PDA

View Full Version : Cruddance and WOC



Hashulaman
09-04-2013, 09:12
The way people talk about the new WoC. It makes me wonder where this places it's author in comparison to other books. Does it match OK? The way people talked about how OP the DP and Tzeentch Lord with the 3++ rerolling 1 ward save, I was reminded of how people responded to IG, and more recently OK. Am I alone in this?

Yamabushi
09-04-2013, 09:36
Let's just say he did a...not so satisfactory...work with my beloved Tomb Kings. Playing against WOC, it really is a struggle. :cries:

Revanur
09-04-2013, 09:53
I think the book has a lot of viable options, a thing I really like.
I don't think it's as high on the powerlevel as Ogre Kingdoms, but certainly one of the better 8th books.

Really think very well of this book, currently it's my favorite army to build with.

snyggejygge
09-04-2013, 09:59
WoC is weaker than both Empire & Ogres, but has the unkillable 3+ward character as well as unbreakable daemonprinces which makes the list kind of hard to fight if the WoC player knows what he's doing. Many complain about these characters & in the hands of a good player rightly so, but I've seen too many ppl not using them in a very good way.
Internal balance is okeyish, marauders seems a bit weak for their points, so does chosen & spawn, but nothing is useless.

TsukeFox
09-04-2013, 14:44
Yeah this book was written by someone who loved Warriors where the same cannot be said about the guy who wrote the tomb king book.

Very well balanced but still room for abuse. Further it makes the Daemon book look stupid with the Warrior daemonic units that are not daemonic and unbreakable daemon prince.

But at the same time the 85$$++ multi kit models are really a head scratcher and makes me fear for other army books that may have the same type of junky product

abdulaapocolyps
09-04-2013, 14:46
Haha. Love it.
We have this thread asking if it's overpowered because of charicters and a monster and another asking what can be done to balance books better to take fighting charicters and a monster!brilliant.
No,it's not looking overpowered to me personally. The charicters are really good but they struggle a tiny bit with big steadfast blocks and have almost no shooting. They have rock solid, if very expensive core that is great but is pricey so...erm. Yeah.
MoN may be a tad cheap and they CAN be quite easy to play as, especially for beginner's, but since the complexity of warhammer means we will never ever ever have balance enough to play the game competitively I would say the army is good.

Clockwork
09-04-2013, 21:13
Haha. Love it.
We have this thread asking if it's overpowered because of charicters and a monster and another asking what can be done to balance books better to take fighting charicters and a monster!brilliant..

Its not really contradictory. Warriors of Chaos characters are good in the same way that, for instance, Scar-Veterans and Pegasi Dark Elves are good - they can fly and/or they are practically unkillable. Except Warriors characters can do both, are yet even more unkillable, are even more killy, and one of them just happens to be Unbreakable too.


Its the same with monsters. The Chimera is called the flying Hydra for a reason.

Wesser
09-04-2013, 21:22
WoC is still a better book than the Empire.

How it was possible for him to turn the most balanced book in the game with no overpowered/redundant/so cheap as to be mandatory choice into a book with redundant crap and duh-choices by the truckload.

He did not vandalize/cruddify the WoC book....soooo he's improving I guess is the conclusion

Voss
09-04-2013, 21:40
But at the same time the 85$$++ multi kit models are really a head scratcher and makes me fear for other army books that may have the same type of junky product
Eh. The big monster doesn't even matter because there isn't really any reason to take it. The existing line is far superior to the $85 kit. It may matter the next time the book rolls around as they buff the monster to actually promote sales of the kit, but you lose out on nothing by skipping the big beastie.

SteveW
09-04-2013, 21:50
Only having played TK's in their current book, what is it that Crudace messed up?

Asensur
09-04-2013, 22:13
Only having played TK's in their current book, what is it that Crudace messed up?

Major change of rules.

Old players need to adapt to new tactics. Players do not like to adapt. Players instead complain about a book being destroyed and UP.

Here, for example, a list that won 5 out of 5 games, 2K, no lmits and SC allowed (became 2nd on TOS):

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Khemri/index.php?showtopic=11070

Look who faced and how and make your own mindset of TK.

RanaldLoec
09-04-2013, 22:20
WoC is weaker than both Empire & Ogres, but has the unkillable 3+ward character as well as unbreakable daemonprinces which makes the list kind of hard to fight if the WoC player knows what he's doing. Many complain about these characters & in the hands of a good player rightly so, but I've seen too many ppl not using them in a very good way.
Internal balance is okeyish, marauders seems a bit weak for their points, so does chosen & spawn, but nothing is useless.

I disagree whole heartedly empire has a few viable hard builds any list built around infantry really struggles to compete.

Empire the army that's meant to have ranks of stoic disciplined infantry now sports more cavalry than a bretonnian army :wtf:

Empire relies on characters for effective combat unit's most of which are t4 with 2w and a 3+ or four plus save.

Empire aren't as powerful as they where but the infantry pays for a rule that has nearly zero practical applications and no real in game advantage.

WoC retains its strength hard as nails infantry, all the monstrous infantry have got better and cheaper.

There monstrous cav and war beasts are great, the chimeras and shaggoths are cheap as chips and the characters are great value and have brilliant items ands powers.

marauders price increase was coming as a WoC player it was fully expected, the across the board Empire infantry price increase took me by surprise.

Empire has a long list of sub optimal choices WoC have three or four.

I have 10k+ of each army I've been playing empire for twenty years WoC for 5 years. I have about 200pts of generally unused chaos and around 4k of my empire army that hasnt left its shelf in months.

I'm usually a ardent defender of 8th edition books I think there all great except one. My beloved Empire army book is ok. Not good or great but ok I've formed this opinion over the past year and a bit since it's release.

Which makes me quite sad I tried to move on to the new demi gryph, knights and such but when the first unit in your list isn't infantry then it's no longer the Empire Army I fell in love with :cries:

The warriors book is fantastic maybe warriors should cost a tad more in points but on a whole the weapon options are all priced according to effectiveness as are the marks.

It has a great internal balance I'm spoilt for choice in core, special and rare.

Where with Empire The core choices are great or poor with no inbetween as are the specail choices. Only the rare choices have the "which do I take" dilemma excluding the rocket battery.

At least I'm not a daemon player, they got it worse.

Ramius4
09-04-2013, 22:31
I disagree whole heartedly empire has a few viable hard builds any list built around infantry really struggles to compete.

Empire the army that's meant to have ranks of stoic disciplined infantry now sports more cavalry than a bretonnian army :wtf:

That's funny. I tend to field about 80% infantry when I play Empire and do just fine. First thing I put on ANY Empire list are 3 units of 50 Halberdiers.

Maoriboy007
10-04-2013, 04:23
Only having played TK's in their current book, what is it that Crudace messed up?
No marching, including fliers.
Compulsary Average Lore with high costs and Short ranges.
Combining overall 8th edition nerfs to the army (mostly concering instability) with Price hikes and unit nerfs
Average to poor equipment options.
Outdated Heirophant crumbling mechanic.
Good concepts with lousy excecution.



Major change of rules.
Old players need to adapt to new tactics. Players do not like to adapt. Players instead complain about a book being destroyed and UP..Sorry, but if you run a poll of the weakest 8th edition armies TK consistently make the top of the list, its not just TK players that think so.

Here, for example, a list that won 5 out of 5 games, 2K, no lmits and SC allowed (became 2nd on TOS):
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Khemri/index.php?showtopic=11070
Look who faced and how and make your own mindset of TK.Not only did Mark Wildman play very well here (big fan of Bad Dice BTW) but by his own admission had a lot of luck , especially in the magic phase. By the sounds of it he managed to get the right spells cast at the right time every time. Its not that you can't do ok with TKs , but you're generally fighting an uphill battle and without a disproportionate amount of luck you'll easily be hosed.

I play a fast Settra army myself, and can manage ...o.k...performances against armies like WoC and Beastmen, but its sad that you really need the special characters to do well.

Lord Solar Plexus
10-04-2013, 04:49
I agree with the notion that Mr Cruddace's been improving from TK over Empire to WoC. Don't get me wrong, all three books are perfectly playable but WoC has the least amount of duds and one-trick ponies. TK should have had at least a little more mobility or cheaper core, while Wesser and RanaldLoec said everything there is to know about the Empire.

Methios
12-04-2013, 08:03
WoC book HAS errors. Like the deamon prince and other deamon entries that are stronger then the actualy entries in the deamon book. I think the WoC book is made to good to avoid the whining of the gazalion WoC players around. (i cant imagin WoC not being strong, can you?) Its funny how you can make many errors but the errors make units OP and then its np :)

underscore
12-04-2013, 09:41
WoC book HAS errors. Like the deamon prince and other deamon entries that are stronger then the actualy entries in the deamon book
Hardly an error with the WoC book though.

Kinda makes sense as well: the Princes working with the Warriors are the top of the tree for those guys. Whereas the DPs who have stayed in the warp with the Daemons have been under the cosh of the Greater Daemons and Gods,

Knifeparty
12-04-2013, 13:53
Warriors book is really awesome, I'm liking it a lot.

Also, why are people struggling so hard with the tomb kings. My buddy just won first place at warmasters tournament with tomb kings this year above 46 people

Enigmatik1
12-04-2013, 15:20
Warriors book is really awesome, I'm liking it a lot.

I agree and as such, I've started a WoC army.


Also, why are people struggling so hard with the tomb kings. My buddy just won first place at warmasters tournament with tomb kings this year above 46 people

Incidentally, my primary army is Tomb Kings and it's nowhere near as good as the WoC book. I'm not in the mood for another TK diatribe today, but it is without question and by a considerable margin, the worst of the 8th edition books so far. That doesn't make it completely without hope...it just makes it incredibly frustrating at times. ;)

Phazael
12-04-2013, 15:32
I would go as far to say that TK are the worst book in the game right now. Outside of one Khalida build, they have nothing. I've steamrolled them with wood elves, even.

Cruddace's issue is he has not concept of internal balance and tends to just kneecap things he does not like. Sometimes, you get a book with lots of entries and the 15% of it that is playable makes for a good or even overpowered army, like what happened with WoC, Empire, and IG in 40k. Other times, the entire book is busted and dependant on one workable unit to even make a playable list, like in TK or Tyranids. If you really want to see some Crudface hate, bring his name up to Nid players....

Vipoid
12-04-2013, 15:53
Also, why are people struggling so hard with the tomb kings. My buddy just won first place at warmasters tournament with tomb kings this year above 46 people

Go team Strawman...

Knifeparty
12-04-2013, 16:17
I don't understand what you mean

theshoveller
12-04-2013, 16:48
I don't understand what you mean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Enigmatik1
12-04-2013, 17:51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I almost did the exact same thing...haha!

SteveW
12-04-2013, 18:01
I agree and as such, I've started a WoC army.



Incidentally, my primary army is Tomb Kings and it's nowhere near as good as the WoC book. I'm not in the mood for another TK diatribe today, but it is without question and by a considerable margin, the worst of the 8th edition books so far. That doesn't make it completely without hope...it just makes it incredibly frustrating at times. ;)

Why would you state that you dont want to talk about TK's then make an inflamitory remark like that begging a response from its readers?

BTW- Im new to TK's but really dont see how lacking they are. Maybe with time it will be shown to me on the battlefield.

IcedCrow
12-04-2013, 18:39
TKs are fun in a non-competitive environment. In a powergaming environment they will be harder to win with because they lack any real crutches. A player that does well with them in tournament environments is IMO a truly good player as he is using his ability over just putting out a power list and trying to coast by on that.

Enigmatik1
12-04-2013, 18:57
Why would you state that you dont want to talk about TK's then make an inflamitory remark like that begging a response from its readers?

BTW- Im new to TK's but really dont see how lacking they are. Maybe with time it will be shown to me on the battlefield.

Not my intention boss, it's just how I communicate. I write pretty much what I'm thinking and rarely process/filter beforehand. My bad. :) My comments were meant to be an endorsement of the WoC book and I used my primary army (as in the only army I've played for the past 8 years...until last week) as a comparison. Most people here already know how I feel about the current TK book. I happen to personally really like the current WoC book. :D

In any case, IcedCrow pretty much nailed it. I'm not a tournament player and I never will be. My group has its fair share of powergamers, however. ;)

snyggejygge
12-04-2013, 22:09
I disagree whole heartedly empire has a few viable hard builds any list built around infantry really struggles to compete.

Empire the army that's meant to have ranks of stoic disciplined infantry now sports more cavalry than a bretonnian army :wtf:

Empire relies on characters for effective combat unit's most of which are t4 with 2w and a 3+ or four plus save.

Empire aren't as powerful as they where but the infantry pays for a rule that has nearly zero practical applications and no real in game advantage.

WoC retains its strength hard as nails infantry, all the monstrous infantry have got better and cheaper.

There monstrous cav and war beasts are great, the chimeras and shaggoths are cheap as chips and the characters are great value and have brilliant items ands powers.

marauders price increase was coming as a WoC player it was fully expected, the across the board Empire infantry price increase took me by surprise.

Empire has a long list of sub optimal choices WoC have three or four.

I have 10k+ of each army I've been playing empire for twenty years WoC for 5 years. I have about 200pts of generally unused chaos and around 4k of my empire army that hasnt left its shelf in months.

I'm usually a ardent defender of 8th edition books I think there all great except one. My beloved Empire army book is ok. Not good or great but ok I've formed this opinion over the past year and a bit since it's release.

Which makes me quite sad I tried to move on to the new demi gryph, knights and such but when the first unit in your list isn't infantry then it's no longer the Empire Army I fell in love with :cries:

The warriors book is fantastic maybe warriors should cost a tad more in points but on a whole the weapon options are all priced according to effectiveness as are the marks.

It has a great internal balance I'm spoilt for choice in core, special and rare.

Where with Empire The core choices are great or poor with no inbetween as are the specail choices. Only the rare choices have the "which do I take" dilemma excluding the rocket battery.

At least I'm not a daemon player, they got it worse.

You might disagree, but while Chaos has plenty viable builds, to be competetive it forces you to take either a daemonprince or a flying tzeentch character with the Chuck norisk build (hmm, see Chaos relies on chars as well). & a lot of the stuff is sadly very bad balanced when it comes to internal balance, more so than Empire.
Yes Empire has lost some power of its infantry, but cannons & Demigryphs more than make up for it. Sure less viable builds overall, but the good builds are better than the good Chaos builds.

As for your points, lets look at core-infantry, Chaos has the same problem, either use warriors, or chariots. The other core infantry sucks, Marauders needed a price increase, but got too expensive, with mark & gw they cost 11 pts each, naked with shields just for ranks they still cost 7 pts. What role are they supposed to fulfil that warriors don't do better except break steadfast, but lets face it, units who are steadfast usually consist of over 50 models costing less than 5 points each so that wont happen either.

& Forsaken, useless, at best a cheap flanking unit. Same with chosen in specialslot, they cost 4 points more than a warrior, but will they do the same job better? I doubt it.
Warriors hit the right mark, slight points increase, they're perfect, the rest of the infantry, not so....
Dont get me started on monstrous infantry & monsters, due to how they are priced only Drogres & Trolls are worth using among the monstrous units, Ogres are waste of space. Shaggoth really suck, the new monsters even more so. Spawns are just there for Eye of the Gods rolls, & yes Chimeras are nice, & nicknamed flying hydras, yet most woc players agree that hydras are plain better if it wasn't for flying & when comparing costs, one has to winder, is the flight, but loss of stats worth so many points in difference.
Skullcrushers might be a tad too cheap, but that made other units obsolete, nobody brings Chaos Knights anymore, once the most feared cavalry in the game, now too bad to use...


Don't get me wrong, generally I like the WoC book, but compared to Empire it has worse internal balance & less power in their best builds, a few things stand out though, such as warriors, Chimeras, hellcannons, Skullcrushers & their chariots.

PS Don't care how long you've played, I've played longer, but the game I started playing back in 92 isn't the same game I'm playing now, so it doesn't even matter.

SteveW
12-04-2013, 22:39
Dude, have you even tried using forsaken? Or are you just jumping to a snap judgment based on the stats?

Ullis
12-04-2013, 23:13
That's funny. I tend to field about 80% infantry when I play Empire and do just fine. First thing I put on ANY Empire list are 3 units of 50 Halberdiers.

With all these things it really does depend on the meta in your area/gaming group. I agree with you that an infantry heavy Empire army can work just fine, as long as you get up some buffs etc. I usually go with a balanced list of a State Troops/Knight mix and have being doing so for almost 20 years.

Back to the original question, WoC are just fine and their latest book follows the trend of recent releases - redressing overpowered/undercosted units in an attempt to create a more even playing field. Some will complain about nerfing etc., but that is the nature of the war gaming fraternity.

Wesser
12-04-2013, 23:19
Back to the original question, WoC are just fine and their latest book follows the trend of recent releases - redressing overpowered/undercosted units in an attempt to create a more even playing field. Some will complain about nerfing etc., but that is the nature of the war gaming fraternity.

This is because - Wonder of Wonders - it seems that the Heart of the WoC book, aka the actual Chaos Warriors seems to have been done right, and people want to bring them. However a fast piece of Cruddification could have made them a few points more expensive and noone would actually be taking Marauders or Chaos Warriors in their WoC army! They'd only bring chariots... Small changes can make or break an army book, which really makes me appaled sometimes when I see how sloppyly done books often are

Enigmatik1
13-04-2013, 00:43
Dude, have you even tried using forsaken? Or are you just jumping to a snap judgment based on the stats?

I find myself wondering the same thing. It seems to me that Forsaken are perfectly viable if you're building a list predicated on speed. M6 infantry with Swiftstride? Yes, please! They suffer largely due to lack of command and they may be a wee bit overpriced (key word being may), but it isn't anything egregious.

Regardless, I intend to find out as my Slaaneshi Forsaken are going to be the backbone of my lists. :-)

Clockwork
13-04-2013, 01:41
As for your points, lets look at core-infantry, Chaos has the same problem, either use warriors, or chariots. The other core infantry sucks, Marauders needed a price increase, but got too expensive, with mark & gw they cost 11 pts each, naked with shields just for ranks they still cost 7 pts. What role are they supposed to fulfil that warriors don't do better except break steadfast, but lets face it, units who are steadfast usually consist of over 50 models costing less than 5 points each so that wont happen either.


What nonesense. In the same sentence you say that Marauders don't fulfil any role, then that they fulfil the role of breaking steadfast. The only unit who hordes at 5ppm or less are Skaven, Zombies and Goblins. Everybody else does it with core in the same 6-8 points band (State Troops, Goblins, Skeletons, Elves and Dwarfs, Gor), or much more expensive elites at 11+ (Temple Guard, Tomb Guard, Grave Guard, White Lions, Bestigor).

A Marauder with light armour and shield is 8 points. Its one point more than an Empire Swordsman, and one better initiative. That seems reasonable to me. Its also the same points cost as a Goblin with a spear and a shield.

The 'problem' with Marauders, if one exists, is that people are used to taking the 'competitive' build of Khorne Flails at a bargain basement price. There is a use for Marauders in the new book, its not the book's fault you can't move on and employ it.

SteveW
13-04-2013, 02:05
^Skellies and Men@arms are both at or under 5 points.

IcedCrow
13-04-2013, 02:14
The 'problem' with Marauders, if one exists, is that people are used to taking the 'competitive' build of Khorne Flails at a bargain basement price. There is a use for Marauders in the new book, its not the book's fault you can't move on and employ it.

Bingo sir you win the internet :D

When one gets used to their power gaming crutch and the crutch is kicked away, the new unit is of course "useless" because when compared to how it was when it was broken, it's not nearly as overbearing.

Clockwork
13-04-2013, 02:34
^Skellies and Men@arms are both at or under 5 points.

Bleh, I thought I considered Skellies, but its only the Tomb King Spear/LA ones that are over 5. I completely forgot about Men at Arms, though, but they don't seem like a popular choice anyway.

The point stills stands. Hordes <5ppm aren't that common. And Marauders still beat them whether the points difference is 2 or 3 or 5. Hordes >5ppm are fairly common, and Marauders can go toe to toe with them, as you'd expected. Hordes more than twice 5ppm Marauders would lose to, also as you'd expect.

Mind I wouldn't horde Marauders. 20-25 Tzeentch Shield bros with a Tzeentch Metal Sorcerer on foot would both give your Sorcerer some cheap Look Out Sir and miscast fodder (better a Marauder than a Warrior, right?) and a block to break Steadfast with. Warriors are wasted in units over 18, imo.

IcedCrow
13-04-2013, 03:02
Marauders are useful as a support unit. The big thing I see around here anyway is that no one wants to use support units. They want each unit to be a hammer by themselves without needing support.

SteveW
13-04-2013, 03:22
If you check out my batrep #2 you'll see my bro take out several of my trolls with a small unit of marauders with flails. They do a great job as shock troops even with the price hike.

Ramius4
13-04-2013, 03:40
If you check out my batrep #2 you'll see my bro take out several of my trolls with a small unit of marauders with flails. They do a great job as shock troops even with the price hike.

Absolutely they do. Especially when used against armies that have lower Initiative values than you do.

Marauders are just fine. People need to get used to the idea that buying large, marked units now gives you a diminishing return on your investment since marks are paid for per model. If you want to horde it up, keep them as cheap as you can and go for it. If you want marked units, it's best to keep them smaller (as it should be).

Kayosiv
13-04-2013, 04:05
Bingo sir you win the internet :D

When one gets used to their power gaming crutch and the crutch is kicked away, the new unit is of course "useless" because when compared to how it was when it was broken, it's not nearly as overbearing.

I completely disagree. Marauders were overpowered and they were not re-balacned to be fine. They have simply shifted completely in the opposite direction. Instead of being fairly undercosted, they are now fairly overcosted. The great weapon spamming marauders are next to worthless because they doubled in points. Marauders have to compete with chaos warriors in a role. Whether that role is bunkering, being an anvil, or being a hammer, with the new price structure chaos warriors beat them out on everything.

9 point marauder with great weapon and 1 attack or 17 point chaos warrior with halberd with 2 attacks? No brainer. Chaos warrior wins.
8 point marauder that's toughness 3 with 5+ save vs 15 chaos warrior with toughness 4 and 3+ save. Again, no brainer, chaos warrior every time.

Now obviously 6 points (or so) for great weapon marauders with mark of khorne from the 7th edition book was outlandish. However 11 points for the same thing is equally outlandish. Chaos Marauders need to cost slightly less than half of a chaos warrior with equal damage output to make any sense, because even a chaos warrior that buys all offensive equipment is automatically better defensibly than even a marauder that spends all his points on survival items. Since a chaos warrior that gets strength 5 is about 17 points, a marauder marked with khorne and wielding a +2 strength weapon should be around 9 (slightly less than 9.5) with the same offensive power. At 11, the chaos warriors are just too much more efficient at both killing stuff and surviving than the marauders and it doesn't make sense to take them. The same thing goes with survival. If a chaos warrior with a shield is 15, a marauder ought to be around 7. Considering the chaos warrior is better at offense by a significant margin even when compared to 2 marauders, this also makes sense.

