round to finishing off my Chaos Nurgle army.

Neckutter
13-02-2009, 09:57
right on einholt, RIGHT ON! you basically said the whole thing. the best tactical army was Hords of Chaos, baby. you got your chaos lord, who could kick special characters' heads in, or be a "fighty" lvl 4 wizard. then you had your trusty chaos chariots/chaos warriors to hold down the fort, while you could include beast herds(who are amazing) and furies to scout up ahead. you had an amazingly small army because you were so elite, but you had it all. tough as nails, and fast when the army needed to be. great stuff.

i think ive seen 3 other chaos posters who have said "i get bored when i make an armylist". it is so fitting, because i get bored as well.

Kerill
13-02-2009, 10:43
right on einholt, RIGHT ON! you basically said the whole thing. the best tactical army was Hords of Chaos, baby. you got your chaos lord, who could kick special characters' heads in, or be a "fighty" lvl 4 wizard. then you had your trusty chaos chariots/chaos warriors to hold down the fort, while you could include beast herds(who are amazing) and furies to scout up ahead. you had an amazingly small army because you were so elite, but you had it all. tough as nails, and fast when the army needed to be. great stuff.

i think ive seen 3 other chaos posters who have said "i get bored when i make an armylist". it is so fitting, because i get bored as well.

Hello Mr Troll, I assume from the above you are trying to suggest that HOC was an overpowered book? Look at GTs in the past mate, HOC was never a top tournament army. What it was, was a far more interesting army with a good selection of units to keep the game interesting.

Neckutter
13-02-2009, 10:47
mr troll? what is all that about?

i never said it was an overpowered book, i said it had it all. skirmishers/fliers/cheap horde/expensive blocks/hardcore cav. GT results are often skewed with "sportsmanship" which is very very biased.

with that being said, my record with my tzeentch army at 2k points was somewhere in the neighborhood of 40ish-5. 15 PD, with staff of tzeentch is hard to beat even for a slann.

AmBlam
13-02-2009, 10:47
Is it just me? Or do other Chaos players have the same problem?

The exact same thing happened in 40K, the "Chaos" went to the demons and the "mortals" were left as empty units with paint.

Kerill
13-02-2009, 10:50
mr troll? what is all that about?

i never said it was an overpowered book, i said it had it all. skirmishers/fliers/cheap horde/expensive blocks/hardcore cav. GT results are often skewed with "sportsmanship" which is very very biased.

Misread the idea behind your post, please mark me down in your book of idiots.

Neckutter
13-02-2009, 10:53
no worries, i just wondered where all the hate came from. read my above post with me having a bunch of enthusiasm for my old beloved army :P


The exact same thing happened in 40K, the "Chaos" went to the demons and the "mortals" were left as empty units with paint.

well, CSMs still have lesser daemons, and daemon princes. and to be fair, i think a tzeentch DP with 2 psychic powers doombolt, and timewarp is a decent build. although it is hard to contend with the lash build, so it goes by the wayside. GW killing off iron warriors/night lords/et all kinda made me disgusted. however i was pleasantly surprised when my iron warriors sold for like $500 on ebay. :)

Kerill
13-02-2009, 11:05
Yep, I feel pretty strong about it too, I've got 3000 points of daemons I don't play because they are overpowered, 5000 points of mortals that are now stuck with the dullest armybook GW has ever produced and 2000 points of beastmen, that might be fun to play when the new book comes out.

Even if it does it will be nowhere near as fun or fluffy or varied as unified chaos was.

Made a few lists after the book came out, then see more or less identical lists everywhere and can't really think of any other interesting variant on the build apart from a marauder horsemen army which I simply wouldn't be able to afford.

Ben@BadDice.co.uk
13-02-2009, 11:20
The Warriors army book is great! so many people have complained about it but its actually a solid list. So many conversion and themes possible when building an army too.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 11:37
Good lord, have any of you considered how broken Hordes would be right now given the current army books?

Warriors with Furies, or for that matter Flamers? It'd be a laughing stock of the gaming world, to have an army with every broken option in the game under one flag. The changes they've made to the individual units in both the Daemons of Chaos and Warriors book would leave nothing in their wake. Yet here we are with Thread X about whine Y, same old points, same old inconsistancies and the same old boring pine for the 'Days of Teh Hordez.'

Let me put it to you gently, Hordes is gone. It is no more. Wherever or not you agree with this change is, to be fair, entirely up to you. I've no care if you play with the Warriors army or not, I don't think the design team or the gaming community at large does either. You can complain as much as you like but it will make no ends or ends, and you can 'pine' for the days lost or the options available, but surely, you should've seen this coming when the Beasts of Chaos got their own seperate army book? Surely that was a hint at what was to come?

I had 2 games against Hordes of Chaos armies, and both were WAAC, waste of space armies that didn't deserve to see the light of day. I'm talking specifically about a mostly daemon army anyway, and the retarded 5 Models of Doom Tzeentchian list. I very rarely saw anyone at all playing Hordes, and lo and behold, with the change hundreds are playing Daemons (although we know why) and I'm running into Warriors players at least 2-3 times a week...somebody has done something right, because alot more people are playing them than ever before.

I dare some of you to play with the old Hordes restrictions, but using the new points, units and items. What you'd end up with is the most broken pile of drivel, ever created. (Even more so than Daemons!) You have to face that the Fluff has changed, and the way it's done has changed. From a community of lost souls who pines for the story to unfold and for the armies to develop, you're all awfully critical (with the exception of Axis, from what I can remember) of an army which can stand toe to toe with the best...purely because 'we don't haz teh skimrishers!@1@@?'

I wouldn't take skirmishers if they were handed to me on a plate at ITP, 9 STR9 attacks and 8 wounds a piece for 5 models. Mainly because they don't fit, flyers, maybe, some sort of carrion bird, but otherwise, they're not needed. As has been said many a time, if they gave us skirmishers and flyers they'd be removing our main weakness, being march blocking by flyers, but then, I guess, you're all so bitter you want the eggs, the cake, the butter, and the tin the cake comes in.

You're a disgrace to the Glory of Khorne!

Godgolden
13-02-2009, 11:39
id really like the book if they retooled the eye of the gods, get a roll on it for killing champions.. and characters... out of a challenge.

and basically remove the gifts and replace with identicle ones from Daemons, and allow daemon prince a 50pt magic item allowance.

remove forsaken or make them, chaos armour, 3 attacks base, markable, no frenzy, upgrade for skirmishing. (skirmishing nurgle guys would be super expensive but silly immune to BS attacks)

and maybe give chosen a fly upgrade (thinking of possessed from 40k (old really))

and return the slaanesh heros mount to its old stats (cept wounds) and make slaanesh mark on lords/heros/daemon princes first strike, and add a 5+ ward save item for anybody but tzeench models

edit: and whats with the lack of hatred.. i mean.. are Chaos mortals very easy going guys? they dont mind anybody.. lets all hold hands..

zak
13-02-2009, 11:45
Yesterday I would have argued that the book isn't that bad. However, after playing a very mobile Dark Elf force I came to the conclusion that I had very few options to counter the fast mobile units of the Dark Elf army and that his units of Dark Riders were able to get behind my lines easily and march block/rear charge to there hearts content. Now I didn't play my best game ever, so I won't write them off after a couple of games, but I still think that without using a disc mounted hero (who will be wearing the official please shoot your bolt throwers at me badge) or some DoW (Mengil's Manflayers) that I going to be feeling more pain. The only bonus for me was using Throgg, who turned out to be a very nice little investment. His D6 vomit attacks killed off his Cold One Knights and then promptly twatted a Hydra!

Neckutter
13-02-2009, 11:50
Yep, I feel pretty strong about it too, I've got 3000 points of daemons I don't play because they are overpowered, 5000 points of mortals that are now stuck with the dullest armybook GW has ever produced and 2000 points of beastmen.

you and i are in the same boat, then. without characters i have 10k worth of chaos, and most of it goes to waste. the stuff that really irks me, is that i cant use my double juggernaught chariot anymore for fantasy. i love that army in SoC.

ah, those were the days!

@shamfrit: we are just reminiscing, give us a break. we all know hordes is gone, but hordes was a great army, even when you got your butt kicked by another army it was still fun because of the fluff and feel of the army. and that is the point of it all.

@zak i had a really unpleasant fight against a HE army that skirted around me and i couldnt get to grips with him. quite a boring game. his dragon just running around causing 6 wounds a turn with his breath attacks. bleh, who has two mages BOTH of which are scroll caddies?

W0lf
13-02-2009, 11:51
@ Shamfrit.

You realise if you could combine WoC and DoC all the WAAC lists would be pure daemons?

They are simply that much better at EVERYTHING.

Better magic and spell lore? Check
Better shooting? LOLs. Check
Better movement? Check
Better combat? Check
Better flying monster of death? Check
Better cav? Ok maybe khorne cav in daemons army would be a step further but flesh hounds are still amazing :P
Better ld? Check
Better support? Check

That said i dont think people understand that Hordes players dont want a broken book. This book is more powerful then Hordes, you dont need a brain to play it.

However Shamfrit raises a good point, i was the only hordes player in my area and now EVERYONE has a Khorne cav army (which no one plays anymore... boredom). So from a Business POV its brillaint. Infact its genius, loads of people brought WoC armies thinking that a 'stronger' book = betetr book. My gaming groups gone from 1 chaos player -> 10 -> 2. And all those WoC players? Got bored and moved on. Hell im now going to buy a vampire counts army im so bored/sick of warriors.



- Oh and yes as Neckutter said we are reminising. Tbh it kind of bugs me that you (who never played with hordes IIRC) can come and tell us how we/it feels. I played hordes as my sole army for ~14 months. I generally play 2-3 Games a week. Do the maths. Oh and another thing, it took me like 2 months to get my Tz list to be where i wanted it. A WoC list taht works takes all of 3 seconds to write and is 'fun, fun, fun'

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 11:55
The arguments basically boil down to:

"We have no way of dealing with skirmishers, flyers and march blockers!!!"

"I liked the old book better"

"Eye of the Gods Suck"

"Some (read 1) units are worthless"

"We can't mix beasts and daemons and mortals anymore"



Now, let's have a look at the answers shall we

1. We don't have flyers or skirmishers of our own to deal with warmachines, enemy skirmishers, scouts and flyers.... but we do have:

Daemonprinces, level four casters that are stubborn and actually rather mean in close combat, able to take out anything without a notable armoursave or rank bonus on his own.

Lords/Exalteds on Discs and SoS', outmost awesome for dealing with warmachines, fast cavalry, skirmishers etc. etc. especially with the Bloodcurdling Roar on a SoS lord/exalted. These can also be used to zip up to where your units need support.

We've got Marauder Horsemen with javelins or throwing axes, we've got them with flails and we've got them with marks... we've got enough of them to throw at whatever the hell we want and come out on top if we have the right configuration, hell, they can even tackle ranked up units if Khornate and Flailed.

We've got Chaos Spawns, they are, essentially, skirmishers, think about their movement rules, nominate a direction, they move 2D6 in that direction, contact means charging. This is, essentially, a skirmisher that is unbreakable with random movement and attacks, he can nom on S3 and 4 enemies with little effort if they are behind your lines, he can stop fast cavalry from going up a flank etc. etc.

Warshrines and Hellcannons are guaranteed to eat anything smaller than Manticore sized monsters, and even those they can actually chew down on after a turn or two, these units are also often found behind your lines, USE THEM. The Warhshrine is sucky when you don't use it in every way possible... so bloody well use it! And you're complaining about Hellcannons being overcosted when you only use it to shoot stuff? Of COURSE it is overcosted when you only use half of the stats and is adamant about not using the other half of them -.-

We can have Chariots and Forsaken to swiftly take out anything behind the lines. Yes, you heard me, Forsaken. They have M6, placing them behind your army holding a table quarter, denying points and slaughtering anything that gets past your main army is what they can do, and they do it well. Sure, "but the enemy can just run away" yes, of course they can, if they would like to get crossfired into the rest of your army.

Nearly ALL the spells in the THREE lores ignore Line of Sight, and a lot of them do damage as well, Mogrification is very useful against scouts hiding out of Line of Sight and out of their general's leadership range, Hysterical Frenzy on a small unit of 1 or 2 wound flyers, give them damage, remove it, slaughter them. There are so many uses for the spells of the lores that it isn't even funny. Add in the Lore of Heavens and you're laughing in the face of flyers.

