PDA

View Full Version : Something Wrong With Warriors Of Chaos



Sqallum
06-12-2011, 20:31
Hi! I have WoC, and comparing it to other army books, I noticed that it didn't.. feel right. Like something was well.... missing, to be honest. I personally think it is the lack of a big, personalised monster - sure, we have giants and shaggoths, but they are not really chaosy in my opinion. We need a really nasty chaos monster! :DWhat do you think? :confused:
Sqallum

Korraz
06-12-2011, 20:42
If you can't work with Giants, Shaggoths, Chaos Dragons, Manticores, Spawns, Trolls and Warshrines, I don't know what would help.

Harwammer
06-12-2011, 20:47
Yeah, but Tamurkhan and Storm of Magic have a few interesting chaos-y monsters.

BigbyWolf
06-12-2011, 21:18
That, and it's a mid-7th edition book. The trend of fancy big monsters didn't begin until Skaven/ Beastmen at the end of 7th, and has really taken off in 8th with the Sphinxes, Arachnarok, and OK beasties.

Liber
06-12-2011, 21:52
Hi! I have WoC, and comparing it to other army books, I noticed that it didn't.. feel right. Like something was well.... missing, to be honest. I personally think it is the lack of a big, personalised monster - sure, we have giants and shaggoths, but they are not really chaosy in my opinion. We need a really nasty chaos monster! :DWhat do you think? :confused:
Sqallum

Well...a few things come to mind.

1. Tamurkhan as someone already mentioned.

2. WoC can use pretty much any monster through Storm of Magic...and giants, manticores etc. in regular games.

3. Apparently the new WoC book will be out during 2012 so they will surely get at least one big scary chaos kit! Check out the thread in the rumor section for more info.

Odin
06-12-2011, 21:59
If you can't work with Giants, Shaggoths, Chaos Dragons, Manticores, Spawns, Trolls and Warshrines, I don't know what would help.

I think the problem is that they're mostly a bit bland and in many cases rubbish. next version will almost certainly give a few more special rules and options for things like the Shaggoth. Personally I'd like to see all Shaggoths get a weaker version of Kholek's lightning rule.

GodlessM
06-12-2011, 22:03
2. WoC can use pretty much any monster through Storm of Magic...and giants, manticores etc. in regular games.

No you can't, you can use Scrolls of Binding in Storm of Magic games only.

bolshie
06-12-2011, 22:04
Strange, when I look at WoC and wonder what is missing the first thing that strikes me is a shooting phase.... oh well...

Sqallum
06-12-2011, 22:14
Well...a few things come to mind.



3. Apparently the new WoC book will be out during 2012 so they will surely get at least one big scary chaos kit! Check out the thread in the rumor section for more info.

Great news! :D Yeah, I would also like some shooting from warriors... a kind of shooty warriors with crossbows. Would look pretty awesome :p
Sqallum

Korraz
06-12-2011, 23:00
I think the problem is that they're mostly a bit bland and in many cases rubbish. next version will almost certainly give a few more special rules and options for things like the Shaggoth. Personally I'd like to see all Shaggoths get a weaker version of Kholek's lightning rule.

Bland is what you make of it.
Of course, "hobby" equals "CONVERSIONS!" for me.

logan054
06-12-2011, 23:17
Yeah, but Tamurkhan and Storm of Magic have a few interesting chaos-y monsters.

Just need Tarmurkhan, adds so much fun! I want to be able to use that at throne of skulls!!!

musical
06-12-2011, 23:38
That, and it's a mid-7th edition book. The trend of fancy big monsters didn't begin until Skaven/ Beastmen at the end of 7th, and has really taken off in 8th with the Sphinxes, Arachnarok, and OK beasties.

Don't forget the FAQ changing Steam Tank to T10, so its kind of a monster for Empire.

slayer8045
06-12-2011, 23:56
Something is wrong with Warriors of Chaos alright, they are too freaking powerful. Halberds need to be more expensive as well as the mark of Tzeench.

Liber
06-12-2011, 23:59
No you can't, you can use Scrolls of Binding in Storm of Magic games only.


What :confused:? I said regular games. Giants and manticores are listed in the WoC armybook. Manticores as mounts of course.

logan054
07-12-2011, 00:13
Something is wrong with Warriors of Chaos alright, they are too freaking powerful. Halberds need to be more expensive as well as the mark of Tzeench.

sounds about right, I do wonder if I4 would solve some of the issue with halberds as well

Liber
07-12-2011, 00:26
sounds about right, I do wonder if I4 would solve some of the issue with halberds as well


I am totally on board the "Lower WoC initiative" train.

Super strong? Fine. Super disciplined? Fine. Super skilled? Fine.

But Super fast? (as fast as HE?) No. It just takes it too far.

Odin
07-12-2011, 00:30
I am totally on board the "Lower WoC initiative" train.

Super strong? Fine. Super disciplined? Fine. Super skilled? Fine.

But Super fast? (as fast as HE?) No. It just takes it too far.

Yup, me too. Across the board for the whole Marauder to Chaos Lord spectrum. Then make the mark of Slaanesh grant +1 Initiative as well as immune to psychology.

logan054
07-12-2011, 00:44
I am totally on board the "Lower WoC initiative" train.

Super strong? Fine. Super disciplined? Fine. Super skilled? Fine.

But Super fast? (as fast as HE?) No. It just takes it too far.

Nothing compared to 4/5th ed :p

WS6 BS6 S4 T4 W1 I6 A2 Ld9

Was funny with the bows on chariots
"so I guess I'm hitting on a 2+ then"
"I'm behind a bush"
"so I guessing I'm hitting you on a 2+ then"
"damn, stupid chaos warriors"
"Your just jealous :p"

Was insane with additional and weapons and banner of rage

"So I guess thats 5 attacks a model then"
"well thats ok, my wardancers surrounded you unit"
"Oh ok, I guess thats 50 WS6 S4 attacks, how many models do you have again?"
"10"
"oh, guess your dead then ;)"
:cries::cries:

Oh the good old days :( but yeah, anyways, yeah, I5 is abit much

Rosstifer
07-12-2011, 00:48
Is it though? An Empire Swordsman is I4. I''d like to think Chaos Warriors were faster than a State Trooper.

Nocculum
07-12-2011, 00:56
Considering they can be centuries old are augmented by the providence of dark gods...

That and they spend said centuries in eternal warfare with rival warbands and tribes...

m1acca1551
07-12-2011, 01:20
I wouldn't mind if I had something to do with what mark is chosen. +1 I for slannesh, I4 for tzeentch, I3 for nurgle and khorne as they aren't really known for there vast intelect apart from if i hit you this hard and this many times you become squishy.

Yeah they get the blessings of the dark gods, but many of them are nothing but peons lacking the drive to become anything more than killing machines, except the few that become champions of the tribe or horde.

Scythe
07-12-2011, 08:25
Is it though? An Empire Swordsman is I4. I''d like to think Chaos Warriors were faster than a State Trooper.

First question to ask then is whether swordsmen really deserve to be I4 (maybe not). Keep in mind that swordsmen are rather elite state troops. Your usual state troop or militia are stuck at I3.

Crovax20
07-12-2011, 08:36
Yeah swordmen I4 is a tad odd, I believe the book talks about them as skilled masters of duelling. I mean they are also weaponskill 4. They are pretty no brainer unit in general imho, only negative is strength 3. When I still play my empire (rarely), swordsmen are the first melee core unit I look at, followed by halberdiers. Weaponskill 4 and Iniative 4 are just great to have and make swordsmen the best anvil in the empire core selection.

Liber
07-12-2011, 10:39
Considering they can be centuries old are augmented by the providence of dark gods...

That and they spend said centuries in eternal warfare with rival warbands and tribes...


Yup. And they have a ridiculously awesome stat line to represent all that.

But I5 is too much. People were talking about swordsmen, lets compare?

Empire Swordsmen are described as "expert blade masters" and "heroic figures".

They are humans like WoC.

WoC have +1 WS, +1 Strength, +1 Toughness, double the attacks,
+1 Leadership, and +2 Armor save - better then Empire Swordsmen...notice I left out Initiative, but wouldn't you agree this is already more than enough to convey their superiority?

Not to mention some kind of magical ability through a mark of chaos...and access to a magic banner.

Yah, lets not argue that because one unit of empire troops have I4 that its sacrilege to expect WoC to have the same. Its a bit silly, and the worst part is it smacks of the old "Space Marines are the bestest!" vibe that i escaped so long ago when i switched to fantasy :D

@Odin: Exactly! You kill 2 birds with one stone - tone down WoC initiative, and make MoSlaanesh competitive/fluffy!


Edit: changed it to match with Harwammer's specifications :)

Harwammer
07-12-2011, 19:43
Liber, generally +n refers to a change in stat or dice roll (by the value of n) whereas n+ is usually used to denote a test or save where a roll of n or greater is required. It would be helpful if you could form the habit of using the standard accepted notation as there are some situations where the misuse of the terms can cause a lot of confusion. Thanks.

tanglethorn
07-12-2011, 20:11
I think the biggest problem with WoC is the 3+ Ward saves. I thinks thats more of an issue at the moment than I5, but that's just me.

Voss
07-12-2011, 20:25
Yup, me too. Across the board for the whole Marauder to Chaos Lord spectrum. Then make the mark of Slaanesh grant +1 Initiative as well as immune to psychology.

Never quite understood the bonus initiative for Slaanesh (as it is in 40K now, and its popped up in fantasy from time to time). They're devoted hedonists- sex, drugs, alcohol and the whole lot. A faster reaction time is pretty disconnected from the entire concept.

Krasus
07-12-2011, 22:32
Having played WoC for a while I wouldn't say they were too powerful, I mean yes they are strong in combat but they need to get there. As to the original question of is something missing? Yes demons are missing basically the book was cut in half with some stuff from the breastman book copy/pasted in to add filler. Chaos will beat you in combat but they are REALLY slow. In almost every game I've played my opponents run rings about me. Also as for high stats like I4, thats due to lack of shooting. You can't really expent to be shot at for a couple of turns without any real retaliation then get smacked in the face once you reach combat. I have found to balance this mages are a must it's the only way to soften up opponents before combat. I know Chaos get maurader horsemen but they doesn't compare to Slannesh cavelry or flying demons.

AlphariusOmegon20
07-12-2011, 22:37
I think the biggest problem with WoC is the 3+ Ward saves. I thinks thats more of an issue at the moment than I5, but that's just me.

If you've got more than 1 unit and one character running around on the board with a 3++ ward, either your opponent is doing something seriously wrong or you're playing in a really big game AND you're extremely lucky that day.

3++ saves aren't the problem with WoC, As was said earlier, it's the stats and having rules for rule's sake overall for everything, not just WoC, an Empire Swordsman should not be I4, as to make WoC warriors hat they should be, they have to be I5, as they are faster than an Empire swordsman.

HE shouldn't have ASF across the board, they have high enough Init to begin with, so it's unnecessary, they'll strike first before most things anyways, based on the basic rules of combat.

THESE are the problems in the game, not what ward save one unit can get.

Liber
07-12-2011, 23:06
an Empire Swordsman should not be I4, as to make WoC warriors hat they should be, they have to be I5, as they are faster than an Empire swordsman.