In the new book, if I was taking a bunker, I would take 10 chaos warriors with shields over 19 marauders every time.

In the old book, 10 chaos warriors vs 30 marauders was actually a decision. I think the happy medium would have been around 10 vs 22-25, but it got skewed too much in the other direction. Offensively, the same thing. I'd much rather have 10 chaos warriors with halberds and marked khorne than 17 great weapon wielding marauders that are marked khorne.

Minsc
13-04-2013, 08:55
^ This.

I rarely used Marauders in the previous book because I found them boring and broken.

I doubt I will ever use Marauders in this book, because now they are broken in the other direction. Marauders are not fine. They are overpriced with internal balance in mind (Warriors kick them in the keyster) and overpriced with extrenal balance in mind. (1 point less than a HE Spearman who has +1 M, +1 I, +1 Ld, Spears, Martial Prowess and ASF, and the HE players claim that their Spearmen are overpriced...what does that make Marauders?)

Marauders are overpriced because of two things: To expensive from scratch (should be 5 pts, not 6 pts) and to expensive marks (should be 0,5/1/1/1, not 1/2/2/2) or wargear (should be 2 pts, not 3.)

MLP
13-04-2013, 09:56
^ This.

I rarely used Marauders in the previous book because I found them boring and broken.

I doubt I will ever use Marauders in this book, because now they are broken in the other direction. Marauders are not fine. They are overpriced with internal balance in mind (Warriors kick them in the keyster) and overpriced with extrenal balance in mind. (1 point less than a HE Spearman who has +1 M, +1 I, +1 Ld, Spears, Martial Prowess and ASF, and the HE players claim that their Spearmen are overpriced...what does that make Marauders?)

Marauders are overpriced because of two things: To expensive from scratch (should be 5 pts, not 6 pts) and to expensive marks (should be 0,5/1/1/1, not 1/2/2/2) or wargear (should be 2 pts, not 3.)

Although I pretty much agree with you I don't think comparing to HE is worth it as they're an old book, maybe next month.

Compared to empire swordmen they seem a lot more fair. A marauder with light armour and shield is 8pts compared to the swordsman's 7pts. Marauder has one more initiative and both have mediocre special rules. Seems pretty even to me.

I think once all books are rewritten they will be fine.

And compared to warriors they are the harder choice, but I think they're still viable in the right situation. The warriors are often double the price, but then with marauders you can have twice as many models. So it depends on what you're facing in your meta really.

Xentarus
13-04-2013, 10:15
I think he did a fantastic job on the Warriors book. For all the fanfare about Chariot-core, it is more of a gimmick than anything. You will struggle with scenarios and be generally unbalanced - prone to massive swings in favour. It is great that it is an option, though, and I feel that they got the pricing on the chariot spot on. Similarly the basic Warrior is still fantastic, just damned slow. Forsaken are better than they appear - great chaff and a pretty competent main block. They are let down by their lack of command options (crippling you in blood and glory) but otherwise their speed (and swiftstride if you use Slaanesh) would probably compensate for their slight unreliability and higher cost in comparison to Warriors. Marauders are a point too expensive, I feel, though they are one unit I haven't tested. Hounds are as they were before - poor but cheap chaff. I'm coming round to Marauder Horsemen as my chaff due to the massive flexibility that fast-cavalry movement provides.

The characters are pretty flexible too. Daemon Princes are the new hotness (I too have indulged - Be'Lakor is too lovely) and rightly so. However they are so, so expensive. Ironically, I think that Khorne Daemon Princes are at an advantage because you can't buy all those magic levels which inflate your cost and risk, though that one is on me ;) . I think they should have been Stubborn as opposed to Unbreakable but otherwise they are fine. The God-specific lores are really fun too (I haven't used Nurgle but it looks nice). Sorceror Lords are still a perfectly viable choice if you ask me, same with Chaos Lords. They are both reasonably priced for their output. Lords could have been Ld10 but otherwise great.

Specials are a difficult one. Hellstriders are a weird one. I like them a lot but they are so damn fragile and they really need a bigger unit and a character to maximise their special ability which in turn completely transforms their function... Gorebeasts are fantastic, maybe a bit too cheap when given Nurgle/Khorne though. Trolls and Ogres are great with their own advantages. Knights are fine too, but suffer from Skullcrushers being so much better - a problem with the core rules, I feel. But I don't think you are handicapped by taking them. The Chimera is much vaunted and its output, especially with multiple fliers, is high. However they are VERY fragile and VERY expensive. Their leadership and low defence(low wounds/save/toughness) make them very vulnerable. I like them - pretty balanced but capable still. Dragon Ogres are ok, perhaps not quite as effective as other choices though... Can't remember what else is in special...


Rare is a bit of a letdown. Spawn are... in the book. The Shaggoth is surprisingly decent. The Slaughterbrute is a bit poor, overshadowed completely by the Shaggoth. The problem with him is that WS is just not as good as S or A (the Elven problem ;) ). The Vortex Beast is quite fun looking, particularly in low-magic armies. It can be quite deadly. Skullcrushers are great, obviously. The Hellcannon is as it was - flattering to deceive and very frustrating. Not bad, just too unreliable. It doesn't give its points away easily.

Overall, a great book. Much more options than Cruddace's other books, I feel.

Clockwork
13-04-2013, 10:59
Marauders are fine. You can run them cheap to get ranks to break steadfast, or go horde, as you can get nearly 2 Marauders for every Warrior. And as the Marauder statline is inferior, you're not wasting as much as if you had a Chaos Warriors sat at the back twiddling their thumbs.

You appear to still be in the mindset where Khorne Flail Marauders rivaled Warriors for the role of hammer unit in Core. As it has been pointed out, that's not their role any more - they're support now. They can still perform as a hammer if you want, its just costed appropriately to do so. Otherwise, they do different things to Warriors.

And if you want to compare them externally, look at State Troops, particularly Swordsmen. Virtually identical equipment and statline, except the Marauders get +1 Initiative for +1 point. Seems reasonable.

Krish
13-04-2013, 11:07
Book is probably fine it depends on what who likes. I dislike it couse my 2 favorite units are hmm pretty useless :-). Like posted above marauders, would be fine with + 2 for GW and 5 points base cost. Mark can be the same. And chosen. Fully kitted Warrior of chaos costs 20 points ( mark, shield, halaberd) and the same chosen 25 :-), thats... well sick. 5 points for 1 roll and +1 ws. Chosen should cost 16 points , shield up 1, and halaberd,gw 2. Then they would still be worse choice but usable for someone who likes them, now they suck balls hard. But except that its probably ok not in my taste but ok

Methios
13-04-2013, 12:18
Oh noes, marauders are not as insanly cheap and pwnage as they were. WoC is still the seccond best book to come out in 8th. Cry me a river. ;)
TK are crap. And ofc someone will link a bat rep or a tournament that they won. Its still by far the worsed book in 8th.

Nagash333
13-04-2013, 13:37
Very little wrong with the new Warriors book really. There are e.g's of some really tough combinations (Tzeentch Lord with excellent saves) however that is not the fault of the book or author, more the player looking to be over competitive.

Marauders had to change, as has been already mentioned, they should never be a hammer unit in a WOC army. If that is what people want, then what role do they expect Warriors or Orgres, Dragon Ogres etc. to have?

Nagash333
13-04-2013, 13:37
Very little wrong with the new Warriors book really. There are e.g's of some really tough combinations (Tzeentch Lord with excellent saves) however that is not the fault of the book or author, more the player looking to be over competitive.

Marauders had to change, as has been already mentioned, they should never be a hammer unit in a WOC army. If that is what people want, then what role do they expect Warriors or Orgres, Dragon Ogres etc. to have?

Krish
13-04-2013, 14:23
Oh noes, marauders are not as insanly cheap and pwnage as they were. WoC is still the seccond best book to come out in 8th. Cry me a river. ;)
TK are crap. And ofc someone will link a bat rep or a tournament that they won. Its still by far the worsed book in 8th.

Well powergaming if thats what your talkin about is no prob with new book, sure 6 x chariots. Nurgle demon prince, tzeentch disc, an skullcrushers :-) not a problem for new woc, but some people like other now useless units, and i think that marauders cost rise was needed ( but so much ), and chosen well they were never that good if you take 12 result from them, but for some reason they got hit quite hard. Anyway as i told if you want powergaming youcan easily do many cheesy builds with new book, shame that if u dont want to do that u must over pay for not that good but more fun ( for some ) units to use.

IcedCrow
13-04-2013, 15:17
Marauders have to compete with chaos warriors in a role.

In a powergaming world, anything that has to compete with chaos warriors for the same slot has to cost 4 points a model or thereabouts to even be considered because chaos warriors are one of the best units in the game. Unless you give marauders free gear of course. If a 15 point warrior should be trigged down to a 7 point marauder you're looking at around a 4 point base model and then add gear and marks.

4 point marauders are obscene.

In a powergaming world, anything not "optimal" is never going to be taken anyway. So i agree, in a powergaming world marauders are broken and will never be used.

snyggejygge
13-04-2013, 15:30
@the doubters who think I haven't tried stuff, yes I have tried forsaken, they have one role, as a flank unit, anything else can be done better by another unit in the book, this goes for most of the stuff, Warriors, Trolls, skullcrushers, chmeras & chariots do their job so good, without being underpriced, that most of the other stuff is overpriced, marauders as well. I totally agree they needed a price hike & the base cost seems pretty fair (however would you pay 1 point on every model in your swordsmen unit to gain 1 point of initiative?? I doubt it), however both flails & great weapons as equipment options should've been cheaper by a point each.

Yes you can still bring other units such as marauders & forsaken & even chosen to the table & do good, that doesn't mean they're correctly priced & having to compete with Chaos Warriors, which for once hit the right point per model ratio, then you have to be something else, overpriced units just dont do it.

Rake
13-04-2013, 18:51
I have to admit I would have gone with +1 pt on the Warrior and -1 pt on the Marauder, but ultimately its not that big game wise. Book coherency wise it does make the marauders pointless. Not because they are not good for their points (they are a bit worse than 8th ed average) but cause they are so much worse than Warriors.

All in all this edition did little to hurt the core of the WoC book, beyond nerfing marauders into oblivion. Warriors remain dominant. The Chimera is a great addition. Hell Cannon is still OTT and the King remains unnoticed. For me the question is why does GW insist on pricing cavalry so high...

BattleofLund
13-04-2013, 19:08
the King remains unnoticed.

It's worse, Elvis isn't in the book at all (I'm absolutely certain of this, at least in the army list). Sooo... what do you mean?

Clockwork
13-04-2013, 22:34
For me the question is why does GW insist on pricing cavalry so high...

The don't. They just price Chaos Knights so highly because they are amazing.

The real aberration is Saurus Cold One Cavalry (35 points for Initiative 2? No thanks). And that's because they are a hangover from a previous edition.

SteveW
13-04-2013, 23:57
The don't. They just price Chaos Knights so highly because they are amazing.

The real aberration is Saurus Cold One Cavalry (35 points for Initiative 2? No thanks). And that's because they are a hangover from a previous edition.

They were priced for an edition where charging =strike first, just like my wonderful boarboys.

Maoriboy007
14-04-2013, 07:38
Also, why are people struggling so hard with the tomb kings.
to reiterate:

No marching, including fliers.
Compulsary Average Lore with high costs and Short ranges.
Combining overall 8th edition nerfs to the army (mostly concering instability) with Price hikes and unit nerfs
Average to poor equipment options.
Outdated Heirophant crumbling mechanic.
Good concepts with lousy excecution.
You can add armywide Low WS, Initiative and armour saves as well. Its been said before TKs are not unplayable, but you pretty much start on the back foot.

My buddy just won first place at warmasters tournament with tomb kings this year above 46 people I took a first round victory against Dark Elves played by a fairly good opponant the other night, a game I was pretty sure I would either struggle with or outright lose. Was it becuase TKs are super awesome? No, it was due to several things. First I was facing a soft list, second I rolled really well in the right places and he rolled extremely poorly in the wrong places. Finally he was a bit out of practice with the army and forgot the scenario, it happens. Will I trump the next game? Probably not.


I have yet to see a legitimate argument as to why marauders are bad/overpriced apart from "well chaos warriors are better", but please feel free to try and convince me. But has anyone looked at what you get for the cost of a Marauder and compared it to other books? 7 points for an initiative and WS 4 model seems like a good deal to me when swordsmen cost 6 with 3 initiative. You hit a fair amount of troops on a 3 , against a large part of the warhammer world you get to strike first (remember when striking first was a premium limited to ASF?) , you're largely insulated against spells like Purple Sun and pit of shades, and you're still cheap enough to gain and break steadfast, while being good enough to put the boot to cheaper steadfast type.
A fully upgraded marauder cost 11 points, but a 2 attack WS 4 STR 5 model is pretty good. I mean Grave Guard and Bestigor might be better, but not by a lot , and they come in as special units not core.
Comparing a Chaos Warrior and a Marauder points wise just tells me that for the cost ,of course the warrior is better for twice the price he damned well should be, but it tells me that they perform different funtions, not that the marauder needs to be cheaper (if anything the warrior could cost more, if Im generous the fully upgraded marauder could be 10 points). At under half the price a zombie should not be expected to perform the same duties as a ghoul, nor a skavenslave the same taks as Stormvermin, Goblins the same task as Orcs. In that light I can't see how mauraders could be seen as priced as anything but correct as they are.
As for forsaken being useless, having faced them on the table they are anything but. 5 times out of 6 even small units will punch above their weight. They are deceptively speedy and bring a bit of diversity to the table. Small and nasty is what they are.

m1acca1551
14-04-2013, 13:47
To me the book is ok...

There are some really nice elements to the book, some that work really nicely creating a nice balance...

And then you just get some down right glaringly stupid oversights the unkillable lord, the lore of nurgle etc now some of you may sit there and say well people choose to use these powers/combo's, but they should never have been included in the first placed or play tested out of the book. Why the overlooked these major weaknesses i just don't get it. Now it seems that every WoC i see is all of a sudden nurgle, scratch the paint back an you will see blue or red etc.

On the issue of marauders, a very contentious one from what i can see, i find that they were simply pushed from one end of the spectrum to the other end. They just don't balance well in their own book and that's what the issue is, not "oh they are quite good against other units from other books", the point is that whilst that may be true, against warriors?? hell no.

Minsc
14-04-2013, 14:31
And then you just get some down right glaringly stupid oversights the unkillable lord, the lore of nurgle etc.

Lore of Nurgle? Don't you mean Mark of Nurgle?
If I so I'll agree that it's underpriced on characters.

I don't consider the Unkillable Discolord to be that broken though.
He usually costs much more than whatever he's tanking (unless he's tanking a Gutstar or something similar), and he's not that killy, so it's doubtful that he will win combat vs whatever he's tanking.

In fact, he costs as much as a fully kitted (non-wizard) Daemon Prince. I don't know about you, but I personally would rather face the Discolord than the Daemonprince.

Vipoid
14-04-2013, 16:53
Lore of Nurgle? Don't you mean Mark of Nurgle?
If I so I'll agree that it's underpriced on characters.

I don't consider the Unkillable Discolord to be that broken though.
He usually costs much more than whatever he's tanking (unless he's tanking a Gutstar or something similar), and he's not that killy, so it's doubtful that he will win combat vs whatever he's tanking.

In fact, he costs as much as a fully kitted (non-wizard) Daemon Prince. I don't know about you, but I personally would rather face the Discolord than the Daemonprince.

I'd agree that the MoN is underpriced on characters (especially given that they're WS8-9), and I also agree that I'd rather face the Disclord than a Nurgle Daemon Prince (though I might think differently if I had cannons ;)). Thing is, even if he's stubborn, the disclord still has to choose his battles carefully. He doesn't have many wounds, he's subject to killing blow, characters can still damage him, and if he loses there's still a chance he'll run.

Anyway, the only other thing I dislike is Glean Magic. Having it permanently remove wizard levels and spells seems unnecessary and, frankly, stupid.

But, I think a lot of the book is very reasonable, and it certainly looks like one of Cruddace's better works.

Xentarus
14-04-2013, 17:22
Glean Magic is fine - it requires so much to go through in order to steal the spell anyway (and the chances of it affecting your L3/4 are minimal). THat is if you even get the spell in the first place. Well, that is even if you face Tzeentch magic which only I seem to be using at the moment.

Lord Solar Plexus
15-04-2013, 06:35
I have yet to see a legitimate argument as to why marauders are bad/overpriced apart from "well chaos warriors are better", but please feel free to try and convince me.


While I do agree with much of what you've said, this line of reasoning is a bit polemic. If we can chose something better, then the alternative must be worse, and that is largely the same as overpriced. Therefore, CW's being better is the only reason we need.



But has anyone looked at what you get for the cost of a Marauder and compared it to other books?


Yes, about a thousand people. You'll find those conversations when you look for posts starting with "Compare Marauders to...", followed by a post or two that outlines why cross-book comparisons don't hold any water, followed by a post or two that disagrees. ;)

Vissah
15-04-2013, 08:08
Wrong post in the wrong topic sorry.

Spiney Norman
15-04-2013, 08:39
Only having played TK's in their current book, what is it that Crudace messed up?

Its not like he messed up anything from the previous book because the TK book was almost a total rewrite rather than a slight update, but the end result was an army that didn't really work together very well. It feels like the author intended TK to work with a lot of synergy between characters and units, like a system of cogs. The only problem was he didn't really think it through well enough and none of the cogs really fit with each other. He didn't seem to understand that there is a problem designing several units in the same army which will only be worth their points when they are accompanied by three expensive characters and buffed by magic.

The problem isn't even really that the army is weak on the table (at least I can still get wins from it), its just very disjointed and fights against you every step of the way rather than working with you, the biggest problems are the constructs, which retain all the downsides of being undead without the upside of being properly raisable and the work-around for not being able to march which doesn't work at all (which means you're left with an army that is slower than dwarfs, but with much less effective ranged ability).

The other thing that really narked TK players off was being handed the worst magic lore in the game (lore of Athel Loren notwithstanding) and being told they had to take it on their highest level caster, which means unfortunately to have a meaningful magic phase a tomb king player has to spend twice as many points on their wizard as everyone else because you need a Level 4 hierophant, and a second L4 with either Light or death.

Fortunately for WoC players Cruddace seems to have got the stupid 'synergy' ideas out of his head with TK and to a lesser extent Empire, and is now writing vaguely workable rules.

Maoriboy007
15-04-2013, 23:37
While I do agree with much of what you've said, this line of reasoning is a bit polemic. If we can chose something better, then the alternative must be worse, and that is largely the same as overpriced. Therefore, CW's being better is the only reason we need.I'm sorry but I can't completely buy into that logic, Ghouls are much better than Zombies,but that does not automatically mean Zombies need to be cheaper or that they have no use, and just beacause Orcs are much better than Goblins that does not automatically mean Goblins should be cheaper or that you can't find a use for them either. You are swapping better stats for the ability to put more (warm or otherwise)bodies onto the field, and the points you pay should still reflect the quality of the troops you're getting, naked marauders are cheap enough but not bargain basement , but then you're not getting complate smeg either.


Yes, about a thousand people. You'll find those conversations when you look for posts starting with "Compare Marauders to...", followed by a post or two that outlines why cross-book comparisons don't hold any water, followed by a post or two that disagrees. ;) *shrug* its the best way to get any indication of what you should be paying for a model of any ability (or lack thereof)just generally they hit a lot of things on threes and go first and aren't boned by purple sun, so on an overall scale they're not bad as far as I can see, I'd like that kind of moxy in the core choices of the armies I play. I'd probably give up swordsmen in an empire army for them. I can't see them being any cheaper, maybe they just need some sort of special rule (as long as its not OP) to have them stand out in the crowd.

Rudra34
16-04-2013, 04:18
I'm sorry but I can't completely buy into that logic, Ghouls are much better than Zombies,but that does not automatically mean Zombies need to be cheaper or that they have no use, and just beacause Orcs are much better than Goblins that does not automatically mean Goblins should be cheaper or that you can't find a use for them either. You are swapping better stats for the ability to put more (warm or otherwise)bodies onto the field, and the points you pay should still reflect the quality of the troops you're getting, naked marauders are cheap enough but not bargain basement , but then you're not getting complate smeg either.


Things like zombies and ghouls, or orcs and goblins are a different situation. Both units are good for different reasons, and are used in different ways tactically. With marauders and warriors you have two units which can be used for the same purpose. Both units can be fighty, and they can both be set up as anvils. However, in the new book WoC out-preform marauders in both of these areas, so being the most cost-effective unit for the job makes them better. That's all their is to it. A and B can both be used for X and Y, but B is sub-optimal because A does a better job at both X and Y.

Revanur
16-04-2013, 04:43
Things like zombies and ghouls, or orcs and goblins are a different situation. Both units are good for different reasons, and are used in different ways tactically. With marauders and warriors you have two units which can be used for the same purpose. Both units can be fighty, and they can both be set up as anvils. However, in the new book WoC out-preform marauders in both of these areas, so being the most cost-effective unit for the job makes them better. That's all their is to it. A and B can both be used for X and Y, but B is sub-optimal because A does a better job at both X and Y.

True, but Marauders also have other uses. Small cheap units to clear chaff, lot of damage from a relativly low points total etc. And you can bring a big block of (near) naked Nurgle marauders as a bunker for wizards/festus. Cheaper to do with marauders and a lot less painfull to lose to miscasts, while stil they still can take some damage.

I do wish they were 1 point cheaper somewere, that would have made it right in my eyes.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-04-2013, 04:59
I'm sorry but I can't completely buy into that logic

Rudra replied to this much better than I could have hoped to.

SteveW
16-04-2013, 05:11
Its not like he messed up anything from the previous book because the TK book was almost a total rewrite rather than a slight update, but the end result was an army that didn't really work together very well. It feels like the author intended TK to work with a lot of synergy between characters and units, like a system of cogs. The only problem was he didn't really think it through well enough and none of the cogs really fit with each other. He didn't seem to understand that there is a problem designing several units in the same army which will only be worth their points when they are accompanied by three expensive characters and buffed by magic.

The problem isn't even really that the army is weak on the table (at least I can still get wins from it), its just very disjointed and fights against you every step of the way rather than working with you, the biggest problems are the constructs, which retain all the downsides of being undead without the upside of being properly raisable and the work-around for not being able to march which doesn't work at all (which means you're left with an army that is slower than dwarfs, but with much less effective ranged ability).

The other thing that really narked TK players off was being handed the worst magic lore in the game (lore of Athel Loren notwithstanding) and being told they had to take it on their highest level caster, which means unfortunately to have a meaningful magic phase a tomb king player has to spend twice as many points on their wizard as everyone else because you need a Level 4 hierophant, and a second L4 with either Light or death.

Fortunately for WoC players Cruddace seems to have got the stupid 'synergy' ideas out of his head with TK and to a lesser extent Empire, and is now writing vaguely workable rules.

