PDA

View Full Version : WoC Warriors and Marauders



Griffery
12-07-2009, 01:25
I am never sure how many warriors I should have per a unit. I was thinking 12, 6 by 2, but I am not sure if I should have more ranks or even 7 models attacking. I was also wondering if I should give them shields or additional hand weapons. I normally give them MoK. Also I am having similar problems with my marauders. I normally give them flails and lately I have been thinking about giving them shields and light armor. I normally give them MoS. I also was wondering if I should make them 6 by 3 models or 5 by 4. I know it is asking alot but any tips would be helpful.

outbreak
12-07-2009, 01:40
personally i'd run warriors in 12 as 6x2 or 18 as 6x3. mauraders i'd run as 5x4.
Weapon choice depends on what role you want i think, if you want mauraders to try and tarpit give them armour, if want them to get some kills flails. Same goes for warriors with MoK and additional handweapons they can lawnmow through cheap infantry but with shield theys can hold things up and tarpit while you flank with knights.

grhino
12-07-2009, 12:40
I usually rely on marauders for static combat resolution, so I give them hw/shield. Warriors: I take 15 (5x3-regular warriors) or 12 to 14 (6x2 or 7x2) for Chosen. 6x3 makes the unit much more expensive, usually I'd rather spend more points on knights or great weapon wielding & chaos armour wearing MoK ogres (although Knights are better, I just like Ogres-and you can have a Khornate unit of 3 for 180 pnts (12 S6 attacks), at a value where you can not field a knight unit)

Azethel
12-07-2009, 16:53
I second the warriors as 6x2 (incidentally you get 12 in a box set) or 5x3...shields and halberds for a bit of flexibility and usually FC. I mark mine slaanesh since i got sick of failing panic and fear tests at really in oportune times.

As for marauders I run either 5x4 or 5x5 with FC, LA/shields, Slaanesh, for a large unit with decent SCR maybe hiding an exalted BSB with war banner in there as well and/or one of my sorcs. This is a pretty effective anvil unit.

I also run a unit of 10 marauders with MOK and great weapons with no command as a really cheap hammer unit that is also able to cancel ranks (10 S5 attacks @ about 100pts).

Avian
13-07-2009, 06:33
I have written down my thoughts on Marauder Units and Characters (http://www.avianon.net/tactics/marauder_units_chars.php) on my website.


Regarding Warriors, shields should be considered compulsory. Even if you don't intend to use them in close combat, they provide very good protection from missile fire at a very low cost.
Forget about additional hand weapons, they are only good against things with 6+ save or no save. Halberds are much better for the same cost.

Personally I run a unit of 12, 6 wide, with full command, the Mark of Slaanesh and the War Banner and I have had very good results with them.

djkest
13-07-2009, 14:34
I run warriors in 5x3, FC, shields. Good fighting ability and good CR. If you take 2x6 you are only 2 casualties away from no rank bonus at all.

Marauders are there for static CR so I run 5x4 with FC.

Horus0001
13-07-2009, 15:09
When running warriors i tend to take units 6X2 with hand weapons+sheilds (would love halberds too but didnt build them that way). I find the lack of ranks not a huge issue instead the second rank is more of a sponge to ensure the front ranks untouched than going for the combat res, i sometimes make up for this with a war banner. downside to this however is the huge frontage of the unit especially compared to most 5 wide 20mm units . I always run them with the mark of slaanesh but thats more for a theme than a tactical choice.

As for marauders i usually run 5X4 or 5X4 units with sheilds+light armour. Adds a bit of bulk to the army and a lot of static combat res, usually also considered the easy to kill option. I usually stick a foot character in with them if im running a fair ammount of infantry, improves the unit a lot but makes it a pricy target.

I have tried a few small blocks of marauders ran 6X2 with flails and mark of khorne. They did work well but if charged and broken while part of a line they can create quite a large hole, but still dirt cheap if you can get used to using them.

