PDA

View Full Version : Chaos warriors



Kharnath
02-06-2006, 11:20
Purpose: To understand and use the unit to its best potential and capacity


Intro: chaos warriors, great models expensive game wise. In the fluff they should be the centre and main killers of your armies of chaos, marching forward in their blocks destroying anything they touch.

Unfortunately, they are very similar to teenagers.

They might look good but they often disappoint, get into situations you have to rescue them from, under perform and become expensive.

However similarly to their teenage equivalents, when you abandon all hope of them ever doing anything with their lives they pull something hugely dramatic out of the bag and suddenly you’re the doting parent again, just as you’d written them off.

Warriors take faith, and investment.

Number:

An important start for any unit. Size. Well before we discuss number we need to discuss the sub chapter of

Use: there are several uses for any infantry that apply to warriors as well.

Hammer: something else is holding, this unit is there to do the killing. You want a wide frontage to get in the max kills, ranks are of lesser importance and equipment options are important. Great weapons are viable as this unit should hopefully not be taking a charge; halberds are always fun on warriors as are additional hand weapons. Remember its all about killing. Well come to shields later on.

Anvil: this is the rock upon which the waves of enemy will break them selves. Our warriors may cost an arm and a leg, and a head, and a new kidney, and breast implants, and a tummy tuck, and a whole new anatomy but they do have certain perks, high toughness, a decent WS and a decent save. Think of it this way 50% of attacks 90% of the time will miss your warriors, after that nearly 60% or possibly more attacks will fail to wound and after that 66% will be saved. Of course this is against regular basic rank and file and of course it doesn’t always happen that way, but even against great weapon armed guys you have the defence of high WS and T.

A block of 16+ warriors will hold against most, no that grail knight lance x 2 will stills team roll you bit you get the picture.

Flankers: purely there to flank and act as back up. This is different form a hammer unit as they need no equipment or command. They are simply there to flank.

Any other uses please let me know and I will add them but I feel these 3 sums up a fair few roles.

So numbers again.

Hammers can be very small or medium sized. What you don’t want is a sledge hammer unit of 20 or so as your enemy will see the threat and reduce it. I would say that 10-15 will do no more than 15. ran at 5 wide this enables you to get a decent number of attacks in and inflict damage which is the whole point. Equipment may vary, great weapons are an obvious choice as they inflict the most S however halberds are also good for the S boost at no I cost. Additional hand weapons are good too for maximum casualties however they are incredibly expensive on a whole unit so this option must be thought about to make sure its cost effective.

Anvil. Bigger the better, but not going mental due to cost. 15 is a minimum, it allows getting 3 ranks and a decent frontage. 20 is a little big but if you can get it in the list it will provide a real rock for your opponent to over come. Shields are always a must in any warrior unit and we’ll get to that chapter. An anvil unit requires no other weapons as all the options lower our save which as an anvil we don’t want.

Flankers, 10-12. Never more than 2 ranks, you don’t want this unit being attention grabbing, no command usually maybe a musician to help in possible rally attempts. Equipment, personally none, you want it cheap. To be honest it’s a role I don’t like to give warriors and marauders do it better but warriors provide more bite to the flank attack.


Equipment. You can find a million threads on equipment so I’m only going to cover one thing.

Shields: always with out fail and what ever their role your warriors require shields. That extra save from shooting and the possibility of falling back on the parry save as well is invaluable. And only for a point. Should almost be mandatory.

Use: I find many people who have problems with warriors are finding the problems in their use. Warriors are good real good but not uber. You cannot set up you warriors on their own versus that unit of heavy cavalry or that empire infantry with detachments or other well supported infantry and expect them to solo it. They should be supported.

I like to imagine each warrior unit as its own army. It acts as the centre. It has flanks and other areas of play. If your army only focuses on one aspect it’s asking for a kicking, you need to cover flanks and prepare to harassment/missile fire.

If you will.


XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

That’s our warriors. They cost 255 points That’s vulnerable to many things. How bout this thou.


XXXXX
XXXXX MMMMM
XXXXX MMMMM

HHHHH

this costs 351, expensive maybe but consider you have saved them form at least one units shooting maybe more, also you have covered your flanks and made it so that even if this mini army takes some casulties they are still a threat. for barley a 100 more points.

What we have now is a supported group. The Ms are marauders, preferably with flails and a musician. The Hs are hounds. This way we have our flanks covered and something to chase off march blockers and catch bullets with. If broken down this way into “mini armies” things become much simpler

This set up was developed to deal with empire detachments, with the marauders charging the detachment first thus denying the empire player his supported flank charge and leaving the warriors to the killing of the main unit with out being 3 or so CR down before starting.