Wow, thats a whole lot O' info. Thanks

After playing a few games with them I have found the lore to be my favorite in warhammer and the synergy of the army seems to work for at least my play style. I will try and get a batrep up soon for them(once I dont have to proxy everything) soon.

Rudra34
16-04-2013, 05:28
@ Revanur - I don't believe that marauders are useless, but at this point the argument is simply a matter of opinion and play style. I suggest both sides tip their hats, and accept our differing opinions.

Wouldn't it be great if the internet worked that way?

Revanur
16-04-2013, 05:54
You are right Rudra, that would probably be best.

Maoriboy007
16-04-2013, 07:48
Rudra replied to this much better than I could have hoped to.and Revanur was comes pretty close to my reply as well....


@ Revanur - I don't believe that marauders are useless, but at this point the argument is simply a matter of opinion and play style. I suggest both sides tip their hats, and accept our differing opinions.Fair enough...:p

Lord Solar Plexus
16-04-2013, 10:59
*Tips his hat*

Ero-Senin
16-04-2013, 11:25
The WOC book is great. The biggest losers are the knights IMO as the skull crushers are just better (more wounds and attacks for similar price). The big beasties are rubbish but you can just ignore them and the Dragon Ogres would have been better with T5 and W3 instead of T4 W4 (maybe would have needed to be a bit more expensive for this though) as there is a gap for something with higher than 4 tougness in the monsterous special section otherwise just take Ogres or Skullcrushers.

ihavetoomuchminis
16-04-2013, 12:11
In a powergaming world, anything that has to compete with chaos warriors for the same slot has to cost 4 points a model or thereabouts to even be considered because chaos warriors are one of the best units in the game. Unless you give marauders free gear of course. If a 15 point warrior should be trigged down to a 7 point marauder you're looking at around a 4 point base model and then add gear and marks.

4 point marauders are obscene.

In a powergaming world, anything not "optimal" is never going to be taken anyway. So i agree, in a powergaming world marauders are broken and will never be used.

This. Maybe it's not Marauder being overcosted (they don't seem to be compared to an empire soldier) but Warriors being too cheap. They were in 7th, and they seem to be in 8th. Come on, they have better stats than other armies elites, are core, and are tougher, for barely the same cost of elites with worse stats. And have access to marks. I know i know...for any WoC player they are fine, and for some others they are overcosted. They suffer the Space Marine syndrome.

Minsc
16-04-2013, 17:05
This. Maybe it's not Marauder being overcosted (they don't seem to be compared to an empire soldier) but Warriors being too cheap. They were in 7th, and they seem to be in 8th. Come on, they have better stats than other armies elites, are core, and are tougher, for barely the same cost of elites with worse stats. And have access to marks. I know i know...for any WoC player they are fine, and for some others they are overcosted. They suffer the Space Marine syndrome.

1) A Marauder with la and shield costs one point more than a Empire Swordsman: For this one point he gets one point of Initiative, but loose out on the (admittedly, rarely used) detatchment-rule.
1 point per model for I4 instead of I3, doesn't seem like a good deal to me. Then let's not even mention the fact that the Swordsmen himself is considered overpriced according to most Empire-players.

2) A Chaos Warriors pricetag is fine. 14 points/model seems cheap, but with a mark, shield and halberd, they cost 20 points each. Do you really want them to cost more? (This isn't necessarily aimed towards you ihavetomuchmini's, but those who consider Chaos Warriors underpriced in general.)

IcedCrow
16-04-2013, 17:23
Right. He's paying a point more for +1I. So he gets to strike before the I3 guys for +1 point. Should he get that for free?

ihavetoomuchminis
16-04-2013, 17:37
1) A Marauder with la and shield costs one point more than a Empire Swordsman: For this one point he gets one point of Initiative, but loose out on the (admittedly, rarely used) detatchment-rule.
1 point per model for I4 instead of I3, doesn't seem like a good deal to me. Then let's not even mention the fact that the Swordsmen himself is considered overpriced according to most Empire-players.

2) A Chaos Warriors pricetag is fine. 14 points/model seems cheap, but with a mark, shield and halberd, they cost 20 points each. Do you really want them to cost more? (This isn't necessarily aimed towards you ihavetomuchmini's, but those who consider Chaos Warriors underpriced in general.)


If you overload a CW with all the available upgrades, it will obviously cost many points. As IcedCrow has said, won't you pretend to have those upgrades for free, i guess. 14 points/model for a basic CW seems cheap, because it IS cheap. The fact that upgrades are pricey doesn't make them fine, or expensive points-wise. A halberd in the hands of a WS5 I5 2 S4 attacks model must be pricey, because of balance. A shield that gives more protection to an already tough model must be pricey. And marks....well....marks are good, and you can choose wich one you get. The nurgle mark is amazingly good in a WS5 T4 model with a good armour save. For 20 points you get a 4+(3+) save model, with 2 S5 attacks hitting on 3's against most units at I5 and getting hit in return with 5+ rolls and having to wound a T4 model that has a good save. I can't think right now of any model at that cost that has that damage output and resilience.

And why is +1I not a good deal? It seemed to be when comparing a marauder with a HE spearman.

MLP
16-04-2013, 18:28
And why is +1I not a good deal? It seemed to be when comparing a marauder with a HE spearman.

Yeah initiative is often underrated by people used to previous editions. That extra initiative can really make all the difference, especially against units which you could wipe out in one round(thus taking no return damage) or giving you the chance to take out a character before it attacks. It also defends against some spells and abilities.

The jump from initiative 3 to 4 is probably one of the most valuable as the average is 3 for many armies. Whereas the jump from initiative 5 to 6, for example, wont have much affect that often.


...The big beasties are rubbish but you can just ignore them...

Not all are so bad, the Shaggoth is still pretty awesome. I've had one wipe out 1000 points of dwarfs on his own quite easily. The giant is pretty standard but underrated I think. The two new ones probably aren't worth the points though although the mutalith has potential.

Minsc
16-04-2013, 18:50
If you overload a CW with all the available upgrades, it will obviously cost many points. As IcedCrow has said, won't you pretend to have those upgrades for free, i guess. 14 points/model for a basic CW seems cheap, because it IS cheap. The fact that upgrades are pricey doesn't make them fine, or expensive points-wise. A halberd in the hands of a WS5 I5 2 S4 attacks model must be pricey, because of balance

I'm not sure if you missunderstood what I meant. He should not get all those upgrades for free, but neither does he.
I picked mark+halberd+shield because that seems to be the most common upgrades warriors are given theese days, so it's hardly "overloading".
My point was that while 14 points may seem cheap, they more often than not costs 20 points - while this indeed is fine and a balanced, any more than this would make them overpriced.
So Chaos Warriors are fine pts-wise, because (almost) no one fields 14-point warriors anyway. We're looking either at 17 pts/model or 20 pts/model. Something the people who complain about Chaos Warriors often "forget".


And why is +1I not a good deal?

I dont consider +1 I to be worth one point on a 6 point model, no.
I would rather take marauders at 6 points with I3 than at 7 points with I4.


It seemed to be when comparing a marauder with a HE spearman.

Aren't we forgetting something?
(Martial Prowess, +1 Ld and +1M is gained in addition to that +1 initiative - and yet HE players call their spearmen overpriced, even with ASF. Oh the hypocrisy...)

IcedCrow
16-04-2013, 19:00
I think in the world of Init strikes first if higher that +1 point a model is about right. I still go back to what I said earlier though. In a book where chaos warriors are core, unless a marauder fully decked out with flails and plate armor is 4-5 points, optimizers will ignore them for the obvious most powerful thing.

And yes fully decked out marauders at 4-5 points is hyperbole, but that is the point. Unless its *that* good, an optimizer will ignore it for the obvious stronger thing. This is why previous edition marauders were taken... they were *that* good due to how laughably cheap they were for what type of output they put out.

Minsc
16-04-2013, 19:17
And yes fully decked out marauders at 4-5 points is hyperbole, but that is the point. Unless its *that* good, an optimizer will ignore it for the obvious stronger thing. This is why previous edition marauders were taken... they were *that* good due to how laughably cheap they were for what type of output they put out.

Dont put words in my mouth please.
I dont want fully decked out marauders to cost 4-5 points. I would however want them to be viable compared to Chaos Warriors, which they currently aren't. They're too expensive as your basic ranked steadfast-breaking block, and too expensive if going killy.
Consider the following:
- A Marauder pays the same amount of points for a Greatweapon as a Chaos Warrior - right or wrong?
- A Marauder pays the same amount of points for Marks as a Chaos Warrior - right or wrong?

This is my (and most WoC-players) issue with Marauders. I'm fine with the higher basecost (they deserve it), but higher basecost in addition to much higher wargear-costs pretty much killed them as a viable unit.

Clockwork
16-04-2013, 19:22
With marauders and warriors you have two units which can be used for the same purpose. Both units can be fighty, and they can both be set up as anvils. However, in the new book WoC out-preform marauders in both of these areas, so being the most cost-effective unit for the job makes them better. That's all their is to it. A and B can both be used for X and Y, but B is sub-optimal because A does a better job at both X and Y.

Warriors are only always better if you limit your available options to support your argument.

Marauders make much better cheap mage bunkers and Steadfast-breakers; so, no, that isn't all there is to it. Warriors might be better at killing stuff and taking less damage, but that isn't all there is on the table.


Dont put words in my mouth please.
I dont want fully decked out marauders to cost 4-5 points. I would however want them to be viable compared to Chaos Warriors, which they currently aren't. They're too expensive as your basic ranked steadfast-breaking block, and too expensive if going killy.
Consider the following:
- A Marauder pays the same amount of points for a Greatweapon as a Chaos Warrior - right or wrong?
- A Marauder pays the same amount of points for Marks as a Chaos Warrior - right or wrong?

This is my (and most WoC-players) issue with Marauders. I'm fine with the higher basecost (they deserve it), but higher basecost in addition to much higher wargear-costs pretty much killed them as a viable unit.

What does it matter if the upgrades are the same cost, when the base cost is cheaper and there's an overall net discount? Given that a Warrior with Halberd delivers 2 strength 5 attacks for 17 points, a Marauder with Great Weapon and Khorne delivers 2 strength 5 attacks for 6 points less.

Regardless, if you want them as cheap ranks, why are you loading them up with 'expensive' upgrades?

IcedCrow
16-04-2013, 19:24
I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm speaking in general. In general an optimizer won't take an item unless is broken on the good side. If its competing with another item that is strong, it has to be really broken on the good side for them to take it. In general. That may not have anything to do with you.

I've considered what you put out. And I believe a great weapon costing the same regardless of model stat line is fine. You pay the base cost for your base stats, and then you pay a flat cost for an item. If anything the chaos warrior is hurt by the great weapon more as he loses his Init 5.

In fact, this very board seems to be crawling with people screaming in epic demonic fury for this exact thing (flat point rate) and how GW is stupid for not doing this more, so I would chalk this up to not being able to please everyone all the time.

MLP
16-04-2013, 19:57
In fact, this very board seems to be crawling with people screaming in epic demonic fury for this exact thing (flat point rate) and how GW is stupid for not doing this more, so I would chalk this up to not being able to please everyone all the time.

Flat point rate for items is just silly, it would make the optimisation of units even more obvious! Different items/skills should always cost more depending on the unit, I hate how almost all command options are 10 points now.

The problem is there will always be an optimum unit to take even if there's only a point or two in it. So this problem will always come up.

I think in most situations warriors will be the optimum unit over marauders, however in some situations the marauders will be better. Whether due to steadfast breaking, or more overall wounds in the unit(because the unit they're facing ignores armour and is strength 6+) or whatever. They're by no means useless they just need to be used well, some units are easier to use than others. Like warriors.

The point about the upgrades being the same price can be seen in a few lights. Mark of nurgle for example, same points for both units. Makes warriors even more survivable than normal, however due to their higher toughness and armour anyway it may not have made much difference. For marauders which have no armour and lower toughness its probably worth more as it increases the unit's survivability possibly more than it does for warriors.

Mark of Tzeentch can be seen in a similar way, the warriors will block many wounds with their chaos armour so won't use the ward save as much as marauders who have no armour who will use the ward much more often. Therefore the marks are probably worth more to the marauders! Mathammer could be used to prove this but hopefully I made my point.

IcedCrow
16-04-2013, 20:00
The point about the upgrades being the same price can be seen in a few lights. Mark of nurgle for example, same points for both units. Makes warriors even more survivable than normal, however due to their higher toughness and armour anyway it may not have made much difference. For marauders which have no armour and lower toughness its probably worth more as it increases the unit's survivability possibly more than it does for warriors.

Two ways to go here (this is just one example) of the impossibility of true balance:

* - chaos warriors will benefit much more from the mark of nurgle because they are higher toughness and have a higher armor. This added with being -1 to hit makes them even MORE difficult to take.

* - (devil's advocate) no I disagree. Marauders benefit much more from the mark of nurgle because they die easier without it, and thus their survivability increase is worth more points since the warriors don't really need it!

Who is right? How do you put a math formula on the argument above? I don't think you can because they are both subjective.

Ero-Senin
16-04-2013, 20:15
Not all are so bad, the Shaggoth is still pretty awesome. I've had one wipe out 1000 points of dwarfs on his own quite easily. The giant is pretty standard but underrated I think. The two new ones probably aren't worth the points though although the mutalith has potential.

I agree. I actually quite like the giant. It's a bit of fun and T6 with mark of nurgle. It was the two new beasties I was referring to.

sulla
16-04-2013, 20:21
Two ways to go here (this is just one example) of the impossibility of true balance:

* - chaos warriors will benefit much more from the mark of nurgle because they are higher toughness and have a higher armor. This added with being -1 to hit makes them even MORE difficult to take.

* - (devil's advocate) no I disagree. Marauders benefit much more from the mark of nurgle because they die easier without it, and thus their survivability increase is worth more points since the warriors don't really need it!

Who is right? How do you put a math formula on the argument above? I don't think you can because they are both subjective.The maths might differ for different armies, but it should be relatively simple (if tedious) to figure out who gets the most benefit out of the mark vs most common foes. Without running the numbers though, I would say it benefits warriors more because they are harder to kill in all other situations other than combat and then become -1 in combat. With marauders, they are relatively easy to kill in other situations so the -1 to hit has less value (IMHO) because they may not be a viable combat force once they make it to combat.

The intangible that you will not be able to figure in is the vulnerability to panic.

Krish
16-04-2013, 20:40
Lets be honest I4 on marauders is useless, :-) the only good build for them is with GW's so initatiove does not even go to play. And swordsmen can have quite nice buffs from priest, and this new strange thingies on wheels.

But that is not a problem marauders can be worse, why not they should be, they should cost more than in last book, but -1 base and 2 instead of 3 for GW and they would be perfectly fine. Warriors would still be better but they could be an option.

but much more painful is chosen cost :-) well for me cause thats the unit i always liked the most ( even before 8ed ), but now 25 pts in comparison to warrior 20 ( fully kitted ) for + 1ws and +1 other stat. Not a bit, but a lot too much.

Except that woc book is quite fine, all depends on what you like, i dislike monsters, beasts, demons in mortal book so im not a big fan but still.

Vipoid
16-04-2013, 20:45
Lets be honest I4 on marauders is useless, :-) the only good build for them is with GW's so initatiove does not even go to play.

Why is GW the only good build?

SteveW
16-04-2013, 21:06
Why is GW the only good build?

It isn't, hordes of flail weilding khorn marked marauders do a great job of messing with an opponents day.

Phazael
16-04-2013, 22:51
Why is GW the only good build?

Worse than this, their wider base actually is a big detriment when comparing them to empire swordsmen or similar units. The marauders suck now mainly because they are too expensive at the low end variety, though they are still workable at the top end for non power gamers. Basic sword and board Marauders should not cost anywhere near what they presently do. As it stands they are demonstrably worse than Gors. To be fair, I think certain empire state units are a tad overcosted, too, at the moment. I think Cruddace just does not want to use fractions in his point costs for some reason.....

Maoriboy007
17-04-2013, 03:18
Lets be honest I4 on marauders is useless, :-) the only good build for them is with GW's so initatiove does not even go to play.As Steve W and Vipoid point out, there is nothing wrong with Flail Marauders , Standard Naked Marauders or Board and sword marauders, in fact against WoC it can often feel like your chaff is facing someone elses chaff buffed by the Speed of Light spell all the time. Additionally some of the most feared spells in the game are usually based on initiative tests where marauders are well served.


And swordsmen can have quite nice buffs from priest, and this new strange thingies on wheels.And a Chaos hero can kill said priest before his unit can benefit from said buff, and the Maurauders can generate nasty Demon Princes or champions with hero level stats, Marauders can have a plethora of unit buffs through equipment or marks. If you are going to spend extra points on one side , you have to take into account that the other team can do the same.


Worse than this, their wider base actually is a big detriment when comparing them to empire swordsmen or similar units. Ive really never understood this argument, I mean 10 models still get to figth 10 models, 5 still get to fight 5. Mounted models actually fit inside the unit and warmachine and magic templates cover less models. Sounds ok to me.

Basic sword and board Marauders should not cost anywhere near what they presently do.Why not?They have better than average stats and cost only slightly more than average troops, what do you think is fair, 3 or 4 points? I'd be happy for my TK skeletons to be so cheap.

As it stands they are demonstrably worse than Gors.Not my too much, and aren't gors more expensive? Besides while Gors are fairly good in my experience,the BM army has other problems overall.

To be fair, I think certain empire state units are a tad overcosted, too, at the moment. Perhaps, possibly a lot of 8th edition core are, especially compared to 7th edition books, but if the trend continues as more 8th edition books are released these prices might be considered pretty standard.

Lord Solar Plexus
17-04-2013, 04:45
I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm speaking in general. In general an optimizer won't take an item unless is broken on the good side. If its competing with another item that is strong, it has to be really broken on the good side for them to take it. In general.


That makes absolutely no sense. Some books don't even have such broken units in large enough numbers. In general, an optimizer will take the better of two or more choices. Are all better units broken on the good side? Hardly. Optimizers will prefer A even if it is only slightly better, so your 4 point kitted out Marauder is pretty much just hyperbole.


Lets be honest I4 on marauders is useless, :-) the only good build for them is with GW's so initatiove does not even go to play. And swordsmen can have quite nice buffs from priest, and this new strange thingies on wheels.


That's not honest, that's ignorant. All other builds can be better and initiative can be one of the most important stats. It's GW which are useless. Swordsmen still don't kill a thing even with multiple thingies so I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that A + B + C +...F are sometimes a wee bit better than A alone, if everything goes right and the opposition stand still and doesn't shoot back?

Lord Solar Plexus
17-04-2013, 06:30
Worse than this, their wider base actually is a big detriment when comparing them to empire swordsmen or similar units. The marauders suck now mainly because they are too expensive at the low end variety, though they are still workable at the top end for non power gamers. Basic sword and board Marauders should not cost anywhere near what they presently do. As it stands they are demonstrably worse than Gors. To be fair, I think certain empire state units are a tad overcosted, too, at the moment.

Not in comparison to the new books, including WoC. They actually got the pricing pretty spot on. Sword'n'Board Marauders and Swordsmen duking it out will nearly always result in a win for the side that can charge or bring in support first when we think in terms of equal points spent. Since this is just theory, and in practice people rather take units of a certain number of, say, 40, the WoC player will have spent a little more but he's also more likely to win.

Against Halberdiers, it's pretty much the same outcome, whether one fields Sword'n'Board or just Flails. Remember that marks are optional. Perhaps IcedCrow wasn't so far off with his notion that people want everything for less. The Halberdiers' superior numbers and more constant strength are pretty well countered by suprior WS, Ini and better S in round 1. Of course Empire can have a Hurri to hit better and WoC can have MoN to be hit less. For 40 Marauders, this comes out to nearly exactly the same point cost. However, the wagon must be around, which cancels out any disadvantage Marauders might get from a bigger base, and it can be taken away, while the MoN or any other mark is intrinsical and cannot go away.

Kayosiv
17-04-2013, 07:56
I think it's more an issue that 18 warriors of chaos will beat 40 swordsmen pretty easily. While marauders and swordsmen match up pretty well, that's not relevant. If greatswords were in core, few people would bother with state troops anyway. They would still have some uses, just like marauders still have some uses. None of those uses would be for combat though, at least not for generating the kills that win combat.

IcedCrow
17-04-2013, 12:17
That makes absolutely no sense. Some books don't even have such broken units in large enough numbers. In general, an optimizer will take the better of two or more choices. Are all better units broken on the good side? Hardly. Optimizers will prefer A even if it is only slightly better, so your 4 point kitted out Marauder is pretty much just hyperbole.

Most optimizers I personally know don't use books without broken units. Now moving on to the ones that do that would happen to want to play warriors of chaos for whatever reason, if you are presented with a chaos warrior or a marauder, one is obviously better, and as they are both costed about appropriately, the optimizer will go with the obvious more powerful choice (the chaos warrior) which happens to also coincide with what people are saying... that marauders need to drop in points (make them too good for their point cost again) before they are taken (by optimizers or anyone trying to optimize). A 4 point marauder is not hyperbole. Thats about the threshold where optimizers would start considering taking marauders again when they have CW to choose from as well. As one of my optimizing buddies says... a chaos warrior is as good as three marauders so a marauder should cost 1/3 what a warrior costs. This brings us to 4 or 5 point marauders.

Even if costed appropriately, why would someone take a unit that can go toe to toe with an empire unit when they can take the core unit that can destroy the empire unit? This is an argument that has raged since I started collecting marauders when they were ugly metal miniatures and I was told never to bother with them. About the only time we ever saw marauders on the table other than those of us that liked the idea of having them in our armies (the herpa derpa players) was when they were so ridiculously undercosted. Past results speak for themselves.

So then it boils down to, should items be undercosted to appease power gamers and give them "options" because they choose to not use something that is not broken good (or too cheap for what it does) or because they always choose to go with the most powerful item? To me, my conclusion and opinion is a very strong "no".

yeknoMehT
17-04-2013, 13:41
Two ways to go here (this is just one example) of the impossibility of true balance:

* - chaos warriors will benefit much more from the mark of nurgle because they are higher toughness and have a higher armor. This added with being -1 to hit makes them even MORE difficult to take.

* - (devil's advocate) no I disagree. Marauders benefit much more from the mark of nurgle because they die easier without it, and thus their survivability increase is worth more points since the warriors don't really need it!

Who is right? How do you put a math formula on the argument above? I don't think you can because they are both subjective.

As mentioned, it is far from a subjective matter. You can calculate the statistical distributions of combat results for units - I know, I just did it for one type of enemy.
I calculated the probability of scoring x unsaved wounds on marauders and chaos warriors with and without MoN from a unit getting 11A at WS3 S3. If you then scale by the number of points for each, you get a remarkably good match (this is then a distribution of the number of points lost to the enemy attacks).
If you drop marauders by a point, they look markedly better than warriors on the distribution.

If you have an hour or two to burn and reasonably good excel-fu it's not hard to reproduce if you know a bit of statistics.