So yeah... we don't have ANY ways of dealing with skirmishers, march blockers, flyers or units getting behind our lines -.-

2. Maybe you did, now suck it up, there is NO point in whining about this in the least bit, especially when the argument boils down to the fluff surounding it and the mark restrictions. PLACE the ******* mark restrictions on your army and read the Hordes of Chaos book when you want to read Chaos fluff, problem solved.

3. Eye of the Gods does not suck, only if you choose for yourself that it does so, not everyone brings champions for units, and even if they do, I thought that everyone whining about how crappy it was for your big badass heroes to face down Champions brought either Warshrines or Nurgle Magic. The things you roll on the table are useful, especially if you have a shrine and/or the Favour of the Gods to augment the rolls.

4. So you don't like forsaken, don't take them, but don't come whining that we don't have daemons or beastmen anymore. This unit was likely put in to represent the Daemons and Beastmen joining the Warband that doesn't go into Marauder units or Warrior units or Chosen Warrior units or goes onto the Warshrine conversion etc. etc. This unit has its uses, although limited, and they are around as good/bad as the Daemons used to be in Hordes of Chaos (exception being Screamers and Furies). And let's be honest, when people go "Oh I miss my bloodletters" or "Oh I miss my horrors" "Plaguebearers" "Daemonettes".... have they even considered the fact that, the consensus was (despite me fighting an uphill struggle to prove the opposite) that the Daemons in the Hordes of Chaos book sucked and were never ever worth the points unless you took them for background reasons. Well, guess what. You've got your daemons and your Bestigors, they are called Forsaken.

5. See above. Also, place Daemons in Marauder units, in Warrior units, use Centigors as Marauder Horsemen, use Minotaurs as Chaos Ogres or unit fillers. Sure, we don't have screamers, furies or beastherds w beastlords in them anymore, and that is a bit of a shame, but really, that's 3 units that far from everyone brought, especially due to the Screamers having Mark of Tzeentch, the Furies being 0-1 (although people oft brought them still) and the Beastherds rarely being taken in more than 1 unit because you wanted the other specials for Minotaurs and one unit of fluffy daemons (or Mounted Daemonettes, the only daemon unit appart from Furies to be dubbed "Good" by the forums as I seem to recall).

If you miss your Lord of Tzeentch leading your army, there are two viable options:

1. Use him as a Daemonprince of Tzeentch with Tendrils of Tzeentch and the item of your chosing, place him on a 40mm base.

2. Keep him as is, add a model of a sorceror of some sort having summoned him and now thinking he is directing him to the base of your LoC, now you have a Sorceror Lord on Chaos Dragon and you can kit him whichever way you want. Should he die, just say the daemon shatters his form and hides in the blabla of the Sorceror, still casting spells but having a WAY more fragile form. Same goes for your Bloodthirster etc. Chaos Lord stats are impressive, easely a meak human being posessed by a powerful daemon. The only one difficult would be the Great Unclean One, but you can still use the model as a Warshrine or a Chaos Giant, he doesn't give his leadership to the rest of the army, but he's stilla centerpiece.


Really, I'm getting tired of hearing the same old same old again and again and again AND AGAIN! Not even the tactica is spared from it it would seem. Of course it is a new book and of COURSE it is different, GW worships Tzeentch and not Nurgle. It is your book and your army, apply the restrictions and fantasy needed to turn it into what YOU want it to be.

zak
13-02-2009, 11:58
It's a shame that GW couldn'y have added two little entries into the book as it would have gone a long way to fixing the problems. Firstly, skirmishing Foresaken or marauders and secondly, a flying unit similar to harpies ( or even harpies).
At present there is no variety and the added gribblies have done little to give the book any tactical variety.

I don't want to pay nearly 400 points for a deamon prince who sits at the back of my line babysitting. I take your piont with some of the other suggestions and will give them a go. Thanks, I really am trying not to whinge!

Briohmar
13-02-2009, 11:58
Shamfrit, I think that was a bit trollish of you, and I normally support your point of view. However, on this point I am dimetrically opposed to your viewpoint. When they first announced that chaos would be three separate armies, I argued very strongly, that the mortals of Chaos would lose most in the deal, and guess what, so far I am correct. The problem is not that the list isn't playable, it is, but it is predictable and boring. If someone says their going to be playing Warriors of chaos, you know what you'll be facing before its even unpacked. There is no variety, which is what Chaos is (still) supposed to be. There is no Chaos.

I am still playing with my Warriors army, and I am still playing a Mono-God army, because I choose to limit myself in this manner, but I am using a Banner of Rage and Collar of Khorne in my Slaanesh units. I do this because GW had an opportunity to do something special with the Warriors of Chaos, and they completely missed the opportunity, or intentionally didn't take it. I didn't want Warriors to get the Daemonic treatment, but I wanted them to have some character and personality, and that is where the book fell short. They introduced one new unit type that was an utter failure, and the second one is a bit of a mixed mess. Even Phil must have realized how miserably he failed, because in the end, he decided to make Horsemen core, though through all the lead up to the book they were going to be special. The items are weak, the gifts are worse, and though they had a lot of opportunity to make a really cool special rule for the army, they failed again.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 12:05
I wasn't being trollish at all, no more so than the unfounded opinions spouting left right and centre in here; in the Tactica, in the thirty or so threads that appeared before the book was even released.

You're all raising points that have been badgered to death countless times before and will, mostly likely, continue to raise them well into the future.

But for the benefit of the doubt, see Neknoh's post, he's saved me alot of time :D

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 12:08
Zak:

He doesn't need to hang back, he can well go off on his own, just make sure to charge a fast cavalry unit, or jump in behind it to march block it the first thing you do, and he's instantly prevented a large part of your army from being marchblocked, he's gotten into a position where he can either head straight for Warmachines or straight for flanks of units the next turn. Same goes with discs and steeds of Slaanesh, they don't need to hang back in no way whatsoever, that is what you use Spawns, Forsaken, Hellcannons and Warshrines for, everything else is quick enough to get there and deal with them when you need to. Heck, your DP doesn't even need to charge, he can just fly in behind your units again, be protected from shooting by having your entire battle line screen him, cast a Magic Missile and something of a lower casting value to cause damage on the unit, then cast the big No LoS Spell on one of their mainline units as WELL. And if the enemy is still allive, they'll be terrorbombed away from your back field as soon as you pass the turn to him.

zak
13-02-2009, 12:13
I had always been quite positive about the army up until the game yesterday. I think I took the wrong army choices and it showed and I was maybe a little hasty to post due to the massacre I received. I shall be investing in a daemon prince and a re-match next week.

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 12:16
No problem, you lot ninja-ed my big post so can't really go "READ THE POST ABOVE YOU!" now can I ^^

Note that a Hellcannon or Warshrine hidden behind your lines could ALSO deal with these units, as the flee move will take them either off the board, away from your army or INTO your blocks should they choose to flee. I've allready covered these, so, read the post above you ;)

W0lf
13-02-2009, 12:22
I think Neknoh and Shamfrit miss the main point.

I like complaining :D

Ok for a change why dont us 'haters' post what we like about the book;

- Good/better lore of Tz. The old one was terrible, with 15 PD it did what any good lore can do with 10.
- Warriors are better then before. They are usable.
- The 2 successful Hordes tourny builds were Tz (cant be done) and Khorne cav. Well under hordes Khorne cav has 2 S5, 1S4 guess what? yes knights are alot better.
- Disc was made infinatly better. 15' fly and large target and targetable before.. hell why did i take this :P
- Marauders + Marauder horse made better. Markable and cheaper (marauders)
- MoN + MoS better on units and in Nurgles case wizards.
- MoT better on units. yes i said it. I personally didnt like that MoT made the unit worse (lost undivided but gained nothing themselves).

All they had to do to make me a happy player was;

- Keep warrior wizards. At the very least a Chaos lord could be a lvl 2.
- Allow a Daemon prince a magic weapon (id have used fluff to ascend my old lord.. dosnt feel right that hes weaker now though :O)
- Use the mark mixing system of before but all magic items generic.
- Skirmishing marauders and/or Marauders with bows. (they hunt ffs)

I would have been a happy customer then. But hey im sure we all have diffrent visions of what we want.


EDIT: i also think a large problem with WoC is that everything in 7th is getting alot more 'Hitty'. This kind of nerfs WoC.

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 12:30
I actually agree that there were some missed opportunities with this book, shortbows for Marauder Horsemen and Warrior Lords of Tzeentch allong with magic weapons for the Daemonprince. But those were things that could have been fixed before the book was out, they weren't, four months on, it is kind of a moot point to whine about them.

And by the GODS do I know you like whining, I've wanted to slap you so many times over the last few Months it isn't even funny :p

But again with the Mark Mixing system, just look into your Hordes book, write down the rules for mixing marks and look at them whenever you design an army, as I said, it is your book now and your models, apply the restrictions and fantasy needed to models and listmaking and you can actually have a wonderful army. I am personally FINALLY zoning in on what to rebuild the army as, because I simply don't like the "spiked bad guys = evulz" so I think I've found something to do with it now, partially inspired by the Briar Rose army over at Warhammer forum: http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=52615&start=0

Now only to decide what to do with the few actual Marauder models I've got (got a tonne of converted ones though :p)

Odin
13-02-2009, 12:40
Theme has always penalised people. In a lot of the old codexes/army books the how to collect section often suggested having a themed army but it noted that it may be harder to win (the example i have in mind is the dark eldar codex.. sure its 40k but i think it applies across both systems). You don't build a themed army to dominate everyone. You build a themed army because you like some background/playstyle. Of course you are going to lose some tactical flexibility or power. It is unreasonable to assume you wouldn't.

Why should chaos be the only army to allow theme without penalty? If i want to run a moulder themed skaven force i will lose some power. I won't get jezzails or gutter runners. It is the cost of the themed list. The same goes for mono god chaos list which is just the same as mono clan skaven. The more restrictions you place on yourself the more power you are likely to lose. A theme is just self restrictions, the benefit comes from the aesthetic of the army or the background or something similar.

I think you missed a rather important word in my earlier statement. The word "horribly". I don't mind being disadvantaged by taking a pure Khorne army (which is basically what I have collected over the last 16 years) - clearly I am choosing to impose limits on myself. But I expect it to be a feasible option.

Khorne used to be far too good for magic defence, but now it's just absurd - they've taken away the good part of the mark, and left us with the rubbish part (frenzy, which I hate). To make my Khorne army survive past turn 2, I need to take at least one sorcerer, which is horribly unfluffy. Simple aswer would have been that characters (not units) with the Mark of Khorne get +1DD. That would have eliminated the insane number of DDs we used to be able to get (though I never did abuse that option), while still making it a feasible army.

The marks in general are a mess. They did the sensible thing of making them an upgrade within the unit entry, enabling them to adjust the points to be appropriate to the unit. But then they failed to do so.

The Warshrine is a perfect example. The Mark of Khorne is useless on it (just +1 attack does not make up for it being baitable). The Mark of Tzeentch is great on it (decent 4+ ward upgraded to a superb 3+ save). So which one is more expensive? That's right - the rubbish Mark of Khorne.

On the other hand, the Mark of Nurgle is by far the best value mark for Marauders.

It doesn't take a genius to work these things out, and yet GW completely failed to do this.

I like the idea of EotG (it makes sense that Chaos characters are trying to impress the Gods), but it's really badly executed.

Odin
13-02-2009, 12:52
Good lord, have any of you considered how broken Hordes would be right now given the current army books?

Warriors with Furies, or for that matter Flamers? It'd be a laughing stock of the gaming world, to have an army with every broken option in the game under one flag. The changes they've made to the individual units in both the Daemons of Chaos and Warriors book would leave nothing in their wake. Yet here we are with Thread X about whine Y, same old points, same old inconsistancies and the same old boring pine for the 'Days of Teh Hordez.'

Let me put it to you gently, Hordes is gone. It is no more. Wherever or not you agree with this change is, to be fair, entirely up to you. I've no care if you play with the Warriors army or not, I don't think the design team or the gaming community at large does either. You can complain as much as you like but it will make no ends or ends, and you can 'pine' for the days lost or the options available, but surely, you should've seen this coming when the Beasts of Chaos got their own seperate army book? Surely that was a hint at what was to come?