PurchasedPig
13-07-2009, 17:44
I run warriors in 5x3, FC, shields. Good fighting ability and good CR. If you take 2x6 you are only 2 casualties away from no rank bonus at all.

Marauders are there for static CR so I run 5x4 with FC.

The Warrior units I fear the most are actually only 10 men strong. Frontage of 6 or 7 with the remaining 3 or 4 in the back. Surprising, no?

The reason for this is quite simple. My regular Warriors Of Chaos opponent realised that static combat res on Warriors is not really necessary. 10 Warriors with the right equipment (generally Shields and Halberds to cover all bases) can cause huge damage and the static combat res is generally not all that important. This setup is generally done with no command and mark of khorne or slaanesh to take full advantage.

The MAIN reason this is fun is that 10 man warrior units with not much at all don't cost much at all and are almost as effective allowing you to squeeze an extra couple of units into your list. From personal experience I hate fighting 8 MSU units of Warriors...

- PurchasedPig -

Avian
13-07-2009, 19:49
I run warriors in 5x3, FC, shields. Good fighting ability and good CR. If you take 2x6 you are only 2 casualties away from no rank bonus at all.
Well, your unit is one casualty away from having the same rank bonus as mine would have after one casualty. And it costs something like 50 pts more and has two Attacks less. :p

Unuhexium
13-07-2009, 21:51
I can only agree with thge majority of the mob. 2x6 warriors works great. I tend to give them MoK, shield, halberd, standard and musician. They usually make at least their points back. That's a massive 18 S5 attacks when they get to use their halberds.

selone
13-07-2009, 22:53
Avian I've always liked your site but I have to ask why isn't Wulfrik the wanderer included as a Marauder special character?

Griffery
14-07-2009, 04:31
What kind of command would you recommend for Warriors. For marauders, I normally go FC, but for warriors I am never sure. I normally use champ and SB, I don't think they need musicians with Ld8 and also they virtually never lose combat. Are the champs a waste of points?

Avian
14-07-2009, 06:57
Avian I've always liked your site but I have to ask why isn't Wulfrik the wanderer included as a Marauder special character?
Because he isn't one? ;) He is a Warrior-type character (with stats even better than an Exalted) and will be in the article on those, which I am currently working on.



I use full command on my Warriors as I feel that all the options are reasonably priced for their effectiveness in the game. I don't consider champions essential and would drop them if points were tight, but at 12 pts my default is to take one (as opposed to the Knights, who get a champion if spare points are plentiful). I take musicians on everything, as they are cheap and can save your bacon if things get nasty. Standard bearers are also a given for me, since they can get a magic standard.

selone
14-07-2009, 12:41
Doesn't the fact that you can have a unit of marauders using Seafang as well (and not chaos warriors) make you think he's more of a marauder than a chaos warrior? It even talks about his warriors, loyal to the end, sailing with him in Seafang. Being as how its mrauders in the seafang and he elads them i'd say he's a leader of marauders :)

He does have very good stats for a marauder thats true, but is that your definition of who is a marauder/chaos warrior, stats?

Kiwidru
14-07-2009, 14:07
I began my Warriors of Chaos with three 12-warrior units (6x2), and had a miserable W-L record. I found that against competent opponents their few downsides (movement, leadership, numbers) were to easily exploited. Then I consolidated the units into two units of 18 (6x3) with shields and full command. I have found that this is basically unstoppable. Most units flatout cannot do enough damage to Weapon Skill 5, Toughness 4, 2+save models, before the remaining warriors start cracking skulls. The extra rank is well worth it, as it allows you to lose a few models on the way in (face it, you're going to) and still have a chance to have some static combat resolution. If you only have 12 men in a 6x2 formation and you lose two models on the way, the warriors are starting at a major (4-1) disadvantage. Warriors are one of the few units in the game that ARE good enough to win you combats like that, but putting all your faith in randomness will net you more combat losses.