Eek, i agree with your over all point, but can we please stop with this space marine crap...its disturbing :(

I already demonstrated that Warriors are far superior to Empire Swordsmen in every way possible...being matches with one stat (especially considering Empire Swordsmen are described as excellent fighters, who live for challenging combat) should be ok. We are not 40k, we are not matt ward.

Liber
07-12-2011, 23:10
Never quite understood the bonus initiative for Slaanesh (as it is in 40K now, and its popped up in fantasy from time to time). They're devoted hedonists- sex, drugs, alcohol and the whole lot. A faster reaction time is pretty disconnected from the entire concept.


I got your answer right here :evilgrin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3L4spg8vyo

AlphariusOmegon20
07-12-2011, 23:26
Eek, i agree with your over all point, but can we please stop with this space marine crap...its disturbing :(

I already demonstrated that Warriors are far superior to Empire Swordsmen in every way possible...being matches with one stat (especially considering Empire Swordsmen are described as excellent fighters, who live for challenging combat) should be ok. We are not 40k, we are not matt ward.

I do not understand where you got the "space marine thing" from, are you sure you read my post correctly? I was advocating stripping everything to it's core.

I advocate redoing EVERY stat in EVERY book using humans as the base, and making base humans 3's across the board. THEN you can work from there.

Liber
07-12-2011, 23:38
I do not understand where you got the "space marine thing" from, are you sure you read my post correctly? I was advocating stripping everything to it's core.

I advocate redoing EVERY stat in EVERY book using humans as the base, and making base humans 3's across the board. THEN you can work from there.

I read you correctly. As i said i agree with your over all point. I just can't stand the argument that Chaos Warriors can't possibly be equal to any other unit cause they are sooo damn leet. You were advocating making Warriors I4, and then downgrading Empire Swordsmen to I3, because them sharing a stat would be heresy.

Its the same crap idea with space marines. Read a previous post i wrote and you should get where i'm coming from.

Makaber
07-12-2011, 23:46
If you can't work with Giants, Shaggoths, Chaos Dragons, Manticores, Spawns, Trolls and Warshrines, I don't know what would help.

Oh, you forgot the Hellcannon. And Chaos Ogres and Dragon Ogres if you're doing monstrous infantry too. So yeah, I can't see where this is coming from.

logan054
07-12-2011, 23:52
As was said earlier, it's the stats and having rules for rule's sake overall for everything, not just WoC, an Empire Swordsman should not be I4, as to make WoC warriors hat they should be, they have to be I5, as they are faster than an Empire swordsman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5enBMSH5ghc

Dunno, they don't look I5 in this :P

Mike3791
08-12-2011, 06:02
3++ saves aren't the problem with WoC, As was said earlier, it's the stats and having rules for rule's sake overall for everything, not just WoC, an Empire Swordsman should not be I4, as to make WoC warriors hat they should be, they have to be I5, as they are faster than an Empire swordsman.

HE shouldn't have ASF across the board, they have high enough Init to begin with, so it's unnecessary, they'll strike first before most things anyways, based on the basic rules of combat.

THESE are the problems in the game, not what ward save one unit can get.

First, empire are rumored to get a new book soon, so we will see if swordsmen get an reduced to I3. Second, Warriors need to be tougher and faster in combat because they have no shooting. Third, HE do need ASF because it allows them to reroll to hit against most troops. This is important because HE don't have the numbers or toughness like other armies and can't afford to be "average" in combat.

Spiney Norman
08-12-2011, 08:49
Don't forget the FAQ changing Steam Tank to T10, so its kind of a monster for Empire.

Firstly the tank is a very tough chariot, not a monster, and secondly the tank was not a new concept for the 7th Edition "monster rally" it has been in the empire list forever.


Is it though? An Empire Swordsman is I4. I''d like to think Chaos Warriors were faster than a State Trooper.

Because someone wearing restrictive all-encompassing plate armour should probably not be quicker than a trained duellist wearing pyjamas, even if he is a better fighter and/or has faster reactions.

I've often thought that armour should provide an I penalty as well as an armour save, -1 for heavy, -2 for full plate, but I guess too many modifiers would just be confusing.

logan054
08-12-2011, 10:27
Chaos armour is part of the body so I dunno if it should give some sort of penalty, thats not to say I4 would be a bad thing.

Harwammer
08-12-2011, 10:43
@Spiney Norman: Armour actually used to carry movement penalties, similar to how barding still does. -1M for heavy armour and shield, I think.

Interestingly I seem to remember Chaos armour not slowing down it's wearer. I don't know if this is just a case of chaos warriors always getting the best stuff, but perhaps it reflects the fact that chaos armour doesn't really slow down it's wearer (for whatever reason)?

logan054
08-12-2011, 11:06
Heavy armour used to make you -1 movement while chaos armour didn't back in 4/5th ed, but chaos armour was also classed as magical so provided saves against certain weapons that just ignored normal armour.

Korraz
08-12-2011, 11:16
The Armadillo's shell is part of its body too. Nevertheless I wouldn't put it into my olympic gymnastics team.

Dominatrix
08-12-2011, 11:25
Then again this game has absolutely nothing to do with realism so what is the problem? If I made a list of everything in warhammer that should change because it doesn't make sense, non encumbering heavy armor would be a really long way down.

Oh and on the subject of chaos warrior initiative (again seriously? nothing more important to cry nerf about?), maybe it represents skill in arms as well as physical speed. I think the reason HE got their SoA was not only catlike elf reflexes but also long experience and military training. So maybe chaos warriors have initiative 5 for the same reason. More combat experience. Or maybe not. Maybe their initiave is boosted by supernatural means.

BigbyWolf
08-12-2011, 11:29
The Armadillo's shell is part of its body too. Nevertheless I wouldn't put it into my olympic gymnastics team.

They can roll pretty well, I wouldn't discount them altogether. :shifty:

Lathrael
08-12-2011, 13:11
They can roll pretty well, I wouldn't discount them altogether. :shifty:

So rolling gives chaos warriors 2 attacks, everything is clear now... :evilgrin:

Liber
08-12-2011, 13:12
Warriors need to be tougher and faster in combat because they have no shooting.


And they are. They are superior in every way, moving Initiative down by a point won't change that.

They would still be faster, tougher, stronger and all together more killy than most any other unit. Certainly far and away superior to any other core unit in the game. I don't see a problem here.

Most likely (i would bet at least) their stat line will stay as is, but I5 will still be a bit over the top.

It doesn't matter to me as a Dwarf player; i strike last anyways, and can't cast spells like dwellers or purple sun. So personally i have no stake in the matter, just a preference for sense and balance ;)

cokeisit
08-12-2011, 16:02
So a points reduction for the elite troops then, as we are going to make them less elite? Do you think that 15 points is too much for the cost of one wound, with no upgrades? I see that the Empire Swordsmen are 6 points out of the box. That's with a sword, Light armor, and shield, correct? So it's 6 points for a 5+ 6++ wound - vs 15 points for a 5+ 0++ one handed weapon wound? And that cost is not worth the extra 9 points?
No wonder Marauder spam is so favored right now.

Mike3791
08-12-2011, 18:11
So a points reduction for the elite troops then, as we are going to make them less elite? Do you think that 15 points is too much for the cost of one wound, with no upgrades? I see that the Empire Swordsmen are 6 points out of the box. That's with a sword, Light armor, and shield, correct? So it's 6 points for a 5+ 6++ wound - vs 15 points for a 5+ 0++ one handed weapon wound? And that cost is not worth the extra 9 points?
No wonder Marauder spam is so favored right now.

Marauder spam is favored because they are undercosted right now because everyone runs them with great weapon and MoK. I think they are the only cheap core in the game right now that have access to frenzy and great weapons. I think in the next book the cost of great weapons will go up, that way people who don't want to give maraurders great weapons can still field a cheap unit.

RanaldLoec
08-12-2011, 20:23
So a points reduction for the elite troops then, as we are going to make them less elite? Do you think that 15 points is too much for the cost of one wound, with no upgrades? I see that the Empire Swordsmen are 6 points out of the box. That's with a sword, Light armor, and shield, correct? So it's 6 points for a 5+ 6++ wound - vs 15 points for a 5+ 0++ one handed weapon wound? And that cost is not worth the extra 9 points?
No wonder Marauder spam is so favored right now.

For 15 points you get a core choice that most armies get close to in there special choices.

As an army I find them a wonderfully varied and exciting change from my Empire and Woodelves.

Charistoph
08-12-2011, 20:36
So a points reduction for the elite troops then, as we are going to make them less elite? Do you think that 15 points is too much for the cost of one wound, with no upgrades? I see that the Empire Swordsmen are 6 points out of the box. That's with a sword, Light armor, and shield, correct? So it's 6 points for a 5+ 6++ wound - vs 15 points for a 5+ 0++ one handed weapon wound? And that cost is not worth the extra 9 points?
No wonder Marauder spam is so favored right now.

Actually, Warriors are 4+ 7++ naked for those points.

Lord Skrolk
08-12-2011, 21:04
Kinda tired of people wishing their non shooty army had shooty things. Armies being distinct from one another is what makes Warhammer so great. Chaos with shooty stuff is like wishing wood elves has 1+ armour save cav.

TheDarkDuke
08-12-2011, 21:13
Kinda tired of people wishing their non shooty army had shooty things. Armies being distinct from one another is what makes Warhammer so great. Chaos with shooty stuff is like wishing wood elves has 1+ armour save cav.

I agree with you, but with that said there really is something missing from WoC. its probably the blandest and most boring book ive seen in along time (quite possibly since 40k chaos space marines). It even made me shelf my army because of that fact (as well as its god awful you have to challenge everything)

Souppilgrim
08-12-2011, 22:41
I4 sounds completely reasonable. That is considered VERY fast...and warriors are skilled brutes in combat, not ultra agile ninjas. In game terms, one aspect of their op-ness is how immune to the killy spells they are I4 would help balance that.

logan054
09-12-2011, 00:01
I agree with you, but with that said there really is something missing from WoC. its probably the blandest and most boring book ive seen in along time (quite possibly since 40k chaos space marines).

Its the fluffy builds that are missing, I actually think marks that made for cool interesting armies would add so much more to the book, I think also the marauders should be expanded on more much like goblins are in the Orc and Goblin list. This would allow for Marauder lists, warrior lists and mixed warbands, I do think removing daemons was a huge mistake, just taking a unit of bloodletters rather than Chaos warriors really helps make the list look so much more interesting.

I also think its lacking a proper warmachine hunter such as a flying unit, harpies or furies.

Mike3791
09-12-2011, 02:43
I also think its lacking a proper warmachine hunter such as a flying unit, harpies or furies.

Lords/heroes on slaneeshi steeds do fly lol. Tzeench disks work too. You should see the look on my opponents face when my exalted with halberd starts butchering crewmen on turn 2. Aside from that we have marauder horsemen, which is also a good option.

logan054
09-12-2011, 02:47
Yes you can use those which if they want to get across the table are going to be 200pts + Look I miss my furies! I want my furies back :( don't make excuses, we should have have a flying unit :p we actually had harpies many moons ago before they got stolen my dark elves :(

m1acca1551
09-12-2011, 03:19
Every argument that WOC is bland and boring comes from those of us who remember the hordes of chaos books, i often proxy beastmen as maruaders to capture some of the former glory of having a chaos horde :P

If GW were to re-do the army in that style, then i believe the majority of complaints would stop.