Of course, this gets even more complicated if you consider giving them shields, going up against WS5, WS6, S4, S5, S6 opponents, or different numbers of attacks. You may also wish to consider the effect of things like stomps, impact hits, etc as well.

One possibly indicative number is that the expected number of points lost to the attacks is reduced by similar amounts in each case: warriors expect to lose 3.97pts less worth of warriors in a round, marauders lose 4.56pts less worth of marauders in a round. So, to some extent, marauders get slightly more bang for their buck defensively from the MoN. However, they suffer on the offensive side, since you get fewer attacks when you take MoN for the same points total (you are paying an extra point per attack compared with when you take MoN on warriors).

To me this doesn't seem too unreasonable. OK, my gut tells me warriors will win out a bit better in the S4-S5 and WS5 regions of opponents, but higher WS and/or strength swings it back towards the marauders again.

Lord Solar Plexus
17-04-2013, 13:51
This falls into the same category and continues what someone recently called "the pernicious trend to speak in absolutes". We're all optimizers to some degree. I'm an optimizer, and yet I will take Marauders, just like I take Handgunners from time to time. That's just another term being thrown around.

Furthermore, it contradicts itself at every juncture:

- Some optimizers use books without broken units; how then can they be optimizers if the term is defined as someone who choses the better choice?
- Some optimizers use books without broken units and play WoC, ergo WoC has no broken units. Warriors are better, better is broken, so Warriors are broken. Square peg, round hole.
- Two units are costed right. One is way better. Sorry, doesn't fit. If one's the better choice in a majority of situations, it's not at all costed appropriately.

Your optimizing friend...now that's a good one. I've got a friend who pulled some different numbers from the same thin air, now that's a Mexican standoff if I've ever seen one. What's next, you've got a second friend or an older brother? Please.

Players should feel free to chose the unit they think will give them the most joy but let's get some facts straight. Those Warriors might destroy the Empire unit in a complete vacuum and that's about it. That unit of Warriors is simply not going to be fielded except in very unusual circumstances. Naked, no Marks, no command? Realistically speaking, those 18 Warriors will be vastly more expensive, and then we get what we'd expect. However as I demonstrated above, if you field way more points in Marauders, the very same is likely to happen, so why would you not field units that achieve the same?

Even if we stick the same point approach and assume naked Warriors, it's a long shot. The Swordsmen are not going to meet them halfway, so it takes some time to reach them, and the Swordsmen will now be in bus. Your Warriors kill 5.5 guys per round (Marauders 4.16, both in bus, as it's more favourable for both), which isn't a huge difference really. The Swordsmen will be steadfast for the rest of the game, something much less likely against Marauders.

All of that is before we start talking about the Lore of Metal, or how every owner of a Puckle Gun can't stop to smile whenever he sees 18 Warriors being put down...it's a simplistic approach to look at some stats and call something broken.


I think it's more an issue that 18 warriors of chaos will beat 40 swordsmen pretty easily. While marauders and swordsmen match up pretty well, that's not relevant. If greatswords were in core, few people would bother with state troops anyway. They would still have some uses, just like marauders still have some uses. None of those uses would be for combat though, at least not for generating the kills that win combat.

See above. That's not the whole picture.

It's ironic that you should bring up Greatswords who provide one S5 attack at 12 points and diss Marauders who can bring one S5 attack for just 8. Full plate? Useless against all those Greatweapons out there. Special versus core is of marginal concern I believe. I've never seen anyone run out of the very liberal points allowance for specials.

Greatswords are State Troops too btw.

IcedCrow
17-04-2013, 14:06
You're right i'm just making it all up and pulling it all out of thin air. I don't really personally know of any powergamer optimizers that play chaos. Definitely none that I talk to where we would discuss things like what they would do different (because where I'm from everyone is happy with all of the books and no one questions a unit or its cost) The only ones I know are on the internet, and none of them really wants 4-5 point marauders. In fact, loads of power gamers take marauders all of the time and claim that they are awesome.

Lord Solar Plexus
17-04-2013, 14:42
Your problem is that you become all defensive and completely shut up if someone dares to disagree with what some anonymous from your neck of the woods has once said. Please take a step back and look how ridiculous that all sounds. Yes, that 1/3 did indeed come from thin, hot air.

Of course power gamers or optimizers or whatever is currently en vogue will trend towards Warriors, just like they did last time trend towards Marauders. That's just the way it is. These players are not somehow immune to making mistakes in their assumptions. When we dismiss certain situations that actually arise rather often as implausible or assume to have an automatic counter to it ("My flyers will get that Volley Gun"), it becomes all too mechanistic.

I mean even the numbers back me up, so what are we even discussing? It's not just State troops...take White Lions in their current generation. Those 18 naked Warriors will be testing on 2 or 3 and likely be toast. Those 40 naked Marauders might lose 2-3 more but be steadfast and have a much better chance to grind on. Sorry, who's 1/3 better? Who's to say this situation cannot possibly arise? How will upgrades affect the fight?

IcedCrow
17-04-2013, 15:13
I don't care that you disagree with what someone here says. His argument is one I've read in a couple different places (basically that marauders need to cost 4-5 points fully decked out to be considered).

I didn't say that I agree that they are 300% better than marauders either, I'm only saying what several math hammering powergamers that I know or have read have claimed.

There's a difference with disagreeing and then there's this:


Your optimizing friend...now that's a good one. I've got a friend who pulled some different numbers from the same thin air, now that's a Mexican standoff if I've ever seen one. What's next, you've got a second friend or an older brother? Please.

This implies (to me) that either I'm making it up or that what they think is irrelevant. The thing is that from where I'm coming from, this logic is the dominant logic (meaning that this logic is what seems to be more common) and is from where I am coming from.

This stems from the concept that marauders are garbage. Of course they aren't garbage, but to someone who is going the powergaming route, nothing stands up to chaos warriors sharing the same slot when they are both infantry unless chaos warriors are complete garbage, and chaos warriors are not complete garbage. That the author of the book / list is an idiot for making marauders cost what they do now and breaking them because they are now too expensive. The pointer there being "of course from a powergaming perspective they will be ignored... they aren't as optimal as chaos warriors as they are costed correctly but chaos warriors are simply better and the only way to appeal to a powergamer typically is to have the unit a little too good for what it can do."

Where does that come from? I feel a marauder is pretty much pointed correctly. We can fudge it 1 point but I dont' see that as a big giant error. However, to a powergamer, they won't ever consider the marauder now because he's not like he used to be (way too cheap) and the only way to get them to come around to marauders is by making them 4-5 points a pop kitted out (to put them back as way too cheap). Those are the people that are saying for the most part that the marauders are crap and that the author is a ***** and those are the people that I am largely addressing.

Kayosiv
17-04-2013, 19:18
It's ironic that you should bring up Greatswords who provide one S5 attack at 12 points and diss Marauders who can bring one S5 attack for just 8. Full plate? Useless against all those Greatweapons out there. Special versus core is of marginal concern I believe. I've never seen anyone run out of the very liberal points allowance for specials.


Greatswords are 11 points and great weapon/flail marauders are 9. I would gladly pay 2 points for stubborn, +1 leadership, and full plate mail. While the plate is useless against great weapons yes, those are weapons that the greatswords will be swinging simultaneously with and also very likely ignoring their opponents armor. Marauders die to everything. The +1 point for light armor doesn't come close to paying for itself (nor does it on any model that has no other armor and is more than 6 points). Greatswords have good decent staying power vs shooting and strength 3-4 attacks.

With that said, marauders are excellent to use against great weapon wielding opponents because their lack of armor is no concern and they save a bit of points on it, so they do have some uses. A strength 6 hit is just as devastating to a 20 point chaos warrior as it is a 9 point marauder. However, this is assuming that your opponent isn't going to shoot the unarmored marauders before they get into combat, and is stupid enough to not send his lower strength and equally expendable hordes to take advantage of the marauder's frailty.

The reason people don't max out on special is because characters are so important and rare choices are so awesome with core being mandatory.

SteveW
17-04-2013, 21:56
8 points with flails, not 9.

Fallstorm
18-04-2013, 00:31
After much trepidition but having had some time to play with WOC overall I feel fairly good about the new book.

1-The Demon Prince is now a good and viable option. People complain about it being unbreakable but this is hardly more broken than what is in some of the other 8th edition books, and to me it makes sense. The Demon Prince in the demon books is a true native of the Warp that has invaded the Old World whereas the Demon Prince of warriors is a creature native to the natural world that worked his/her way up from being a marauder into being a demon. Also, while he is good he is actually fairly fragile this is the edition of the canon and I have seen myself and other WOC players lose him fairly quickly to canon fire especially Ogre Kingdom Iron Blasters unless we were just really lucky or careful.

2-I'm glad the warriors stat line stayed the same. The way some people complained about us I thought we would be relegated to the same stat line as savage orcs minus the ability to field hordes of cheap troops, warmachines, and other stuff like O&G. I still think Chaos Warriors are a little overcosted because despite the solid statline there are too many ways in the game to mitigate this and allow other armies to fight just as good with added benefits like having stronger magic etc.

3-Having Chimeras as a monster is cool, even though again like the demon prince I think they are really flashy and more fragile than what they appear (I mean Leadership 5). If they ever get out of the general's leadership bubble all a smart opponent has to do is cause a unit of dogs to panic and near them and the chimera is almost gauranteed to run. Meaning in deployment wherever the first chimera is dropped is the general vicinity of where the demon prince will be dropped so any smart opponent will be able to guess a large portion of the WOC players deployment. Also, the chimeras have to be used to screen the Demon prince or he is dead. Truth be told I don't think any WOC player really expects his chimeras to make it to the end of the game.


4-Warhounds counting towards core drops and core point is actually a pretty huge deal and an nice improvement.

5-The EOTG table improved so now it works whenever you kill even a champion in combat so while I still don't like this rule it is not as much of a penalty as the rule in our old book was.

6-having chariots as core is cool, Cruddace to his credit did correct a problem that WoC as an army suffered from: lack of speed. Now we have a decent chance of making it across the table without being shot to death.

Some things I don't like about the book:

1-I think the maruader increase was too high and I can't see people fielding marauders again ever except for possibly in cheap 10 man block as pseudo chaff drops but in all honesty why not use warhounds?

2-I personally don't like the rule about only characters of the same mark can join a unit. I can see saying characters of opposing gods can't join the same unit but that is it. Like the Daemons I think they went too far with Daemonic alignment.

3-I don't like the fact that Chosen seem completely useless now and I don't see any reason to take them at all over Chaos Warriors. The same goes for the Warshrine. I think the Warshrine should have been an aura like the Empire Hurricanum as it is the Warshrine is more expensie than a hurricanum but doesn't move as fast or hit as hard, and is a power dice sink vs giving power dice, and is not guaranteed to help your units.

4- I don't like the fact that the lore of Tzeentch (who is suppose to be the Lord of Magic) is absolute garbage with Warpflame as the icing vomited on top of a already bad cake.

So, overall I guess the WOC book is SOLID. I think it is definately stronger than Tomb Kings and Orcs and Goblin (although I do have to say that in my opinon O&G have the best core unit in the game via Savage Orcs not WOC's Chaos Warriors). I say this because while WOC have better stats when you look at cost analysis for stat effectivness my vote goes to the orcs). I don't think WOC's book is as strong as Ogre Kingdoms (these fat goons still sit at the top of 8th edition books), I don't think they are as strong as VCs, especially the VC Death choir and scream list which is just brutal, and honestly I don't think they are as strong as Empire. I really think Empire reminded Cruddace of Imperial Guardsmen for 40k so he pumped out a a great book for them, now granted it railroads you into certain choices but the choices win you games hands down.

One thing I will say about the WOC book is that right now the Demon Prince with the 2 chimeras seems to be the craze and at every tournament every WOC seems to be running this with a few variations here and there. Again, I think people are drawn to this because it is big and flashy and because as WoC players they have been denied speed for so long having fast flyers is awesome BUT....and this is a big but. When VCs came it it took a long while before people really started exploriing it more and seeing some of the brutal broken stuff that was hidden in the book. I hope that WOC has something like this also that people are just overlooking right now because of the flash of the Demon Prince and chimeras. I really hope there is some hidden power combo in the book that when synergized well wreaks havoc, but then again maybe like Empire what you see is what you get. Maybe Cruddace writing style is simply to make certain choices a no brainer. I don't know, as only time will tell I guess we will have to wait and see like I said I'm just glad to be able to field the demon prince model I've had forever but never ran.

Peace,
Fallstorm

IcedCrow
18-04-2013, 00:55
i'm so very glad for the alignment :D as a player from when there was infighting in chaos hordes, it always irks me to see mixed units where a character with one mark would join up with a character of a different mark. It never made sense to me outside of gamist reasons.

Fallstorm
18-04-2013, 01:04
i'm so very glad for the alignment :D as a player from when there was infighting in chaos hordes, it always irks me to see mixed units where a character with one mark would join up with a character of a different mark. It never made sense to me outside of gamist reasons.


I can respect where you are coming from I guess. I never played Hordes of Chaos I'm strictly a new school 8th edition Warhammer player. I just don't like it because

1) I feel it nerfs the army unnecesarilly. As a WOC player I feel the WOC play style is fairly straight forward but deceptively complex to actually master. Any Warrior player who buys into the line of "Here's big blocks. Push them forward" without any sense of strategy is going to lose, despite the hype GW promotes about warriors being tactically forgiving (heck I think Ogres are far more tactically forgiven for newcomers than Warriors), especially with the new book where Warriors has transitioned from big marauding blocks to small "elite" fighting units and needs more synergy to work i.,e a smaller block of warriors vanguarded properly by dogs and flank protected by a chariot or chimera, etc.

2) From a pure philisophical reason it doesn't make sense to me. Like I said I can see the opposing gods not liking each other and thus their marked people not joining a unit with a character of the opposing mark, but why for example would a character of Khorne the lord of Slaughter not join a unit of warriors of Nurgle getting ready to go into the thick of battle. Nurgle warriors are going to kill and spread pestulance, all of these things bring kill and blood for the blood god so why would she not join? Like wise why would a slaanesh character not join a unit of Tzeentch warriors would he not be intrigued and wanted to experience the pleasure of whatever mysterious things the Tzeentch warriors were planning and not to mention join in the thrill of battle?

Again, I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer in this...instead it is just a matter of preference. Having never played hordes I like the rules of the old WOC book on alignment ie., whoever/wherever.

Kayosiv
18-04-2013, 01:52
8 points with flails, not 9.

Well... would you look at that. I stand corrected.

Minsc
18-04-2013, 04:46
Well... would you look at that. I stand corrected.

Still, Greatswords should be compared to Marauders with GW and not Marauders with Flails, so your point still stands...kinda.

SteveW
18-04-2013, 06:23
greatswords should be compared to a special choice like hammerers, not a core choice.

Methios
18-04-2013, 06:55
I think you need to stop looking at WoCs last book and start looking at the other 8th books. Alot of books got "toned down" And as for the guy that complains about diffrent marks not being able to join eachother; if you look at the daemon book. nurgle minions cant even benifit from the "hold your ground" or "inspiring prensence" rules. So it could be worse?

Lord Solar Plexus
18-04-2013, 11:49
His argument is one I've read in a couple different places (basically that marauders need to cost 4-5 points fully decked out to be considered).


Sure. Then just note once that some people have stated x if you believe it has any relevance. Don't present it in a way that more or less says the vast majority / all the optimizers out there / millions of powergamers does x because a friend of you said so.



This implies (to me) that either I'm making it up or that what they think is irrelevant.


A simple statement like Tom says X is indeed irrelevant. It could be there, it could be not, same difference. What matters is the argument as such, and funnily enough, we're in complete agreeance on that. Uncanny, eh? :)



However, this is assuming that your opponent isn't going to shoot the unarmored marauders before they get into combat, and is stupid enough to not send his lower strength and equally expendable hordes to take advantage of the marauder's frailty.


You mean the opponent is better off if he brings his own Marauders? Isn't that what I'm saying?



The reason people don't max out on special is because characters are so important and rare choices are so awesome with core being mandatory.


What does that have to do with it?


Still, Greatswords should be compared to Marauders with GW and not Marauders with Flails, so your point still stands...kinda.

Not at all.


greatswords should be compared to a special choice like hammerers, not a core choice.

Then how do you know whether they are better or worse than core choices?

IcedCrow
18-04-2013, 12:15
Sure. Then just note once that some people have stated x if you believe it has any relevance. Don't present it in a way that more or less says the vast majority / all the optimizers out there / millions of powergamers does x because a friend of you said so.

I'm not trying to say one of my friends says so so its so.

I'm saying that this conversation comes up about 10 times regularly and 9 of the 10 people yelling about how crappy marauders are claim the only way to make them relevant again is to drop them to 4-5 points a model kitted out (at least that's how it seems to go when I read / participate in such debates)

Kayosiv
18-04-2013, 18:40
You mean the opponent is better off if he brings his own Marauders? Isn't that what I'm saying?


Most opponents are forced to bring weak core units. They look for something to fight and if you bring marauders it is an easy choice for them to make.



What does that have to do with it?


He said that most people don't max out on special. I was just pointing out that most people spend points on at least a high level wizard and a BSB in characters, 25% or more core, and a high amount of rare. People don't max out on special because they can't in most situations because 50% is hardly a limit at all.

In my current Vampire Counts list at 2500, I spend 27% on characters, 25% on core, and 9% in rare. How could I max out in special? I only have 39% of my points allowance left. It works like that for many armies.

SteveW
18-04-2013, 18:58
Then how do you know whether they are better or worse than core choices?

I dont, but they should be compared to units in the same category.






He said that most people don't max out on special. I was just pointing out that most people spend points on at least a high level wizard and a BSB in characters, 25% or more core, and a high amount of rare. People don't max out on special because they can't in most situations because 50% is hardly a limit at all.

In my current Vampire Counts list at 2500, I spend 27% on characters, 25% on core, and 9% in rare. How could I max out in special? I only have 39% of my points allowance left. It works like that for many armies.

Until I read this I didnt realize I spend hardly anything on special with my TK's(14.2%) but max it out with my Orcs N Goblins(49.5%).

Clockwork
18-04-2013, 19:27
@Fallstrom

I hate to be that guy, but your post seems to be a classic example of the "grass is greener." Whilst you recognise some of the book's strengths, (and accurately identify some of the weak points in it, too) - although I note that there's no word of the power of Nurgle - way too often you come back to "well, its not absurdly broken like apparently these other people can get, so I'm not happy."



1-The Demon Prince is now a good and viable option. People complain about it being unbreakable but this is hardly more broken than what is in some of the other 8th edition books, and to me it makes sense. The Demon Prince in the demon books is a true native of the Warp that has invaded the Old World whereas the Demon Prince of warriors is a creature native to the natural world that worked his/her way up from being a marauder into being a demon. Also, while he is good he is actually fairly fragile this is the edition of the canon and I have seen myself and other WOC players lose him fairly quickly to canon fire especially Ogre Kingdom Iron Blasters unless we were just really lucky or careful.

A "you can do it too" excuse is never a suitable defence. I'd like to see what you think is the equal of a Daemon Prince in the 8th edition books, though. Mournfang spam?

The whole Daemon Daemon Prince vs non-Daemon Daemon Prince is just splitting hairs, imo. Is there a difference between a High Elf Great Eagle and a Wood Elf Great Eagle? No. Likewise, its a Daemon Prince, and it shouldn't matter where it originates - the act of ascension transcends whatever mortal links it might have. There should be some form of consistency. Whether they both get instability or neither do is another matter (Personally, I think no instability and both Stubborn and ItP rather than Unbreakable).



2-I'm glad the warriors stat line stayed the same. The way some people complained about us I thought we would be relegated to the same stat line as savage orcs minus the ability to field hordes of cheap troops, warmachines, and other stuff like O&G. I still think Chaos Warriors are a little overcosted because despite the solid statline there are too many ways in the game to mitigate this and allow other armies to fight just as good with added benefits like having stronger magic etc.

Not the Warrior debate again. We went over this last time: Everything that "mitigates" Warriors being good, Warriors can "mitigate" right back. You aren't costed for how other stuff can "mitigate" you; you are costed at how good the statline is. Overall I think its fair: one point drop for base cost, but more expensive upgrades means it tends to balance out, but it can get really expensive. Seems fair. Just how cheap to you want these guys?



1-I think the maruader increase was too high and I can't see people fielding marauders again ever except for possibly in cheap 10 man block as pseudo chaff drops but in all honesty why not use warhounds?

Actually read the thread - there are plenty of ways to use Marauders; just not spamming ultra cheap, ultra strength, ultra high-damage blocks anymore.




4- I don't like the fact that the lore of Tzeentch (who is suppose to be the Lord of Magic) is absolute garbage with Warpflame as the icing vomited on top of a already bad cake.

Glean Magic. Treason of Tzeentch. But frankly, I don't think any of the book lores are nearly as good as what you can get from the BRB. But that' generally in line with all the other 8th edition books so far: again, this is an example of "I want it better."

I don't think its good for the game to hope that there's some "brutal, broken" combinations to be discovered in a book that you can use to faceroll opponents. But if the Double Daemon Prince, Triple Chimera, and Ben Hur Chariot list isn't brutal enough for you, I dread to think what is.

Also, how is the alignment restriction a nerf, mechanically or tactically?

Fallstorm
19-04-2013, 00:00
Hi Clockwork,

Okay I will try to answer your inquires to the best of my ability:

First, just in general I wouldn't say I feel the "grass is greener" like I said I think the 8th WOC book is solid. I think the book is stronger overall than O&G, Tomb Kings, and I would probably say Daemons too from what I am seeing, but not as strong as the ones I listed VCs, Ogre Kingdoms, and Empire. As far as the Daemon Prince that was pretty much the only "Wow" thing WOC got in their book while other armies have tones of "Wow" stuff. I know, you feel that that the whole "the other army gets X so we should get X" is not a good argument and while I respect your position I respectfully disagree. I will gladly make my Daemon Prince Stubborn (making it a decent chance he can run away and get killed) if you give me the ability to take 2, +1 armor save 10 wound models that are unbreakable and can grind down infantry blocks and shoot as cannons, tank things. I will glady trade my Daemon Prince in if you give me move and shoot cannons, one that gets to reroll the bounce and the other that is is great in close combat and can heal its wounds (skull cannon). I will glady make the Daemon Prince unbreakable if you give me an item like alot of other armies have that gives extra dice during the magic phase so you pretty much are guarenteed to get one spell you really need off. I'll glady make my Daemon Prince unbreakable if you give me the ability to field hordes of very cheap troops or the ability to have a chariot that gives a +1 to hit all units in 6 inches. Yes, I will admit the WOC Daemon Prince is good. I think overall their are 8th edition army books that have stuff just as good and less fragile.