How ever it also work against other enemies, usually our armies are out numbered in number of units as well as actual men on the ground, this helps by giving you more combat worthy units to throw at the enemy line, while your real drills concentrate on breaking down the real enemy.

These units can also drag other units out of position. In fact, look up empire detachment tactics and copy them.

I have found this to overcome people common tactics for isolating our warriors. And that is the key not to be isolated, let's face it we are among the most attacking armies in warhammer. We must think on an army rather than unit level. True your chosen chaos knights may be l337 but they will be lonely and expensive.

Any how I hope this wasn’t too much of a ramble and i'm sure I will add to is it and adjust it.

Thanks for your time and remember to use these fine warriors even if at first you don’t succeed.

Kharnath

P.S please feel free to add anything at all.

der_lex
02-06-2006, 11:39
Nice little tactica there. The only thing I'd like to comment on is this:


Great weapons are viable as this unit should hopefully not be taking a charge

This is true, but since Chaos Warriors tend to be in combat for more than a round, I would still advise against Great Weapons since they rob you of their impressive initiative stat. Great Weapons will probabl only be a good choice against those few armies out there that have a better initiative than the Chaos Warriors.

Jmznudd
02-06-2006, 16:31
I prefer Chaos warriors with hand weapon shield b/c it means they have a 3+ save in Hth vs a 5+ save with a GW alone. If the warriors are chosen that gives them a 2+ in Hth, which is the best save for Chaos, except for Chosen Knights.

I agree with der-lex's initiative assessment as well.

Inkosi
02-06-2006, 16:45
i just played my mortal khorne army against a tomb king army in a 2000 pts battle few days back.

i fought back from 300-400 points down to force a draw.. which was mainly from my 16 chaos warriors who were beaten in combat n pursued n destroyed.

but i admit it was my fault that lead to them being exposed in the flank but luckily my chaos knights proceeded to kick all their ar*** and save me.

Well my point is, i have always known chaos warriors are way too expensive (btw i make them chosen so they are more expensive than a chaos dragon), its hardly unlikely they would ever earn back their cost.. and i did seriously thought about whether i should put them in.

Until i remembered when i 1st started to have a interest in Warhammer, i was so attracted to this uber-cool looking chaos warrior in the rule book. I found out more about chaos n got hooked on khorne and hence started my warhammer days.

They are why i started playing warhammer n u cant call your army hordes of chaos if there are no chaos warriors.

Even if they never earn back their cost, it never hurts to have some fluff, winning is not everything, i had a enjoyable time in my draw game with the tomb king.

anyway, my chosen chaos warriors of khorne were so threatening they drew the main attention n left my 2 units of 8 chaos knights to destroy practically everything else, so they did serve some purpose i guess

kyussinchains
02-06-2006, 18:15
love the teenager analogy!

I agree with pretty much all that you said, being not so much of a cheese-gamer any more, I always like to include warriors because they look so badass on the table.

I think another use for warriors is a distraction, often they make big juicy targets, plenty of people will pound your warriors with handguns and cannons and allsorts, and in doing so will ignore your chariots, knights, dragon ogres and minotaurs (well you hope they ignore them...) giving them a bit more breathing space to get into combat and out of danger.

Warriors can also work as bait units, smallish units of warriors work well to draw out charges from knights and other hard hitting troops, people often ignore marauder horsemen and hounds, but warriors are harder to ignore, if they charge you, they're gonna do some damage, if you charge them, you can often break them and remove the threat. If you flee with the warriors, your aforementioned knights, chariots and minotaurs hit them in the flank and pound them until they cry.

Just a few additions for the '99 uses for a chaos warrior' compilation

Neknoh
02-06-2006, 20:27
What must be remembered about blocks of Chaos Warriors is that 20 is often far more than is needed if you give them a decent screen, also, unless you manage to find a role for them in your list, they will be useless ingame.
You'll have to make sure that your army revolves arround getting the warriors into combat one way or the other, be it by magic or baiting, but you still want them to get in there and do their thing.