I have no issue with I5 troops as they are, as i have previously stated marks can play a roll in buffing to I5 or nerfing etc.
Mark of tzeentch gains +1 they are said to be able to read the fates (no ward save though)
Slannesh I4 but gain fearless
MoK, MoN I3 but gain frenzy/poisoned

Maruders are a different problem all together, i'd like to see marks removed from maruaders completely and just have a basic stat line. IMO :P

Its fluffy and doesnt penalise people for wanting to play with something other than the norm net list style.

Mike3791
09-12-2011, 04:41
Yes you can use those which if they want to get across the table are going to be 200pts + Look I miss my furies! I want my furies back :( don't make excuses, we should have have a flying unit :p we actually had harpies many moons ago before they got stolen my dark elves :(

Like I said, if you don't like it marauder horsemen are a great choice. Magic works too..we have plenty of anti-warmachine options.

logan054
09-12-2011, 10:24
I actually use chaos hounds which is a far more effective choice, why is people make these assumptions that if you want something in a book your tactically inept. Book is bland as hell, its missing something which is what the topic is about, the marks are not designed properly and frankly a list with limited shooting should flying units (not flying characters, flying units). Reality is the common magic items of 8th are what have made the book playable, before 8th you only had the book items which are terrible (not all but alot).

TrueKin
09-12-2011, 11:55
I too have pretty much shelved my WoC, thanks to so few viable (and interesting) lists.

I think the Marks should be a lot stronger than they are now (with the exception of Tzeentch), but also much more expensive. I agree on dropping the Initiative of most units by 1, and Marks could have inbuilt weaknesses as well as strengths. I'd also get rid of the Warshrine altogether, or change how it functions. For example:

MoN: +1T (or Regen 4+ or 5+?), -2I
MoS: +1I, ItP (or +WS), possibly -1T
MoK: Frenzy, +1S, -1Ld, -1WS
MoT: (The difficult one) +1WS and some special rule? Fighty characters become Wizards?
MoCU: +1Ld or Stubborn? Should be every bit as viable as the other Marks, and cost as much.

Haven't put too much thought into this now, but units dedicated to Gods should differ from each other clearly.

Also, bringing the whole of Chaos back together would be about the best thing 8th could bring for us. :)

logan054
09-12-2011, 13:37
Why would Khorne be -1WS? I can't see the logic of that, hes the good of war but his warriors are less skilled than the rest??

theunwantedbeing
09-12-2011, 13:46
For 15 points you get a core choice that most armies get close to in there special choices.

Points values are what represent the worth of a model, not which slot they reside in. So having a core choice which would otherwise be a special or rare slot in another army is a meaningless thing to point out.

In anycase they are often not chosen over Marauders because they are not the best use of points in a lot of instances despite their prodigeous stats.
Marauders can generate 2st5 attacks for 5pts a model. Warriors pay 16pts to be able to do that.
Being a giant horde and grinding the enemy to nothing with great weapons is generally more effective than having some super elite unit that could be too easily snuffed out or crippled by a single spell.

40 marauders of khorne with command and great weapons costs just 245pts
240pts will buy you 15 Warriors with halberds.

As for the OP's remark about it not having enough chaosey monsters in, the army is called Warriors of Chaos not Monsters of Chaos and as a result, doesn't contain anything beyond the warrior stuff and dragon ogres who get lumped in with warriors because they don't truly belong as part of the Beasts of Chaos range (they're certainly not Daemons of chaos either!).

Earthbeard
09-12-2011, 13:49
Points values are what represent the worth of a model, not which slot they reside in. So having a core choice which would otherwise be a special or rare slot in another army is a meaningless thing to point out.

In anycase they are often not chosen over Marauders because they are not the best use of points in a lot of instances despite their prodigeous stats.

As for the OP's remark about it not having enough chaosey monsters in, the army is called Warriors of Chaos not Monsters of Chaos and as a result, doesn't contain anything beyond the warrior stuff and dragon ogres who get lumped in with warriors because they don't truly belong as part of the Beasts of Chaos range (they're certainly not Daemons of chaos either!).

Sense, this guy makes lots of it.

Late
09-12-2011, 13:54
It's funny how they axed the original chaos army, and then brought back 2/3ds of hit in a topsy-turvy way via the Tamurkhan book. Beastmen turned out ok, they became an army that has enough personality, variation, and flair to stand on their own, whereas WoC, and especially Daemons, are boring as hell.

Gradek
09-12-2011, 14:11
If I am not mistaken (since I used to play the original chaos army), we could use dragon ogres as troop choices (and knights) and had a 50% allotment for demons and a 50% allotment for characters as well. It was a fun army to play.

logan054
09-12-2011, 14:43
As for the OP's remark about it not having enough chaosey monsters in, the army is called Warriors of Chaos not Monsters of Chaos and as a result, doesn't contain anything beyond the warrior stuff and dragon ogres who get lumped in with warriors because they don't truly belong as part of the Beasts of Chaos range (they're certainly not Daemons of chaos either!).

As Gradek pointed out dragon ogres have been with warriors for a long time, I wouldn't say they got lumped with Warriors, ogres certainly did but I think they are something you always expect to see with a chaos warrior army.

I would also like to see more than just humans in the WoC book, I don't want to see just a army of evil humans, I want all manner of creatures.

I think people also forget something when they talk about marauders being better than chaos warriors, they are T3 with no armour, they are easy prey for every single ranged weapon in the game, they are also much weaker when it comes to the mega death spells, more models with lower stats, they take a lot more test and fail alot more.

theunwantedbeing
09-12-2011, 15:00
As Gradek pointed out dragon ogres have been with warriors for a long time, I wouldn't say they got lumped with Warriors, ogres certainly did but I think they are something you always expect to see with a chaos warrior army.
I've only been playing since 5th edition, when Dragon Ogres were just part of the 0-25% you could take stuff from, in units. The bigger the unit, the more powerful the dragon ogre you could include.


I think people also forget something when they talk about marauders being better than chaos warriors, they are T3 with no armour, they are easy prey for every single ranged weapon in the game, they are also much weaker when it comes to the mega death spells, more models with lower stats, they take a lot more test and fail alot more.

But you get so many more models for marauders to make up for the fact that they die that much faster.
245pts for 40 marauders with great weapons and the mark of khorne AND full command.
240pts gets you 15 warriors with halberds.

15 t4 4+ save models vs 40 t3 no save models.

logan054
09-12-2011, 15:14
I've only been playing since 5th edition, when Dragon Ogres were just part of the 0-25% you could take stuff from, in units. The bigger the unit, the more powerful the dragon ogre you could include.

I remember 5th, so you should know that they didn't exclusive belong to beasts of chaos ;)


But you get so many more models for marauders to make up for the fact that they die that much faster.
245pts for 40 marauders with great weapons and the mark of khorne AND full command.
240pts gets you 15 warriors with halberds.

15 t4 4+ save models vs 40 t3 no save models.

You need so many more dudes because they dive in droves, thats the difference! you are simply looking at damage output rather than the unit as a whole. You not even taking into consideration how much more resistant so so many popular lores Warriors are, Life, Death and certain shadow spells. higher strength, T and wounds can make a huger difference. So what if you have 40 guys, you going to lose over half the unit before it gets to combat.

Chaos warriors are fine, marauders are fine, MoK a little OTT but it doesn't change the fact they are very easy to kill before they even make it across the board.

But you have other factors like the options for magical standards (and Tzeentch units being able to have a 4+ wardsave aganst shooting, banner of rage, flaming banners, all sorts of things, dunno, I find chaos warriors do fine.

theunwantedbeing
09-12-2011, 16:05
I remember 5th, so you should know that they didn't exclusive belong to beasts of chaos ;)
I only recall back to 5th edition where the rules didn't allow them to be troops, merely a unit as part of the 0-25% monster allowance Chaos had.


I find chaos warriors do fine.
I never said they weren't fine, merely that I find Marauders to be more useful as a result of being so much cheaper.

Drongol
09-12-2011, 16:15
You need so many more dudes because they dive in droves, thats the difference! you are simply looking at damage output rather than the unit as a whole. You not even taking into consideration how much more resistant so so many popular lores Warriors are, Life, Death and certain shadow spells. higher strength, T and wounds can make a huger difference. So what if you have 40 guys, you going to lose over half the unit before it gets to combat.

In fairness, with 8th, the typical shooting/magic that is brought will likely make mincemeat of both Warriors and Marauders equally quickly, but Marauders have the sheer bodies to soak those wounds, whereas the equivalent Warrior unit evaporates under a hail of artillery fire and instant-kill spells.

I don't know about your particular area. In mine, hardly anyone takes BS-based shooting anymore, as it just cannot inflict enough casualties to warrant its cost against the larger unit sizes we're seeing (and most tournaments ban the Folding Tower, so no 100-archers-and-Teclis lists). However, I will say this: When looking at Dwellers or Pit or Purple Sun, Chaos Warriors save 16.7% more wounds, but cost 3 times as much. Compared to a cannonball, both are equally dead.

The survivability just isn't there for Chaos Warriors over Marauders, especially when you take ItP and sheer wounds into effect.

logan054
09-12-2011, 16:17
I never said they weren't fine, merely that I find Marauders to be more useful as a result of being so much cheaper.

bar static combat res I don't see them as more useful, they are a glass hammer becase of being essentially naked humans with big axes, with the increased effectiveness of template weapons, shooting in two ranks and mega spells they hit like a brick but fold like paper. In a prolonged combat you may well find they die before they even get to strike. The main disadvantage is their attacks are spread over more models, a chaos warrior unit can engage a unit 5 wide and lose no effectiveness because they still get to attack with all the models. Marauders on the other hand will be losing 16 attacks, thats one of the problems with horde units like marauders, you can just reform into a tight formation and hold them in place until you are read to counter charge. If the marauders decide to adopt a similar formation then they also lose a additional rank of support attacks.


In fairness, with 8th, the typical shooting/magic that is brought will likely make mincemeat of both Warriors and Marauders equally quickly, but Marauders have the sheer bodies to soak those wounds, whereas the equivalent Warrior unit evaporates under a hail of artillery fire and instant-kill spells.

Like with dwellers its the knock on effect, you lose half a unit of marauders to that (which is average) your only left with 20 guys (so two ranks), how many units could a unit 20 marauders take on while striking last? Chaos warriors on the other hand would lose 5 but when they reach combat against 90% of the units in the game they will still be bring their full attacks onto the unit before they start to lose models


When looking at Dwellers or Pit or Purple Sun, Chaos Warriors save 16.7% more wounds, but cost 3 times as much. Compared to a cannonball, both are equally dead.