I had 2 games against Hordes of Chaos armies, and both were WAAC, waste of space armies that didn't deserve to see the light of day. I'm talking specifically about a mostly daemon army anyway, and the retarded 5 Models of Doom Tzeentchian list. I very rarely saw anyone at all playing Hordes, and lo and behold, with the change hundreds are playing Daemons (although we know why) and I'm running into Warriors players at least 2-3 times a week...somebody has done something right, because alot more people are playing them than ever before.

I dare some of you to play with the old Hordes restrictions, but using the new points, units and items. What you'd end up with is the most broken pile of drivel, ever created. (Even more so than Daemons!) You have to face that the Fluff has changed, and the way it's done has changed. From a community of lost souls who pines for the story to unfold and for the armies to develop, you're all awfully critical (with the exception of Axis, from what I can remember) of an army which can stand toe to toe with the best...purely because 'we don't haz teh skimrishers!@1@@?'

I wouldn't take skirmishers if they were handed to me on a plate at ITP, 9 STR9 attacks and 8 wounds a piece for 5 models. Mainly because they don't fit, flyers, maybe, some sort of carrion bird, but otherwise, they're not needed. As has been said many a time, if they gave us skirmishers and flyers they'd be removing our main weakness, being march blocking by flyers, but then, I guess, you're all so bitter you want the eggs, the cake, the butter, and the tin the cake comes in.

You're a disgrace to the Glory of Khorne!

I'm struggling to see the point of your post.

I'm fairly sure I haven't in any way suggested that we should have the old structure with the new rules. Of course that would be madness. And I certainly don't want an army that's more powerful than everyone else's.

And no, I don't see why I should have taken the separate BoC book as a hint that GW were intenting to tear my army in three. As they said at the time, there wasn't enough space to do Chaos justice in just 1 book.

Hordes of Chaos was a very flawed book, and desperately needed a re-write. I just wish it was a competent re-write that didn't essentially wreck the army I've been collecting for 16 years.

Fine, fluff changes, and for the most part I think it changes for the better. But in this case GW have replaced one fun army with three dull ones. That is not an improvement in my book.

Odin
13-02-2009, 13:02
Really, I'm getting tired of hearing the same old same old again and again and again AND AGAIN! Not even the tactica is spared from it it would seem. Of course it is a new book and of COURSE it is different, GW worships Tzeentch and not Nurgle. It is your book and your army, apply the restrictions and fantasy needed to turn it into what YOU want it to be.

So to sum up your post, WoC is ****, but we should all just shut up.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 13:13
No, Warriors of Chaos are flawed, but you have the choice to not overcome the difficulties in the army and dwell on it, or do everything to overcome and do the best you can with it.

There are several WoC players on Warseer that are achieving outstanding effects with their army book; they may share the same opinions, but that's not stopping them winning, and certainly, some of them are doing it, with, shock horror, less than 4 units of Knights!

EvC
13-02-2009, 13:17
Ehh, you get out of an army what you put in. If you are determined for it to suck, then you'll end up like W0lf, if you are determined to enjoy the army, then you'll end up like Shamfrit.

As ever, I am somewhere inbetween :D

My own army right now is mono-slaanesh. To the point where I have no marks other than Slaanesh, and the most un-Slaanesh thing in the army is an unmarked Mage. And you know what? It's a tough army to use. But I've used it nearly 10 times now in its various formats (4 wins, 1 draw, 4 losses), and it's finally clicked for me. I now have an army that I am good with, that is themed, and, above all, is pure FUN to use. I still get raised eyebrows from powergamers, who haven't the foggiest idea why I would bother to include a unit of 6 Chosen. But hey, last night they flanked a unit of Blood Knights and annihilated them, so they must be doing something right, eh?


I think the best choice in the book is the Hellcannon and it is also a choice that goes a long way in solving a lot of the little problems that many people seem to claim are unsolvable with the army.

There's an old adage, that there's no problem that cannot be solved by a cannon. This is especially true for Warriors of Chaos. The Hellcannon has rapidly become my favourite choice in the army (It helps that despite having almost no experience with artillery, I can guess ranges perfectly 9/10 times- when this baby hits, it hurts!).

--------------------
Oh, and I can't end this post without a lament for mono-god effectiveness. A friend has written some bonus house rules for his tournaments, like if you take an all-gobbo army, you can take 1 extra big boss for every thousand points. It's nice. I'd love to see some kind of rule whereby if you do take a mono-god army, then every unit can take one free command model for every multiple of that god's number. Would also help with the armies being so small!

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 13:19
Odin, that is not the purpose of my post and you know it, nowhere do I slate the book as being bad or horrendous or whatever four letter word you chose to use. If you would've bothered to read the entirety of the post you would note that there are several points adressing what people appareantly regard as the Main Concerns of the book.

As Shamfrit said, my post was basically a series of points discussing how you can turn the book into the army you DO want to play. Misquoting and then misinterpreting the post on purpose serves nothing to aid the discussion. If you guys are allowed to whine, why am I not allowed to whine at the very end of a long post written to actually HELP people get ideas on how to get over the loss of their beloved Hordes of Chaos book.

Odin
13-02-2009, 13:22
Ehh, you get out of an army what you put in. If you are determined for it to suck, then you'll end up like W0lf, if you are determined to enjoy the army, then you'll end up like Shamfrit.


I don't need to be determined for it to suck. An army with no magical defence that can be easily baited and lacks fliers to help counter the baiters manages to suck all by itself.

So I'm faced with a new problem - having packed my Khorne army away in anticipation of the day when (hopefully) they'll be usable again, do I build a new Chaos army when the book just doesn't inspire me in the slightest? I want to enjoy playing Chaos, but I just can't seem to.

Mireadur
13-02-2009, 13:23
So from a Business POV its brillaint. Infact its genius, loads of people brought WoC armies thinking that a 'stronger' book = betetr book. My gaming groups gone from 1 chaos player -> 10 -> 2. And all those WoC players? Got bored and moved on. Hell im now going to buy a vampire counts army im so bored/sick of warriors.

In the short term. But im not so sure about how GW is going to make the army profitable in the next edition unless it goes through severe unit changes.

Im sure it will anyway and we will finally have our skirmishers and flyers to give the army a resemblance of ''fun'' which can last over 10 battles.


There's an old adage, that there's no problem that cannot be solved by a cannon. This is especially true for Warriors of Chaos. The Hellcannon has rapidly become my favourite choice in the army (It helps that despite having almost no experience with artillery, I can guess ranges perfectly 9/10 times- when this baby hits, it hurts!).

Over than it's shooting capability (which for me is non existant since i never seem to get a bullseye with the damn dice :P) i believe the cannon is more important because skirmishes and is unbreakable.

Odin
13-02-2009, 13:28
Odin, that is not the purpose of my post and you know it, nowhere do I slate the book as being bad or horrendous or whatever four letter word you chose to use. If you would've bothered to read the entirety of the post you would note that there are several points adressing what people appareantly regard as the Main Concerns of the book.

As Shamfrit said, my post was basically a series of points discussing how you can turn the book into the army you DO want to play. Misquoting and then misinterpreting the post on purpose serves nothing to aid the discussion. If you guys are allowed to whine, why am I not allowed to whine at the very end of a long post written to actually HELP people get ideas on how to get over the loss of their beloved Hordes of Chaos book.

Well, that's pretty much what you say with point 2. And you don't address any of the other issues I've raised. Yes, you're right I can (and do) place my own restrictions on Marks/Items. But that leaves me with an army that does not work against anyone with a half-decent magic phase. Hardly a solution.

Odin
13-02-2009, 13:32
Apologies for double posting but the Edit option doesn't work.

Fair play though Neknoh, you have provided tactical advice, which some people may find useful (unfortunately doesn't help me much, as a frenzied DP is prety much the biggest liability in the game). If you've got some advice to help make a list that doesn't send me to sleep, that would be even better.

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 13:34
Collar of Khorne and Favour of the Blood God on characters going into important units. Warhounds, Khornate Horsemen, no other characters than the two mentioned, warriors, knights, ogres, dragon ogres, a Warshrine.

Run up, smash the faces of the casters. With plenty of saturation of frenzy units and dirt cheap warhounds and Marauder Horsemen, do you REALLY have a problem dealing with enemy units so much that you lose to high magic armies? The only one I can see being annoyingly difficult is Vampire Counts by raising zombies left right and centre, but that is ONE of the VC builds.

And with point 2, I am saying that even if you liked Hordes of Chaos better, there is no point in whining about it because the book does not exist anymore. The armylist is actually stronger than a pure mortals list from Hordes of Chaos, you don't like the book because of the fluff and mark restrictions, then go for the fluff and mark restrictions from the hordes of chaos book in your bookshelf, NOTHING stops you from doing that.



EDIT: Ok, let's see then.


What kind of army do you want to use, infantry, mounted or mixed? This WILL play a part in the design of the army as a whole, pure Khorne is especially fragile to baiting march blocking because of the restrictions placed on the army by you as a player, so, if I got it right, we are looking at no "Item of God Other Than Khorne" as well as no other marks in the army. No Sorcerors either. Are you willing to go for Undivided characters?

Axis
13-02-2009, 13:38
I think you missed a rather important word in my earlier statement. The word "horribly". I don't mind being disadvantaged by taking a pure Khorne army (which is basically what I have collected over the last 16 years) - clearly I am choosing to impose limits on myself. But I expect it to be a feasible option.

It may have seemed that i missed your point but i don't think i did. I was just trying to show that the more you restrict yourself (in order to make your theme more extreme) the more disadvantages you should have. If you run an extreme build you will be horribly disadvantaged.

Pure khorne is faesible but you have to know you have no influence on the magic phase and tbh that is the way it should be. If i decide to theme myself by taking lots of guns and magic then i should expect to have next to no influence in the combat phase. The analogy isn't perfect since even crossbowmen can fight (not well but they can).

Echoing the post of someone can't remember. If you are determined the book and army is boring and uninteresting then it'll probably end that way for you. If you put effort into making it fun and interesting then it will be. The complaining is just ridiculous though.

And to those who so gleefully pointed out my mistake relating to hyperbola and hyperbole. Thank you, you make the internet a joyous place.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 13:50
I enjoy Khorne and Slaanesh, I would like to play Mono-Khorne but, we all know it's a hard struggle - so I maintain a balance between Slaanesh and Khorne and it works for me so far; with the odd exception of a Nurgle Sorceror or two, but they're modelled as Khornate Warriors, and I've no qualm in admitting I'm using them to balance power.

I play Khornate and Slaanesh Chaos Space Marines too, and I've had a good 20 or so games running the DP Gateway build that won the recent GT (I'm sure he copied me, he was lurking at those games ;))

But, you're taking a Daemon Prince, with Mark of Khorne, surely, you can't claim to have a weak army when you're taking that? It's sad, but the Daemon Prince really only works as a caster, bad design, player choice, whatever you want to call it, you'd be much, much, much better off using Valkia, or going for a still Frenzied but much better Juggerlord.

Play without mark restrictions, use Counts as to retain a Khorne look, then consider if your feelings are the same or not - at the minute it seems like you're impeding yourself, you're more than entitled to play the army as you like, but expect some criticism, especially on Warseer of all places, ;) if you continue to do so.

I've got the advantage point in never having played Hordes, or any Chaos army prior to the release of the Warriors book - if anything, the Warriors book brought me to cast aside all shackles of 'goodness,' Eldar? Sold...bretonnian idea? Quashed.

Now it's Chaos Chaos Chaos! I love the new fluff, having it all cushdy and blah blah unified as it was before, really really put me off. Now the Warriors are playable by their fluff, as they were intended. Primative, hard as nails berserkers and nomads.

The Shaggoths live in the mountains, the Trolls on the Wastes, the Ogres are hired for muscle...the Hellcannons gifted by the Chaos Dwarves...it works, the rules might not be okay for some people, but it's very well representative of the army background.

You can't fault Phil Kelly for the look and feel, rules, yeah, sure, but that's another kettle of fish altogether.

Kerill
13-02-2009, 13:54
The arguments basically boil down to:

"We have no way of dealing with skirmishers, flyers and march blockers!!!"

"I liked the old book better"

"Eye of the Gods Suck"

"Some (read 1) units are worthless"

"We can't mix beasts and daemons and mortals anymore"



Now, let's have a look at the answers shall we




Really, I'm getting tired of hearing the same old same old again and again and again AND AGAIN! Not even the tactica is spared from it it would seem. Of course it is a new book and of COURSE it is different, GW worships Tzeentch and not Nurgle. It is your book and your army, apply the restrictions and fantasy needed to turn it into what YOU want it to be.