An unexpected benefit worth noting is that changing formations like that actually saves you points, rather than purchasing 3 command units/marks you are now buying 2. It also greatly increases the cost effectiveness of marks/banners, as more warriors are benefiting from the upgrades.

Kiwidru
14-07-2009, 14:15
I began my Warriors of Chaos with three 12-warrior units (6x2), and had a miserable W-L record. I found that against competent opponents their few downsides (movement, leadership, numbers) were to easily exploited. Then I consolidated the units into two units of 18 (6x3) with shields and full command. I have found that this is basically unstoppable. Most units flatout cannot do enough damage to Weapon Skill 5, Toughness 4, 2+save models, before the remaining warriors start cracking skulls. The extra rank is well worth it, as it allows you to lose a few models on the way in (face it, you're going to) and still have a chance to have some static combat resolution. If you only have 12 men in a 6x2 formation and you lose two models on the way, the warriors are starting at a major (4-1) disadvantage. Warriors are one of the few units in the game that ARE good enough to win you combats like that, but putting all your faith in randomness will net you more combat losses.

An unexpected benefit worth noting is that changing formations like that actually saves you points, rather than purchasing 3 command units/marks you are now buying 2. It also greatly increases the cost effectiveness of marks/banners, as more warriors are benefiting from the upgrades.

Avian
14-07-2009, 14:30
He does have very good stats for a marauder thats true, but is that your definition of who is a marauder/chaos warrior, stats?
Common stat increases for Heroes compared to rank and file guys are +2WS, +1S, +1T, +1W +1In, +2A, +1Ld
(Not always, mind you, but most of the time.)

Add those bonuses to a Marauder, and you will be quite far away from Wulfrik. Add them to a Chaos Warrior and you are much closer.

And he wears chaos armour, which warriors do and marauders don't. ;)




The extra rank is well worth it, as it allows you to lose a few models on the way in (face it, you're going to) and still have a chance to have some static combat resolution. If you only have 12 men in a 6x2 formation and you lose two models on the way, the warriors are starting at a major (4-1) disadvantage.
Again: yes, but the same 18-man unit would have one rank more (it may or may not make a difference for outnumbering) for the cost of almost 100 extra points. That is not a very good deal as I see it and I'd rather have another support unit or two.

Sure, I can see the benefit in adding a guy or two to stand in the third rank of my 12-man Warriors unit, but it has never really been all that appealing. Maybe I should add just one extra guy so that when people go "you lose two models on the way, the warriors are starting at a major (4-1) disadvantage", I can go "Aha, but I have thirteen guys, so two dead means I'm keeping my rank!" and shut them up. ;)

selone
14-07-2009, 23:07
The days of standard bonuses on characters +1 T on a hero, +1 T +1 S on a lord (amongst others like +WS, I and LD) aren't as followed as they were, and special characters have always been whacky. Back in 4th/5th ed it was pretty much gospel but now you have beastmen with lords with S5 T4 orcs with S5 T5 and T3 dark elves, wood elves and high elves. There are more but I realise there was a formula which still probably a majority of army books follow (just) but its now a guideline and by no means a rule ;)

Chaos armour is a fair point but he is a special character. For me the fact he's employed with a marauder unit in game and the background suggests he's with his marauders is more than the fact he has chaos armour and a very high WS. Plus don't you think that the new books try to have a character for each 'mainstay unit' and he's the marauder choice?

I appreciate there are interpretations here as always and you can point to very good stats but I'd really balk at putting him as (another) chaos warrior hero. I'd feel very comfortable with using wulfrik in an all themed marauder army, wouldn't you?

Kiwidru
15-07-2009, 00:01
@ Avian: Passive negativism is annoying, regardless of the amount of smilies you use. I was merely trying to respond to the actual topic (which specifically addresses 6x2 vs 6x3), rather than hijack it into a meaningless rant about "hypothetical marauder characters." In my experience it works, as do so many other tactics. Unless you trying to tell me that because my actual experiences dont match your hypothetical algorithm for points-value ratios, they dont actually happen?