Dwellers is 33% while I based on is 16% chance of a failure, I actually don't get why everyone brings cannons into it, a whole 3 armies out of 15 have cannons! (which ignores the fact chaos warriors have magical banners and can have a 4+ wardsave against all shooting without relying on a BSB to join the unit) do people not shoot at the hellcanons or warhsrines with cannons? the only time they don't is when they have killed those units, I've played people who think marauders hordes rock with my chaos warrior mass and despite what the interweb would let you believe I didn't get crushed because the additional bodies dosen't help, especially when they are just so easy to soften up before combat.

Its interesting you say BS weapons are not used because I have seen plenty of DE, HE and Dwarf players with BS based weapons, cannons are very easy prey for chaos hounds.

Drongol
09-12-2011, 16:44
Dwellers is 33% while I based on is 16% chance of a failure, I actually don't get why everyone brings cannons into it, a whole 3 armies out of 15 have cannons! (which ignores the fact chaos warriors have magical banners and can have a 4+ wardsave against all shooting without relying on a BSB to join the unit) do people not shoot at the hellcanons or warhsrines with cannons? the only time they don't is when they have killed those units, I've played people who think marauders hordes rock with my chaos warrior mass and despite what the interweb would let you believe I didn't get crushed because the additional bodies dosen't help, especially when they are just so easy to soften up before combat.

Empire, Dwarfs, Skaven, Ogre Kingdoms. Four armies out of 15, just for the record. ;) Additionally, if you're putting that standard on your Warriors, good for you.

A "typical" WoC army around here will be running 2 Khornate Marauder hordes, a Tzeentchian Chosen Deathstar, and perhaps a third Marauder horde led by Wulfrik, with some chaff/hellcannons/warshrines thrown in.


Its interesting you say BS weapons are not used because I have seen plenty of DE, HE and Dwarf players with BS based weapons, cannons are very easy prey for chaos hounds.

Interesting. DE, I understand, but I've yet to see a HE or Dwarf list that relies on shooting, at all. Bows just don't cut it, and the Dwarf lists I see are GW hordes backed up by war machines. Quarrelers and Thunderers just don't do enough damage. You're also assuming that your WM hunting units will get to the WMs. Personally, with my Ogres, I'd love it if you charged the "cannons" with Warhounds. ;)

logan054
09-12-2011, 16:56
Empire, Dwarfs, Skaven, Ogre Kingdoms. Four armies out of 15, just for the record. ;) Additionally, if you're putting that standard on your Warriors, good for you.

A "typical" WoC army around here will be running 2 Khornate Marauder hordes, a Tzeentchian Chosen Deathstar, and perhaps a third Marauder horde led by Wulfrik, with some chaff/hellcannons/warshrines thrown in.

Oh sorry I forgot about Skaven, so what % is that again? under 25% of the armies ;) so yeah if I play one of the armies that has cannons that are not shooting my hellcannons good stuff, skaven cannon is hardly reliable either when it can be S2 ;)

Typical, must mean that thats the only way to play WoC then!


Interesting. DE, I understand, but I've yet to see a HE or Dwarf list that relies on shooting, at all. Bows just don't cut it, and the Dwarf lists I see are GW hordes backed up by war machines. Quarrelers and Thunderers just don't do enough damage. You're also assuming that your WM hunting units will get to the WMs. Personally, with my Ogres, I'd love it if you charged the "cannons" with Warhounds. ;)

I have seen plenty of HE lists that use archers and then max out on the specials and rares, I have also seen plenty with large blocks of spearmen, I also don't believe I said anything about relying, please don't add bits like that in.

Why would I charge that with hounds when I can just drop a hellcannon on its head and panic it off the table?? ;) I see atleast you don't argue that cannons should be shooting stuff other than chaos warriors which makes your point about them dying to cannons just as easily pointless.

bildo
09-12-2011, 16:58
i play warriors and feel they should be I4, chosen at I5 is fine too, they are the elite of the elite, where as warriors are just elite, like greatswords who are I4. elite.

Mike3791
09-12-2011, 17:05
Thats one reason I put a character on a slanesshi steed or disk.. ogre cannons are very difficult for WoC to take down.

theunwantedbeing
09-12-2011, 17:59
i play warriors and feel they should be I4, chosen at I5 is fine too, they are the elite of the elite, where as warriors are just elite, like greatswords who are I4. elite.

Marauders would need to be lowered to in3 if that was the case, making them inferior to empire swordsmen (which at their current price they should be!).

Chaos Warriors are not merely "just elite" though, they are the super elite.
Their stats reflect this currently, in4 is simply too low for them due to human elites being in4.

In anycase, marauders are too cheap and/or shouldn't be in4 or allowed chaos marks (like when they used to be 12pts each with two st4 attacks each...back when they were still better than the ws6 bs6 in6 chaos warriors who were 24pts a go....and warhounds were good as well!...oh how I miss those days).

logan054
09-12-2011, 18:04
In anycase, marauders are too cheap and/or shouldn't be in4 or allowed chaos marks (like when they used to be 12pts each with two st4 attacks each...back when they were still better than the ws6 bs6 in6 chaos warriors who were 24pts a go....and warhounds were good as well!...oh how I miss those days).

I think its more great weapons are too cheap and I agree they shouldn't be allowed marks either.

Korraz
09-12-2011, 21:21
Marauders should by all accounts be worse than Swordsmen.

Chaos Warriors aren't the Super Elite. That's the Chosen.

Mike3791
09-12-2011, 22:17
Points values are what represent the worth of a model, not which slot they reside in. So having a core choice which would otherwise be a special or rare slot in another army is a meaningless thing to point out.

In anycase they are often not chosen over Marauders because they are not the best use of points in a lot of instances despite their prodigeous stats.
Marauders can generate 2st5 attacks for 5pts a model. Warriors pay 16pts to be able to do that.
Being a giant horde and grinding the enemy to nothing with great weapons is generally more effective than having some super elite unit that could be too easily snuffed out or crippled by a single spell.

40 marauders of khorne with command and great weapons costs just 245pts
240pts will buy you 15 Warriors with halberds.

As for the OP's remark about it not having enough chaosey monsters in, the army is called Warriors of Chaos not Monsters of Chaos and as a result, doesn't contain anything beyond the warrior stuff and dragon ogres who get lumped in with warriors because they don't truly belong as part of the Beasts of Chaos range (they're certainly not Daemons of chaos either!).

I think he meant that our core choices are the equivalent of other armies specials.

GenerationTerrorist
09-12-2011, 22:29
Here is a deal I'll put on the table for all you non-WoC players out there.

We'll drop the Initiative on our Warriors/Knights/Chosen etc by 1.
Then you allow our Daemon Prince to be Ld9 and be able to take Magic Items as well as Gifts.

No change in point costs.

Korraz
09-12-2011, 23:24
As long as nothing broken springs from it, I see nothing speaking against making the DP usable.

logan054
09-12-2011, 23:43
I think its the most likely way to fix the daemon prince so we can have a proper Khorne one, I would actually like wings to a option as well, I wouldn't be surprised if chaos gifts ended up like Big names either :(

GenerationTerrorist
10-12-2011, 00:21
Apart from Forsaken, the Daemon Prince is the biggest "What the heck are they thinking?" moment in the entire book.

Here is a guy, a Champion amongst Champions of Chaos Warriors. A Warrior, according to background, that has killed more enemies than humanly imaginable. Yet he is reduced to having less Leadership qualities than a Chaos Lord and has obvioulsy part-exchanged his Chaos Armour to gain immortality at the local pact-o-market. As well as the ability to carry a nice big hitty magical sword or axe.

Yet he still costs me 90pts more than a Chaos Lord? No thanks.

logan054
10-12-2011, 00:26
I dunno, I think the marks on the warshrine come pretty close, 30pts for +1 attack? who wouldn't pay that :shifty: Or chaos marks on Giants, oh yes I see it, perverted Chaos giants who are certainly super fast like ninja's!!

Still the problem with the daemon prince is more to do with chaos gifts than anything, vampire power give you rerolls to hit, chaos ones give you a 4+ wardsave and MR2 against spells but you can't carry magic items.... Maybe Khorne was angry with this guy or something?

Gaargod
10-12-2011, 03:06
Eh, Slaanesh has usually been 'faster'. I think the devs thought up that having seen someone on Speed recently before it!
Realistically though, its not unreasonable. Khorne is attack, nurgle is defense, Tzeentch is magic and shooting, which leaves Slaanesh not a lot of room outside the psychology thing.


Stuff like giants with ASF... its a game mechanic, nothing more. Imagine them with lots of hentai tentacles, if that makes life easier (actually... don't. Bad idea).

Odin
10-12-2011, 09:28
Marauders would need to be lowered to in3 if that was the case, making them inferior to empire swordsmen (which at their current price they should be!).

Chaos Warriors are not merely "just elite" though, they are the super elite.
Their stats reflect this currently, in4 is simply too low for them due to human elites being in4.


I'd have said the Ws5, St4, T4, A2 and 4+ armour save make them pretty damn elite, even without the OTT Initiative of 5. Definitely should be Ini4 in my opinion - that's pretty spectacularly high for troops like that - the nearest equivalents are probably Saurus (I1) and maybe black orcs (I2).

Marauders definitely need to tweaked a bit.

logan054
10-12-2011, 09:58
Stuff like giants with ASF... its a game mechanic, nothing more. Imagine them with lots of hentai tentacles, if that makes life easier (actually... don't. Bad idea).

TBH I don't think they should have marks, its a giant, same as dogs shouldn't have marks, makes even less sense when dragon ogres and beastmen don't have marks.

Dominatrix
10-12-2011, 10:55
As Gaargod says it is a game mechanic. It does not have to make sense. Lots of game mechanics don't. It is there to provide more options (good thing in my book). Especially about the giant. I hardly ever use one or have seen one fielded. And then it is with the MoS only. Without it, it might as well stay on the shelf for the entire edition.

Harwammer
10-12-2011, 11:21
i'd also prefer marks to be more exclusive. Drop them for everything except proper warriors (chosen, knights, etc) and ogres with chaos armour.
It'd be nice for giants to have mutation options instead of marks. ASF makes the giant much easier to use but doesn't really make sense. Options like regen or scaly skin would be good (maybe too good in the case of regen).

Time for a silly suggestion. I'd also like to see a cricket bat upgrade for giants. Each time the giant is hit by a cannon ball (or stone thrower centre hole) it gets to make a bat roll. On the roll of a 4 it can redirect the hit is if making a cannon shot. On a 6 it redirects the hit as a stone thrower shot (misfires on these attacks still negate the original hit but cause a wound on the giant). The idea is to give the giant some ranged protection and give it a chance to do damage against warmachine spamming armies. :-D

Algovil
10-12-2011, 11:30
No problem with I5 here, though I4 would be more fitting. Looking at the game mechanics Warriors are very expensive and should have no glaring weakness IMO. Magic plays a big part in warhammer, and just reducing their Initiative with magic and trowing a purple sun would destroy them utterly if they had low initiative.

The problem can be found with Ward saves. 4++ and 3++ saves belong in 40k not in Fantasy. Marauders are too cheap, I have never played against them but I really can not see myself standing a fair chance against big hordes of Khorne marauders with Great weapons.

If GW changed these two things and balanced the marks warriors would be a great army once again.