Regarding Warriors, I honestly don't remember everything we discussed but I will take your word for it. Alls I know every game I have played against armies recently even Tomb Kings they have had some way to have their guys fight just as good as mine. Dark Elves witho double shadow is going to get off probably at least one Melikoth's and then XXX dice drop for mindrazor and fight better than warriors. Ogre kingdoms don't have as a weapon skill but have impact hits and stomps so they are not really rolling to hit as much just to wound with a high strength and being multiple wounds for model gives them a better economy of actions because it takes more to kill them. Heck, even the Tomb Kings player I fought recently...I won the game but he had some item that gave him a D3 to his casting roll each round, and he got extra dice from the casket and he had this one use item that gave him like 4 more power dice he used and he was able to get off speed of light and Timewarp on the stuff I was facing, now all of sudden his stuff is fighting just as good as my warriors for a lot cheaper. The Empire player had tricks up his sleeve to have his greatswords fighting just as good as my warriors, bet they didn't cost as much. We don't have to rehash this argument, but I ardently believe the WOC is a little overcosted and we need some way to help us out with dice in the magic phase.

I absolutely agree with you on teh BRB lores being the best in the game and honestly that is probably how it should be, although the Lore attribute for the Ogre Kingdom's book is in my opinion the best Lore attribute in the game, yes even better than Nurgles. I will also agree with you that the Lore of Nurgle is a good solid lore that has a lot of synergy with what WOC's does in terms of play style. Still, the lore of tzeentch is garbage and mainly because of the warpflame special rule that all the army has. Treason and Glean magic are not that bad, (glean is unrealiable and treason is really good), but 2 spells does not constitute a good lore. The warpflame rule combined with an entire lore that lacks any flaming attacks is just bad, and on top of that all the damage off most of the spells in the lore is random which overall is bad for the WOC player. Even, if the warpflame is errata'd to be flaming the rule and the lore still is bad, becaues yes with flaming you negate regeneration for the magic phase but now the units you hit with the spells earlier have a regen save in close combat or the shooting phase that they didn't have before (or that improved). I mean, while I respect your opinion and we can agree to disagree in my experience you would be the first person to actually argue the warpflame rule is good and that the lore of tzeentch is worth taking over say metal that Tzeentch caster also has access too (especially considering the meta of +1 armor saves that seems to be the craze in the game currently).

As regarding combos in the book, don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that the chimera/demon prince/chariot combo is not a tough one (as a WOC I would still rather face this in a WOC opponent than face say an Empire Double Stank, gunline, Light Council combo army or VC screamer and death choir list or Ogres) but all I'm saying is that right now that seems to be the craze and it was a little disappointing to see every WOC running pretty much the exact same lists. I know, with VCs people ran the same things for a good while until they started taking the book apart and finding broken combos in the game, and I personally just want that to exist for warriors, but as I said Phil Kelly and Cruddance may or do have a totally different design style. I know for example with Empire (at least from what I have seen and listening to Empire players) the book is realliy strong and the army is outstanding IF you take specifically what Cruddance wants you to take and if you veer off of that the army kind of sucks, but then in Tomb Kings it is a book that requires a really good general to play and you have to be savvy and find the synergy that exists between units in the book to make it work. Now, I know WOC are often suggested to beginners because of their straight forward playstyle so I'm sure Cruddance didn't make them to complex or alter their style TOO much for a reason, but I am just curious is there is some synergy that people are overlooking right now that is devastating to opponents, but is being ignored in favor of the more flashy options.

I think you and I simply disagree on the subject of power creep. You think it is bad, and I can agree to some extent but then on one hand I disagree and if every other army has been made powerhouse like the ones I mentioned I'm sorry I'm not going to sit here and say make my warriors perfectly balanced while everyone elses gets Carte blanche on the power game. I mean, at least I'm honest (but respectful) in where I stand.

As far as the alignment restriction mechanically and tactfully it is a nerf because in your infantry blocks you may want to run the majority of them a specific mark but then throw a wizard in there (you know the wizard bunker that pretty much every army does) well now for Warriors it does become tricky. For example let's say in my army besides the DP and Chimera I have 2 infantry blocks a nurgle shield and sword block as my anvil and a halberd and shield khorne warriors as my anvil. So now I have to run either an unmarked wizard to tuck somewhere because my wizard of Tzeentch (lore of metal on him by btw) or Slaanesh lore wizard is just without a bunker. The alignments definately make it harder is all I am saying, now granted I know the Daemons have it worse, but like I said for both Warriors and Daemons I think they went too far. I would have said no characters/demons of an opposing Chaos God can gain benefits but I don't think they should have to be the exact same mark/alignment.

Maoriboy007
19-04-2013, 04:26
I think the book is stronger overall than O&G, Tomb Kings, and I would probably say Daemons too from what I am seeing, but not as strong as the ones I listed VCs, Ogre Kingdoms, and Empire.They dont have cannons but otherwise WoC are easily the equal of VC and Empire, Ogres might give them a run but I wouldn't put money on it.

As far as the Daemon Prince that was pretty much the only "Wow" thing WOC got in their book while other armies have tones of "Wow" stuff.Hellcannons are better than ever, Core Chaos Chariots are awesome, Skullcrushers are as good as any Monstrous Cavalry out there and Chaos warriors are still some of the best troops available, their Characters are as nasty to face as ever and they actually got a decent selection of magic items , Gifts and Spells. Thats plenty enough "Wow" factor in anyones book.

I will gladly make my Daemon Prince Stubborn (making it a decent chance he can run away and get killed) if you give me the ability to take 2, +1 armor save 10 wound models that are unbreakable and can grind down infantry blocks and shoot as cannons, tank things. ?? Are you also going to give your prince human stats??
I love how you picked one of the more powerful models in an Empire army that otherwise smacks of averageness as some kind of strawman and you don't even mention its drawbacks. You do know that a steam tank can hurt itself, only fights in its players phase, gets substatially worse as you wound it (or as it wounds itself) unitil 5 wounds when it becomes a paperweight.A Demon Prince fights in every round as well on 1 wound as it does on 4, can have a 2+ armour save, a ward save, myriad special abilities and can fly. I'd give up toughness 8 on a warsphinx to have a Hellcannon and decent armour saves as well.

I will glady trade my Daemon Prince in if you give me move and shoot cannons, one that gets to reroll the bounce and the other that is is great in close combat and can heal its wounds (skull cannon).. Well done , I don't have someone elses broken toys boo hoo?Anyone who doesnt have cannons wants them not just WoC , they are a problem for the game not WoC. And you do realise you have the Hellcannon right? One of the best warmachins in the game?

I will glady make the Daemon Prince unbreakable if you give me an item like alot of other armies have that gives extra dice during the magic phase so you pretty much are guarenteed to get one spell you really need off.You mean like the poewrstone in the BRB? Not to mention most armies that generate extra dice like TKs use half of their magic to maybe fight at an equal level to your core, or are 7th ed books waiting for updates. And what do you do with your magic in return? Honestly, WoC are not lacking in the magic department.

I'll glady make my Daemon Prince unbreakable if you give me the ability to field hordes of very cheap troops. You mean naked marauders or dogs? Who are pretty decent for the price, they're not quite as cheap as goblins but dont fight like them either.

or the ability to have a chariot that gives a +1 to hit all units in 6 inches..So your average empire troops hit you on 3's when buffed by a pricey rare unit, remind me...what do the majority of WoC troops hit Empire troops on again...? Without paying extra for it.

Yes, I will admit the WOC Daemon Prince is good. I think overall their are 8th edition army books that have stuff just as good and less fragile !?Like what!?!A Tooled Red Fury Vampire has , on the outside, a 50/50 chance against a tooled demon prince, and you can crumble the vampire. A Demon Prince laughs at Tomb King and Empire characters, even mosnters probably wont take it down, magic is just as likely to swing the fight the Princes way as his opponants.


Alls I know every game I have played against armies recently even Tomb Kings they have had some way to have their guys fight just as good as mine. Only the Speed of Light and MWBD comes to mind. In essence Chos have Speed of Light permanently cast on them as far as a TK army is concerned, you will nearly always hit on 3s and strike first unless TKs have that spell up. MWBD makes the odds roughly even, unless you kill the Prince or King first , which you are likely to do.


Dark Elves witho double shadow is going to get off probably at least one Melikoth's and then XXX dice drop for mindrazor and fight better than warriors. .....


Heck, even the Tomb Kings player I fought recently...I won the game but he had some item that gave him a D3 to his casting roll each round, and he got extra dice from the casket and he had this one use item that gave him like 4 more power dice he used and he was able to get off speed of light and Timewarp on the stuff I was facing, now all of sudden his stuff is fighting just as good as my warriors for a lot cheaper.A lot cheaper , apart from the 480+ points he had to spend on magic to pull that off, never mind that one dispell scroll would have pulled the rug out. The one use item would have been the Powerstone from the BRB generates 2 power dice. So all that , and you won anyway....

The Empire player had tricks up his sleeve to have his greatswords fighting just as good as my warriors, bet they didn't cost as much..So his special, that cost slightly less than your core that are usually much better anyway, fight just as good when boosted by magic or units that he paid for in addition to the cost of the original unit.....yeah....try shadow magic or nurgle.

We don't have to rehash this argument, but I ardently believe the WOC is a little overcosted and we need some way to help us out with dice in the magic phase...:rolleyes:

Lord Solar Plexus
19-04-2013, 05:03
I'm not trying to say one of my friends says so so its so.

I'm saying that this conversation comes up about 10 times regularly and 9 of the 10 people yelling about how crappy marauders are claim the only way to make them relevant again is to drop them to 4-5 points a model kitted out (at least that's how it seems to go when I read / participate in such debates)

Okay, then I misunderstood you. Sorry for that, IcedCrow.


Most opponents are forced to bring weak core units. They look for something to fight and if you bring marauders it is an easy choice for them to make.


That's just another black & white statement. If the Marauders kill that weak core, I cannot imagine why anyone but the WoC player would look forward to it. You're also basing this on the assumption that Marauders are weak themselves, weaker than weak core in fact, which is a peculiar way of looking at it in and of itself, especially when that is precisely the bone of contention.



He said that most people don't max out on special.


No, that was me who said that. Evidently there are reasons for this but they do not matter - they do not change the fact I've pointed out. Greatswords are, can and must by necessity be compared with Swordsmen, despite different categories, especially when the category limit is not a hard cap.


I dont, but they should be compared to units in the same category.


And to everything else in their own and everyone else's AB, for so many reasons. Come on, that's obvious, isn't it? How do you know what to pick for a good list if you don't compare the units beforehand? Apart from the required bare bones, everyone compares everything with one another, Core with characters, specials with rare and so on. We do have the option to take another infantry unit or some characters instead. Will the L2 help you more or is the detachment a better choice? Hellcannon or another block of Warriors?

Players had no reason to fill up on rares as Kayosiv claims they do if they didn't know those were better than a choice from another category, or they would not play minimum core etc. The same goes for the opposing army: What do you fight with what? The result is inevitably based on a comparison.

Fallstorm
19-04-2013, 07:14
Maoriboy007,

Well met. Okay, let me try to address your points.

1. I seriously disagree that WOC are the equal of any VC. The ability of the VCs to spam ethereal units and to have multiple screamers on the field is pretty bad, and I’m sure you are aware that the screams even work against you while in close combat, so no I don’t think WOC are the equal of Vampire Counts.

2. Regarding the “Wow” factors of WOC, having chariots as a core choice is definitely awesome, especially for an army that has traditionally suffered from lack of speed. You also will not hear me complaining about skullcrushers although every new army has monstrous cavalry and I really question whether skullcrushers are the best. For example, Demigryph knights being able to fly is huge. Also don’t demigryph knights have a ward save? (I’m not sure on this but I thought they did), and while with Mathhammer mournfang get beat to skullcrushers I have seen what mournfang can do if kitted out with the Dragonhide banner and all that so I would honestly rather be able to do what kitted out mournfang can do. Also, our magic items I think are pretty bleh, but we do have some awesome Chaos mutations that can be taken on single characters and does make our characters good, this is required especially since every WOC has to accept and make challenges (except the daemon prince oddly enough). We hardly have the best items in the game. I would give that to Ogres via items like the runemaw banner, the hellheart, the dragonhide banner, the greedy fist,etc. Hellcannons did get an improvement, but the Hellcannon is not really a cannon it is stonethrower and stonethrowers are not as good as cannons. The hellcannon is unrealiable and really there is no reason to take just one. If you are going to use a hellcannon then you take 2 and go death magic on your DP and try for the panic bomb, but this is a list that even when we had the skull totem (the banner from our old book that gave a -1 leadership to all enemy units) is very iffy. The hellcannons have to hit, you have to get off doom and darkness, etc. You very rarely saw this list make it to top rankings in tournaments, because it was VERY luck dependent so yeah the HC is good but I wouldn’t “Wow” it.

3. The steamtank is just one example of the brokenness that exist in the Empire army. Also, I have very rarely seen a steam tank actually injure itself generating steam points. I have faced empire several times over the years (I started in 8th) and I have seen a Empire tank blow itself up like twice and that is it). Yes, it can become a “paperweight” if it takes enough wounds, but that paperweight is enough to hold up infantry blocks (even large ones) and/or simply be a big block of point denial to your army. I mean, you don’t get any VPs for a 1 wound left steam tank and they are not easy to kill. Like I said, as a WOC player, I also have a Daemons army, I would rather face a WOC DP+2 chimera combo anyday than have to face off against an Empire double stank, gunline, bolstered by a Light council combo. Yeah, I’m cool on that bruh.

4. On the cheap troops dogs are chaff and not even the best chaff in the game (but they are good) yes, marauders don’t fight like goblins but then OnG will field 100+ block of goblins supported by not too expensive orc troops that can actually fight well, especially in horde formation, (savage orcs and black orcs come to mind), where as WoC will not be doing that because the CW is so expensive.

5. As for the “empire troops being bolstered by a pricey unit”. The Hurricanum is not that pricey. For 130 pts The Empire gets a chariot that moves and fights like a chariot, gives +1 power dice in the magic phase (which is huge), gives a flat aura that grants a +1 to hit enemy units, and has an innate bound spell. The WOC Chaos Warshrine is 125 pts is chariot that doesn’t have impact hits or swiftstride like the Hurricanum, doesn’t grant any bonus to magic, doesn’t give a flat aura and gets a random effect if a power dice is used. There’s a reason you don’t see a warshrine on the gaming table these days.

6. When I say plenty of stuff is less fragile that is because other stuff can hide in units. I am not doubting, a demon prince can beat a vampire lord in close combat, but in general a Vampire lord can tuck himself inside his units of undead and be safe from missile and artillery fire. With the way true line of sight works the demon prince is very difficult to screen, especially against move and shoot cannons like the highly accurate Ogre Kingdom leadbelcher. So against gunline armies and Ogres the Demon Prince is very susceptible to being taken out by a single cannon shot and the DP is the lynchpin of the WOC army at least in the current configuration I see people running. You take that out and it is game. Also, I agree cannons are a threat to everyone who doesn’t have them, but the think is MOST armies do have cannons or other artillery fire like hellbasters or organ guns, etc., and WOC are more susceptible to this because the DP can’t be hide in a unit and don’t have anything to shoot coming back at you. Again, it is a poor chaos player who takes just one Hellcannon and why choose an HC over more reliable monsters like 2 chimeras flying up screening your DP (hopefully).

But again, all this hooray, when all I have said is that WOC 8th edition are a very solid book. I have pointed out some of the weaknesses in the book as well as its strength,and I think in terms of power if falls squarely in the middle of other 8th books. If I were to rank the 8th edition books I would go as follows in order from most to least powerful:



Ogre Kingdoms
Vampire Counts
Empire
Warriors of Chaos
Daemons of Chaos** (very close to OnG)
Orcs and Goblins
Tomb Kings


As regards the WOC magic phase I just think it would be nice to have something like Empire that gives that +1 dice as it stands Tomb Kings get d3 extra dice per MP and get a +d3 casting value, OnG have something they can do to get more dice I forget what they do to do this, DE have power of darkness, Slaan get a free dice to cast with every spell, Ogres gut magic give them a +1 to cast/dispel if they get a 2+ on a d6, and all this magic essentially negates the WOC statline by debuffing warriors or buffing up their own units. I just think WOC could use a little help with power dice, but again the book is solid.

GrandmasterWang
19-04-2013, 07:21
I like the book. An overwhelming success imo with some beautiful art.

Marauders are fine. Anyone saying they are broken like before but the other way (under powered now) is missing there 2 attacks 6 pts models for sure.

I think they are well balanced and they are very useful for WOC. If I get a good flank charge on warriors chances are I can break them and run them down. Same attacking unit vs Marauders of the same points and chances are they are steadfast and will turn to face me next turn.

Marauders give the WOC player numbers. They are roughly half the price of warriors. You kill 5 of my warriors I sad. You kill 5 of my Marauders I meh

I'd be curious to see a Marauders/warriors math hammer off against white lions. Internet deemed best build for both.

I think it's great that now people actually have to think about how to use Marauders again. Good job Cruddance.
No brainers no more!!! Thank you

I just recently saw 14 flail Marauders get into some ironguts business and do some good damage. Warriors couldn't have achieved the same thing.

Want a cheap look out sir bunker. Marauders are your guys! !

They have many uses... players just need to think now instead of plonk ing down the khorne gw kill squad

Lord Solar Plexus
19-04-2013, 08:26
Well, we're all not quite a competence centre it seems. I don't know what Greatswords costs, someone got the cost of Marauders wrong and you believe they have two attacks...

The math against any foe is relatively easy. The premises however - unit size, width, which upgrades, theoretical model etc. - will inevitably be hotly contested. Let us assume the Same cost-model and just use 300 points. That buys us 18 Warriors with a shield & FC, 18 White Lions & FC, and 45 naked Marauders.

Warriors are 6 wide. Lions are 9 wide just because they want to get the most attacks against everyone. WL kill 9.3 CW and some change. CW kill 4-5 WL, CW (likely) die.

Marauders, 5 wide: WL kill 12 Marauders and change. Marauders kill 2 or so Elves and are steadfast. They will lose eventually but they perfom way better in this particular situation.

Marauders, 10 wide: WL kill 13, Marauders kill 5. Next round, Marauders kill 3 and are still steadfast. As a matter of fact, they kill half the WL. Not a fair fight, not a smart move but better then CW.

We can also do this according to the Realism-model: 18 CW, MoN, Halberd, Shield, 6 wide. 30 WL, horde. 40 Marauders, MoK, Flail, horde. (Please do not try this at home, it's not pretty. Use a breath weapon before the fight.) WL kill 12.5 CW, lose 5 and nearly autowin. They kill 22 Marauders and lose 12. Again Marauders are steadfast, lose eventually, and are generally superior.

These are just some of the many possible scenarios. You can adjust Marks and width and opponent, say, Hammerers, and whatnot and play around with that but the outcome against high-quality attacks is almost always the same. In fact, it shows that the classic setup of 6 wide Warriors often just doesn't make the most effective use of their abilities but that's for another thread.

Clockwork
19-04-2013, 08:31
This is crazy. Fallstrom, this is the argument you put forwards in the other thread: its not fair that other armies can use combinations of units which equal or beat Warriors. You then ignore how many points these combinations cost unless you can cite one cheap example as a strawman (note how you ignored the Tomb King example of ~500 points to favour your Empire example), ignore the fact that destroying these support units ends the advantage, and ignore the fact that Warriors don't operate in a vacuum and have their own support. And for what its worth, that Empire 130 point buffwagon is equivalent to 9 naked Warriors.

You then claim that the Hellcannon-Death magic combination is too reliant on luck, but anything anybody else does with magic is clearly always guaranteed and will never go wrong.

Clearly, you will only be happy when Warriors are either better or cheaper so that they are always superior and nobody can ever have a chance of matching them. This is exactly what I am talking about by "the grass is greener."

Look, just because other armies have units which you perceive as 'broken,' doesn't mean you should get away with broken units as well. Yes, that's power creep and yes, its bad for the game. You know whats not so bad about these other 'broken' units you cite? They all have weaknesses. Steam tank? Magic, warmachines, heroes, itself. Mournfang? Low leadership/initiative. Skullcannon? Broken as balls and should not exist. But the Daemon Prince? Two weaknesses: Lore of Metal and Cannons; both of which can be mitigated by 5 point magic items and careful positioning.

You know why alignment restriction doesn't matter? Because you can hide wizards in cheap marauder units if you want a mage bunker. Oh! But Marauders are useless now, I forgot. And Mage bunkers should have the best stats in the game, because they should also be mage bunkers and hammers.

Wesser
19-04-2013, 09:04
I will gladly make my Daemon Prince Stubborn (making it a decent chance he can run away and get killed) if you give me the ability to take 2, +1 armor save 10 wound models that are unbreakable and can grind down infantry blocks and shoot as cannons, tank things.

Done!

Heck you can field as many Steam Tanks as you want in your WoC army as you want for all I care. I personally consider it a fairly weak choice (although its cumbersome rules are the main reason I don't bother with it).

Now, if you were scared of the Pidgeon-Circus I could understand, but the "One-hurl-brick"? Really?

Lord Solar Plexus
19-04-2013, 09:22
Ah, but Wesser, that is really a minority opinion. I'm certainly just one guy and not THE expert but I read and write on four fora, play in a small regional league and like to soak up hobby information, and I have never heard this sentiment before. Steam Tanks are incredibly good value and can fulfill a variety of roles completely on their own. I mean your pet peeve about Empire is the "crutches", what others call the combined arms aspect, in the light of the complexity and fragility of all the components. Here's finally a unit that does not fall into this and yet you diss it?

Askari
19-04-2013, 09:35
For example, Demigryph knights being able to fly is huge. Also don’t demigryph knights have a ward save? (I’m not sure on this but I thought they did)

Not to do the whole "take one sentence to try and distort the whole argument" thing, but..

Maybe you should check up on Demigryph Knights rules before making a statement on how they are much superior to Skullcrushers. They don't Fly, nor do they have a ward save.

Some of your arguments - like the Tomb Kings casting ability example which costs many hundreds of points and requires them to take 2 Level 4s for access to a decent Lore, or how an Empire army still has such as thing as a "gunline" - to me seems like you don't really know the capabilities of other armies, and as such are overestimating them leading you to believe things such as "Chaos Warriors are overcosted".

GrandmasterWang
19-04-2013, 10:00
Doesn't the steam tank auto die to initiative tests?

Thank you for the hammering LSP. As shown there the meatheads are far from useless. In the crazy world of warhammer there are many more situations where the meatheads will out perform their bulkier core rivals.

Also need to say that demigryph knights are op (skull crushers are arguably better) but they sure as hell can't fly! I think your opponent is trying to cheat you there fallstorm.

Wesser
19-04-2013, 10:00
Ah, but Wesser, that is really a minority opinion. I'm certainly just one guy and not THE expert but I read and write on four fora, play in a small regional league and like to soak up hobby information, and I have never heard this sentiment before. Steam Tanks are incredibly good value and can fulfill a variety of roles completely on their own. I mean your pet peeve about Empire is the "crutches", what others call the combined arms aspect, in the light of the complexity and fragility of all the components. Here's finally a unit that does not fall into this and yet you diss it?