You should put an extra guy in your unit so that you can try to imagine a world that isnt revolving around you.;)

James S
15-07-2009, 04:51
I had read about splitting up Khorne marauders into groups of 2x5 w/ flails. The idea was that you send out several smaller groups to distract and hope the opponent can't cover all the bases and a group or two gets through. As for it working on the table, I have no idea. Just something I read at one of the other forums. :)

Avian
15-07-2009, 07:16
In my experience it works, as do so many other tactics. Unless you trying to tell me that because my actual experiences dont match your hypothetical algorithm for points-value ratios, they dont actually happen?
No, but luck is a factor in the game and it is perfectly possible to go with a sub-optimal choice (mathematically speaking) and get a better result because the dice were on your side. The margins generally aren't that great either, for example if you compare weapon options. Additional hand weapons are most of the time less effective than halberds, but that doesn't mean you can't get a better performance from them than from halberds. Statistics only say how likely something is to happen, it doesn't tell us what will happen.

I see threads as these as discussions of what is the most effective setup and I enjoy discussing that. It doesn't mean that everybody should field the exact same units I am fielding, but I will point out what I consider to be flaws in other people's arguments.

For example, you were fielding 700-800 pts worth of Chaos Warriors in three units. I think you would be more likely to do well if you dropped a unit or two to free up points for other things, than if you continue to spend the same amount of points in fewer units.




I'd feel very comfortable with using wulfrik in an all themed marauder army, wouldn't you?
I'm not sure. Maybe.



I had read about splitting up Khorne marauders into groups of 2x5 w/ flails. The idea was that you send out several smaller groups to distract and hope the opponent can't cover all the bases and a group or two gets through. As for it working on the table, I have no idea. Just something I read at one of the other forums. :)
I'm quite fond of small units of Marauders with flails or great weapons, but I'm not sure I would want to give a 54 point unit a 30 point Mark (at least not if I was fielding several of them). They are still rather squishy in combat.

grhino
15-07-2009, 07:25
I'm going to build a second marauder unit when I get them in through mail, and then expand them to 2x25 with another box. This will give me 6 models in storage, which, combined with another box will give me a nice 2x10 flail wielding small unit for flanking damage. Really usefull to turn combats around when Chaos warriors are holding up the enemy charge. Would have to combine this army with a helcannon though...

Kerill
15-07-2009, 09:36
I use one unit of 14 (boosted to 17/18 with characters) with shields and war banner- mostly static CR. And one unit of 11 with banner of rage halberds and shields.

The first unit holds against all kinds of stuff and the static res really helps. It can take a charge from a dragon and hold/usually win.

The second unit is for countercharging only, most cavalry and monstrous/ogre class units can go through it easily enough otherwise.

The larger unit definitely performs better for me, but there is only one warbanner :)

I think how many you want depends on:
1) the role you have for the unit (but 6 wide is still generally the way to go)
2) How much break protection there is for that unit- general's Ld, bsb, stubborn etc. The better the break protection the smaller the units you can take.

Kiwidru
15-07-2009, 14:34
If you only have 12 men in a 6x2 formation and you lose two models on the way, the warriors are starting at a major (4-1) disadvantage. Warriors are one of the few units in the game that ARE good enough to win you combats like that, but putting all your faith in randomness will net you more combat losses.


No, but luck is a factor in the game and it is perfectly possible to go with a sub-optimal choice (mathematically speaking) and get a better result because the dice were on your side.

It seems that you are agreeing with me in a very conflicting tone. With units as expensive as warriors, i tend to err more toward consistency than randomness...that is a personal preference.


An unexpected benefit worth noting is that changing formations like that actually saves you points, rather than purchasing 3 command units/marks you are now buying 2. It also greatly increases the cost effectiveness of marks/banners, as more warriors are benefiting from the upgrades.