TheDarkDuke
10-12-2011, 14:11
If GW changed these two things and balanced the marks warriors would be a great army once again.

They would definetly be more balanced that is true, but a great army? Not even close. There are FAR more problems with this army book then just 2 little things that need some what balanced.

Odin
10-12-2011, 16:15
The problem can be found with Ward saves. 4++ and 3++ saves belong in 40k not in Fantasy. Marauders are too cheap, I have never played against them but I really can not see myself standing a fair chance against big hordes of Khorne marauders with Great weapons.


Thing is, my usual opponent had the same problem initially - he just couldn't do anything about my block of 50 GW MoK Marauders... but now he has tactics to beat them with every one of the 4 armies he has (DEs, VCs, TKs and O&Gs) - so much so that I'm considering not taking them because they never achieve anything any more.

Souppilgrim
10-12-2011, 23:31
Thing is, my usual opponent had the same problem initially - he just couldn't do anything about my block of 50 GW MoK Marauders... but now he has tactics to beat them with every one of the 4 armies he has (DEs, VCs, TKs and O&Gs) - so much so that I'm considering not taking them because they never achieve anything any more.

I'm not sure if that makes you the worst mortals player ever, or him the best opponent ever.

H33D
10-12-2011, 23:36
Marauders die in droves. Then again I have only faced them while playing Dwarves and Empire.

Rofleupagus
10-12-2011, 23:47
Personally I'd like to see all Shaggoths get a weaker version of Kholek's lightning rule.

I just want a Kholek kit to make the Shaggoths look like his picture.

Though your idea is valid.

logan054
10-12-2011, 23:50
I'm thinking Shaggoth with chaos armour!

selone
11-12-2011, 02:49
Keep Marauders and Chaos Warriors at I5, the army has other issues more than that. I can see what you mean about being an uncharacterful army I don't find Warriors of Chaos that thematically interesting but thats a subjective opinion.

Havock
11-12-2011, 07:20
Looking at the changes some people are proposing: So you want to make them non-greenskinned black orcs?

Chaos Warriors are fine as is. Dirt cheap marauder blocks are better than warriors.
One thing warriors are good at is abusing the meta: When everybody is focussed on killing large swathes of chaff, you can throw a spanner in the works by showing up with an army connsisting of, say, 60 warriors, a few well protected characters and some war hounds supported by a warshrine and a hellcannon.

Reducing them to I4 warrants a points drop. Of more than one point.

Algovil
11-12-2011, 11:17
Thing is, my usual opponent had the same problem initially - he just couldn't do anything about my block of 50 GW MoK Marauders... but now he has tactics to beat them with every one of the 4 armies he has (DEs, VCs, TKs and O&Gs) - so much so that I'm considering not taking them because they never achieve anything any more.

So what vulnerability does the Maruaders have compared to other infantry in the game? If you take sevaral blocks, I can not even see mortars doing much to them. Compared to the Empire I can not figure out anything in theory that would beat them, short of magic supported troops.

Scammel
11-12-2011, 12:13
Looking at the changes some people are proposing: So you want to make them non-greenskinned black orcs?


A drop of a single pip of I makes them Black Orcs? Nope, never mind the difference in WS, A, Will of Chaos, Animosity, armour, upgrades etc, I4 is far too similar to I2.

I don't have much of an issue with I5 itself, but I4 strikes me as far more fitting. It's still elite - Swordsmen are something of an anomaly, the majority of armies out there reserve I4 or even I3 for their elites.

logan054
11-12-2011, 12:18
As Gaargod says it is a game mechanic. It does not have to make sense

And yet people wonder why we all complain about boring and uninspiring WoC book, I actually think it makes the book more characterful if the game mechanics fit with the fluff, if your not going to do that when even bother to give every army is unique play style?

Giants do need need Marks of chaos to be playable, they need better rules so people actually want to buy and use them, the same goes for the shaggoth, When you start ignoring the fluff and just write the rules as game mechanics you end up with armies like grey knights.


Reducing them to I4 warrants a points drop. Of more than one point.

I don't think anyone has suggested they should stay the same points while having a points reductions, I think you have done 1+1 and got 11 here

Havock
11-12-2011, 13:49
A drop of a single pip of I makes them Black Orcs? Nope, never mind the difference in WS, A, Will of Chaos, Animosity, armour, upgrades etc, I4 is far too similar to I2.

I don't have much of an issue with I5 itself, but I4 strikes me as far more fitting. It's still elite - Swordsmen are something of an anomaly, the majority of armies out there reserve I4 or even I3 for their elites.

Which is, funnily enough what warriors are. Except that WoC can take them as their core to compensate for their utter lack of support troops. The same could bne said, after all, of empire captains and the like. Besides, if I stroll my warriors down a DE's repeater crossbow-laden throat I can at least say he won't be hitting first as well.

Initiative 5 is -good- but initiative is less 'zomg fast' and more 'yawn, I could see that blow from miles away, been there, done that... Oh, did you just walk into my sword? Too bad.'

Scammel
11-12-2011, 14:56
Which is, funnily enough what warriors are.

So, you're agreeing with me? I4 is perfectly good enough for elite troops?


Initiative 5 is -good- but initiative is less 'zomg fast' and more 'yawn, I could see that blow from miles away, been there, done that... Oh, did you just walk into my sword? Too bad.'

I broadly agree (though WS overlaps with this sort of thing a bit), but I'd still argue that I4 is suitable for Warriors compared to other races, especially when taking the massive suit of armour into account.

logan054
11-12-2011, 15:22
I don't believe agree that suits should be taken into account so many suits similar to this do not (such has full plate mail), I do however agree that I4 is perfectly fine with a suitable points reduction of course.

I do wish for things like giants rather than blanket marks which have certain marks clearly better than others that had upgrades such as mutations, you could have things like:

Twin head - roll two dice on the attack chart and pick one
Massive bulk - +1 strength to all giant attacks
Long Limps - +1 M and strider rule
Troll Hide - 5+ mutant regen rule.

Gradek
11-12-2011, 16:36
I don't think warriors are too powerful for their cost and the initiative should stay at 5. They are supposed to be elite warriors corrupted/blessed by the chaos gods, not mere mortals anyways. Also, due to their cost, lowering their initiative without a SIGNIFICANT reduction in points will simply make them worthless (twice as vulnerable to purple sun, getting lit up in combats without getting to strike back, etc). All lowering warriors initiative is going to do is force even more marauder horde based armies.

Finally, since Chaos is typically one of WHFB more popular armies, I highly doubt they get any real nerfs in the new army book. And really, until Skaven/DE get nerfed, there really is no need to go after WoC.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-12-2011, 16:45
Finally, since Chaos is typically one of WHFB more popular armies, I highly doubt they get any real nerfs in the new army book. And really, until Skaven/DE get nerfed, there really is no need to go after WoC.

That's a flawed argument. Due to the way GW produce updates you can't say that X can't be changed before Y does. It's just not the way the GW system works.

And as for them being to popular to be "nerfed" or changed. The basic Chaos Warrior used to even better than he is these days, so we have seen it happen before. Of course you also used to pay 30 points per model for a Chaos Warrior with Chaos Armour (and 80 for a Chaos Knight!), but they can certainly change the statline if they think it will work out better overall.

Gradek
11-12-2011, 17:48
That's a flawed argument. Due to the way GW produce updates you can't say that X can't be changed before Y does. It's just not the way the GW system works.

And as for them being to popular to be "nerfed" or changed. The basic Chaos Warrior used to even better than he is these days, so we have seen it happen before. Of course you also used to pay 30 points per model for a Chaos Warrior with Chaos Armour (and 80 for a Chaos Knight!), but they can certainly change the statline if they think it will work out better overall.

I will respond to both points:

1) While I agree that their (flawed) update system doesn't work like that, it becomes tougher to nerf an army like WoC knowing that it will then be even less competitive with DE/Skaven. And my guess would be that any nerf to one part would likely be offset by power gains in others.

2) I don't disagree that they can AND lower the point cost, what i was responding to were the many posters who seem to be saying that I should be 4 without changing point values. I actually wouldn't be surprised at all for warriors to be lowered in power AND point terms in an update purely for business reasons (see more models and remove a WoC player's ability to build an $ cheap core). What I don't see happening is warriors losing I5 with no (or little) change in cost.

Dominatrix
11-12-2011, 18:11
@ Gradek

For those of us who have played WoC (or more suitably HoC) since before 7th edition, one could argue that the removal of beasts and daemons was a nerf of sorts. Before that you could play your army however you wanted. After the separation WoC became one trick ponies. I will not really comment on how competitive they are. 8th edition certainly elevated them from mediocre in 7th to one of the best in 8th. But they sure as hell are a boring army.

As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I feel that maybe the new book should try a new approach. Leave marauders as the dirt cheap infantry and basically merge chaos warriors and chosen into a single unit listing. In my experience at least people don't use chaos warriors. They use marauders and chosen. So keep marauders, scrap the chaos warrior entry and rename chosen to chaos warriors. They are supposed to be hard as nails. They are supposed to be incredibly skilled. And they sure as hell are supposed to be better in every way than swordsmen, including initiative. As I have written in another post, in my opinion at least, initiative is not only physical quickness but also battle honed reflexes. Chaos warriors are combat veterans, certainly a lot more experienced than imperial swordsmen, hence the higher initiative.

@logan054

I really liked your giant mutation ideas, more than marks to be honest. But I stand by my opinion that game mechanics trump fluff and even common sense. I don't like it but that is the way it is. How can you explain that an army like WoC has no skirmishers? They certainly fit the fluff and common sense dictates that armies have skirmishers to accomplish things that ranked units can not. How can you explain the lack of ranged units? Is it too hard for the northeners to realize that they could use bows to kill stuff, thin the enemy before engaging in melee? There goes common sense out of the window. Doesn't the fluff support ranged units? Mongol-like horse archers? They certainly fit the WoC fluff. Where are they?

In a game plagued by things that don't make sense, talking so much about chaos warrior initiative as if it is the worst offender is comical to say the least.

TrueKin
11-12-2011, 19:22
As far as chaos warriors are concerned, I feel that maybe the new book should try a new approach. Leave marauders as the dirt cheap infantry and basically merge chaos warriors and chosen into a single unit listing. In my experience at least people don't use chaos warriors. They use marauders and chosen. So keep marauders, scrap the chaos warrior entry and rename chosen to chaos warriors. They are supposed to be hard as nails. They are supposed to be incredibly skilled. And they sure as hell are supposed to be better in every way than swordsmen, including initiative. As I have written in another post, in my opinion at least, initiative is not only physical quickness but also battle honed reflexes. Chaos warriors are combat veterans, certainly a lot more experienced than imperial swordsmen, hence the higher initiative.

What you're suggesting would be destroying what Warriors of Chaos are to me. I'd much rather keep Warriors and get rid of Marauders, even more so if got Daemons and possibly even Beastmen back. Chaos needs the option of full Warrior lists. Units (or even armies) clad in Chaos armour are what got me into the hobby in the first place.

People don't use Warriors because they use Marauders who are by far more competitive, thanks being under-costed. As for using Chosen, they're pretty much the largest reason WoC manages in tournaments. They're supposed to be the best of the best infantry, but not thanks to exploiting of rules, ie. Favour + Warshrines.