Kharnath
02-06-2006, 23:03
yes i agree however if you can swallow it and when trying to absorb damage 20 is a great number, also for a mark like nurgle it become more important.

i run mine at 16, chiefly because with the hord eit gives me free command how ever in a normal list its 15,

i used 20 as the example number, and to be fair i stand by it for the anvil unit.

i dont agree with that style thou, as you say its important to get your warriors into combat asap where their stats may be used to best effect.

once weve gathere sufficent thoughts ( read im not being lazy...) ill edit it.

lets get all the ideas in people

MarcoPollo
03-06-2006, 07:01
I think that the CW are better kept small and heavy hitting. Halberds and shields are the best equiptment combo. Make them chosen and keep the comand off. Let them hold a flank, or set up counter charges. Keep them at the back and have them come in as a reserve unit.

But, I think that the points can still be better spent on alot of other items.

Neknoh
03-06-2006, 07:16
Kharnath, you are right on Nurgle, however, that is almost the only time I would field blocks of 20 warriors in games of 2k and less, the other exception being if I got a personal challenge from one in my gaminggroup where we both take one big kickass unit and let them both duke it out whilst the rest of the armies go on to slaughter eachother, noone is allowed to touch the othernes kickass unit with anything but their own, this has resulted in some rather interesting battles.

Kharnath
03-06-2006, 21:00
hmm sounds interesting kind of like unit duals heh i can see our warriors owning that against most other units.

on the subject of command,

i feel all elements of command are vital for warrior units.

for 30 points you get +1 A +1CR and +1 CR in tied combats and the bonus to rally. for 30 points? steal ok so the banner if lost can be costly but i tend to view my warriors as ultra central to my game plan and to be fair if ive had a couple of units run down the game is pretty much gone any how.

to replicate the command bonuses in other model forms you need to spend enough points to get and extra column on your units, to replace the attack, and another rank to get the CR boost. for a unit thats going to outnumbered most of the tim any way a standard is essential, also if they do end up running then i need them to come back, and i dont want them loosing because the oppoenent had a musician and i didnt, 6 points for all that is a deal.

overall i cant see 30 points for all these benefits being something youd choose to avoid.

and neknoh i agree and i will adjust the above message on the size.

Sanjuro
03-06-2006, 22:02
So what do you think about the role of Chaos Warriors in 7th edition? 16 is no longer a viable number, since you need 5 models in order to get rank bonus, so it's either 10-12 in two ranks of 5-6, 15-18 in three ranks of 5-6 or 20 in four ranks of 5. I guess theoretically you could run a 24-strong warrior unit, but that's so uncommon as to be almost unheard of.

(I have tried 24 once, actually, using the Hordes of Archaon army list and the Halting the Tide scenario or whatever it is called - where you have double the points versus your opponent.)

Whenever I've normally used chaos warriors it is as a medium sized (15-18) main combat unit. I've tried them as a very small flanker support unit (10-12 with shields and halberds), but I find that for the same or less points, I would rather just take a chariot. They're core, they hit harder, are faster, more mobile and they seem to be more resilient as well. As a support unit, chaos warriors are far, far inferior to the chariot. It's the T5 3+ save that really give the chariot that extra oomph. Sure, lots of cannons will ruin your day, but there are means to take care of cannons. And there are plenty more things that will ruin the day for a small unit of chaos warriors.

Hell, chariots are one-man armies. I charged one into a unit of poorly placed slaves and overran into a unit of 25 clan rats, which I beat and overran and captured the banner from, all with a single chariot. That's good value.

So how do you predict chaos warriors will be used in 7th ed? We might as well get used to the changes, since they will become a reality in a few months or less.

Kharnath
03-06-2006, 22:08
well ive always ran my guys in 5 wide anyway, 4 just wasnt enough attacks to make up for their relativly small numbers so its not effecting my lists too much, in fact it will help steer warrior users in the right direction away form the static CR war they cannot hope to win into the world of killing CR which is what they need to do.

a chariot is good but after the charge is less cool, its kinda the bretonia lance syndrome, pray you breka what you charge or your in trouble. in the situation you mentioned neither units you hit were particularly hard.

and chariots are slower only by a tad but speed is everything with chaos. also chaos warriors have a 3+ in close combat.

a use of both is good idea but chariots cannot preform the role of decent infantry columns
if your unit of chaos warriors are small then they are eihter there for one specific purpose or they shouldnt be there at all.

Sanjuro
03-06-2006, 22:36
Well, mate, I don't think you read my post all the way through.

The point was that Chariots are better at the supporting role than small units of chaos warriors can ever hope to be.

And I consider a unit of 25 4+ save critters with a 5+ CR advantage from the start a medium hard unit. My point is that 10 chaos warroirs with no banner would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to take down such a unit. Chariots just need a decent roll for impact hits and away we go. So again, my point is that chariots are better at the supporting role, but cannot be the main combat units that warriors can be.