Well I did say for all I care right :)

I consider the Steam Tank weak, because I can't make it work and because I've never seen it work. When I face Empire with my Vampires it tends to to die on Turn 1, and the two times I've used it the random factors (movement misfire) let me down big time.

For tanking purposes and damage output I'd rather have 3 Demigryphs knights and for the cannon..well a cannon. Taking those 2 choices are only slightly more expensive and just a lot better in my personal opinion.

I'm not rly concerned about the Steam Tank though. Oh and by the way, you've misunderstood me I think. My real pet peeve is more about "mandatory combos" like helblaster/engineer. The "Whack the crutches" peeve is more of 2nd place as its more a strategy...and because it's related to my number one peeve "mandatory priests".

But yes. I guess I'm in the minority...but I really wouldnt mind fighting a 2500 pts battle against 10 Tanks...

Vipoid
19-04-2013, 11:12
4. On the cheap troops dogs are chaff and not even the best chaff in the game (but they are good) yes, marauders donít fight like goblins but then OnG will field 100+ block of goblins supported by not too expensive orc troops that can actually fight well, especially in horde formation, (savage orcs and black orcs come to mind), where as WoC will not be doing that because the CW is so expensive.

This seems like an odd argument. In fact, it seems like you're saying "O&G are better, because they have a different playstyle." :p

Thing is, if you want an army that works like O&G, I suggest you play O&G, or one of the other armies that focuses on hordes of weak troops (Empire, Undead, and Skaven all come to mind).

Consider that WoC don't generally use big blocks of Warriors because they don't need big blocks of Warriors.

There are really just two reasons to take large hordes of infantry (which aren't mutually exclusive):
- To maximise attacks (this is particularly important for infantry with poor WS, A and/or S, since many of their attacks will fail to hit and wound).
- To make them more survivable (most troops have relatively poor T and armour saves, so they take casualties easily).

Now consider WoC:
- They have 2 attacks, WS5 and S4 base. So, even smaller squads get a decent number of attacks, plus they hit most other infantry on 3s, and then they'll generally wound on 3s. See, when 2/3 of your attacks are hitting, and you have 2 attacks base, you don't need the extra attacks from a horde formation.
- In terms of defence, they start with T4 and a 4+ armour save (which is damn good for a core unit), and they're I5, so they'll strike first against most units.

And, that's just their base stats - you then have a lot of additional customisation in terms of marks and equipment:
- Want more offence: MoK and/or extra hand weapon (more attacks), Halberd (extra strength but retain initiative)
- Want more defence: MoN (enjoy hitting my core units on 5s...), Shield and MoT (3+ armour, 5+ parry save)

You see, this is one of the main benefits of having elite infantry - you can utilise smaller, more manoeuvrable blocks without sacrificing much killing power.

Yes, you won't generally have massive hordes like some other races, but it would be silly if you did. It wouldn't be a very balanced game if your warriors costed the same as a horde unit, but are better in every way. ;)



As regards the WOC magic phase I just think it would be nice to have something like Empire that gives that +1 dice as it stands Tomb Kings get d3 extra dice per MP and get a +d3 casting value, OnG have something they can do to get more dice I forget what they do to do this, DE have power of darkness, Slaan get a free dice to cast with every spell, Ogres gut magic give them a +1 to cast/dispel if they get a 2+ on a d6

I'm sure a lot of armies would like ways to generate extra power dice.

For a start, DE and Slaan are a terrible comparison, since they're still 7th edition army books (free power dice generators with every purchase). 8th edition army books have been far more conservative with regard to power dice generation.

With TK, they're spending 310pts on 2 units to generate those bonuses (not even including the cost of their wizards) - and, both of those units (neither of which can be hidden in a unit) are bad in combat; with no ward saves and negligible armour so, you can easily send a Disclord, chimera or the like to kill the casket/titan, and so remove the bonus.

In any case, TK do kinda need the extra dice - how about your warriors get extra dice when they need spells just to march? :D

Maoriboy007
19-04-2013, 14:15
Marauders are fine. Anyone saying they are broken like before but the other way (under powered now) is missing there 2 attacks 6 pts models for sure.I think a Khorne marked (2 attack) marauder cost the same as a dark elf spearman, an Flail wielding Khorne marauder at the same cost as a ghoul is an excellent buy IMO.

1. I seriously disagree that WOC are the equal of any VC. The ability of the VCs to spam ethereal units and to have multiple screamers on the field is pretty bad, and Iím sure you are aware that the screams even work against you while in close combat, so no I donít think WOC are the equal of Vampire Counts.Next to Demons, WoC are probably the army best suited to deal with ethereal,. And you realise those screams have only an 8"range, rely on the number of wounds and that terrorgheists need to stay within range of the general to fly their 20""? If you let those pie plate sized bases within scream range without charging them first , picking off wounds with spells or crushing them with hellcannons then you got outplayed.

Regarding the ďWowĒ factors of WOC, having chariots as a core choice is definitely awesome, especially for an army that has traditionally suffered from lack of speed.Have you been playing WoC for long? Marauder horsemen, Dogs , Chaos Knights, Chariots etc were a 7th ed staple. They only faded slightly due to the over efficiency of the GW Khorne Marauder Horde and Chosenstar builds of the last edition, there was otherwise nothing wrong with the speed of Warriors.

You also will not hear me complaining about skullcrushers although every new army has monstrous cavalry and I really question whether skullcrushers are the best.Their stats have a lot of 5s in them, they get 3 wounds and a 1+ armour save and killing blow, in general terms they'll strike first with a load of attacks hitting and wounding on 3s or better, 4s on the outside. If they're not the best then the difference is measured in millimetres.

For example, Demigryph knights being able to fly is huge. Also donít demigryph knights have a ward save? (Iím not sure on this but I thought they did). Demigryphs neither fly nor have ward saves, they are good though.

and while with Mathhammer mournfang get beat to skullcrushers I have seen what mournfang can do if kitted out with the Dragonhide banner and all that so I would honestly rather be able to do what kitted out mournfang can do.Well kit out the skullcrusher by all means, skullcrusher can be just as devastating as mournfang , and they hit first. Good impact hit will probably see the mournfang win, anything else and the crusher will stomp them.

Also, our magic items I think are pretty bleh, but we do have some awesome Chaos mutations that can be taken on single characters and does make our characters good,

this is required especially since every WOC has to accept and make challenges (except the daemon prince oddly enough)....and in turn are now aptly rewarded for those challenges, and a Chaos character is a nasty customer even before you start giving him toys.

We hardly have the best items in the game. I would give that to Ogres via items like the runemaw banner, the hellheart, the dragonhide banner, the greedy fist,etc.They hardly have the worst items either, the mutations make it a pretty comprehensive list in the end.

Hellcannons did get an improvement, but the Hellcannon is not really a cannon it is stonethrower and stonethrowers are not as good as cannons..This particular stonethrower is just as good as a cannon, you can't hunt it like a regular cannon, and unlike a cannon this can ruin whole units. An average stone thrower might cause 6 casualties on the outside, the hellcannon is likely to cause 15 and causes panic tests a -1 to your LD , its attacks are magical, so you can deal to pesky ethereal, and you can target single monsters as usual for the big hit, its a fantastic unit, and its an unbreakable unkillable monster, rain death onto your opponent and when that's no longer possible, throw it into the fray and lay the smack down.

The hellcannon is unrealiable.not much more than any war machine, and how many war machines get to have good results on there misfire charts?

and really there is no reason to take just one.well...no, because they're awesome.


If you are going to use a hellcannon then you take 2 and go death magic on your DP and try for the panic bomb, but this is a list that even when we had the skull totem (the banner from our old book that gave a -1 leadership to all enemy units) is very iffy...you have to get off doom and darkness, etc..Those are just builds to improve your odds, but an automatic test at -1 ld is much better than anything else usually gets off the bat
The hellcannons have to hit, . with a str 5 template even a glancing hit will usually cause wounds.

You very rarely saw this list make it to top rankings in tournaments, because it was VERY luck dependent.What isn't? Your touted VC scream list requires a fair amount of luck, as do steamtank lists and any sort of TK list.

so yeah the HC is good but I wouldnít ďWowĒ it.You really don't know what you have here do you? Take any army I play, take whatever unit you think is too good from it and swap it right out for the hellcannon. Terrorgheist, steamtank, warsphinx , squig, whatever, because whatever I am losing is more than made up by what this thing can do, it is a real threat that your opponent has to deal with or it can ruin hill whole game, but ther is not a lot that can take it down. Even cannons have trouble getting though 2 x 5+'s and 6 wounds. The hellcannon makes my top 5 list of warmachines easy.


3. The steamtank is just one example of the brokenness that exist in the Empire army.. You must have really bad luck to call empire of all things broken. Its an OK army, but the steamtak broken? If you look at it realistically the thing has only 5 wounds since after its taken 5 wounds it can't generate steam points, and after taking its first wound it gets gradually weaker as it generates less and less. It is also likely to wound itself when being used to capacity or higher. Its pretty tough and versatile, but can be pinned down by infantry blocks that can wear it down, especially as they get a whole free turn in which to cause more damage. WoC can take the damned thing out with a hellcannon so they're pretty well suited to face one.

Also, I have very rarely seen a steam tank actually injure itself generating steam points. I have faced empire several times over the years (I started in 8th) and I have seen a Empire tank blow itself up like twice and that is it). Yes, it can become a ďpaperweightĒ if it takes enough wounds, but that paperweight is enough to hold up infantry blocks (even large ones) and/or simply be a big block of point denial to your army. I mean, you donít get any VPs for a 1 wound left steam tank and they are not easy to kill. Like I said, as a WOC player, I also have a Daemons army,[QUOTE=Fallstorm;6730636] I would rather face a WOC DP+2 chimera combo anyday than have to face off against an Empire double stank, gunline, bolstered by a Light council combo. Yeah, Iím cool on that bruh..Its just another nasty build list, any army can do it, I have more problems with how dull it would be...


4. On the cheap troops dogs are chaff and not even the best chaff in the game (but they are good) .Their pretty good for 8th ed though, 7th ed chaff is better but what do you expect. Other chaff might be cheaper but will suck way more.

yes, marauders donít fight like goblins but then OnG will field 100+ block of goblins supported by not too expensive orc troops that can actually fight well, especially in horde formation, (savage orcs and black orcs come to mind), where as WoC will not be doing that because the CW is so expensive.You can take a cheap block of marauders that can take on those goblins, simply because they are better fighters, and use the rest of your points to take a smaller block of warriors who will still kick those savage orcs , or you can chaff those savage orcs with dogs while your marauders and CWs beat up the goblins before stomping the orcs. OnG also have animosity, one bad roll can see those savage orcs sitting on their hands. WoC are good enough and have their own advantages so that OnG don't get an automatic leg up. OnG tend to be cheaper but more unreliable which is their particular style.

5. As for the ďempire troops being bolstered by a pricey unitĒ. The Hurricanum is not that pricey. For 130 pts The Empire gets a chariot that moves and fights like a chariot, gives +1 power dice in the magic phase (which is huge), gives a flat aura that grants a +1 to hit enemy units, and has an innate bound spell. The WOC Chaos Warshrine is 125 pts is chariot that doesnít have impact hits or swiftstride like the Hurricanum, doesnít grant any bonus to magic, doesnít give a flat aura and gets a random effect if a power dice is used. Thereís a reason you donít see a warshrine on the gaming table these days..The 130 points on the hurricanum is points the WoC player could also spend on anything to bolster its unit, be it warshrine, character , or more models, your argument falsly skew the odds in the empires favour by giving a points advantage to one side. And my point still stands, you need to spend an extra 130 points to hit WoC on threes while they don't have to spend nutthin'.. Don't sell the warshrine short in combat either, for a start , you cant hurt the damned thing, it will chip away at you while you vainly bounce off it. Don't sell its abiliy short either, it turns champions and heros into lord level fighters and lords into monsters. It does have a flat aura that compliment both its Bound spell and the Eye of the Gods army rule perfectly. Just say that its not your thin, spend the points on a standard core Chaos chariot instead, which will kick the hurricanums a$$.


6. When I say plenty of stuff is less fragile that is because other stuff can hide in units. I am not doubting, a demon prince can beat a vampire lord in close combat, but in general a Vampire lord can tuck himself inside his units of undead and be safe from missile and artillery fire.Its a two edged sword, that unit is a vulnerability as attacking it can see the Lord dead to crumbling. It also cuts down his mobility, if mounted he has to spend more on a shielding unit, if on foot he is more vulnerable in combat. There is nothing to stop a Prince taking trolls to shield him or gain LoS if you are really concerned, but a 3+ ward or charmed shield should more than suffice until he is in combat by round two.


With the way true line of sight works the demon prince is very difficult to screen, especially against move and shoot cannons like the highly accurate Ogre Kingdom leadbelcher. So against gunline armies and Ogres the Demon Prince is very susceptible to being taken out by a single cannon shot and the DP is the lynchpin of the WOC army at least in the current configuration I see people running. You take that out and it is game.

[QUOTE=Fallstorm;6730636]Also, I agree cannons are a threat to everyone who doesnít have them, but the think is MOST armies do have cannons or other artillery fire like hellbasters or organ guns, etc., Dwarves , Empire, Ogres and now Demons. Hardly the majority. Everyone wants cannons, they are a problem in the game right now, not a particular problem with WoC.

and WOC are more susceptible to this because the DP canít be hide in a unit and donít have anything to shoot coming back at you.Hellcannons, Magic and several characters and units that are quite capable of swiftly hunting you down.All characters are in some respect vulnerable to cannons, Demon Princes are in fact better equipt to survive cannons than most.

Again, it is a poor chaos player who takes just one Hellcannon and

why choose an HC over more reliable monsters like 2 chimeras flying up screening your DP (hopefully).



Ogre Kingdoms
Vampire Counts
Empire
Warriors of Chaos
Daemons of Chaos** (very close to OnG)
Orcs and Goblins
Tomb Kings
* You don't give WoC enough credit. Ogres might be the most powerful army, VC are pretty much balanced, VC has just as many problems reliably dealing with the WoC book as vice versa. Empire have cannons, and that's about it, and those don't give them much of an edge. The three are pretty much neck and neck, I might even give WoC an edge as they have one of the best war machines in the game, solid magic and better combat units.

As regards the WOC magic phase I just think it would be nice to have something like Empire that gives that +1 dice Don't WoC have items like the Chaos familiar that are pretty good?

as it stands Tomb Kings get d3 extra dice per MP and get a +d3 casting value*takes deep breath* first you are paying 300+ points for those bonus's on top of the wizards themselves, then you are stuck with a sucky lore that you are forced to take on your highest level wizard before you can access any decent ones, essentially having to buy two wizards, the entire army needs power dice to march and has trouble fighting its way out of a paper bag without magic. Using Tomb Kings to defend anything in Warhammer is like using the Phantom Menace to defend Attack of the Clones.

OnG have something they can do to get more dice I forget what they do to do this, I think it was the goblin attribute, requires a 5-6+ roll. The Goblin lore is mostly meh anyway.

DE have power of darkness, Slaan get a free dice to cast with every spell,Both broken relics of 7th edition that with any sense will be fixed in their new updates, no real excuse for anything in 8th edition really.

Ogres gut magic give them a +1 to cast/dispel if they get a 2+ on a d6Hmmm, I'm a little fuzzy on the ogre lore, I seem to recall they can take wounds as well. I remember I thought it was a cool lore but I was certainly in the minority...

and all this magic essentially negates the WOC statline by debuffing warriors or buffing up their own units. Which the WoC can equally flip on its head by casting their own debuffs and augments, there is no automatic advantage to the opposition, who at the very least tend to start on the back foot compared to Warriors.

I just think WOC could use a little help with power dice, The Chaos spells are surprisingly cheap and in most cases very powerful. The Tzeench deck is fairly inexpensive and can generate dice, Slaneesh is actually Brutal when you get down to it, with a lacklustre attribute, and Nurgle is a fairly standout winner. No , I don't think WoC need any more help in the magic department.



In any case, TK do kinda need the extra dice - how about your warriors get extra dice when they need spells just to march? :D

SteveW
19-04-2013, 14:20
Marauders are fine. Anyone saying they are broken like before but the other way (under powered now) is missing there 2 attacks 6 pts models for sure.



I hate to keep having to point this stuff out but they dont have 2 attacks base, and if you pump them up to have 2 strength 6 attacks they are 11 points, not 6.

@Maoriboy, that 175 point guy in the TK army that you take for the extra d3 casting is a wizard himself and a T6 monster. No need to hate on a very usefull unit just because it also gives you a buff. As for the TK lore, its my favorite lore in warhammer and I would use it on my other armies if I could.

Vipoid
19-04-2013, 14:30
Using Tomb Kings to defend anything in Warhammer is like using the Phantom Menace to defend Attack of the Clones.

That, sir, is siggable. :D

Minsc
19-04-2013, 14:47
That's a long post with many quotes Maoriboy007, I'm gonna comment some of them, but don't take it personal. I just had to comment on some of the things you said.


I think a Khorne marked (2 attack) marauder cost the same as a dark elf spearman, an Flail wielding Khorne marauder at the same cost as a ghoul is an excellent buy IMO.

Well, a Khorne Marauder costs more than a DE Spearman, even with shield.
You're right about the Ghoul-cost-comparison though.
Although I would probably take Ghoul over the Marauder: It's killier after the second turn round of combat, it can't loose it's Extra Attack, it's harder to kill and is Undead with all the benefits that comes with being Undead. (Being undead a good thing for Ghouls.)
Yes, the Marauder has it's strenghts as well, such as higher WS, I and no one argues that 2 WS4 S5 attacks is better than 2 WS3 S3 poisoned attacks - but with everything counted, the Ghoul is the better buy.

With that said however - Marauder should probably go with Flails and not Great Weapons, and MoK+Flail is not a terrible buy for 10 pts each.


Next to Demons, WoC are probably the army best suited to deal with ethereals, who are all expensive (but not overpriced) and fairly vulnerable once their ethereal is bypassed (be it magic missiles or instability)

I'd say that WE are better at dealing with Etherals than WoC, but then, VC don't really need their etherals against WE to begin with, so I guess my point is moot. :p


Their stats have a lot of 5s in them, they get 3 wounds and a 1+ armour save and killing blow, in general terms they'll strike first with a load of attacks hitting and wounding on 3s or better, 4s on the outside. If they're not the best then the difference is measured in millimetres.

I'd say that overall, Mournfangs are the best monstrous cavalry in the game. Skullcrushers are a solid second however. Being frenzied and rare is just a too big liability compared to Mournfangs who are, well, not frenzied and not rare. :P


Dwarves , Empire, Ogres and now Demons. Hardly the majority. Everyone wants cannons, they are a problem in the game right now, not a particular problem with WoC.

Skaven 'sort of' have Cannons as well. That's 5 armies out 15, and then we can add all the armies who got stone throwers as well (since they can almost as easily kill a Hell Cannon outright), and we're at 10/15. (Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, Beasmen, Orcs & Goblins, other Warriors of Chaos)
This leves the 3 elven armies, vampires and lizardmen.

I'd say that anticipating cannons/stonethrowers when you're building lists is a good move, since theres a big chance that you will be up against either of them.

The rest of what you said I pretty much agree with.

Maoriboy007
19-04-2013, 15:37
@Maoriboy, that 175 point guy in the TK army that you take for the extra d3 casting is a wizard himself and a T6 monster. No need to hate on a very usefull unit just because it also gives you a buff. As for the TK lore, its my favorite lore in warhammer and I would use it on my other armies if I could.I don't hate on him, my point was you're spending an extra bunch of points for that buff. I've used him before, but he's got his problems. He's not a wizard precisely', he carries 2 bound spell items both of which are fairly mild and neither of which benefit from his +D3 to casting level. You generally are husbanding your dice for more important things than his bound spells. As a monster he makes an adequate bodyguard against small pathetic units , against anything else you need to be pretty lucky (especially with stomps) or his low WS and attacks will crumble him.
I've gone over the problems I have with the TK lore many times, on any other army it would probably be awesome (except for the cost and range), but on TKs its barely adequate IMO


That's a long post with many quotes Maoriboy007, I'm gonna comment some of them, but don't take it personal. I just had to comment on some of the things you said...No problems, fair enough....;)

Well, a Khorne Marauder costs more than a DE Spearman, even with shield..8 points innit? (6 + mark?)

Although I would probably take Ghoul over the Marauder: It's killier after the second turn round of combat, it can't loose it's Extra Attack, it's harder to kill.Fair points, in practice I find it turns out to be a wash, after the first turn in a one on one the Ghouls would be in worse shape having crumbled, but the marauders have a harder time wounding, but the marauders are real killers in that first turn and you get the full value out of a horde. They hit a lot of people on 3s and wound on 2-3, usually striking first. Not a lot would survive or hold after that first turn, those that did would be in bad shape.

and is Undead with all the benefits that comes with being Undead. (Being undead a good thing for Ghouls.). The associated penalties can be pretty stiff as well, instability is pretty harsh this edition and steadfast really good. WS actually has an affect there too. I've played too many undead armies for too long to buy into that Łndead is automatically better"schtick. Anyone who knows what they are doing will use that against you.

Yes, the Marauder has it's strenghts as well, such as higher WS, I and no one argues that 2 WS4 S5 attacks is better than 2 WS3 S3 poisoned attacks - but with everything counted, the Ghoul is the better buy. Personally I find them pretty evenly matched, but maybe Ghouls are the Chaos Warrior of the VC army...:D

With that said however - Marauder should probably go with Flails and not Great Weapons, and MoK+Flail is not a terrible buy for 10 pts each..That was my thinking as well, you make use of their good initiative and don't have to add in much of a buffer size to offset casualties like you do with GWs.

I'd say that overall, Mournfangs are the best monstrous cavalry in the game. Skullcrushers are a solid second however. Being frenzied and rare is just a too big liability compared to Mournfangs who are, well, not frenzied and not rare. :P.Ah..I forgot Mournfang are special, neither are a walk in the park, but I'll give the overall edge to mournfang then, Skullcrushers are otherwise better in most respects.

Skaven 'sort of' have Cannons as well. That's 5 armies out 15, and then we can add all the armies who got stone throwers as well (since they can almost as easily kill a Hell Cannon outright), and we're at 10/15. (Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, Beasmen, Orcs & Goblins, other Warriors of Chaos)
This leves the 3 elven armies, vampires and lizardmen..Weeeel..a hellcannon gets 2 saves and can always kill them right back, and most of those can also get hunted down by small units of fliers or dogs, it takes adragon to take down a helcannon, if it can get there in one piece. As far as Demon Princes go , a clever player would have a charmed chield and / or a 3+ ward save. Its also harder to hide from a hellcannon, bainga a large model, cannons tend to be low models.

I'd say that anticipating cannons/stonethrowers when you're building lists is a good move, since theres a big chance that you will be up against either of them..Its good practice yes, cannons are the most dangerous however, but also the most rare.