With respect Neknoh, this is how you feel. Other people feel the way I do. Also the ability to mix different parts of the army was what made it CHAOS, it doesn't bother you then cool, but it really bothers me. The book is flat and dull, half the units serve no function compared to the others and the balance issue was badly thought out. I don't want to have to take the banner of gods every time just to make the warriors useful.

Oh and the new fluff is to me dull and boring with generic barbarians coming out of the chaos wastes to fight. Not every champion of chaos is a Khorne worshipper.

It's just a really badly designed and thought out list, and there are so few decent builds that there really isn't much fun in building the lists. Compare it to the new lizardmen book which is IMO an absolute joy of a book from the point of view of being able to build a multitude of different lists with a different range of units so the army has so much more potential.

This is how I feel about it, if you are hapy with the list Neknoh then all power to you mate, I wish I felt the same way.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 13:58
You cant fault Phil kelly for the look and feel?

Im pretty sure thats half the complaint. hell i have a huge problem with that.

Oh and to be more 'helpful' ive been running a mixed army and find it far far more fun and competitive then mono-tzeentch. However i hate the feel of the army, its not the Chaos i fell in love with :P

Odin
13-02-2009, 14:10
Collar of Khorne and Favour of the Blood God on characters going into important units. Warhounds, Khornate Horsemen, no other characters than the two mentioned, warriors, knights, ogres, dragon ogres, a Warshrine.

Run up, smash the faces of the casters. With plenty of saturation of frenzy units and dirt cheap warhounds and Marauder Horsemen, do you REALLY have a problem dealing with enemy units so much that you lose to high magic armies? The only one I can see being annoyingly difficult is Vampire Counts by raising zombies left right and centre, but that is ONE of the VC builds.

And with point 2, I am saying that even if you liked Hordes of Chaos better, there is no point in whining about it because the book does not exist anymore. The armylist is actually stronger than a pure mortals list from Hordes of Chaos, you don't like the book because of the fluff and mark restrictions, then go for the fluff and mark restrictions from the hordes of chaos book in your bookshelf, NOTHING stops you from doing that.



EDIT: Ok, let's see then.


What kind of army do you want to use, infantry, mounted or mixed? This WILL play a part in the design of the army as a whole, pure Khorne is especially fragile to baiting march blocking because of the restrictions placed on the army by you as a player, so, if I got it right, we are looking at no "Item of God Other Than Khorne" as well as no other marks in the army. No Sorcerors either. Are you willing to go for Undivided characters?

Dark Elf Soreceresses on Dark Steeds, flying Hierophants, van Horstmann's Speculum wizards, as well as the aforementioned VCs... those are my main opponents.

I used to have a mixed Khorne army - warriors, knights, marauders (& horsemen) hounds, chariot and a bloodbeast or two. That used to be joined by a unit of Furies. Obviously the Marauders used to be unmarked, I guess I might mark them now that I can (except that the MoK is a disadvantage for Marauders, and completely changes Horsemen from useful tactical units to budget knights).

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 14:13
Dark Elf Sorceresses....squishy.

Flying Heirophants...great! Our no LOS spells should easily pop them from their hiding positions. Try hiding from a Mage with 48" spell range!

Speculum is amusing, because it's a one trick pony. Obviously, if you've got the Uber Runesword of Doom Jugger Lord you might, perhaps, want to avoid any potential danger, but chuck a Sorceror at the Arch Lector!

The MOK is not a disadvantage on Marauders I feel, only because with M8 you can't exactly bait them very far, and small units fo ten, with GW's, come in at a pathetically cheap 80 points!

Odin
13-02-2009, 14:15
But, you're taking a Daemon Prince, with Mark of Khorne, surely, you can't claim to have a weak army when you're taking that? It's sad, but the Daemon Prince really only works as a caster, bad design, player choice, whatever you want to call it, you'd be much, much, much better off using Valkia, or going for a still Frenzied but much better Juggerlord.


No, I've tried from time to time, but Khornate DPs were even worse in HoC than they are now. I'd love to field one, as I spent ages making a conversion years ago when there was actually a point to them. And I'd call it bad design, yes.

Valkia is fun, but as she lacks MR, she needs sorcerers in the army to give her a chance of staying alive long enough to do anything.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 14:19
Actually thats untrue.

Valkia is actually better then any daemon prince build imo. You realise she can join units and isnt a large target? Its quite hard to target her if you want it to be.

Oh and shamfrit correct me if im wrong but arnt all the counters you listed magic? Because thats kinda hard with mono-khorne. Not to mention magic heavy builds dont let you gateway/buboes wizards easily :P

Neknoh
13-02-2009, 14:20
Kerill, the answers are there, in the book, several options for which you can use your HoC units in the WoC book, they might not have the same stats, but the models of them are not void, the look is still there if you are willing to use it.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 14:21
Valkia, you may recall, was a mortal, and unmarked Warlord battling across the Wastes to reach Khorne with her band of merry wenches, who may or may not have been sorcerors of some description. By all means, you're playing mono-khorne, but given that the fluff has changed, you're imposing that limit on yourself, no-one else is.

Valkia is disgusting. She really is a beast, on all accounts. Not only does she offer a BSB and re-roll to EOtg (the Shrines mainly) and has Knight Killer, War Machine Hunter and Flapassassin written all over her...

Not survivable you say? ALL attacks are reduced by 1str, she has a 2+ armour save, Toughness 5, not large target, single character for -1 to shoot, as well as reducing the combat potential of anything she charges.

And she has boobies :D

W0lf
13-02-2009, 14:22
I used a Tzeentch army with warrior-wizards and beastmen skimishers.

Thats not doable in the current book. Granted i can get a Sorc lord whos almost an exalted (which i field) but apart from that?

Odin
13-02-2009, 14:22
Dark Elf Sorceresses....squishy.

..and also impossible to catch. No shooting or magic basically means they can do as they please.


Flying Heirophants...great! Our no LOS spells should easily pop them from their hiding positions. Try hiding from a Mage with 48" spell range!

Brilliant, I'll use my Lore of Khorne to get them.


Speculum is amusing, because it's a one trick pony. Obviously, if you've got the Uber Runesword of Doom Jugger Lord you might, perhaps, want to avoid any potential danger, but chuck a Sorceror at the Arch Lector!

Again, no sorcerers in my Khorne army. The other downside of course is that my opponent gets to choose which combats happen, not me. He's perfectly happy to sit back and pound me with artillery, handguns and magic, so I have to move into charge range.


The MOK is not a disadvantage on Marauders I feel, only because with M8 you can't exactly bait them very far, and small units fo ten, with GW's, come in at a pathetically cheap 80 points!

8" out of position is more than enough to annihilate them with a flank charge.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 14:23
Dogs of War Duellists?

W0lf
13-02-2009, 14:24
Oh please.

Im not going to resort to Dogs of war. Plus my group dosnt alow it if i wanted to. (tourny based group)

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 14:25
Your group dissallows perfectly legal army book options?

Forgive my skepticism.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 14:29
Tournaments dont allow DoW so neither do we.

DoW are a 'get out of jail free' card for when GW **** up. Why do you think Mengil manhide and his manflayers arnt in every WoC army ever?

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 14:31
Because they're grossly overpriced?

Odin, pop over to the WoC Tactica, there are plenty of people there willing to help you deal with Mono-Khorne's weaknesses.

W0lf
13-02-2009, 14:34
You think so?

Tbh i havnt read there rules since hordes days and they seemed disgusting then but 7th has really stepped the game up since then :P

Odin
13-02-2009, 14:51
Because they're grossly overpriced?

Odin, pop over to the WoC Tactica, there are plenty of people there willing to help you deal with Mono-Khorne's weaknesses.

Might do, but they were already annoying enough with frenzy - I was desperately hoping it would be changed to hatred (or anything but frenzy).

No, it's just too much. I'm going to try and work out a new army. Tempted by Nurgle.

Or maybe I've just been playing Chaos too long and I need something different.

I'm going to write up a special scenario for a battle using Chaos, see if that helps inspire me. Otherwise I might get a Lizardmen army instead.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
13-02-2009, 17:02
Someone suggested that those who dislike the book posting the things they like about it, so...

I don't dislike the book, but I hate special characters in almost all their forms and wish they would not bother with them and instead spend more time on the actual armies, except for characters like Throgg. Is he particularly original? Not really, but he actually changes the army with his presence [similar to how a Doombull general changes the Beasts of Chaos]. That makes him a worthy inclusion.

As for other special characters, check out my 5th edition two headed goblin warlord Mor-Tauk [http://www.geocities.com/garkutch/mortauk.html] for a more interesting [IMO] version of Vilitch. [Of course, mine is where he belongs in home brewed and house rules.] Comments are welcome, though obviously the rules are out of date.

Valtiel
13-02-2009, 18:05
Actually one of the things I rather dislike about the book is how some marks are just garbage to some units while to some it is just damn good. Why give a Daemon Prince other marks than Tzeentch? MoS is almost useless, Nurgle can be handy though but if you upgrade your Daemon Prince to a magician Tzeentch is still better. MoK, well it will die unless you moonwalk and that can go horribly wrong.

War Altar? Tzeentch is still the better mark. Giant? Certainly Slaanesh. Warriors? I'd say Khorne, but Nurgle is fairly useful. Or just take the best of both worlds, Banner of Rage mixed with MoN. Marauders? I think MoN or Slaanesh are best here in the big blocks. Horsemen, certainly MoS. Nurgle is still good. Knights? Slaanesh is almost useless, Tzeentch is good with a certain banner, Khorne is good if you screen well, and Nurgle is still pretty good.

This is bad design overall... you can just mix whatever you want and use the best of the worlds which forces the old armies to either suck up with it or buy more new models or just proxy/repaint.

I surely didn't want a broken army when I wanted a new book. But when some very few things could already make the HoC army much better I don't see why they didn't do that instead. I would have loved to use Lesser Daemons in the old book, even Warriors. The problem is these were all overpriced and this is why they weren't taken and why everyone only misses Furies and Beast Herds. Everything else was overpriced back in the day. I still took my Bestigors which surely helped sometimes with M5 and I also tried Horrors once in a while. I'd love to use them again with the same old rules with minor changes except in the price, which would make the old Chaos armies so much more interesting than before. Suddenly Daemons would be worth taking and they might just do other things than poof. Sadly this is not the way GW went and instead changed the army so much that I don't enjoy playing with it much more or liking the units. Some of you say that we should just live with it and play the game, use other lists or get used to using other tactics (like with mono-Khorne lists) but that is not the problem for me. The army is just way too boring, lacks any soul and just doesn't want me to pick up a WoC army and play against any foes.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 18:11
I vill defeat ur logic with zis!

Daemon Prince...Flying Terror Bomb ITp & Hellskriek.

Good game.

Godgolden
13-02-2009, 18:20
I vill defeat ur logic with zis!

Daemon Prince...Flying Terror Bomb ITp & Hellskriek.

Good game.

The days thats cost effective is the day the new WOC book comes out

Valtiel
13-02-2009, 18:24
A Flying Terror bomb with Pandaemonium is still also a very solid choice, and overall better imo. It is better even if it doesn't get Pandemonium and more durable with the 4+ save. Also +1 to cast is still pretty good. I see how your DP build is good. But relying on getting a single spell to make the Daemon Prince sometimes better than a Tzeentch is kinda too risky if you ask me. But you are right nonetheless.

Einholt
13-02-2009, 19:58
and yes he is 'like' as you even mention the nurgle mark applies to all enemy models in base to base... like.. say.. nurgle knights (or even give him the nurgle mark gasp)... which would reduce the wizards enemies to ws -1..... forgive me he has toughness 4...


No it doesn't that exactly the point of my post, the mark says a Model TARGETING a model with the mark of nurgle is reduced in WS. You can stand next to the knights all you want if they are targeting a Wizard without the Mark of Nurgle himself he will not get the benefit of them having their WS reduced even if htey are in BSB with other nurgle models.

Einholt
13-02-2009, 20:19
I wasn't being trollish at all, no more so than the unfounded opinions spouting left right and centre in here; in the Tactica, in the thirty or so threads that appeared before the book was even released.