Chariots are infact much more mobile that warriors, being a single model unit. They are also much faster on the charge, being able to charge much earlier that foot slooging warriors can hope for. I cannot imagine why you would even begin to disagree with me on that fact.

That aside: I almost always put a character in my warrior unit when I'm using it as a main combat unit, and it's my experience that they need that little extra boost (well, not so little - an exalted champion of chaos is a formidable fighting creature) to reliably make opponents run and not just lose combat by 1 or 2 and possibly pass their break test, which means my warriors are pinned down and liable to get flanked.

Now, I play Tzeentch, so the killing power and personal bravery of my warriors are greatly reduced when compared to the other marks. That might play a part in why I've never been greatly impressed with them in the 5 years I've been fielding them. Still, they have always been a staple of my army and it's only recently that I've gravitated towards a different sort of army composition.

It always appeared to me that chaos warriors are best used as meat grinders - I.e. Khorne or chosen warriors (or both, but that's overkill) with 2 hand weapons applied to a comparatively weak unit that doesn't break or is very unlikely to break (slayers, hammerers, zombies, skeletons, daemons, etc). There they can merrily hack away, while your hammer units do the real killing - I.e beating units by lots in combat and making them run away and subsequently run them over. The right persons for the job there would be knights and other fast stuff.

Kharnath
03-06-2006, 23:05
apologies you are right i totally mis read your post its been a long one today and yes a chariot is more mobile, however they have some severe drawbacks that warriors do not. all you need is some trees for example and you have an issue

a chariot is great on the charge no question but the odd sucky roll here and there and you could have difficulties, also GW wielding heros/monsters/cannons love chariots.

the role of the support warriors is one that im sure i wrote that i didnt agree with but that a fair few people relegate thier warriors to. yes there are far and away many better flankers and supporters.

how ever if you recieve a charge warriors are better, if you are in a prolonged fight warriors are better, if facing cannon or other S7 stuff warriors are better.

dont get me wrong warriors have weaknesses too and in some roles the chariot is better however combines they are very good.

warriors should be either a anvil or a hammer the flank support type unit was mentioned, like the size 20 thing purely because thats how some people play it, and this was more about warriors and their use in general than putting my views across soley.

again i apologise for mis reading sometimes my IQ halves its self for a laugh

MarcoPollo
04-06-2006, 00:54
Going back to the command question. If they are a big unit, then sure, command is very important. But if you are keeping the unit small, in a MSU sort of way. Command can be better spent somewhere else.

Frankly
04-06-2006, 01:15
16 is no longer a viable number

I never thought unit strength 16 was very viable in the fist place to be honest.

The only really successfully warrior units I've seen have on been 15 unit strength with a strandard bearer and thats all.

The biggest question is how does the warrior unit fix into your armylist and what else is in your armylist. For example are they the bread and butter hitty units supported by the rest of the army or are they supporting units for your other units.

Neknoh
04-06-2006, 08:31
Well, for me, one block of sixteen together with a block of Marauders that vary between 20 and 25 makes up for the two big blocks that are supposed to hold the line.

Flanking them is usually a Beastherd with a Beastlord (and either the Daemonsword or Hellfire Sword). On the other flank, a unit of Chosen Knights usually goes and then, a unit of Marauder Horsemen and a unit of Mounted Daemonettes are deployed where they can most easely zoom up the opposing line. An Exalted Champion with either the Blade of Blood and an Enchanted Shield or the Armour of Damnation and a Hallberd is usually deployed in the Marauders to give them some extra oomph once charged.

This makes up for a solid core of my army, the Beastlord can get thrown out in favour of another unit of Mounted Daemonettes, sometimes, a unit of 12 Daemonettes on Foot finds its way into the list right beside the Marauders to act as a form of Detatchment. The Chaos Warriors either has the Warbanner or the Raptorous Standard together with their Hallberds and Shields, they have been known to successfully absorb Bretonnian Lance charges from both Kotr and Questing (Slaaneshian magic has yet to let the Grail Knights charge them :evilgrin: )

Sanjuro
04-06-2006, 09:42
I never thought unit strength 16 was very viable in the fist place to be honest.

Well, they semi-worked for me.