As you said, Initiative is both physical quickness and honed reflexes, but there's a distinct difference between Swordsmen and Warriors: one of them is clad in full plate armour. Warriors are incredibly quick, but platemail slows anyone down. Even if Ward came and decided that super awesome new Chaos Armour flickered through seven dimensions and thus wouldn't slow the wearer down, I'd prefer I4 just for a bit of balance between books, and would be thrilled if the unit became a point or two cheaper to compensate for the nerf. Also, Warriors have higher Weapon Skill to express their experience in battle.

Dominatrix
11-12-2011, 21:03
It seems I didn't clarify my last post enough hence the misunderstandings. What I was suggesting is a unit named "chaos warriors" with chosen stats as a core unit. Essentially chosen removed and their stats passed on to chaos warriors. Nothing stopping you from having a full warrior army if you feel like it.

Regarding your point on the initiative issue as far as my understanding goes chaos armor is not just a very heavy suit of armor. It is basically magical and can't be removed. So I could argue that a superhuman warrior wearing it like a second skin would not be encumbered by it (and thus lose initiative), because a) he is not a "mere" human and b) it is a part of him and he has such familiarity with it.

Gradek
11-12-2011, 22:07
It seems I didn't clarify my last post enough hence the misunderstandings. What I was suggesting is a unit named "chaos warriors" with chosen stats as a core unit. Essentially chosen removed and their stats passed on to chaos warriors. Nothing stopping you from having a full warrior army if you feel like it.

This is something i could get behind. A very expensive (but very cool) core choice, that would then free up the special spot that right now is almost a given to be chosen, thus creating more army differentiation. However, I highly doubt this would be an approach GW would take. Actually, given how 8th edition is designed (large units), I doubt many changes at all will come our way through core (or chosen, which also means marauders are likely here to stay).

logan054
11-12-2011, 22:29
@logan054

I really liked your giant mutation ideas, more than marks to be honest. But I stand by my opinion that game mechanics trump fluff and even common sense. I don't like it but that is the way it is. How can you explain that an army like WoC has no skirmishers? They certainly fit the fluff and common sense dictates that armies have skirmishers to accomplish things that ranked units can not. How can you explain the lack of ranged units? Is it too hard for the northeners to realize that they could use bows to kill stuff, thin the enemy before engaging in melee? There goes common sense out of the window. Doesn't the fluff support ranged units? Mongol-like horse archers? They certainly fit the WoC fluff. Where are they?

In a game plagued by things that don't make sense, talking so much about chaos warrior initiative as if it is the worst offender is comical to say the least.

I think I have just proven you can create upgrades for units which make more sense within the fluff provided by the army, do not get me started on skrimishers! we used to have them then phil Kelly wrote the book.

I have no issue with limited range units, again I will point out who wrote the book and put very minimal effort into it, he created one new unit after the book was split and brought back a old unit. Alot of things could have been added that made the army more than a march forward and bash army, it wasn't, the list just seems like "crap we split, what do we do" while Phill Kely runs round like a headless chicken.

The marks are badly thought out and poorly priced, I dunno I get the impression its written by a 40k player who doesn't really understand how the game works. The lack of wardsave seems a good indication of this, a 1+ save isn't enough with KB units, characters, S7 characters and weapons that ignore armour saves.

Dominatrix
12-12-2011, 00:15
I think I have just proven you can create upgrades for units which make more sense within the fluff provided by the army, do not get me started on skrimishers! we used to have them then phil Kelly wrote the book.

Hehe that indeed you have! It is nice to see fellow chaos players who identify the same shortcomings of the list. Ever since 7th edition split the army in three, WoC is the one I have played the least. Not because it is not effective. Quite the opposite. 8th edition managed to make WoC a top notch army from a mediocre one in 7th. But because of the three armies (beasts, daemons ,mortals), mortals are boring as hell.

Here is to hoping that they take the Tamurkhan list as an example and breathe new life in WoC in the new book (and since we are on the subject of wishlisting scrap the EotG rule for something better).

logan054
12-12-2011, 01:55
Well thats the problem with mortals, it is boring as hell, I loved the old book, I didn't care it was weak, it had character, the new book is kinda like the bird you wake up next too thinking "did I really drink that much last night". Its get the job done but you know you will be out that door before she wakes up.

I wouldn't mind the EotG rule if you didn't have to challenge every turn or if you had some gift that let you pick who accepts or even fight multiple challenges.

Honestly the people who think the current book is decent, balanced clearly didn't play it during 7th ed, personally I think its buffs from 8th are pure luck and I think its getting done early one because it has rules just not designed with 8th ed in mind (same as empire, dwarfs and VC).

Dirty Mac
12-12-2011, 05:29
personally I think its buffs from 8th are pure luck and I think its getting done early one because it has rules just not designed with 8th ed in mind

Could you explain this a bit more?, I am new, and I am thinking about getting WoC, and will probably pick up the Battalion box soon.

Havock
12-12-2011, 20:36
Well thats the problem with mortals, it is boring as hell, I loved the old book, I didn't care it was weak, it had character, the new book is kinda like the bird you wake up next too thinking "did I really drink that much last night". Its get the job done but you know you will be out that door before she wakes up.

Exactly.
A Tzeentch army was literally a couple of characters and some knights/chariots. ********s of PD, mediocre spells to use them on :p
Though a 30" magic missile was nice in the day. Bane of Skaven weapon teams.

Ah, it was just more fun back then :)

IMHO, keep the current statline, it's fine.
Khorne: Keep it the same, it's powerful enough as-is.
Nurgle: Likewise
MoS: Keep as-is, raise price, add +1 movement (!)
MoT: Characters are warrior-mages with access to a lore of Tzeentch more akin to the previous one (wardsave for character + unit, combat buffs on self). Perhaps a +1 leadership to make it worthwile for the units, although I am afraid this would lead to people just taking MoT characters and unmarked/other marked units.
Then again, the +1 wardsave is fine really, the problem lies with 20+ chosen walking around with a 3++.

Banner of Rage confers Hatred.
This makes it fit Mark of Khorne again for being most useful/powerful on such a unit.

Bring back the old Mark restrictions: You want the four colors of chaos, you get an unmarked general and go from there.

Oh, and if they do something stupid like make warriors special, I'm out :p

logan054
12-12-2011, 21:02
Could you explain this a bit more?, I am new, and I am thinking about getting WoC, and will probably pick up the Battalion box soon.

OK edit wasn't designed with WoC in mind, it was just designed, any sort of buff WoC got wasn't just because thats how the book was already written (like MoT).


Exactly.
A Tzeentch army was literally a couple of characters and some knights/chariots. ********s of PD, mediocre spells to use them on :p
Though a 30" magic missile was nice in the day. Bane of Skaven weapon teams.

Ah, it was just more fun back then :)

IMHO, keep the current statline, it's fine.
Khorne: Keep it the same, it's powerful enough as-is.
Nurgle: Likewise
MoS: Keep as-is, raise price, add +1 movement (!)
MoT: Characters are warrior-mages with access to a lore of Tzeentch more akin to the previous one (wardsave for character + unit, combat buffs on self). Perhaps a +1 leadership to make it worthwile for the units, although I am afraid this would lead to people just taking MoT characters and unmarked/other marked units.
Then again, the +1 wardsave is fine really, the problem lies with 20+ chosen walking around with a 3++.

Banner of Rage confers Hatred.
This makes it fit Mark of Khorne again for being most useful/powerful on such a unit.

Bring back the old Mark restrictions: You want the four colors of chaos, you get an unmarked general and go from there.

Oh, and if they do something stupid like make warriors special, I'm out :p

I would be happy with I4 and frankly it might make other weapon options more balanced, hell in 6th ed we lost I6, being I8 will not kill them despite a few random people people who heavily exaggerate things, let me give you a example "its doubles the chance they fail a I test" Yes it does, they next to never fail, doubling that is "they hardly fail".

I personally hate frenzy as MoK, its lame

Algovil
12-12-2011, 21:30
Crazy ideas:

Marauders new models, SMALL base. No greatweapon option, flails ok, do not know about points etc.

and.. wait for it

Roll for mark for each unit before battle! For free, of course the effects of the marks can be changed from the current.

logan054
12-12-2011, 21:39
Crazy ideas:

Marauders new models, SMALL base. No greatweapon option, flails ok, do not know about points etc.

and.. wait for it

Roll for mark for each unit before battle! For free, of course the effects of the marks can be changed from the current.

NO great weapon option!!!!! I've had my great weapon marauders since 5th ed!! that would rage me! make them more expensive for GW and drop marks sure, just nothing that daft.

Algovil
12-12-2011, 21:44
:D ok, sure, never a good idea to remove options, because of older gamers, how many poinst should GW be then, what about small base?

logan054
12-12-2011, 21:57
maybe 2pts for GW and make them take LA as standard (obviously not for free).

Odin
12-12-2011, 22:47
:D ok, sure, never a good idea to remove options, because of older gamers, how many poinst should GW be then, what about small base?

Not just that reason, but also because great weapons are one of the most appropriate weapons for marauders!!! My Norse marauders need their dane axes. I just voluntarily take light armour as standard with them, and it's all it needs to balance them out - 6 points instead of 5 increases the unit cost by a hefty 50 points.

michaells
12-12-2011, 22:57
No small bases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Low King
12-12-2011, 23:03
keep the larger bases, smaller bases will make them better

Havock
12-12-2011, 23:33
I would be happy with I4 and frankly it might make other weapon options more balanced, hell in 6th ed we lost I6, being I8 will not kill them despite a few random people people who heavily exaggerate things, let me give you a example "its doubles the chance they fail a I test" Yes it does, they next to never fail, doubling that is "they hardly fail".

I personally hate frenzy as MoK, its lame

I'd be fine with I4 if they dropped to 12-13 points or so. Not for the points they are now, that in combination with a marauder adjustment would reek of a nerf and WoC does not need that.

Making your stuff weaker does not make it more 'tactical'. It just increases the amount of things you can't do.

Besides, empire captains.

Other suggestions for MoK then?

logan054
12-12-2011, 23:45
I'd be fine with I4 if they dropped to 12-13 points or so. Not for the points they are now, that in combination with a marauder adjustment would reek of a nerf and WoC does not need that.

Making your stuff weaker does not make it more 'tactical'. It just increases the amount of things you can't do.

Besides, empire captains.

Other suggestions for MoK then?

I don't think anyone suggested they stay the same points with a I reduction! I would rather have a bigger unit :)

MoK = KB :D

The Low King
13-12-2011, 00:42
13 points for chaos warriors? a chaos warriors for the same price as an ironbreaker....

um....that would be a little too good

logan054
13-12-2011, 01:28
You think Ironbreakers will stay at that price? points generally come down, its also not 13pts with the same stats, its cheaper with lower I, personally I think it borders on 13-14pts.

Khal
13-12-2011, 01:36
So what, will we have an overpriced unit as in 6th ed. that has to walk through the battlefield trying to shrug off all those bolts, rocks and magic and then hit at same I than an empire swordsman, for the same points?