You're all raising points that have been badgered to death countless times before and will, mostly likely, continue to raise them well into the future.

But for the benefit of the doubt, see Neknoh's post, he's saved me alot of time :D

Thats because some of us had the book before release and were playtesting it. I had my problems with this book before quite a few people saw it and they haven't changed, the only thing that has changed is that more people are coming around and seeing it now, the novelty of the update has worn off and everyone can see it is horribly lacking in substance.

Neknoh its not the lack of ways of dealing with things its the fact that most of these thing do not function in variable lists, you do not have much freedom in theme, or army composition if you must dedicate your lord to be a DP to gain flying or run Tzeentch disk wizards. The bottom line is mono god lists were not broken, all they needed was the move of Knights and chariots to special to ;MoT chariot spam and MoK knights as core. To fix all cav khorne armies yet here we are and they still exist. If Khorne lists had to fill core and then buy knights on top of that and pay for each mark at 45 points a piece we would have like 7 DD, OMG NO Poor VC, and Daemons what ever would they do against those 7 DD. I would have gladly taken a restriction of if your General is Khorne you may not have wizards as long as we got to keep our DD or at least received MR. I agree that certain things now would be too good with previous rules but that does not make the new book good, it needs a complete overhaul.

Things were not fixed they were shuffled around and for no reason.

Shamfrit - Agreed mixing current daemons as hordes would be ridiculous. That was apparent even before WoC came out, the problem is with daemons not mixing. If anything they should have just written a more appropriately powered Daemons into WoC and sold the book not just to mortals players but all the Daemon players who don't really enjoy playing with an I win button.

EDIT: Um Mods sorry for the Double post if you can merge my posts that would be great. Thanks

lord mekri
13-02-2009, 20:20
Because of the ridiculous organizational constraints inherent in the book (an almost complete lack of support units), it is one of the least internally balanced armies in the entire game.

The total lack of support units forces the WoC player to take units, and indeed an entire army, that can operate without support.

although i believe this was siad like its a bad thing, i think its very characterful. WOC doesnt fuction as a highly synergized military force, supportting each other on the field.
its a bunch of glory hungry killer surging accorss the field to secure the favor of the gods. each unit is expected to look out for itself.
i think its great.

if i want synergy and support, i play one of my other armies.

Einholt
13-02-2009, 20:40
The thing is if we had options for support and synergy we could play it that way and if you really like it the way it is you could simply ignore those options and play it as that mob running across the table. So we could both be happy instead of just half of us.

Same thing with mono god lists, was it necessary to **** all over the internal balance of marks and make some of the unplayable in the grand scheme of things by not allowing khorne armies magical Defense?

Taking the DD off Khorne units and giving to just hero's could have solved this.

It makes no sense that they would kill off themed lists that were not broken. Why change it, when it works???

Volker the Mad Fiddler
13-02-2009, 20:50
The thing is if we had options for support and synergy we could play it that way and if you really like it the way it is you could simply ignore those options and play it as that mob running across the table. So we could both be happy instead of just half of us.

SNIP

Would this not unbalance the list though? If the units are good enough to be viable without support, giving said units the option to take support would push them over the top no? Or force people to play the 'let's kill the support units while avoiding any real fights' type of game that many [most?] people find unsatisfying.

Einholt
13-02-2009, 20:57
Depends. Do you feel if we had skirmishers that were identical to beast herds and fliers identical to harpies that the list would be OP?

Tae
13-02-2009, 21:01
I personally like the new WoC book. I can understand why some people don't and that's fair enough, and there are certainly parts of the book I don't agree with/like (EotG and unit champions being the main one).

But overall it's actually this book that pushed me to finally buy my warriors army because with the recent Dark Elf book all my armies just felt so cheesey, whereas my WoC one doesn't (though my opponents may disagree :D)

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 22:14
Given that I play mono-khorne alot, either you're missing something Einholt, or I'm too oblivious to something I should notice?

bolleblade
13-02-2009, 22:19
i enjoy the fact that woc aint to bent ,its a challange to use and the odd time i beat undead and deamons i feel all warm inside!!

Einholt
13-02-2009, 22:37
Well no I still have my mono Khorne list. It works, its just a lot duller then it could have been and (was) with Skirmishers and Flyers.

And I have a caddy I absolutely hate.

I was hoping that when the book came out I would not have to have said caddy and would enjoy some more tactical options.

Also my magic item configurations for heros have gone from oh 10+ options to about 1-2 logical ones.

Angelust
13-02-2009, 22:41
Yeah, I hate my caddy in my khorne force too.

Shamfrit
13-02-2009, 22:43
heh, that's not Mono-Khorne, this is mono-Khorne:

Valkia

Exalted BSB

Exalted X (whatever is needed.)

---

5 Marauders with MoK and Flails

5 Marauders with MoK and Flails

5 Marauders with MoK and Flails

10 Marauders, MoK Great Weapons

10 Marauders, MoK Great Weapons

5 Wolfhounds

5 Wolfhounds

5 Wolfhounds

Block of Wrath Warriors to house BSB.

---

5 Chaos Knights, MoK

5 Chaos Knights, MoK

Khornate Chariot

Khornate Chariot

---

Etc etc.

OldMaster
13-02-2009, 22:54
Luckily, I got into the hobby too late to stick to that mono-god thing completely.
So I have no problems running Nurgle Knights with a Banner of Rage, supported by blocks of Khornate Warriors who are blessed by a Tzeenchian Warshrine while Slaanesh Horsemen flank the enemy.

But, as I hate having a rainbow-coloured army, I paint them all red. It does not matter which mark I choose, I just paint and model them Khornate. In my books, Khorne should be more bound to martial arts than to frenzy, so I don't care. Nurgle stands for improve melee and reflexes, Slaanesh for courage and Tzeentch for resilence.


In my opinion, two fixes are needed to make the armybook complete. First, confirm, for Khorne's sake, that the EotG also works on unit champions. Second, give Forsaken that skirmisher status they deserve. Maybe let them Scout for +3 pts/model or something. It's just that if my army can be surrounded with M6 S4 frenzied skirmishers, I will stop reading about poor people who lose a game due to march blocking. Oh, yes, and hopefully those people who apparently have experience of leading 500 pt units around the board with a 65 pt one will shut up too.

EDIT: I think I'm going to stop posting. My post count is perfect.

Rank&Foul
13-02-2009, 23:43
No it doesn't that exactly the point of my post, the mark says a Model TARGETING a model with the mark of nurgle is reduced in WS. You can stand next to the knights all you want if they are targeting a Wizard without the Mark of Nurgle himself he will not get the benefit of them having their WS reduced even if htey are in BSB with other nurgle models.

Dude your so wrong. You have to read all the words before you jump to conclusions and start spreading misinformation. MoN reduces weapon skill of models in base 2 base contact.

Neckutter
13-02-2009, 23:47
@Rank+File einholt would rather not read the last few words of nurgle to make it weaker. :)

mono khorne is fun to play until you play againsta magic heavy army and get devastated. but you could always justify it, because khorne sorcerers existed in the fluff 20 years ago. they just use their magical power to create daemonswords, instead of shooting fireballs.

personally i like using my tzeentch sorcerers to lead their all nurgle army to war. funny, isnt it Wolf? :P

Godgolden
13-02-2009, 23:58
No it doesn't that exactly the point of my post, the mark says a Model TARGETING a model with the mark of nurgle is reduced in WS. You can stand next to the knights all you want if they are targeting a Wizard without the Mark of Nurgle himself he will not get the benefit of them having their WS reduced even if htey are in BSB with other nurgle models.


Dude your so wrong. You have to read all the words before you jump to conclusions and start spreading misinformation. MoN reduces weapon skill of models in base 2 base contact.


No, Einholts right, thats what i get for fast reading, ya got me :)

-- what i like about WOC ---

Sorc Lord
lvl 4(?)
nurgle
runesword
runeshield
barded steed
1+ save, negated magic weapons in B2B (yes, even in challenges) and runesword buffs him to exalted hittyness (almost) which is damn fine for a lvl 3/4 wizard, he can even cast lvl 1 nurgle spell to snipe out unit champins to get him into a challenge with a wizard or hero.

off the top of my head thats about... 424 points, im sorry but warrior wizards are still viable.. they just wont be the best Generals. (this is one of the facts that makes me smile about the WOC book)

Einholt
14-02-2009, 00:07
Yea??? You sure about that? Rank

WoC Book Page 110

MARK OF NURLGE

The mark of Nurgle often manifests as a cluster of warts or buboes. Its bearers are accompanied by a cloud of flies and a miasma of pestilence.

Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer.

Quoted FROM the Arm Book on said page.

Thanks for the acknowledgment Golden.

Sarah S
14-02-2009, 00:29
It seems that there are two different requirements for the Mark of Nurgle that are tied to the two different bonuses it provides.

So when you are targeting the model with the Mark of Nurgle you are -1 to hit with ranged attacks, and when you are in base contact with a model with the Mark of Nurgle you are -1 WS.

That is, in my opinion, the only sensible interpretation based on GW's shoddy writing. Look for it in the FAQ.

Shamfrit
14-02-2009, 00:32
It's not shoddy writing at all, if anything, it's quite simple, either as RAW or RAI.

Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks /and/ -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer.

The 'and' being the operative word here, especially since 'when' helps specify a second clause.

Tae
14-02-2009, 00:32
It seems that there are two different requirements for the Mark of Nurgle that are tied to the two different bonuses it provides.

So when you are targeting the model with the Mark of Nurgle you are -1 to hit with ranged attacks, and when you are in base contact with a model with the Mark of Nurgle you are -1 WS.

That is, in my opinion, the only sensible interpretation based on GW's shoddy writing. Look for it in the FAQ.

That was the way I read the rule as well, however I can see it from both points of view.

And yes, totally an issue because of crap wording on the part of GW.

Mireadur
14-02-2009, 01:04
If its of any use the spanish translation of the book gives Einholt the reason and unless the word ''targeting'' is just used when refered to a shooting action i believe the RAW also supports him (as Shamfrit points out very well).

Shamfrit
14-02-2009, 01:17
I actually intended to support the idea that being in base to base and targetting a model other than one upgraded with the Mark of Nurgle still reduced the WS of the attacker; I've no idea how you got otherwise from that?

Godgolden
14-02-2009, 01:25
i see.. im sorry but its shoddy writing if this is indeed a cause for discussion

im too tired to bicker.

Shamfrit
14-02-2009, 01:29
That's just it though Godgolden (and I'm not bickering, I was just offering my interpretation, it's not come up in any games I've played, or played with - it's just 'the way it goes.')

Obviously, because internal playtesting is the in the thing now, and the people that know the RAI behind the book are testing, they don't check how it could be RAW'd, and it leads to divisions in the gaming community...exactly like this one. You'll find that more believe X than Y, and on that alone I'd run with the majority.

Alot of people will be very annoyed if you try to tell them otherwise however, it is clear. '-1 to shoot and -1ws when in base contact.' Clear expressions of seperate clauses. Although saying that, there are several other things I read incorrectly which where very clearly written.

So I guess the 'Dice Off' phenomenon kicks in once again - just odd that it's not come up in 50 or so games.

EvC
14-02-2009, 02:04
It's only "clear" because you know how to read it according to GW's shoddy rules writing, Shamfrit. Look at it again:

[Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at][ -1 to hit for shooting attacks and][-1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer].

The first set of []s show that the entire subject affected by the Mark of Nurgle must also be targeting the Nurgle model in order to suffer the WS penalty. Remove the shooting part of the rule and you get:

"Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer."

...when in fact to get the common interpretation it should say:
"Any enemy unit is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer of the Mark of Nurgle."
Extend to:
"Any enemy unit is at -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer of the Mark of Nurgle and -1 to hit when shooting at units with the Mark of Nurgle."

Technically by RAW you would almost never suffer a shooting penalty for shooting at a Nurgle unit, as you don't shoot specific models. However, we "know" the proper way to read the rule, because otherwise the Mark just doesn't work at all. Most people can recognise what the rule is trying to convey- but it is certainly shoddy writing.

Shamfrit
14-02-2009, 02:13
And the RAW lunacy comes full circle.

I read the rule the way I read it long before this thread was ever conceived. There was no flicker of doubt, or seed of uncertainty. I didn't call Games Workshop up just to check, it went ding, lo and behold!