The rest of what you said I pretty much agree with.I pretty much agree with your points, with addendums :)

Enigmatik1
19-04-2013, 15:48
That, sir, is siggable. :D

I wholeheartedly concur. It's about time I sig Maori...we've done this dance way too long. :D

Minsc
19-04-2013, 16:12
8 points innit? (6 + mark?)

A DE Warrior with shield is 7.
A naked Marauder with MoK is 8.

But then, DE Warriors are quite cheap (some would say way underpriced) in 8th Ed. :p

Rake
19-04-2013, 17:32
i still dont understand this claim that Hellcannons are ok, while Ironblasters are OP. Ironblasters dont change the course of the game unless you were kind enough to give them a mage lord riding a dragon to nom nom. Where as a single hit from a Hellcannon will change the course of the game against the right target. On the defense vs the cannon he has to not roll 2 missfires to hit. The he has to roll a 2 + then i have to not roll 5+ or another 5+ then he has to roll another 5 or more to kill me. Ill try to work out the odds. With my admittedly crappy maths it comes down to a 18 percent chance of killing you outright... Sure... go for it.

Maoriboy007
19-04-2013, 21:10
A DE Warrior with shield is 7.
A naked Marauder with MoK is 8.
But then, DE Warriors are quite cheap (some would say way underpriced) in 8th Ed. :p@$%Óng Dark Elves... :p
I actually beat a themed DE Khanite list the other night with TK , thanks to conservative play, a massively lucky magic phase and some bad luck on my opponents part though...

I wholeheartedly concur. It's about time I sig Maori...we've done this dance way too long. :DI'm still fond of my Enigmatik sig too ;)
you could always have..
Using Tomb Kings to defend anything in Warhammer is like using Twilight to defend Breaking Dawn"
ugh..actually I think that's even worse....Phantom menace was at least just a disappointment, Twilight made vampires look like sparkling pussies and made me lose all faith in humanity...:cries:

Kayosiv
19-04-2013, 22:12
i still dont understand this claim that Hellcannons are ok, while Ironblasters are OP. Ironblasters dont change the course of the game unless you were kind enough to give them a mage lord riding a dragon to nom nom. Where as a single hit from a Hellcannon will change the course of the game against the right target.

I've played against both and I hate Ironblasters more. Here's why.

The ironblaster is actually effective once being a cannon stops being useful. It is fast enough that it can move up for a turn and then swiftstride into a combat. The hell cannon is so slow that it marches slower than the ironblaster moves and it's charge distance is a pathetic 3+2d6.

You can't kill an ironblaster with fast elements. Because of the thing's strength 10 grapeshot and ability to move and then fire with a free wheel, anything that gets remotely close it to gets destroyed. I've had stegadons taken out by the damn grapeshot before. The hell cannon is defenseless against things that flank it, and is poor at countercharging things in front of it as a defense while the ironblaster is excellent at this.

The ironblaster is SUPER accurate. With the ability to re-roll bounches, it's odds of hitting are far above 50%. The hellcannon has a 66% chance to drift off. That means only 1/3 of the time is the cannon hitting it's target. That's 2 times a game, likely less because one of it's shots will likely be a misfire.

The hell cannon also rampages and cannot shoot 16.67 of the time. Rampaging is sometimes helpful, but often just a waste of a turn. So the cannon is likely to only hit 2/6 of it's shots, 1/6 of which will be a misfire, and 1/6 of which it will rampage uselessly. That's an average of one direct hit a game, assuming it can fire every turn at something meaningful. That's not so bad, even if a hellcannon direct hit is more damaging than an ironblaster. The ironblaster on the other hand should hit 3-4 things a game, and can always charge in as a chariot if being a cannon is not useful.

The hell cannon is no doubts awesome. 5+ ward with crew, unbreakable, magic attacks, automatic panic tests. It's got a lot going for it. The ironblaster on the other hand has done far more damage to me on average in games I've played against it. I've had times when 3 direct hell cannon shots in a row have destroyed my army. I've also had (far more) games where the cannon drifted off into nothing, had nothing to shoot at, or just rampaged and was useless.

Maoriboy007
19-04-2013, 22:30
I've played against both and I hate Ironblasters more. Here's why.

The ironblaster is actually effective once being a cannon stops being useful. It is fast enough that it can move up for a turn and then swiftstride into a combat. The hell cannon is so slow that it marches slower than the ironblaster moves and it's charge distance is a pathetic 3+2d6.

You can't kill an ironblaster with fast elements. Because of the thing's strength 10 grapeshot and ability to move and then fire with a free wheel, anything that gets remotely close it to gets destroyed. I've had stegadons taken out by the damn grapeshot before. The hell cannon is defenseless against things that flank it, and is poor at countercharging things in front of it as a defense while the ironblaster is excellent at this.

The ironblaster is SUPER accurate. With the ability to re-roll bounches, it's odds of hitting are far above 50%. The hellcannon has a 66% chance to drift off. That means only 1/3 of the time is the cannon hitting it's target. That's 2 times a game, likely less because one of it's shots will likely be a misfire.

The hell cannon also rampages and cannot shoot 16.67 of the time. Rampaging is sometimes helpful, but often just a waste of a turn. So the cannon is likely to only hit 2/6 of it's shots, 1/6 of which will be a misfire, and 1/6 of which it will rampage uselessly. That's an average of one direct hit a game, assuming it can fire every turn at something meaningful. That's not so bad, even if a hellcannon direct hit is more damaging than an ironblaster. The ironblaster on the other hand should hit 3-4 things a game, and can always charge in as a chariot if being a cannon is not useful.

The hell cannon is no doubts awesome. 5+ ward with crew, unbreakable, magic attacks, automatic panic tests. It's got a lot going for it. The ironblaster on the other hand has done far more damage to me on average in games I've played against it. I've had times when 3 direct hell cannon shots in a row have destroyed my army. I've also had (far more) games where the cannon drifted off into nothing, had nothing to shoot at, or just rampaged and was useless.I think the key point here is that both are ridiculously broken and you can't really use one to justify the other. The Ironblaster has pinpoint accuracy on its side and is better at picking off select targets, the Hellcannon is a bit worse at targeting specific targets but has far higher mass damage potential and is better at forcing your opponents hand. Both are nasty in combat, the Ironblaster has speed and range but can conceivably be broken by a charge, a Hellcannon is near indestructible in combat and a much tougher customer, but is far slower, although forcing your opponent to come to you can bring you into charge range. The Ironblaster is ridiculously cheap which probably gives it the win here, but thats just another level of broken, that does not make the Hellcannon any less stupid good. I would say the Hellcannon has more potential of turning a game as it can run off/ruin whole units at a time.

Minsc
19-04-2013, 23:01
I think the key point here is that both are ridiculously broken and you can't really use one to justify the other.

That's a lie.
If the Hellcannon was broken, I would field at least one in every game, which I really don't. :p

Maoriboy007
19-04-2013, 23:30
That's a lie.
If the Hellcannon was broken, I would field at least one in every game, which I really don't. :pyou really should....:angel:

A Hellcannon is never a weak choice, but if you were fielding a themed list (high speed in your face for example) I can understand why you wouldn't field one. I've fielded a terrorgheist like once in 8th, same with Crypt Horrors. Never fielded Khalida and used Necroknights once, all apparently strong choices but I play E.Honda style Warhammer rather than Guile. Hell, I'm currently playing my Tomb Kings over Vampires.

Look all I know is that this past weekend here in the SE there was a big tournament called Brawler Bash. Empire and Warriors of chaos were the most popular armies in attendence. Several Empire players had a double stanks, 2 hellblasters, 2 cannons, some other shooting thing, and hand gunners, not to mention the steam tanks shoot cannons as well so, if that is not a gunline what do you call it? For the actual troop choices they were fielding knights.Score point for you, I would also agree myself that Empire can field gunlines, its one of the few things they can actually do relatively well. It doesn't take much to run off those cannons however, and lore of metal would cripple those steamtanks I would imagine, but they'll do what they do. I call that llist out as being more a snorefest rather than broken. If they were both the most popular I can imagine they did fairly well by numbers.

Fallstorm
19-04-2013, 23:38
Not to do the whole "take one sentence to try and distort the whole argument" thing, but..

Maybe you should check up on Demigryph Knights rules before making a statement on how they are much superior to Skullcrushers. They don't Fly, nor do they have a ward save.

Some of your arguments - like the Tomb Kings casting ability example which costs many hundreds of points and requires them to take 2 Level 4s for access to a decent Lore, or how an Empire army still has such as thing as a "gunline" - to me seems like you don't really know the capabilities of other armies, and as such are overestimating them leading you to believe things such as "Chaos Warriors are overcosted".


If you don't want to do the one whole sentence and distort thing then don't do it ;)

Look all I know is that this past weekend here in the SE there was a big tournament called Brawler Bash. Empire and Warriors of chaos were the most popular armies in attendence. Several Empire players had a double stanks, 2 hellblasters, 2 cannons, some other shooting thing, and hand gunners, not to mentione the steam tanks shoot cannons as well so, if that is not a gunline what do you call it? For the actual troop choices they were fielding knights.

Fallstorm
19-04-2013, 23:46
Vipoid,

On your points:

In regards to orcs and goblins, no I definitely understand that hordes is the OnG playstyle and tarpits of large troops in the VC play style (or rather a part of it). What I am saying is that those small blocks of warriors get cut down quicker by artillery as they march across the field while that 100 block of night goblins or horde of savage orcs or black orcs are still going to have enough troops to be a credible threat once they make it across the board. Not to mention the tons of chaff even artillery the OnG can come back with.

The new books have been more conservative with power dice, but there seems to be ways for certain armies to constantly get bonuses to casting etc like Ogres with the lore attribute and VCs having very cheap wizards to spam death choirs, Tomb kings with their tricks, etc.

Fallstorm
20-04-2013, 00:02
This is crazy. Fallstrom, this is the argument you put forwards in the other thread: its not fair that other armies can use combinations of units which equal or beat Warriors. You then ignore how many points these combinations cost unless you can cite one cheap example as a strawman (note how you ignored the Tomb King example of ~500 points to favour your Empire example), ignore the fact that destroying these support units ends the advantage, and ignore the fact that Warriors don't operate in a vacuum and have their own support. And for what its worth, that Empire 130 point buffwagon is equivalent to 9 naked Warriors.

You then claim that the Hellcannon-Death magic combination is too reliant on luck, but anything anybody else does with magic is clearly always guaranteed and will never go wrong.

Clearly, you will only be happy when Warriors are either better or cheaper so that they are always superior and nobody can ever have a chance of matching them. This is exactly what I am talking about by "the grass is greener."

Look, just because other armies have units which you perceive as 'broken,' doesn't mean you should get away with broken units as well. Yes, that's power creep and yes, its bad for the game. You know whats not so bad about these other 'broken' units you cite? They all have weaknesses. Steam tank? Magic, warmachines, heroes, itself. Mournfang? Low leadership/initiative. Skullcannon? Broken as balls and should not exist. But the Daemon Prince? Two weaknesses: Lore of Metal and Cannons; both of which can be mitigated by 5 point magic items and careful positioning.

You know why alignment restriction doesn't matter? Because you can hide wizards in cheap marauder units if you want a mage bunker. Oh! But Marauders are useless now, I forgot. And Mage bunkers should have the best stats in the game, because they should also be mage bunkers and hammers.


Clock,

No it is not crazy clock. Fact is how much a combination or item cost is irrelevant as long as it lets you win games, and yes some of the combination armies come up with are expensive. I’m sure 2 steam tanks for example is probably a hefty investment, but it doesn’t matter because you get a great unbreakable tank that can grind down in combat, shoot like a cannon, and at worst be a huge point denial for your enemy.

I never claimed that other armies can’t have something go wrong, but the twin hellcannon combo is very risky for several reasons. 1) you have to get Doom and Darkness of every round which any opponent worth their salt is going to stop 2) these two cannons do have to hit their target and not scatter or misfire 3) you have to be facing an opponent that can actually panic and there are a number of armies/units in the game that are immune to panic 4) you have so much invested in your HCs that once the opponent makes it to your line you actually have very little to stop him as the HC is not going to really win you combat just hold a unit up for a few turns. Again, even when Ard Boyz which was the tourney that was purely all about battlepoints etc was being ran 1) you didn’t really see WOC winning this tourney in a long time because WOC hard list were not as hard as the B.S other armies like Skaven and Dark Elves can pull, and 2) this Helltotem list specifically was just too opponent and luck dependent. Answer this question honestly. When was the last time you actually saw this specific twin HC combo win a tournament? If you say that it is I won’t call you a liar, but brother I just have not seen it.

As far as the Demon Prince being this ‘unkillable” monster, as I stated in an earlier post I recently attended a big tournament (probably) the biggest in the SE called Brawler Bash, there were 12 WOC armies and 10 Empire armies being fielded. Every WOC player that I talked to, even the ones who won their matches, stated they lost their “unkillable” demon prince at some point during the game. Cannon fire is just too good. Yes, you can use your chimera to screen the prince but the chimera will not last long and by then artillery (hellblasters, organ guns, etc) are opening up on your demon prince, and god forbid it is a move and shoot reroll bounce cannon like the ironblaster. It is very hard to screen from move and shoot artillery and it isn’t flaming so the Dragonbane gem won’t help.

FYI, if you are interested in how WOC did in the tourneys a WOC player actually did at the tourney WOC actually did do well a Chaos player came in third, Ogres came in first (surprise there) and VCs came in second, but that was a combo score of painting, sportsmanship, and battle points, in terms of pure battle points the Vampire Counts player won.

Yes, I guess you could drop a mage in a small block of maruaders, artillery will cut that block down and then that marked mage is out there by himself not able to join another unit because his mark is not perfectly aligned to theirs.

You know, I find it funny that when WOC gets something good everyone complains like WOC should just have middle of the road everything. I mean at the tourney I was little to Ogre Kingdoms players complain about the unkillable demon prince while they are sitting there with there 175 pt ironblasters, hellhearts, greedy fist, gutstars and VCs players complain. People complained about the chosenstar, which again was a big slow unit that people just avoided, which again is why even with these "broken" builds you didn't see WOC just dominating tournaments with their old book, because no matter how hard we came a lot of armies have something harder. I find if fascinating this mindset that WOC should be the epitome of perfect game balance while other armies can have whatever. I am being very honest when I say this paradigm is quite fascinating.

Fallstorm
20-04-2013, 00:19
Maoriboy007,

I hear what you are saying but here is the thing

First, the screams of some of t heir units might only be 8Ē inches, but first VCs should have more drops than WOC, as a single model their scream units can move all kinds of crazy ways to get out of your arc. Basically, all they have to do is stand back and wait until you get engaged in combat with their other units and then just circle around screaming at you and you canít touch them, which is what the VC player who came in first in battle points and second in the overall tournament did this past weekend at Brawler Bash. I mean are you really arguing scream list are not brutal?

Secondly, on the speed issue, WOC were known to have a lack of speed. Yes, their chaff and fast cavalry was speedy (just like every other armies was), but overall the army was slow in terms of movement, and their have been articles written about this. Skullcrushers and chimeras and having chariots as core was a move to correct this, now I would argue WOC have one of the fastest armies.

Third, on skullcrushers SC do not get killing blow, perhaps you are thinking of the Daemons of Chaos version? At any rate, yes they do have good stats which again can be easily rendered moot by magic and all the support other armies get. Kited out mournfang with the dragonhide banner and their parry save are better than skullcrushers in my opinion, and we donít have the option to kit our our SC the way OKs can kit out mournfang. Yeah, I guess we can give them the banner that never lets them lose frenzy but are you seriously going to compare that to the dragonhide banner.

Fourth, I am not selling the warshrine short it is just plain not as good as the Celestial Hurricanum. I am not skewing anything yes Empire troops are now hitting on 3ís just like the WOC player, except we paid a butt load of points for our small block of troops that had to get hit multiple cannon and artillery fire and get whittled down before it made it across the field and God forbid that random movement steam tank get into them.

Fifth, on WOC and cannons; it is not just cannon it is artillery in general that is one of our banes and a lot of armies have higher strength artillery. You have Dwarves, Empire, Ogres, Daemons, Tomb Kings (that screaming skull stonethrower causes panic and is flaming), 90 pt OnG Doomdivers, Skaven warplightning cannons that donít allow armor saves. I donít know seems like a lot of stuff out there.

Fallstorm
20-04-2013, 00:26
you really should....:angel:

Score point for you, I would also agree myself that Empire can field gunlines, its one of the few things they can actually do relatively well. It doesn't take much to run off those cannons however, and lore of metal would cripple those steamtanks I would imagine, but they'll do what they do. I call that llist out as being more a snorefest rather than broken. If they were both the most popular I can imagine they did fairly well by numbers.


Well, it might be boring but again something doesn't have to be exciting to be effective and win you games. Just like something doesn't have to be cheap to win you games. For, example I'm not saying that the TK player has great book. I'm not saying that he didn't have to dump a lot of points in magic, but what I am saying is that if all those points pay off so what? While, he might not have won against me (fyi it was very close I won because of additional scenerio victory points if it was pure battle points the TK player might have one actually) he did win against other opponents. I mean, lore of light with several T8 monsters on the field, one with Herioc Killing Blow is enough to give anybody pause, throw in caskets and that +3 on casting every turn and man....I felt like I was on the ropes the whole game. Yes, I won but he had my warriors beat for a few rounds with Timewarp and speed of light, and his monster got into one of my infantry blocks. I ran a level 4 of nurgle and level 2 of shadow, basically all he did was stop Okkam's from goiing off and he actually ground my small infantry unit down, this hsi most expensive unit that I had almost destroyed he was able to slowly bring back up. It was rough.

Maoriboy007
20-04-2013, 02:04
What I am saying is that those small blocks of warriors get cut down quicker by artillery as they march across the field while that 100 block of night goblins or horde of savage orcs or black orcs are still going to have enough troops to be a credible threat once they make it across the board. Not to mention the tons of chaff even artillery the OnG can come back with.You mean that notorious OnG artillery I'm always hearing about?:eyebrows: Not to mention a single Hellcannon can wipe out the same amount of models in a single hit and possible panic any remainder in the bargain. And the fact that warriors do have their own chaff? I'm sorry but your arguments always emphasise the strengths of you opponents and neglect the strength of your own army. WoC have perfectly suitable chaff and artillery themselves. What about the turns OnG squabble?


The new books have been more conservative with power dice, but there seems to be ways for certain armies to constantly get bonuses to casting etc like Ogres with the lore attribute and VCs having very cheap wizards to spam death choirs, Tomb kings with their tricks, etc. We've been over this, all of those cost a great deal of points, have some real limitations (especially Tomb Kings) and WoC have easy access to some of the best Lore's in the game as well as their own tricks to generate power dice.


Fact is how much a combination or item cost is irrelevant as long as it lets you win games, and yes some of the combination armies come up with are expensive.The cost is irrelevant unless you apply it equally. You cant say ÷h my block of marauders that cost the same as the unit of swordsmen wont win because they've got a Hurricanum supporting them. Take that 170 extra points, buy a chaos hero or mark them with nurgle or Khorne etc. and suddenly the numbers change again.

Iím sure 2 steam tanks for example is probably a hefty investment, but it doesnít matter because you get a great unbreakable tank that can grind down in combat, shoot like a cannon, and at worst be a huge point denial for your enemy.You realise the Hellcannon does the exact same thing right?

, 1) you have to get Doom and Darkness of every round which any opponent worth their salt is going to stopNo..no you don't, an automatic panic test at -1 ld is already enough bad news, Doom and Darkness is just to put the boot in.

, 2) these two cannons do have to hit their target and not scatter or misfire "Well, that's essentially true of any war machine, unlike normal stone throwers a glancing hit will still cause wounds. And the payoff is certainly worth it.

, 3) you have to be facing an opponent that can actually panic and there are a number of armies/units in the game that are immune to panicA str 5(10) magical template is more than bonus enough, you're wounding most units on 2's and negating their armour saves.'15 wounds on an average infantry unit compared to 6 from a standard stone thrower (on a good day)

, 4) you have so much invested in your HCs that once the opponent makes it to your line you actually have very little to stop him as the HC is not going to really win you combat just hold a unit up for a few turns.I have empirical evidence to the contrary, it can kill things just fine, its fantastic in support, adding combat res without giving any up, and even without winning combat can hold up units without dying till the game ends conserving its points, which is pretty much everything you were calling broken about a steam tank.

, Again, even when Ard Boyz which was the tourney that was purely all about battlepoints etc was being ran 1) you didnít really see WOC winning this tourney in a long time because WOC hard list were not as hard as the B.S other armies like Skaven and Dark Elves can pull, and Because demons were completely broken for ages and Skaven and DE weren't much better, all reminiscent of 7th edition. You need to realise the 8th edition cannot be held up to 7th edition standards. That's probably the problem with the Ogre Kingdoms, because it was measured against its previous 7th ed performance and written accordingly, none of the other 8th edition books have done so so why should WoC?

, 2) this Helltotem list specifically was just too opponent and luck dependent..Honestly what list isn't...balance should be the keyword.

,Answer this question honestly. When was the last time you actually saw this specific twin HC combo win a tournament? If you say that it is I wonít call you a liar, but brother I just have not seen it.Because the Twin Warshrine Chosenstar build has been far more popular since the beginning of 8th until now. Single Warshrine and Hellcannons worked just fine. The big problem was the Chosenstar build hardly lost , but hardly won big either because everyone played an avoidance game against it. Gateway for the win.


,As far as the Demon Prince being this ĎunkillableĒ monster, as I stated in an earlier post I recently attended a big tournament (probably) the biggest in the
SE called Brawler Bash, there were 12 WOC armies and 10 Empire armies being fielded. Every WOC player that I talked to, even the ones who won their matches, stated they lost their ďunkillableĒ demon prince at some point during the game.Every game or just the ones against cannons? Did they get stuck in or linger too long? did they have protection on their demon Prince? Soul Hunger?...WoC still has that new book smell, give them a couple more tournament for player to get the hang of it....

Cannon fire is just too good. Here we can agree on something, but cannons kills everyone's favourite toys, demon princes have at least a chance against them, and theres not much outside of cannons that can kill them.

Yes, you can use your chimera to screen the prince but the chimera will not last long and by then artillery (hellblasters, organ guns, etc) are opening up on your demon prince, and god forbid it is a move and shoot reroll bounce cannon like the ironblaster. It is very hard to screen from move and shoot artillery and it isnít flaming so the Dragonbane gem wonít help.The chimera just needs to last long enough for the Prince to get into combat where he's away laughing. And if he's investing that much in artillery, you should be investing the same kind of points to hunt it down. Charge the prince into the closest unit of worth, tie it down and rip it up while the rest of your army does its work.

FYI, if you are interested in how WOC did in the tourneys a WOC player actually did at the tourney WOC actually did do well a Chaos player came in third, Ogres came in first (surprise there) and VCs came in second, but that was a combo score of painting, sportsmanship, and battle points, in terms of pure battle points the Vampire Counts player won.The VC player may have been just that good, it says a lot to me that a fairly untested book did that well in an early outing.