This discussion is silly. As I always say, please play a warriors of chaos army. Feel what I feel when my shiny 400pt-18model unit gets hit by a stone thrower or two mortars a turn. When you have 7 or 8 warriors left and then you get charged by a popemobile or a steamtank. When your own artillery gets sniped by Imperial Guard cannons. Cmon, it's hard nowadays to get on CC for us.

Yes, Chaos warriors shred almost anything they touch in combat. So? We don't have big monsters, we can't kill those skaven weapon teams, or those skinks easily. We fear those salamanders or the mentioned popemobile. We only have Halberds, WS5 and I5.

About the topic, I'd like Chaos warriors to stay the same. They're OK that way. Don't think "omg 17 pts for a chaos warrior + halberd + shield is a steal", because apart from marauders, we don't have any other "cheap" thing in the book. Chaos knights 40p. each, Hellcannon over two hundred, CHOSEN... even heroes and lords.

Marauders need to be changed. They're hunters, heck, make a unit of skirmishers, with throwing weapons.

And please, allow monogod armies..

Gradek
13-12-2011, 01:36
Why not just leave them as is. Marauders seem to be played more anyways and warriors are one of the iconic units in the game and are hardly breaking the game as is right now with the other stuff that is running around and no access to missile weapons. I would bet that most of the people clamoring for them to be neutered are non-chaos players anyways.

Warrior of Chaos
13-12-2011, 01:43
I can see raising the cost a great weapons maybe. I never really thought the initiative thing really was much of an issue.

Couple things I think would make the WoC army better:
1) More options for marauder units. (we have horseman and foot soldiers.) Maybe added in some skirmishers etc. You could vary the types of weapons they have as options based on the role of the type of marauder unit. I guess I mean do something like the dwarfs have for their warriors (option for rangers, longbeards or longbeard-rangers).

2) Update the Marks and maybe make they a bit more expensive (Say 50pts each).
* MoK - Frenzy; monsters and monstrous beasts also gain hatred.
* MoN - +1T; monsters and monstrous beasts also gain poisoned attacks
* MoS - Stubborn; monsters and monstrous beasts also gain always strikes first
* MoT - +1 Ward Save (does not stack with other ward saves except magic resistance - Spell casters know one more spell than normal); monsters and monstrous beasts Ward Save becomes 5+.

The Low King
13-12-2011, 01:44
Ironbreakers will probably either drop to 12 points or get another pip of armour....

Chaos warriors have:

Higher initiative
double attacks (2 rather than one)
Ability to get other weapons
Can get Marks
Higher movement

that is worth more than a point or two

logan054
13-12-2011, 02:06
Chaos warriors have lower leadership and lack the support of dwarfs

The Low King
13-12-2011, 02:27
and they have rerolls to panic and just as much support, just a different type (Magic an cav rather than warmachines).

How does one point of initiative make that much difference? they are a bit more vulnerable to purple sun (wich murders my dwarf btw...) and might strike after elves....why is that worth 2+ points?

michaells
13-12-2011, 02:44
2) Update the Marks and maybe make they a bit more expensive (Say 50pts each).
* MoK - Frenzy; monsters and monstrous beasts also gain hatred.


50 points for frenzy no thanks the monstrous beasts thing is ok.

logan054
13-12-2011, 03:23
and they have rerolls to panic and just as much support, just a different type (Magic an cav rather than warmachines).

How does one point of initiative make that much difference? they are a bit more vulnerable to purple sun (wich murders my dwarf btw...) and might strike after elves....why is that worth 2+ points?

While can reroll a panic test but with the improvements to BSB's so can Ironbreakers, they cannot however reroll fear, terror or break tests without a BSB. Yes they have magic support while dwarfs have a strong magic defense, Cav have been heavily nerfed in 8th ed with steadfast and stepup, they do not however have a anvil or BS based weapons. They can also only gain access to leadership 9 through a chaos lord or a single magic item, dwarfs have this as standard.

I5 means they can kill models before they strike, I4 means against many enemies they strike at the same time, the effect of this depends on the unit they are facing and how much damage it has taken before they engage in combat.

Liber
13-12-2011, 04:52
Ironbreakers will probably either drop to 12 points or get another pip of armour....

Chaos warriors have:

Higher initiative
double attacks (2 rather than one)
Ability to get other weapons
Can get Marks
Higher movement

that is worth more than a point or two

Its really not fair to compare Chaos Warriors to Ironbreakers cause well...Ironbreakers suck.

But Warriors really could use a stat reduction, all this talk about

"but we have to march through painful magic and artillery to get to our targets in cc"

is completely bogus (talking to you here Khal).

"Feel what I feel when my shiny 400pt-18model unit gets hit by a stone thrower or two mortars a turn. When you have 7 or 8 warriors left and then you get charged by a popemobile or a steamtank. When your own artillery gets sniped by Imperial Guard cannons. Cmon, it's hard nowadays to get on CC for us."

Is this a joke? Oh yeah, WoC is the only army that gets hurt by magic and artillery and steamtanks :shifty: :confused:

Words fail me to adequately describe how bizarre your argument is.

Its made even worse when one considers that 8th edition has made it easier than ever before too get into combat. And why is your elite unit sharing one stat (every other stat being faaar superior) to an empire swordsman so damn terrible to consider? They are more elite than other armies elites and count as core. Dropping I by one point won't suddenly make them normal.

Anyways. I really feel Warriors could use a drop in Initiative, as its only a small nerf, but would make them more vulnerable to the spells we all fear, as well as allow other armies to occasionally strike first against them (and for High Elves to re-roll their misses).

I would say they don't deserve to have 2 attacks, but that would be a bit harsh, and then would require a points reduction.


@The Low King: Its off topic but personally i hope GW comes up with some special rules for ironbreakers rather than just a drop in points...they're just a bit dull right now :(

Drongol
13-12-2011, 05:07
50 points for frenzy no thanks the monstrous beasts thing is ok.

Actually, Frenzy on a large unit is worth far more than 50 points, if for no other reason than Immune to Psychology. If you're playing a WoC force with quite a bit of frenzied troops, you can use your own chaff to negate the "leading around with chaff" effect your opponent will try to pull on you, and frankly, a 30-point unit of Warhounds is no real waste there.

The problem, in my eyes, with Marks is that they encourage large units as opposed to anything else. If it's the same cost to give a unit of 10 Marauders Frenzy as opposed to a unit of 50, why are you taking a small unit? Just one more blow for the Deathstars out there.

If I were to rewrite WoC right now, I'd include the following changes:

-Reduce the cost of Chaos Lords and provide some sort of non-combat benefit for them (unit buffs, 0-1 Chosen as Troops, etc.).
-Make Daemon Princes worth taking, particularly re: Khorne.
-Add Marauder Heroes and Lords to allow someone to play a "Norse" list.
-Complete rewrite of Marks, with particular regard to the MoT and MoS.
-Marauders would cost 6-7 points base. GWs would cost an extra point each.
-No more Favor of the Gods, period, or reroll of a reroll.
-When a Warshrine is destroyed, the benefit added is removed.
-Hellcannons to use the smaller template with a commensurate points decrease.
-Massive buff to Forsaken. Skirmishers, for a start. Non-random attacks as well.
-Add in Marauder Skirmishers with javelins and/or throwing axes as a Special Choice.
-Make Chaos Ogres properly reflect the rules for Ogres.
-Throw in some random big gribbly for the kiddies to buy.
-Random other points tweaks re: cavalry in general.

I honestly think WoC can be a very interesting army. As it stands, though, they really aren't.

Ville
13-12-2011, 08:27
(and for High Elves to re-roll their misses).


But, aren't they already re-rolling misses against Chaos Warriors?

Dreadlordpaul
13-12-2011, 08:35
Personally I cant see what the problem with chaos warriors being I5 is after all these are not normal humans they are super humans. So what if they strike at the same time as elves and so what if they are pretty much immune to purple sun and pit of shades. Does everyone want every army to be vunerable to these spells

ivan55599
13-12-2011, 08:58
...and in the end, GW makes its own decisions by themselves, not scouting forums, I presume?

Scammel
13-12-2011, 09:11
Personally I cant see what the problem with chaos warriors being I5 is after all these are not normal humans they are super humans.

I4 is very much superhuman when you're walking around wearing the equivalent of a small car.


Does everyone want every army to be vunerable to these spells


That's not anyone's real concern or intent as far as I'm aware, but it wouldn't hurt to slightly decrease the considerable disparity between those armies that couldn't give two tosses about it and those that get absolutely murdered.

Liber
13-12-2011, 09:22
But, aren't they already re-rolling misses against Chaos Warriors?

No, they are not.

The only units that could are Phoenix Guard and Dragon Princes.

Everyone else is I5.

Rosstifer
13-12-2011, 09:24
Don't you re-roll against equal initiative too with ASF?

Edit - Yep you do, page 66 under "Always Strikes First", second paragraph.

Liber
13-12-2011, 09:31
Don't you re-roll against equal initiative too with ASF?

Edit - Yep you do, page 66 under "Always Strikes First", second paragraph.

Ha! Well at least i have a good excuse as a Dwarf player...i've never ever used ASF before :o (still haven't tried out rune of swiftness...maybe someday)

But yah i totally thought it was only higher I values that got to re-roll.

Rosstifer
13-12-2011, 09:42
So did I until White Lions smashed my army in :D.

logan054
13-12-2011, 11:05
I would say they don't deserve to have 2 attacks, but that would be a bit harsh, and then would require a points reduction.

They would need a points reduction for a lower I value as well, two attacks is fine for chaos warriors considering what they are meant to be, drop them down to one attack and no one will use them, just won't be worth it over marauders.

theunwantedbeing
13-12-2011, 11:47
I4 is very much superhuman when you're walking around wearing the equivalent of a small car.

I guess since they bastardised the fluff so that chaos dwarves make all the chaos armour and it's now the equivalent of Gromril or perhaps just empire Full plate rather than some actually special armour gifted to them by the gods this attitude makes sense.
5+ save armour is heavy, 4+ save armour is heavier still

Empire troops who get full plate are afterall capped at in3, rather than the 4 of swordsmen who aren't encumbered at all by their lack of plate armour.


That's not anyone's real concern or intent as far as I'm aware, but it wouldn't hurt to slightly decrease the considerable disparity between those armies that couldn't give two tosses about it and those that get absolutely murdered.

That's more of an issue with those spells, rather than any given army.

Cambion Daystar
13-12-2011, 12:20
The problem, in my eyes, with Marks is that they encourage large units as opposed to anything else. If it's the same cost to give a unit of 10 Marauders Frenzy as opposed to a unit of 50, why are you taking a small unit? Just one more blow for the Deathstars out there.

Why not just make the marks a price/model instead of a fixed price per unit?

logan054
13-12-2011, 12:43
Problem with pts per model is it makes the units very expensive very quickly, I dunno if I would want to pay 20pts for Khorne warrior with halberd, I dunno I think removing marks from marauders would go a long way to solving the problem, I don't even think they should have them to begin with.

Odin
13-12-2011, 13:14
I'd be fine with I4 if they dropped to 12-13 points or so. Not for the points they are now, that in combination with a marauder adjustment would reek of a nerf and WoC does not need that.