For example, you were fielding 700-800 pts worth of Chaos Warriors in three units. I think you would be more likely to do well if you dropped a unit or two to free up points for other things, than if you continue to spend the same amount of points in fewer units.

Once again, you seem to be saying similar things. For the sake of "simulations" can you crunch some numbers and list a few units that can charge and break a 6x3 unit of warriors with a banner of rage and full command? (its going to come to around 350).

The sad fact is that Warriors were designed to be the Anvil of the army, and Anvils are more effective in large units. If you wanted a Hammer unit, why would you spend 200-250 points on a slow unit of 12 halberd warriors, when you could have a unit of chaos knights for roughly the same? They have a much better armor save, an extra attack from the steeds, the same strength, and roughly double the speed, ergo the chance of getting a charge off.

For my own knowledge, what caliber of player (and races) do you usually face? Im trying to think of matchups where MSU warriors would be preferable to Hammer/Anvil. But all i can come up with are opponents that dont use Shooting, Cavalry, Fast Cavalry, Skirmishers or Flyers.

Avian
15-07-2009, 15:59
It seems that you are agreeing with me in a very conflicting tone. With units as expensive as warriors, i tend to err more toward consistency than randomness...that is a personal preference.
You are misunderstanding me. You were using three units of warriors, but switched to two larger units and feel you are doing better now. I would assume that this is more due to coincidence than because 2 big units are more effective than 3 smaller ones (which I doubt it is).


Once again, you seem to be saying similar things. For the sake of "simulations" can you crunch some numbers and list a few units that can charge and break a 6x3 unit of warriors with a banner of rage and full command? (its going to come to around 350).
I feel you are missing the point somewhat. The problem with expensive units isn't generally that they are not nasty and good in combat, it is that they are easy to avoid and leaves you with few points for other things.

I like Warriors (in moderation). If you are fielding two Warrior units costing around 350 pts, that is 700 pts total.
I field one unit of Warriors costing 269 pts. With the extra points I have, I can field a unit of Chaos Knights, a unit of Marauder Horsemen and a unit of Warhounds. I would much rather have my four units than your two units.

kramplarv
15-07-2009, 18:04
I prefer 2 big units of chaos warriors. Why? they don't die as easily, and it is harder for the opponent to get any VP from. In addition, they will surely kick butt in the end of the day. No question about it. :)

Also, it is better to have a few big units of warriors since they then can be used in more roles than pure "lolz, killing power in close combat with 10000 of dice!" :) They are fantastic obective contesters, they claim table quarters as hell etc.

I've never really understood the meaning of having a 180-220 pts small unit which suck at anything except killing other stuff, when I have a 290pts unit, killing other stuff, and can do more "battlefield missions". :)

If I want 250pts of pure killing... I have more knights. :)

Kerill
16-07-2009, 01:28
TO be honest I think neiher avian nor kiwidru are right
3*6 gives you two ranks and more men in that unit. Against a cavalry charge it typically means you will also have US whereas with 12 warriors its easy to end up with less US than your opponent if they kill a couple of warriors. So sometimes the extra 6 warriors will actually give you +2 US (as well as the ability to withstand more shooting against a gunline). If you want an anvil they are much better. For a MSU/countercharge unit you don't need the extra rank as much since they shouldn't be getting charged.

18 warriors can also hold against a dragon/typical bloodthirster frontal charge and win on the musician. 12 warriors will probably break.

Having said that warriors don't have to be an anvil, there are other anvils available to chaos (hellcannon, giant, DOW, spawn, scyla), or you can use your faster troops (knights, dragon ogres) to prevent your opponent charging your warriors with knights.

It all depends on what you are putting in the unit. Rapturous standard warriors with bsb in the list or stubborn warriors don't need a third rank since they can eventually grind down most things given time and can generally hold agains a charge anyway.