We've been here before, by RAW Fathers of Blades knocks cannonballs from the sky and smites the mightiest of bolts, when we know damned well it works just in combat.

The Kholek debate will no doubt rear it's ugly head again.

If it's shoddy writing, then it's shoddy writing, but you know how it's intended, and you're taking words and applying schewed semantics to them. According to how I see it of course, neither of us are right, not until a FAQ is released.

Just dice off for it on the table, this little snippet is the least of our worries.

Einholt
14-02-2009, 02:38
I am truly shocked. That this is being called rules lawyering. Can we get an English teacher to break the damn thing down.

Rioghan Murchadha
14-02-2009, 04:53
EvC is correct, from a linguistic perspective, (and also not actually arguing against how it should be played, just pointing out how the wording is bad).

It's pretty elementary english really. Subject of the sentence, is, as EvC pointed out "Any enemy unit targetting a model with the mark of Nurgle".

said subject being modified by "Is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks" This one is pretty straight forward.

subject is also modified by "and -1 WS when in base contact with the bearer."

It's already been said, but that's how the sentence works. According to shoddy english, you must both be in B2B with, AND targetting the model with the mark of nurgle to suffer the -1 WS.

All of you, and I know that this isn't the intent of the rule (never has been under the old cloud of flies), but this is what the rule says. It's amazing that for an English company, GW is capable of such shoddy... well... english.

Neckutter
14-02-2009, 04:54
you guys dont know how to argue! it isnt whether enemies in B2B with nurgle are -1WS(its obvious with the "and" because you dont target your HtH attacks), it is if said enemy unit is in B2B with 2 or more units with MoN... is the enemy unit -2WS? basically do they stack or not?

for instance MoN exalted with a MoN warrior squad. your knights charge it and are in B2B with the character AND the unit. now your bretonnian knights are WS2 or WS3?

@Rioghan please read the whole sentance. "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks" and "and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer" are seperate, and should be read as such.
or if you like this better:
Mark of nurgle gives two abilities:
1)Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks
2)and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer

and yes, phil kelly doesnt know how to write, and likes to hit on underage girls at gamesdays.

TheMav80
14-02-2009, 06:11
and yes, phil kelly doesnt know how to write, and likes to hit on underage girls at gamesdays.

Thats what I like about Gamesday girls. I keep getting older, but they stay the same age.

Einholt
14-02-2009, 06:11
Here's the great thing, if the restriction for non marked or differently marked chars was still in place, it would be a non issue for the vast majority of the time.

Cloud of flies did not affect WS, and reading it with the Base to Base clause but ignoring the Targeting portion would imply stacking. The targeting is there to make sure that does not happen. But please, go on and play it with creative interpretation. It might be RAW to say that it requires the targeting but I do not understand how we can simply assume a RAI version that it does not, when we have no clear indication to do so, especially when doing so makes it a helluva lot better with the stacking if you happen to be in BSB with 3 models of the mark.

Neckutter
14-02-2009, 06:14
Thats what I like about Gamesday girls. I keep getting older, but they stay the same age.

(insert evil laugh here) :)

yeah, i dont even know if you target your attacks in hand-to-hand. either way, when your in b2b with MoN you are -1 ws.

Einholt
14-02-2009, 06:18
Yea and my Knights have Str 7 Magical attacks with lances :rolleyes:. OK lets start the free interpretations.

P.S. You might not want to state that you do not know the rules of the game, and then go on to make inferences on rules for abilities directly related to the rule you do not know. Just a tip.

Rioghan Murchadha
14-02-2009, 06:21
you guys dont know how to argue! it isnt whether enemies in B2B with nurgle are -1WS(its obvious with the "and" because you dont target your HtH attacks), it is if said enemy unit is in B2B with 2 or more units with MoN... is the enemy unit -2WS? basically do they stack or not?

for instance MoN exalted with a MoN warrior squad. your knights charge it and are in B2B with the character AND the unit. now your bretonnian knights are WS2 or WS3?

@Rioghan please read the whole sentance. "Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks" and "and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer" are seperate, and should be read as such.
or if you like this better:
Mark of nurgle gives two abilities:
1)Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks
2)and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer

and yes, phil kelly doesnt know how to write, and likes to hit on underage girls at gamesdays.

I did read the whole sentence. That's the part you seem to be missing. It's ONLY ONE SENTENCE. The subject is "Any enemy unit TARGETTING a model with the mark of nurgle"

By the way, you actually do target your hand to hand attacks. Against the unit as a whole, or a unit champion/character if you're in b2b with them.
It's simply that most people don't feel the need to specify when they're just targetting the unit.

The word 'and' doesn't change the subject, it simply indicates a clause that is in addition to the first one. 'and' most certainly doesn't cancel out the targetting part of the subject.

Please attempt to understand. Nobody is arguing the bloody intent here. Stop defending GW for **** poor grammar.

By the way, when you break it down like this:

1)Any enemy unit targeting a model with the Mark of Nurgle is a -1 to hit for shooting attacks
2)and -1 Weapon Skill when in base contact with the bearer

It doesn't change anything. Still reads exactly the same. (i.e. wrong)

Kerill
14-02-2009, 06:38
In warhammer you don't target attacks in combat, you allocate/divide. You target missile attacks and spells (sometimes)

Lets change the rule slightly
Any man with the mark of Nurgle is an idiot when spat at and a w**ker when poked in the eyes.

- He isn't an idiot when being spat at.
- This is one sentence and the clause after the and is clearly seperate to the one prior to the and.

The issue with the sentence isn't how you interpret the grammar (since it can potentially go either way), it's whether or not you target your opponent in h-t-h. I can't find an example of where it is worded that way, from a quick scan of army books and rule books I can see allocate/divide/made and attacking a model, can't see targetting used for h-t-h anywhere, or for magic items used in h-t-h.

e.g aura of quetzl- any attacks made against the bearer
Daemonic gifts- wishing to attack

W0lf
14-02-2009, 11:59
Its written that you have to target the model for the effect (Semantics, see EVC)

However common sense says its just in B2B because you have to be in B2B to target the model so why add that bit otherwise?

Surely any enemy units/models targeting MoN suffers -1 ws and -1bs. This dosnt stack.

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
14-02-2009, 12:08
Nurgle stands for improve melee and reflexes, Slaanesh for courage and Tzeentch for resilence.




Huh? Nurgle warriors have improved reflexes now? That totally doesn't go with my image of nurgle warriors as near-zombies. And Slaanesh =/= courage. It's more like they are too messed up to care.

Honestly I'm not sure what Tzeentch is supposed to be these days. I'm not sure that GW knows what Tzeentch is for, either.

mrtn
14-02-2009, 12:14
I like the new book for the most parts. Most of the units are buffed.
They also made the Mark of Tzeentch fit in with the fluff better. The fluff is quite devoid of Tzeentchians that are warrior mages, but that was the only way you could play it in HoC. Kaldour and the witches were impossible to represent in the game, now they're possible. That's a good change.

As to the game I've had a lot of fun with Nurgle magic. :)

Neckutter
14-02-2009, 12:55
By the way, you actually do target your hand to hand attacks.

Please attempt to understand. Nobody is arguing the bloody intent here. Stop defending GW for **** poor grammar.

please quote me the page number in the BRB where it says you target your CC attacks.

and i would never try and defend GW's **** poor wording, and all over the place i find that GW has done a really bad job of all of its material(WDs and armybooks/codex) in the past year, except for the ultramarines book.

Shamfrit
14-02-2009, 13:05
Look in the FAQ for this year Neckcutter, you can now specifically target/allocate attacks at any model in base contact in the front connecting ranks.

Neckutter
14-02-2009, 13:23
i know the BRB says allocate, or direct when it comes to CC attacks but it never says target and that was my point.
the FAQ doesnt say anything about "targetting" though.

if you are shooting things with ranged weapons, it says you target things, and it also says to pick a target. in HtH it NEVER says you target, it says you direct or allocate. thus trying to prove to other people why Nurgle's first part of the sentance only refers to shooting attacks, and its second part applies to HtH.

Mireadur
14-02-2009, 13:23
I actually intended to support the idea that being in base to base and targetting a model other than one upgraded with the Mark of Nurgle still reduced the WS of the attacker; I've no idea how you got otherwise from that?


And im amazed you now say this because your previous post clearly means the opposite =).

The 'and'' in the sentence is linking both propositions to the part of ''any unit targeting a model with the mark of nurgle''.

So anyone targeting a nurgle model is getting ''both'' penalties not 1 if at range and a different one if in CC. They'd get both at the same time.

EDIT: also both penalties imply that you must take the nurgle model as target.

Rioghan Murchadha
14-02-2009, 18:51
In warhammer you don't target attacks in combat, you allocate/divide. You target missile attacks and spells (sometimes)

Lets change the rule slightly
Any man with the mark of Nurgle is an idiot when spat at and a w**ker when poked in the eyes.

- He isn't an idiot when being spat at.
- This is one sentence and the clause after the and is clearly seperate to the one prior to the and.

The issue with the sentence isn't how you interpret the grammar (since it can potentially go either way), it's whether or not you target your opponent in h-t-h. I can't find an example of where it is worded that way, from a quick scan of army books and rule books I can see allocate/divide/made and attacking a model, can't see targetting used for h-t-h anywhere, or for magic items used in h-t-h.

e.g aura of quetzl- any attacks made against the bearer
Daemonic gifts- wishing to attack


please quote me the page number in the BRB where it says you target your CC attacks.

and i would never try and defend GW's **** poor wording, and all over the place i find that GW has done a really bad job of all of its material(WDs and armybooks/codex) in the past year, except for the ultramarines book.


i know the BRB says allocate, or direct when it comes to CC attacks but it never says target and that was my point.
the FAQ doesnt say anything about "targetting" though.

if you are shooting things with ranged weapons, it says you target things, and it also says to pick a target. in HtH it NEVER says you target, it says you direct or allocate. thus trying to prove to other people why Nurgle's first part of the sentance only refers to shooting attacks, and its second part applies to HtH.

Well, there you go. You all have hit the nail on the head. As worded, the mark doesn't even work in hand to hand, because GW uses the word allocate, instead of target. Making it impossible to fulfill the conditions of the mark in melee. Congratulations, you've done it!:angel:

Volker the Mad Fiddler
14-02-2009, 19:01
I did read the whole sentence. That's the part you seem to be missing. It's ONLY ONE SENTENCE. The subject is "Any enemy unit TARGETTING a model with the mark of nurgle"

SNIP

The interesting thing is that by this reading, the initial example [which started the debate- unmarked character 'protected' by a marked Nurgle unit] still works unless the entire enemy unit can target the character. Since the the subject is "Any enemy unit" [unit, not individual models within that unit] the effects apply to the entire unit, so apparently if any part of the unit is in BtB contact and attacking a Nurgle marked enemy, the entire unit suffers -1 WS. See, problem solved.

Sarah S
14-02-2009, 19:17
For those who believe that "target" is the necessary condition, does this mean that when the Chaos side attacks first (because of charging or initiative or whatever) that the enemy unit will not be at a lower Weaponskill, because at that point in time the enemy unit isn't "targeting" anything?

Because that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Actually it applies even when the enemy attacks first, because once they're done attacking they aren't targeting anything either. This would render the MoN only useful when the enemy attacks and it would make the MoN totally useless against all the WS breakpoints that don't give the enemy a negative modifier to hit.

bork da basher
14-02-2009, 21:02
im pretty happy with the army book. its the best so far and places us nicely in the middle. we aint filth cheese but were not crap either. lots of possible list builds which are all pretty viable but mainly its the new minis that im most happy with. plastic knights at long last. finally i got the build my kaldours knights of tzeentch army which ive been itching to do since 5th edition.

stuff i dont like...

forsaken are really cool concept but why would i take them? shaggoths have one of the coolest minis out there but they're not worth the points.
knights and chosen are really the only special choices viable and then knights more than the chosen.
chaos lord is too expensive and the demon prince is proberly the worst designed lord choice in the game so your looking at sorcerer lords most of the time.
magic items are either really really good or really bad as with most army books but dissapointed utterly with magic weapons which is the one section i thought chaos should excel in.

stuff i love...

the magic lores are pretty amazing now. i love lore of tzeentch and have alot of fun with my four disc riding mages.
knights are the best cavalry in the game
horsemen are the best fast cav in the game
core choices are superb, ultra hard warriors which can do almost any job, CHEAPashell marauders, fodderdoggies and horsemen.
i really like the marks of chaos and how although i dont do it myself (mono god for the win) you can take an army and really customise it to suit, it goes a long way to making up for a fairly linear army list.

overall im happy, having fun playing with them and still enthusiastic 4 months down the line.