, Yes, I guess you could drop a mage in a small block of maruaders, artillery will cut that block down and then that marked mage is out there by himself not able to join another unit because his mark is not perfectly aligned to theirs. You are giving an awful lot of credit to the opposing artillery, and if they are shooting at your bunker than they are not shooing at Princes, Chimeras or Skullcrushers. And bunkers are by definition, cheap you buy as many as you need without the extras.

First, the screams of some of t heir units might only be 8Ē inches, but first VCs should have more drops than WOCIf the WoC player hasn't invested any points in chaff then yes, therein lies the value of dogs and marauders.

as a single model their scream units can move all kinds of crazy ways to get out of your arc. Only with some serious limits like proximity of the general, landing zones and base size (which is huge BTW>

Basically, all they have to do is stand back and wait until you get engaged in combat with their other units and then just circle around screaming at you and you canít touch them, which is what the VC player who came in first in battle points and second in the overall tournament did this past weekend at Brawler Bash.. Yup that's what they can do and why you pay the big bucks for them, but chip wounds off it with magic missiles and limit the effectiveness of its screams, restrict its landing zones (have you seen the size of that base?) Set up chariot charges if they come close, better yet , sit back and bomb them with Hellcannons.

I mean are you really arguing scream list are not brutal?.in your own words
, 2) this [insert here] list specifically was just too opponent and luck dependent on a given day a gimmik list in the right hands can be brutal. A Khalida list won a tournament because no-one saw it coming. After 5 games of doing nothing my Casket of Souls actually made me fell bad for my opponent last week.The scream can be brutal or Lacklustre, depending....

Secondly, on the speed issue, WOC were known to have a lack of speed. Yes, their chaff and fast cavalry was speedy (just like every other armies was),.Not until beginning of 8th when players were making the conscious choice to play the Maurader and Chosenstar infantry Horde. In 7th Core Chaos Knights, Dogs and Maurauder horse with Chariots were the staple almost completely mounted armies, 6th ed even had Chaos furies. They were still completely capable of doing this in 8th ed. Any army playing infantry will move fairly slow, not just WoC. Undead and Dwarves, now they were slow....

but overall the army was slow in terms of movement, and their have been articles written about this.. I've never read about them, and taking the above into account I think they were wrong...

Skullcrushers and chimeras and having chariots as core was a move to correct this, now I would argue WOC have one of the fastest armies..They were never the slowest.

Third, on skullcrushers SC do not get killing blow, perhaps you are thinking of the Daemons of Chaos version?. Maybe, is it the Juggers who have killing blow? regardless WS5 STR5 Init 5 AS1+ and magical attack are all impressive stats

At any rate, yes they do have good stats which again can be easily rendered moot by magic and all the support other armies getI can't stress enough how bad an argument this is when you can do the exact same thing to your opponant You have a magic phase , you have magic defence, you have support, are you using any of it yourself. If he lowers you WS by 2 Lower his by 2 as well, you at least start off higher, by themselves they already stand above the crowd without having to resort to magic.

Kited out mournfang with the dragonhide banner and their parry save are better than skullcrushers in my opinion,.I've already said that at a base level Mournfang have the advantage, whoever charges the other will probably win though. Its not a huge margin between the two.

and we donít have the option to kit our our SC the way OKs can kit out mournfang. Yeah, I guess we can give them the banner that never lets them lose frenzy but are you seriously going to compare that to the dragonhide banner..You don't need t kit out Skullcrushers, in fact charging mournfang with the Dragonhide banner are probably one of the few things that have a chance against them. However if the Crushers charge the Mournfang even the banner probably wont save them.

Fourth, I am not selling the warshrine short it is just plain not as good as the Celestial Hurricanum..It doenst have to be , WoC are almost as good as the buffed Empire troops without it, and on a good day the Warshrine can seem as broken as all hell.

I am not skewing anything yes Empire troops are now hitting on 3ís just like the WOC player, except we paid a butt load of points for our small block of troops.Yes you are, you are giving the Empire player a unit of equitable troops (whatever it may be) and a hurricanum. The you need to make up your mind what you are using against them, is it an equal amount of warriors or maurauders, including the cost of the Hurricanum? For the cost of Hurricanum are you giving your unit a character chariot or marks to support it (bear in mind a Warshrine is not the automatic choice here). Then see how they stack up.

that had to get hit multiple cannon and artillery fire and get whittled down before it made it across the field and God forbid that random movement steam tank get into them..WTF Dude? Are you fighting an entire empire army with one small block of troops?! What is the rest of the WoC army doing while all this is going on? Sitting on its thumbs?

Fifth, on WOC and cannons; it is not just cannon it is artillery in general that is one of our banes and a lot of armies have higher strength artillery. You have Dwarves, Empire, Ogres, Daemons, Tomb Kings (that screaming skull stonethrower causes panic and is flaming), 90 pt OnG Doomdivers, Skaven warplightning cannons that donít allow armor saves. I donít know seems like a lot of stuff out there.Yes all the armies across the board can throw uot a lot of things, it is a peril every single other army has to face as well, not to mention having to face whatever WoC put out as well, you do have Hellcannons you know.

Maoriboy007
20-04-2013, 02:12
Well, it might be boring but again something doesn't have to be exciting to be effective and win you games. Just like something doesn't have to be cheap to win you games. For, example I'm not saying that the TK player has great book. I'm not saying that he didn't have to dump a lot of points in magic, but what I am saying is that if all those points pay off so what? While, he might not have won against me (fyi it was very close I won because of additional scenerio victory points if it was pure battle points the TK player might have one actually) he did win against other opponents. I mean, lore of light with several T8 monsters on the field, one with Herioc Killing Blow is enough to give anybody pause, throw in caskets and that +3 on casting every turn and man....I felt like I was on the ropes the whole game. Yes, I won but he had my warriors beat for a few rounds with Timewarp and speed of light, and his monster got into one of my infantry blocks. I ran a level 4 of nurgle and level 2 of shadow, basically all he did was stop Okkam's from goiing off and he actually ground my small infantry unit down, this hsi most expensive unit that I had almost destroyed he was able to slowly bring back up. It was rough.So you were playing an experienced TK player with your shiny new book, vs the toughest list they can put out, and you still won?*facepalm* what's the problem again? By the sounds of it he invested nearly every spare point he had into magic compared to you and it still wasn't enough. Did he miscast at all, did he roll well for his magic phases? How brutal was crumbling for him? Did he spend a lot of time bouncing off your armour and ward saves, because I bet you it felt equally rough for him.
Fighting undead just takes timing and practice, once you become aware of their issues they are just another army to deal with like any other.

*edit* Ah, I get it, you're just winding me up, well done sir.;)

GrandmasterWang
20-04-2013, 05:27
To Maori and SteveW I was talking bout the prior book when I mentioned the 6 pts 2 attacks models. As in woc players were just missing their old brokenness.

Hell cannons are great (chaos dwarfs ftw) but they aren't a patch on iron blasters due to predictability. Iron blasters are super reliable, you can have the perfect hell cannon shot setup then not be able to take it

Fallstorm. Reading your tk account made me smile. Underestimate them at your peril! !

Woc is a well balanced book with many viable builds. The new book has a lot more flexibility and with forsaken and core chariots you can put together a deceptively fast army.

Woc really don't need power dice boosting items imo.

Clockwork
20-04-2013, 09:57
Ah, but Maori, you're forgetting - Warriors shouldn't need to have any support! They should always be the best in any given situation.


Clock,

No it is not crazy clock. Fact is how much a combination or item cost is irrelevant as long as it lets you win games, and yes some of the combination armies come up with are expensive. I’m sure 2 steam tanks for example is probably a hefty investment, but it doesn’t matter because you get a great unbreakable tank that can grind down in combat, shoot like a cannon, and at worst be a huge point denial for your enemy.

I never claimed that other armies can’t have something go wrong, but the twin hellcannon combo is very risky for several reasons. 1) you have to get Doom and Darkness of every round which any opponent worth their salt is going to stop 2) these two cannons do have to hit their target and not scatter or misfire 3) you have to be facing an opponent that can actually panic and there are a number of armies/units in the game that are immune to panic 4) you have so much invested in your HCs that once the opponent makes it to your line you actually have very little to stop him as the HC is not going to really win you combat just hold a unit up for a few turns. Again, even when Ard Boyz which was the tourney that was purely all about battlepoints etc was being ran 1) you didn’t really see WOC winning this tourney in a long time because WOC hard list were not as hard as the B.S other armies like Skaven and Dark Elves can pull, and 2) this Helltotem list specifically was just too opponent and luck dependent. Answer this question honestly. When was the last time you actually saw this specific twin HC combo win a tournament? If you say that it is I won’t call you a liar, but brother I just have not seen it.

As far as the Demon Prince being this ‘unkillable” monster, as I stated in an earlier post I recently attended a big tournament (probably) the biggest in the SE called Brawler Bash, there were 12 WOC armies and 10 Empire armies being fielded. Every WOC player that I talked to, even the ones who won their matches, stated they lost their “unkillable” demon prince at some point during the game. Cannon fire is just too good. Yes, you can use your chimera to screen the prince but the chimera will not last long and by then artillery (hellblasters, organ guns, etc) are opening up on your demon prince, and god forbid it is a move and shoot reroll bounce cannon like the ironblaster. It is very hard to screen from move and shoot artillery and it isn’t flaming so the Dragonbane gem won’t help.

FYI, if you are interested in how WOC did in the tourneys a WOC player actually did at the tourney WOC actually did do well a Chaos player came in third, Ogres came in first (surprise there) and VCs came in second, but that was a combo score of painting, sportsmanship, and battle points, in terms of pure battle points the Vampire Counts player won.

Yes, I guess you could drop a mage in a small block of maruaders, artillery will cut that block down and then that marked mage is out there by himself not able to join another unit because his mark is not perfectly aligned to theirs.

You know, I find it funny that when WOC gets something good everyone complains like WOC should just have middle of the road everything. I mean at the tourney I was little to Ogre Kingdoms players complain about the unkillable demon prince while they are sitting there with there 175 pt ironblasters, hellhearts, greedy fist, gutstars and VCs players complain. People complained about the chosenstar, which again was a big slow unit that people just avoided, which again is why even with these "broken" builds you didn't see WOC just dominating tournaments with their old book, because no matter how hard we came a lot of armies have something harder. I find if fascinating this mindset that WOC should be the epitome of perfect game balance while other armies can have whatever. I am being very honest when I say this paradigm is quite fascinating.

No, this is crazy. You are saying it doesn't matter how many points a combination costs if it wins, and then saying that the combinations are broken because of cheap support/buff units, whilst your own combinations are too expensive. Where are your own winning combinations regardless of cost? You are putting up WoC combinations which you say are too luck dependent and risky (even when they aren't, but Maori has already addressed that), and you are then turning around and saying that other people's combinations - even where they are also luck dependent such as power dice generation - are not risky and work against you 100% of the time, every time. Every opponent worth their salt is stopping Doom and Darkness every time because nothing else is being cast? So why aren't you stopping Speed of Light or Timewarp every time - not worth your salt? You are given alternative suggestions to account for perceived weaknesses, and then claiming that everyone will always have the perfect counter to that option which will always work 100% of the time - whilst you have no such counters and no such guarantees. Everything is doom and gloom for a Warrior player, and the grass is always greener. That's crazy.

The cannon threat can be mitigated in a number of ways. 1) Terrain. Have you seen that GW Terrain? I could hide a number of Daemon Princes behind it until the chaff clears off cannons. Even walls, which don't block LoS, would stop the cannon ball. 2) Charmed Shield gives you one free pass. 3) Chimera blocking. 4) Get it into combat. 5) Don't want your Daemon Prince to die to cannons? Don't bring one. Unthinkable, I know, but you do have alternate Lord options who might do a better job. Such as the re-rolling 1s 3+ ward Tzeentch Disc Lord. I noticed you haven't mentioned him at all. Not 'broken' enough for you?

And I wasn't saying that the Prince is unkillable. I've seen it killed twice, in fact. You know what killed it? 600+ points of Slann casting spells over 3 turns, 500+ points of Temple Guard to hold it in combat for that time, nearly 200 points of Scar-Veteran, and an extremely lucky magic phase to get all my buffs through. The second time? 400 points of Dark Elf Lord using the ungodly Pendant of Khaeleth, 4-5 rounds of combat going nowhere, and a lot of luck. I hate the Pendant - like the 3++/rerolling 1s it has no place in the game - yet I felt compelled to bring it not to roll over the WoC player, but just so that I had something which could tank the damn thing for the game. I got lucky and managed to slip a few wounds through here and there, one at a time, but was down to my last at the end and could have easily lost. In conclusion, killing a Daemon Prince requires: equal or far greater points, a lot of luck, and your own broken combinations. That's not good for the game. The opponent needs to jump through several different hoops just to have a chance to bring it down, and then it still won't happen most times; whilst the WoC player doesn't need to exert nearly as much effort to hide it behind a tower, wait for the cannons to die, and then throw it in to something.

I'm sure that you think there is something in Lizardmen and Dark Elf books which will auto-kill the Prince, because neither of them have cannons, so I can't wait to hear it. For that matter, if there weren't so many cannons about or they weren't as effective/accurate - just how exactly should one kill it? Bring your own Lord-level tooled-up impressive stat line monster character? Oh, wait.

For the last time, even if some armies did have OP elements, it doesn't mean everyone should. And it is hardly that WoC are without any strong elements at all to compete with - there are a lot of powerful things in that book (Chimeras, Skullcrushers, Hellcannons, Mark of Nurgle), and even their own borderline OP units (the Daemon Prince and aforementioned Disco-Lord). Power creep makes for a bad game and was the death knell of 7th edition.

Vipoid
20-04-2013, 11:50
In regards to orcs and goblins, no I definitely understand that hordes is the OnG playstyle and tarpits of large troops in the VC play style (or rather a part of it). What I am saying is that those small blocks of warriors get cut down quicker by artillery as they march across the field while that 100 block of night goblins or horde of savage orcs or black orcs are still going to have enough troops to be a credible threat once they make it across the board.

Well, that's very subjective. I mean, there are many types of artillery.

Cannons and bolt throwers will probably hurt you more, since they're basically designed to kill armoured units. But, they're still unlikely to do *that* much damage. And, if you have Chimeras or the like, then those cannons and bolt-throwers will almost certainly be shooting at them instead (if they don't, then show them the error of their ways by having said chimeras eat through their artillery :evilgrin:).

On the other hand, anything along the lines of a stone thrower will be far more effective against orcs, goblins and the like. Your smaller squads make it more likely that a scatter will hit fewer (or no) models, whilst horded units are more likely to still get hit fully by the template. In addition, your good toughness and 4+ (minimum) armour save means that you're also likely to take fewer casualties.

In terms of being effective when you reach combat; don't forget that you only really need two ranks, and that you'll still be getting 16-19 attacks (depending how wide you are), which should also be striking first against most things. Conversely, a horde of orcs needs 3 ranks of 10, in order to get the maximum effect out of its formation. Plus, since they'll usually be striking last, they'll actually want 35-40, or they risk losing attacks when the enemy hits them.

Anyway, there's also something else to consider - hordes are incredibly vulnerable to many spells.

Fulminating Flame Cage, Flame Storm, Final Transmutation, Dwellers Below, Pit of Shades, Purple Sun (plus ones from Army Book lores).

Now, here's the thing, most of these are far harsher on other units than they are on your warriors. I mean, take Pit of Shades or Purple Sun - with I5, you're only losing 1/6 models (so, if you have a squad of 20, you're looking at 3-4 dead). On the other hand, those Orcs or Goblin units are losing 2/3 of the models under the template. Since Purple Sun can go through an entire unit, they could easily start with 50 models, and be left with just 17 (and that unit of 100 goblins has just lost ~66 models). Same with Dwellers - you're losing 1/3 of your unit; they're losing half of theirs. And, as above, their formation becomes inefficient far more quickly than yours does.



The new books have been more conservative with power dice, but there seems to be ways for certain armies to constantly get bonuses to casting etc like Ogres with the lore attribute and VCs having very cheap wizards to spam death choirs, Tomb kings with their tricks, etc.

With regard to VC, spamming cheap wizards doesn't mean you'll get enough power dice to actually use them. Trust me - I know. :D

The Ogre Lore Attribute is decent, but it hardly seems overpowering. I mean it doesn't stack (and you only get the bonus on your next spell), it can backfire and damage the wizard, and it just doesn't seem like a major bonus.

In any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't WoC get:
- MoT, which let's wizards reroll channelling dice of 1
- Chaos Familiar (+1 to channel and know an extra spell)
- Skull that lets you roll 6 channelling dice instead of 1 (I think you lose Ld for each 1 rolled - but that's what Ld8 caddies are for ;)).
- Lore of Tzeench, which generates extra power dice for each 6 you roll when casting.

They might not be perfect, but they still give decent bonuses - especially since most of them are pretty cheap.

Clockwork
20-04-2013, 15:21
But those things don't count, because they are in the Warriors book.

Xentarus
20-04-2013, 15:27
They are also less of an issue - Chaos characters are damned expensive. Daemon Princes won't take an arcane item (perhaps the Chaos Familiar) and the dispel scroll is the first arcane item of use. With the price of characters it is unusual to see more than one mortal wizard, and thus more than just the dispel scroll. Mark of Tzeentch is also far less popular on wizards now (I love it, personally) too.

Clockwork
20-04-2013, 15:41
Fine, so you take one Sorcerer, give him Mark of Tzeentch and a Dispel Scroll. Then take a second Sorcerer and give him the Skull and a Familiar. It might mean you can't fit in a Daemon Prince, but then you will generate a lot more dice, if that's what you want.

If you want the extra power dice generation then the options are there. It may just detract from doing other things - just like everyone else.

Vipoid
20-04-2013, 16:27
They are also less of an issue - Chaos characters are damned expensive. Daemon Princes won't take an arcane item (perhaps the Chaos Familiar) and the dispel scroll is the first arcane item of use. With the price of characters it is unusual to see more than one mortal wizard, and thus more than just the dispel scroll. Mark of Tzeentch is also far less popular on wizards now (I love it, personally) too.

But that's still a choice on the WoC player's part - Daemon Princes are hardly mandatory.

I mean, if you're taking a daemon prince, then you're choosing to take the most expensive WoC character (barring SCs). You could just as easily go for a lv4 Sorcerer Lord, backed up by 1-2 hero sorcerers. Then your main sorcerer *can* take an arcane item, as can each of your hero sorcerers. In addition, of the above items, only one is actually an arcane item; the rest are a mark, gift and lore attribute, respectively. So, how many arcane-item caddies do you need?

See, I just don't see why this is such a problem for WoC. Surely it's the same for any race - if you don't spend many points on magic, then you won't have strong magic. :p

Xentarus
20-04-2013, 18:30
Fine, so you take one Sorcerer, give him Mark of Tzeentch and a Dispel Scroll. Then take a second Sorcerer and give him the Skull and a Familiar. It might mean you can't fit in a Daemon Prince, but then you will generate a lot more dice, if that's what you want.

If you want the extra power dice generation then the options are there. It may just detract from doing other things - just like everyone else.

Can't take Skull and Familiar - both arcane items. Otherwise, yes I like that it isn't just +x dice but there is still the option for it, and typically you'll be using a more fun lore - Tzeentch.


But that's still a choice on the WoC player's part - Daemon Princes are hardly mandatory.

I mean, if you're taking a daemon prince, then you're choosing to take the most expensive WoC character (barring SCs). You could just as easily go for a lv4 Sorcerer Lord, backed up by 1-2 hero sorcerers. Then your main sorcerer *can* take an arcane item, as can each of your hero sorcerers. In addition, of the above items, only one is actually an arcane item; the rest are a mark, gift and lore attribute, respectively. So, how many arcane-item caddies do you need?

See, I just don't see why this is such a problem for WoC. Surely it's the same for any race - if you don't spend many points on magic, then you won't have strong magic. :p

Oh, I don't have a problem with it :) I'm glad the option is there, just pointing out that it isn't particularly 'efficient' an option.


Question: It has been said herein that Hellcannons are insane and broken (I paraphrase ;) ) - why?

They are tough to kill, yes. They have so many hoops to jump through - restraint test, scatter/misfire, then rolls to wound etc. They don't end up killing very many. The panic test is the main threat - which now has to kill, by the way, to prompt a test - but with BSB/Discipline Banner the risk of this is mitigated. There is still a risk, yes, but for so many points it should offer some threat. As a beast it is purely reactionary or out of your control and while good against typical warmachine hunters, is no match for decent combat units.

It has always under-performed for me, this book and the last. It is immensely frustrating. Granted, I haven't done the Doom/Treason + Hellcannon combo but that is another hoop to jump through. Many other units are better.

Clockwork
20-04-2013, 18:57
Can't take Skull and Familiar - both arcane items. Otherwise, yes I like that it isn't just +x dice but there is still the option for it, and typically you'll be using a more fun lore - Tzeentch.

Oh good point, I thought it was just a Gift.




Question: It has been said herein that Hellcannons are insane and broken (I paraphrase ) - why?
.

Being a stone thrower with more damage (Str 5 template o.o) and immune to most war machine hunters probably has something to do with it. The panic thing is really just a bonus; get people rolling panic checks often enough, and sooner or later they will fail - yes, even with Discipline and the BSB.

ihavetoomuchminis
20-04-2013, 20:24
I stopped reading Fallstorm posts when he said Warriors are overcosted.

Xentarus
20-04-2013, 21:18
Being a stone thrower with more damage (Str 5 template o.o) and immune to most war machine hunters probably has something to do with it. The panic thing is really just a bonus; get people rolling panic checks often enough, and sooner or later they will fail - yes, even with Discipline and the BSB.

Well, it doesn't give away its points easily. It just never seems to do anything of significance. Throughout a game it rarely contributes more than a few kills. It has rarely made a difference and ends up frustrating. To clarify, I don't think it is weak or overcosted just that it is more bark than bite.

Actually, as an aside which isn't really relevant, but the old misfire chart, or specifically the 'all wizards suffer a miscast' part was broken. Especially with the infernal puppet (mandatory). But that is gone, thankfully. I say this as a diehard Chaos player.

Xerkics
22-04-2013, 21:18
Regarding hellcannon it can be either very good or very bad its not a straight up must have choice, ive had plenty of games where it actually hasnt done any damage for whatever reasons. Lizardmen just eat it alive with skinks but then skinks are op :p

Trustey
22-04-2013, 22:12
A 230-290 pt Chimera to screen a 500+ point Demon Prince is no chump change in any size game. If it works you are simply getting what you paid for, definitely nothing more.

SteveW
22-04-2013, 22:16
Chaos spawn work well as cannon fodder for the DP and only cost 50.

Vipoid
22-04-2013, 22:41
Question: It has been said herein that Hellcannons are insane and broken (I paraphrase ;) ) - why?

Well, when most stone throwers are S3, having a S5 one is pretty good - especially since it adds range to a CC army.

It's also pretty decent in combat - especially against most war machine hunters.

I don't think it's broken, but it seems quite good.