Making your stuff weaker does not make it more 'tactical'. It just increases the amount of things you can't do.

Besides, empire captains.

Other suggestions for MoK then?

Warriors would definitely need to go down in cost. In fact, the basic ones need to even if they stay at I5. What needs to go up (or change) is the MoK, MoT and the cost of halberds.

Personally I prefer the DoC version of Khorne - hatred. That is much less powerful on marauders (who are too good). Cost would need to go up a bit for characters though.

logan054
13-12-2011, 13:15
Isn't DoC version of Khorne KB and MR1 ;) I would much rather see that first round of combat hatred is about as good as frenzy depending what you are facing.

Odin
13-12-2011, 13:18
Problem with pts per model is it makes the units very expensive very quickly, I dunno if I would want to pay 20pts for Khorne warrior with halberd, I dunno I think removing marks from marauders would go a long way to solving the problem, I don't even think they should have them to begin with.

It should be more like +2 pts per model, which would put them somewhere around the 17-18 point mark (with a 1-2 point drop in basic warrior cost, Ini4 and an increase in halberd cost to 2 pts).

Of course, what matters is the total cost of a unit, which would be marginally cheaper for an 18-man unit.

Cambion Daystar
13-12-2011, 13:21
PI dunno I think removing marks from marauders would go a long way to solving the problem, I don't even think they should have them to begin with.
Maybe they should need a lesser version.
For example MoK on marauders is hatred, while on warriors it gives Frenzy.
MoS could be immune to panic on marauders, while on warriors it gives current effect.
MoT and MoN might need a rethink for this case (but they need that anyway).

logan054
13-12-2011, 13:34
It should be more like +2 pts per model, which would put them somewhere around the 17-18 point mark (with a 1-2 point drop in basic warrior cost, Ini4 and an increase in halberd cost to 2 pts).

Of course, what matters is the total cost of a unit, which would be marginally cheaper for an 18-man unit.


So basically your paying the same for a weaker unit? Chaos warriors are not in need of nerfing, I am not against I4 chaos warriors because I think it feels right. Whats the point in changing them then? All it will do is ensure marauders with great weapons remain the number one choice, its just people won't give them mark of Khorne.

I personally view the Mark per unit as a discount for the lack of shooting (they need some perks after all), as I said before I don't think marauders should even have marks, I would change will of chaos to mark of chaos undivided and this remove it from marauders, hounds, etc.


Maybe they should need a lesser version.
For example MoK on marauders is hatred, while on warriors it gives Frenzy.
MoS could be immune to panic on marauders, while on warriors it gives current effect.
MoT and MoN might need a rethink for this case (but they need that anyway).



I did have a similar idea before but rather than calling them marks I called them totems of the dark gods, personally I think marauders are all well and good for worshipping a chaos god but until they make the trip to the chaos wastes they simply are not worthy of a gods mark.

Gradek
13-12-2011, 14:16
Warriors simply do not need to be neutered in any way. They (while a top core choice) are very expensive (which limits numbers) if kitted out fully and the small numbers of the units does leave them very vulnerable to certain spells and area of effect war machines. Chaos armor is still supposed to be of a magical/god given nature (thus allowing for bulk without reduced encumbrance). If their statline is reduced, it is likely that people simply won't play them and it sure seems that most of the whining on this thread is coming from non-chaos players. But I'll tell you what, give me back my hordes (dragon ogres, trolls, minotaurs, and chaos ogres) as core choices like they were in 4th and I will happily concede a stat reduction to warriors.

theunwantedbeing
13-12-2011, 15:00
Maybe they should need a lesser version.
For example MoK on marauders is hatred, while on warriors it gives Frenzy.
MoS could be immune to panic on marauders, while on warriors it gives current effect.
MoT and MoN might need a rethink for this case (but they need that anyway).

Hatred on marauders rather than frenzy?

Standard horde block generates upto 41st5 attacks, this goes down to 31 if we dock the frenzy. However, how many hits do they do in total?

The 41 attack horde does
27.33 hits on ws3 or less opponents
20.50 hits on ws4+ opponents

The 31 attack hatred horde does
27.55 hits on ws3 or less opponents
23.25 hits on ws4+ opponents

Plus they don't have to test to not charge and aren't forced to overrun either. So in actuality, hatred is better than frenzy when it comes to damage output. The lack of being immune to psychology is a very marginal downside given how 8th edition virtually removed psychological effects.

Obviously small units are less able to deal damage but it's not really that big an offset.

I've always despised marks on marauders and anything that isn't encased in chaos armour (ogres with chaos armour don't count either) as I've always felt that it cheapened the chaos mark system and took away from the character of the chaos army.

Havock
13-12-2011, 17:13
I don't think anyone suggested they stay the same points with a I reduction! I would rather have a bigger unit :)

MoK = KB :D

That would mean buying more stuff. Keep them I5, it keeps my army small :p

logan054
13-12-2011, 17:42
No matter what, having a competitive army with the new book will mean buying new stuff, I already have plenty of chaos warriors so I wouldn't need to buy anymore, I dare say I will be buying the new dragon ogres when they come out whilst moaning about the price!

Odin
13-12-2011, 18:32
So basically your paying the same for a weaker unit? Chaos warriors are not in need of nerfing, I am not against I4 chaos warriors because I think it feels right. Whats the point in changing them then? All it will do is ensure marauders with great weapons remain the number one choice, its just people won't give them mark of Khorne.

Generally I'd say Chaos warriors of Khorne with halberds are in need of a minor nerfing. Warriors of Tzeentch with Shields are in need of a medium-sized nerfing. Undivided, Slaanesh and Nurgle warriors are in need of a boost.

I'm inclined to agree with the various comments that Marauders shouldn't have marks. It always annoyed me when enemies could bait a character with MoK out of a marauder unit, so I was pleased when I could at least mark the unit as well. But now that you can try to restrain from frenzy I wouldn't mind in the slightest if only the elite guys like Warriors and characters could be marked. That doesn't stop anyone painting up marauders of Khorne or Nurgle - that's just them showing their allegiance to a particular god, a very different thing from being marked by that god.

logan054
13-12-2011, 18:48
Generally I'd say Chaos warriors of Khorne with halberds are in need of a minor nerfing. Warriors of Tzeentch with Shields are in need of a medium-sized nerfing. Undivided, Slaanesh and Nurgle warriors are in need of a boost.

I'm inclined to agree with the various comments that Marauders shouldn't have marks. It always annoyed me when enemies could bait a character with MoK out of a marauder unit, so I was pleased when I could at least mark the unit as well. But now that you can try to restrain from frenzy I wouldn't mind in the slightest if only the elite guys like Warriors and characters could be marked. That doesn't stop anyone painting up marauders of Khorne or Nurgle - that's just them showing their allegiance to a particular god, a very different thing from being marked by that god.

Thing people forget about frenzy is the downside, yes they get lots of attacks however the must always overrun and chase a enemy, this can leave your unit really exposed. Personally I would rather MoK was something other than frenzy but I don't believe that making it per model solves anything nor do I believe making chaos warriors worse for the same points is the way forward. All the marks need changing and personally I think they should be good for the points considering the complete lack of range support, the only range they have is twice the points of something comparable from another another army and a rare unit.

MoT is currently doing what MoN should be doing fluffwise, Slaanesh seems very much a "I couldn't think of anything better" (but it is a hard mark to come up with rules for). I still think MoK should be KB rather than Frenzy, makes them much weaker against large blocks of infantry but good at killing enemy heroes or heavily armoured units, you give nurgle Regen 5+ and fear, either make Tzeentch something magical like bound spells or something like random rolls on the EotG table (after changing it) and then Slaanesh something like stride and a I buff.

Dominatrix
13-12-2011, 18:53
I would agree that marks on marauders should be removed. They got access to them because of the current book's approach to handing out marks in everything in the army list like it was candy. Marks should be good upgrades and limited to things in chaos armor (characters ,warriors, knights). Given the direction of the game that to put it midly "encourages" you to take big units, it is stupid to suggest buying marks per model rather than unit because it would make big units prohibitively expensive. It is lame, unfair and would cripple the army, in an edition where you either go horde or you lose. Back to marauders, I wouldn't mind seeing a different rule dedicating them to chaos gods, something "chaos mark light" so to speak.

Cambion Daystar
13-12-2011, 18:58
Hatred on marauders rather than frenzy?
...
I was just giving an example. Didn't say i completely worked it out.
You get the idea of it, right?

The Low King
13-12-2011, 19:04
Given the direction of the game that to put it midly "encourages" you to take big units, it is stupid to suggest buying marks per model rather than unit because it would make big units prohibitively expensive. It is lame, unfair and would cripple the army, in an edition where you either go horde or you lose. Back to marauders, I wouldn't mind seeing a different rule dedicating them to chaos gods, something "chaos mark light" so to speak.

You certainly dont need to go horde...WOC do fine with smaller warrior units

Also, if a mark was 2 points a unit of 30 would cost 60 more....20 would cost 40 more......thats hardly prohibitively expensive...how much do they cost now?

theunwantedbeing
13-12-2011, 19:05
I was just giving an example. Didn't say i completely worked it out.
You get the idea of it, right?

Yes I get the idea of it.
I'de rather see Marauders just not get marks though.

Throwing axes/spears however......they'de be fine having those things.

Lorcryst
13-12-2011, 21:38
I've been carefully reading this thread, and I can't say that I agree ...

For me, Chaos Warriors are fine as is, they cost an arm and a leg, but they have the stats of superhuman uberelite warriors that they should have ...

But, for the sake of discussion, I don't think that Chaos Armour, as heavy as some say it is, should reduced Initiative ... we have precedents for that, a heavy armour reduces Movement ... yes, I'm thinking about barding for horses ...

Apart from that, Marauders might be a tad undercosted, but the Marks on them don't seem game-breaking by themselves ...

For me, the intarwebz cookie-cutter lists of Horde of Marauders + MoK with small units of Warriors + MoT are to blame ... if anything, the current, totally nerfed Mark of Tzeentch should be reworked (seriously, Tzeentch went from "God of Magic" to "God of the Talismans of Protection" ... that +1 to ward save is unfluffy, and not really balanced).

Algovil
14-12-2011, 00:11
Yes indeed, we need to balance the army internally, more so than nerf warriors. I like the idea of paying for marks for each model, instead of for the whole unit.

I like mark of Khorne now, but it can be a bit powerful on maruaders, this can be balanced with cost for the mark, and for the weapon. Killing blow is a great idea, for Warriors, not for marauders.+1 to ward save is OK I guess, as long as it is costed appropriate. As long as the Eye of the Gods table is fixed, stopping the high ward save we see now. Warshrine is in need of a fix as well. Mark of Nurgle is fine if cheaper, regen would be interesting, maybe lower I as well.Slaanesh is in dire need of changes, any ideas? I am thinking something like higher initiative (ASF OP right) immune to psychology does fit though.

Overall would it not be nice with some kind of table unique for each mark! Where the unit mutates when it wins combat, kills models, some kind of requirements. Starting out kind of weak, but getting more and more power as the fighting goes on, that would be a nice tough to differentiate WoC, and fluffy. I really like the table we have now, but is can be abused!