Krolg
14-02-2009, 21:22
*>* Too much rambling about no shooting phase-Slap on a mark of nurgle, set your charges (or lack there of with M4) and let your chaos armor, -1 to be shot, and T4 do the work for you, panic the opposing flank with a Hellcannon and may the dice be with you :)

Rank&Foul
14-02-2009, 21:32
At this point it is obvious that logic cannot solve the debate over MoN. Straight up, if someone tries to tell me that their unit does not get 1- WS because they are targeting an unmarked mage I will explode in a ball or murderous rage, run to the closest GW shop and start skull****ing the employees. Then England is next.

Defacto
14-02-2009, 21:51
I've given up. I'm going to play it as weak as possible to avoid conflict, at least until the errata is released. In other words, my MoN will only effect close combat when an enemy is attacking a marked unit in base-to-base, and only if the enemy is WS3 or WS6. Beyond that, with regard to close combat, it's totally useless. Seems ridiculously situational, almost useless beyond the -1 to BS.

I highly doubt this is the RAI, but when one considers the RAW ... what choice do we have?

Eta
14-02-2009, 22:13
I've given up. I'm going to play it as weak as possible to avoid conflict, at least until the errata is released. In other words, my MoN will only effect close combat when an enemy is attacking a marked unit in base-to-base, and only if the enemy is WS3 or WS6. Beyond that, with regard to close combat, it's totally useless. Seems ridiculously situational, almost useless beyond the -1 to BS.

I highly doubt this is the RAI, but when one considers the RAW ... what choice do we have?

Well, simply ignore silly RAW and use your common sense and apply what seems to be RAI. I mean really, the way you play it, you could drop the mark altogether and save 30 points.

Greetings
Eta

Einholt
14-02-2009, 22:31
Lmao right... cuz the -1 to hit you with shooting is just useless right?

It should have just been cloud of flies, this is yet another thing Phil Kelly f'd with and didn't to a good job of. Changing the mark to grant the old cloud would have been much more sensible.

Axis
14-02-2009, 22:41
For those who believe that "target" is the necessary condition, does this mean that when the Chaos side attacks first (because of charging or initiative or whatever) that the enemy unit will not be at a lower Weaponskill, because at that point in time the enemy unit isn't "targeting" anything?

Because that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Actually it applies even when the enemy attacks first, because once they're done attacking they aren't targeting anything either. This would render the MoN only useful when the enemy attacks and it would make the MoN totally useless against all the WS breakpoints that don't give the enemy a negative modifier to hit.

Yes, that is how i play it. I think that is how it is intended to be played and i also think that is how the rule plays. I see no reason to try and make it more powerful, it is already an excellent mark.

andyy
14-02-2009, 22:55
marauders the best fast cavalry?
i bet u havent played against dark riders :D

OldMaster
14-02-2009, 22:57
Huh? Nurgle warriors have improved reflexes now? That totally doesn't go with my image of nurgle warriors as near-zombies. And Slaanesh =/= courage. It's more like they are too messed up to care.

Honestly I'm not sure what Tzeentch is supposed to be these days. I'm not sure that GW knows what Tzeentch is for, either.

What I meant was is how I interpret the effects of different marks in my army, while they're all painted red and worshipping the Blood God =)

Kind of this, imagine I want a CW who's at -1 to hit at range and all enemies in base contact (or whatever the MoN does).
A normal guy paints his unit green, gives him the MoN and explains the effects as the model stinking so much he makes all around him dizzy.

I paint my unit red, do nothing to make him look one tiny bit less Khornate, but give him the MoN on paper and explain that he's actually a really good warrior (that WS reduction in combat) and in addition can perform Matrix-like moves to dodge a bullet (-1 to hit at range).

It's my way of going "mono-Khorne" with the new book. Now I need to find a way to explain those flying Tzeentch Sorcerers...
Yes, I know, I'm a lousy bastard.

Defacto
14-02-2009, 23:11
Lmao right... cuz the -1 to hit you with shooting is just useless right?
No. But worth 30 points? Not sure about that ...

It's a matter of considering common sense above paying mindless lip service to what might eventually turn out to be horribly flawed RAW.

Look, I'm not trying to reignite the debate. Like I said, I've given up trying to suss it out. I'm playing it as written (using the most grammatically correct interpretation) until proven otherwise. In my circle, there's no other option.

I do agree. Simply using the old CoF rules would have been much a more elegant solution.

Weemo
14-02-2009, 23:17
why not stop arguing about something only solvable by gw and just play knights with mon with a house rule at ur GW, whether thats RAW or RAI or whatever just dont bicker about it i mean its not exactly game breaking is it??

"No. But worth 30 points? Not sure about that ..."

if it prevents one knight from dyin its paid its poitns back and a third :)

W0lf
14-02-2009, 23:23
Those 30 pts could buy a unit of 5 sceening hounds ;)

Defacto
14-02-2009, 23:23
if it prevents one knight from dyin its paid its poitns back and a third :)
That's true. Who knows? I surrender, regardless.


Those 30 pts could buy a unit of 5 sceening hounds ;)
... or a Golden Eye of Tzeentch to ensure my precious Sorcerer on a disc never has to worry about shooting, period. =)

And before anyone poops down my throat, I mean to say 30 points is dubious in context, when considered alongside the costs and potential benefits of the other marks.

Einholt
14-02-2009, 23:37
I'm not really interested in arguing the rule with respect to the power of the effect. More so interested in showing yet another example of how badly this book was written.

Defacto
14-02-2009, 23:39
Well. That goes without saying, sir. :p

EvC
15-02-2009, 00:09
It's especially wonderful when someone argues, "Ah, so you're saying the rule is poorly written? Well, you're wrong, because if you read it like THIS, then it shows that the rule is written even more stupidly than you first said! Take that!". Bonus points when they don't realise they are making a perfectly sensible point that points out the rule is worded even poorly than was first stated, and ultimate win if they state the rule is "clear" to begin with :D

Rioghan Murchadha
15-02-2009, 00:15
For those who believe that "target" is the necessary condition, does this mean that when the Chaos side attacks first (because of charging or initiative or whatever) that the enemy unit will not be at a lower Weaponskill, because at that point in time the enemy unit isn't "targeting" anything?

Because that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Actually it applies even when the enemy attacks first, because once they're done attacking they aren't targeting anything either. This would render the MoN only useful when the enemy attacks and it would make the MoN totally useless against all the WS breakpoints that don't give the enemy a negative modifier to hit.

Note that the argument is about horrible writing. That you can even pull this many possible interpretations out of it is indicative of that fact.

From a background perspective, it sort of makes sense that the MoN only works to lower weapon skill when an opponent attacks the bearer. The cloud of flies and stench and such may make it harder to hit the nurgle marked model, but not necessarily any harder to defend yourself.

Oh, and to all of the 'but it says allocate, not target!' people. BRB pg 32 Which Models Fight. "Models can fight if they are in base contact with an enemy model when it is their chance to attack etc.. If a model is touching more than one enemy, it can choose which one to attack when it is its turn to strike. If a model has more than 1 attack, it can divide its Attacks as the player wishes etc.."

Doesn't say allocate either. Choose which one to attack sounds like the very definition of target to me. There are also no stipulations in terms of that only applying to combats with multiple units, characters, or anything like that. Standard combat procedure. It simply doesn't normally matter if you target the grunt on the left or right with your generic trooper attack.

Out of curiosity, a show of hands in terms of who plans on playing it the just B2B way, and who is going to insist on the targetting clause?

Sarah S
15-02-2009, 00:30
Definitely the base to base way!

Tae
15-02-2009, 00:31
Out of curiosity, a show of hands in terms of who plans on playing it the just B2B way, and who is going to insist on the targetting clause?

I will be using the B2B way ... right up until someone decides to stick their Khorne lord in a unit of Nurgle, at which point he's going to get slapped on his base WS.

EvC
15-02-2009, 00:32
Yes, the base to base way.

I do know a few people who will typically place a Nurgle character in an un-marked unit and then make their opponents take the -1WS penalty when attacking the unit, even if no-one is actually attacking the Nurgle character. Seems very rules lawyery to me, though. And not how I would like it to be played.

Sarah S
15-02-2009, 00:36
Yes, the base to base way.

I do know a few people who will typically place a Nurgle character in an un-marked unit and then make their opponents take the -1WS penalty when attacking the unit, even if no-one is actually attacking the Nurgle character. Seems very rules lawyery to me, though. And not how I would like it to be played.

It doesn't seem bad to me and I wouldn't mind in the slightest.

Sigmar nolinks
15-02-2009, 00:51
Also, I find it hard to build balanced characters. I can either make them really defensive, or really killy, but I have a hard time finding a happy medium.

For me this is one of the painful pleasures of army selection... the opportunity you have to forego.

Rioghan Murchadha
15-02-2009, 03:41
Yes, the base to base way.

I do know a few people who will typically place a Nurgle character in an un-marked unit and then make their opponents take the -1WS penalty when attacking the unit, even if no-one is actually attacking the Nurgle character. Seems very rules lawyery to me, though. And not how I would like it to be played.

Well, keep in mind that only models in direct b2b with the nurgle character would suffer the penalty. (perfect use for spearmen ;))

Neckutter
15-02-2009, 03:43
Yes, the base to base way.

I do know a few people who will typically place a Nurgle character in an un-marked unit and then make their opponents take the -1WS penalty when attacking the unit, even if no-one is actually attacking the Nurgle character. Seems very rules lawyery to me, though. And not how I would like it to be played.

it is actually better to do the opposite. i have nurgle units with tzeentch sorcerers. thus while shooting at the unit the enemy is -1 to hit, and while in base contact, they still hit the tzeentch wizard worse.

and if your UNIT is touching a MoN, the WHOLE UNIT is -1ws, rioghan.

Einholt
15-02-2009, 04:20
The very idea that people run around with Tzeentch guys (of all the gods) in Nurgle units is just stupid, way to go Phil way to go....

Sarah S
15-02-2009, 04:45
The very idea that people run around with Tzeentch guys (of all the gods) in Nurgle units is just stupid, way to go Phil way to go....

No. It's fine.


Well, keep in mind that only models in direct b2b with the nurgle character would suffer the penalty. (perfect use for spearmen ;))

And it says "unit" not "model."

Rioghan Murchadha
15-02-2009, 05:32
it is actually better to do the opposite. i have nurgle units with tzeentch sorcerers. thus while shooting at the unit the enemy is -1 to hit, and while in base contact, they still hit the tzeentch wizard worse.

and if your UNIT is touching a MoN, the WHOLE UNIT is -1ws, rioghan.


No. It's fine.



And it says "unit" not "model."

Look guys. If you're going to get hung up on that word, then how are we going to compromise on leaving out the word 'targetting' in the same sentence?:angel:

Einholt
15-02-2009, 06:01
LoL I love how people just throw out all chaos history, as if this army appeared out a vacuum and mark mixing is perfectly fine. Even Daemons who were designed for a mixed force prevent heralds of gods crossing units, only the dumb ass Dire Wolf council would errata garbage like Skulltaker joining units of Daemonettes. I'm not even talking about game mechanics wise, in the distant past chaos mixed, but there was animosity and the two main rivalries (Khorne vs. Slaanesh, Tzeentch vs. Nurgle) enriched this army in story more then anything existing in the new book improves it.

Neckutter
15-02-2009, 06:48
dude, einholt i hate it as well, but it is extremely effective and the current fluff says its ok. now all armies are "undivided" since you can mix and match and appearantly all is fine and dandy. everyone appearantly gets along just fine.


Look guys. If you're going to get hung up on that word, then how are we going to compromise on leaving out the word 'targetting' in the same sentence?:angel:

you dont target in HtH, you direct/allocate. the targetting happens with shooting/magic spells. if your unit is in B2B, your whole unit is smelling gross nurgle dudes.

Einholt
15-02-2009, 07:06
I know I know but it just cheapens it. I mean my empire army also allows me to take 2 Steam Tanks and Karl on a Dragon or a Popemobile and its extremely effective and according to the fluff the Tanks/Pope and Karl have no problem coming a long. Still I think you know what I mean, just because it's allowed I feel it's up to the chaos community to maintain some of our beliefs.

I am finding it hard to believe that so many were just waiting for someone to lift these restrictions. Surely that major part of the Chaos power struggle in the lore was a big part of what drew people to the armies in the first place.
Like I said I don't mind undivided and joint forces so much, but having crosses of gods in units and champions just to gain effects is very weak and cheap, sure you can remove the names on the marks and just treat them like abilities but that is not chaos anymore, and just like no amount of denial from me will change peoples minds that its illegitimate, no amount of denial from anyone who actually knows chaos will change the fact that it is not right.
Lets face it the only reason people do it is because it's beneficial to the game rules and the only way you can claim its ok is ignorance to what established chaos is.

I am very disheartened not so much that Phil Kelly came in misguided and changed it he is only one man after all, but by the fact that so many people are willing to throw it away and let his new interpretation be accepted so easily simply because it is convenient and boosts the power level of this army.

Rank&Foul
15-02-2009, 08:10
1) Holy doggie doo bro! If you want to make mono god armies go ahead. No one is stopping you. Take the units you want and pay the points for them. Mono armies can be effective and fun to play. Take mono Slaanesh for example. Why are you crying about how the book does not force you to take specific builds? You wanna follow the old fluff follow the fluff. Don't let GW spoil it. But remember at the end of the day its just fluff and the current fluff supports the 7ed builds.

You should rejoice that you have choice and that no one is forceing you to take certain army builds that limit battle battlefield creativity, game play, and hamper army effectiveness.

2)MoN HtH B2B -1 (RAW RAI). I can't even believe that there is another interpretation of this rule and that it is being propagated by chaos players. Sad.

Einholt
15-02-2009, 08:47
Well again you miss the point, not about the Mono god or mixed armies. Just about the followers of 1 god being all buddy buddy in units of a diametrically opposed god..... if you can't see whats wrong with this well how can I show a picture to the blind.

This complete freedom diminishes identity, plain and simple. It's not CHAOS EVERYBODY GO RANDOM. It's got a definition all great stories and settings do, Tolkien didn't write Lotr and have people decide on how it should end or when things will happen and who will live and die. These types of things are important as fundamental structure to the story, how terrible would most movies or books we read be if we just had our way in every instance. It's the same principle with the creation of a warhammer army, yes we are free to pick the composition but some things just do not go together, IE a Dark Elf Sorceress surrounded by a Unit of Witch Elves. Or you know a champion of the god of Decay and Despair/Stagnation in the unit of the Schemer and lord of hope/Change.

I'm not crying but unless people speak up and we just hush up and let it go, a rich and compelling story of chaos will lose itself below the pile of optimal lists and army composition choices.

Also I cannot believe you think its sad that we are willing to explore an option easily interpreted by the rules and possibly intentional effect, simply because it is weaker then your interpretation. Why on earth would CHAOS players want to "nerf" their own mark? Did you consider you might be wrong since the language certainly allows it to be read either way and we are more interested in fairness then getting the benefit of an interpretive reading? That if we don't bring it up it'll be overseen and not answered when and FAQ is done. Like I said I brought it up more so to indicate how badly written the book is not to make sure Godgolden was at a disadvantage, but he may very well have been playing it wrong and putting someone else at a disadvantage unintentionally but wrongfully.

Tsagadai
15-02-2009, 08:54
Note: this is my first post because I am a long time lurker.

So much whining. What happened here, did Myspace close up for the day and you all decided to take out your emo self-loathing on Chaos?

I personally think the next book is great. Huge improvement on so many things. I have not met one WOC player in real life who is disappointed with it. Could that be because you are all whining like teenagers and not playing Warhammer? The less whiny kids I see in real life the more I will enjoy Warhammer.

Please, stay here. Continue this pointless whinge. The longer you stay here on the internet hating the world, chaos and everything else the less i see people like you :)

Einholt
15-02-2009, 08:56
Wonderful. Why don't you go back to lurking I think it worked a lot better then the trolling.

Kerill
15-02-2009, 10:36
Well he said the "next book" will be great, I hope so too.

Other than that, don't feed the troll folks!

Kornath
15-02-2009, 11:19
I'm thinking of doing an all Nurgle army, I'll tell you how it works when I've used it in battle.

I'm very satisfied with their magic though, especially the number 6 spell in the nurgle lore... such a chaoslicious spell.

Kornath

zak
15-02-2009, 12:00
I must admit I had never considered that the MoN was a coverall for the whole unit. So if I put a champion with MoN in a unit of Knights then they benefit from the -1 to shoot and -1 to hit in combat? I just don't see my gaming buddies letting that one through no matter what RAW says. It's GW again failing to clarify rules, but it would be me bending a rule and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.

javgoro
15-02-2009, 12:02
Wonderful. Why don't you go back to lurking I think it worked a lot better then the trolling.

Agreed. Now, moving on to another topic...
If you´re not comfortable mixing gods, there are several solutions:
1) Pick a Chaos lord as your general. Give him no chaos mark. Now you got yourself a chaos undivided army. Problem solved.
2) Restrict yourself to mono-god. By doing this, you know you´re consciously gimping yourself, but that´s nothing different than playing Dwarves as a not-gunline (I play dwarves too, and I hate this fact, but there isn´t much I can do about it).
3) Give yourself some sensible restrictions, but nothing that will hinder your gameplay so much. My WoC army is led by a Khorne lord. Thus, I have decided that I will not have any Slaanesh marked units or characters in my army, nor any "mixed" units, with a character in it of a different mark. So far, the army is Khorne/Tzeentch themed, but I´d have little issue with including Nurgle in too, simply because I assume the rest of the army fears/respects the Khorne lord enough to stay in line. Meanwhile, the Khorne lord would not accept any Slaanesh followers on the army, so they´re out. If I later on decide I want to include Slaaneshi on the army, I´ll have to think out a reason (for example, that Slaaneshi giant felt like a good asset to the lord, and killing him would have been troublesome, so he decided to let him join his band, or whatever).

I definitely dislike it when I see a Slaanesh lord with an axe of Khorne, or a Nurgle sorcerer with the Third eye of Tzeentch, and I would not do that, it feels counter-intuitive. However, a middle-ground can be reached, where your choices feel "fluffy", and your army is not totally unplayable because of it. If you´re a powergamer, who cares? You already play DElves with dual hydras and a dragon, so mixing marks isn´t a big deal. If you´re not a powergamer, then stick to the fluff, and who cares about winning all games? In fact, every victory will be more important, as you weren´t taking a WAAC army, while still playing an effective one.

kabum
15-02-2009, 12:24
I think that WoC is a fine and nice army. It has a character, a motive and a background what does not have is a super combi I destroy everything and is played diferent that other armies.
If you ask me If I will like to have flying or skirmishers... obviously yes.... but then will be more a copy of other armies and less itself. Even then some extra evaluation of magic objects and generals ( especially tz) will have been gratefull.

Axis
15-02-2009, 12:31
you dont target in HtH, you direct/allocate. the targetting happens with shooting/magic spells. if your unit is in B2B, your whole unit is smelling gross nurgle dudes.

I think people are making an awful lot over individual words used. Direct/allocate/target all mean the same thing really, or rather, they are being used to get across the same idea (i.e. that the player chooses a unit or whatever to hit with a spell, a cannon or an axe). GW rules are not written to the specificity of being able to quibble over exact words, they've never been about that. An example of this is their 'most important rule' which shows they aren't about tournaments and they aren't designing a super balanced system. Their primary concern is that their products are a hobby. So there is the gaming, the painting, the modelling and the STORY. It is really up to the customer to make it what they will. In a sense GW relies on customers to do some balance and to choose how to interpret situations that mightn't be covered by the rules.

I think you should take the same approach with rules that have slight interpretations. Choose the one that follows the general idea, nothing is gained quibbling about individual wording.

Mireadur
15-02-2009, 15:07
I think people are making an awful lot over individual words used. Direct/allocate/target all mean the same thing really, or rather, they are being used to get across the same idea (i.e. that the player chooses a unit or whatever to hit with a spell, a cannon or an axe). GW rules are not written to the specificity of being able to quibble over exact words, they've never been about that. An example of this is their 'most important rule' which shows they aren't about tournaments and they aren't designing a super balanced system. Their primary concern is that their products are a hobby. So there is the gaming, the painting, the modelling and the STORY. It is really up to the customer to make it what they will. In a sense GW relies on customers to do some balance and to choose how to interpret situations that mightn't be covered by the rules.

I think you should take the same approach with rules that have slight interpretations. Choose the one that follows the general idea, nothing is gained quibbling about individual wording.


nice post man.

Rioghan Murchadha
15-02-2009, 19:02
I think people are making an awful lot over individual words used. Direct/allocate/target all mean the same thing really, or rather, they are being used to get across the same idea (i.e. that the player chooses a unit or whatever to hit with a spell, a cannon or an axe). GW rules are not written to the specificity of being able to quibble over exact words, they've never been about that. An example of this is their 'most important rule' which shows they aren't about tournaments and they aren't designing a super balanced system. Their primary concern is that their products are a hobby. So there is the gaming, the painting, the modelling and the STORY. It is really up to the customer to make it what they will. In a sense GW relies on customers to do some balance and to choose how to interpret situations that mightn't be covered by the rules.

I think you should take the same approach with rules that have slight interpretations. Choose the one that follows the general idea, nothing is gained quibbling about individual wording.
I think, (at least this is my interpretation) that there are only a precious few people who are arguing over the actual way to play the rule. More of us are simply spewing bile at what is another tightly worded set of rules. :rolleyes:


BRB pg 32 Which Models Fight. "Models can fight if they are in base contact with an enemy model when it is their chance to attack etc.. If a model is touching more than one enemy, it can choose which one to attack when it is its turn to strike. If a model has more than 1 attack, it can divide its Attacks as the player wishes etc.."


I'm curious where people are getting the term 'allocate' from in terms of hand to hand. Even in the characters in units in close combat section (BRB75) it simply says "Where a player has a choice of attacking characters or ordinary troops, he must nominate which model(s) he is striking against before rolling to hit."

Volker the Mad Fiddler
15-02-2009, 20:10
I'm thinking of doing an all Nurgle army, I'll tell you how it works when I've used it in battle.

I'm very satisfied with their magic though, especially the number 6 spell in the nurgle lore... such a chaoslicious spell.

Kornath

I love Nurgle myself, but the Mark doesn't seem to worth it for most units especially consider how low the Ld of the WoC ends up being. Other than the Chaos Lord [and special characters which don't count], you have at best, LD 8 [which means a 25% chance to fail any LD test] which just means too many failed fear or terror tests, and makes the mark of Slaanesh such a good choice for its low cost [especially for Marauders]. Meanwhile, it cheaper to just buy a unit of hounds as a missile screen than take the MoN. So, I tend to end up with MoN marked casters, riding with monstrous units [Trolls or Ogres, since I really like the monsters] and supported by Slaanesh marked Marauders. Similar to my DoC, I use a story about STDs, but it is a bit iffy.

I would be interested to see the formula GW now uses for pricing [if indeed they still have one] and what the logic was to make WoC middle of pack [at best] in LD [behind elves (of all types), Dwarfs, Lizardmen, and arguably Undead and DoC (both of whom don't really use LD)]?

ChaosVC
16-02-2009, 04:14
I like the new book and dislike the new book at the same time, in another words I am neutral towards it.

I don't really mind the mixing of god since I am more inclined to novel fluff in which most chaos war bands to army are mixed god.

I am a little disappointed with the fact that there are no skirmishers in the army to make the army because adding them can make the army one dimensional play style a little more interesting with a different approach which is almost beastman like.

Not really disappointed with having the three armies of chaos split into 3 because I was always a fan of pure mortal armies. But I can totally understand why people who had been playing chaos for many years are disappointed. Their reason for complaining is valid and I sympathise with them.

Actually as I observed and read all the tactics and armylist that chaos players come up, I find it interesting that the list are mostly quite varid and the choice of character is not really that same, in another words, the army book is not really as boring as most of the people said they are. Even though
Chaos mortal is one dimensional in a way which it will always takes the attacker role in the game, there are so many different list in which you can create to that make the attacking part interesting, at least for me.

I know I am going to be flame for this but I really don't see how having allowed chaos mixing three different armies would be any different from what they are now, they will always still be taking on the role as an attacker.