The biggest question is how does the warrior unit fix into your armylist and what else is in your armylist. For example are they the bread and butter hitty units supported by the rest of the army or are they supporting units for your other units

They are purely a supporting unit for me these days, when I take them. I never base my tactics around them. If they do something, it's a bonus. If all they do is suck up fire and magic missiles, that's fine too. They do that pretty well, what with T4 and 4+ armour. They are definitly the worst combat infantry choise in the list, though.

Frankly
04-06-2006, 11:11
They are definitly the worst combat infantry choise in the list, though.


WoW, what I've seen for a few veteran lists that warriors have been the king hitters.

2 khorne armylists(one a tournament winning list), and 1 slaanesh armylist that I can think of, that are geared around getting warriors into combat and supporting them.

All the lists are as I say geared up for getting warrior units into combat with supporting units like hounds, Gors and chariots.

Personal I love the look of the khorne armylists, just because khorne hit so hard and can win combat without flanking.

Sanjuro
04-06-2006, 11:50
2 khorne armylists(one a tournament winning list), and 1 slaanesh armylist that I can think of, that are geared around getting warriors into combat and supporting them.

Well, I don't doubt that you've seen 3 armies that are centered around warriors. I've seen more than 3 that are not, though.

Kharnath
04-06-2006, 17:52
aye thats the unfortunate truth these days, many see other things that are simply easier to use in the chaos list. they are happy to play the Static CR game which i personally dont agree with.

a chaos army should be focused around its basic troops, chaos warriors not their weaker aspiring lackies, marauders. warriors are the corner stone of the hordes of chaos, when archeon led the horde south it was mostly warriors.

to do that on the table top its not easy, they are costly and that in turn makes it difficult to get decent milage out of them in a game dominated by the 5+ CR to start with units. what we need to try and do is work them out and start playing for kills Cr rather than getting frustrated our warriors cant play the static game.

my list is focused around 3 units of 16 warriors khorne marked and with different weapon options. i use chosen but i apply it to different units depending on my feeling at the time. (i mean before i start tournaments and the like not between games), each of these units comes with a unit of 5 hounds and two of them come with marauder detachments as described in the original post.

the rest of the list is marauder horsemen and knights to take flanks and a hell cannon and spawns plus 2 exalted one with the knights and one with the warriors on the ground.
the whole line advances under the cover fire from the hell cannon and the supported flanks from the cavalry.

Sanjuro
04-06-2006, 18:30
my list is focused around 3 units of 16 warriors

How are you going to change your army composition in 7th ed? Are you going to go for 15 strong units, or 18 strong? Or perhaps 20? Though that seems superfluous...

When I use warriors these days, I use units of 18 (6x3). That works out well, since they get a wide frontage and it is also a multiple of the sacred number of Tzeentch (always a good thing, you never know...). They are just there to be menacing and threaten weak infantry. They used to be excellent at lapping round, though that gets removed in 7th ed so there goes another field they were proficient in.

For me, warriors are there as support to my marauders, rather than the other way around.

Kharnath
04-06-2006, 18:41
well i only run them at 16 to get the free command, we round here dont care for GWs back and forth rulings on its additional products, and as such i play archeons horde.

and i run them at 5 wide still with one guy or 2 if theres a hero in there behind, im not ovelry bothered by the redundancy because they will stop me loosing my rnak bonus too quickly and still add to the US.

i dont see 7th changing much thou in my lists, the turn to face option is nice as it takes out a weakness of our slow movement rate and fear of fast cav.
nothing worse than being flanked by some stupid cheap unit and loosing combat and getting run down.

any how 5 wide i feel is best for them as it all helps get those extra attacks to make up for our poor static CR

Goq Gar
04-06-2006, 19:08
Personally I find Chaos to be one of the toughest matches in combat you can face. Not too expensive but also very modifiable. Like Saurus on steroids, they march across the table ripping apart almost anything. No wonder it was the Saurus who were sent to fight the chaos hordes, they're about the only shot you have at fighting them man to man (or lizard).

Personally, I think theyre a very interesting Painting choice aswell

Kharnath
04-06-2006, 19:15
indeed if you secure a fight on your terms its very difficult for most to match up to our warriors. the challenge is sorting out a 1v1 or a fight to your liking as we lack numbers but thats what this is all about discovering the best use, placement and support for a primary warrior army.

also they are good models your right

Goq Gar
05-06-2006, 08:34
The only unit I find that stands a chance in one on one combat is saurus, but only with a mark like quetzl. (lets see, 5+ base save, hand weapon, shield, and Quetzl for fun! Thats a 2+ in combat I believe?)

Kharnath
05-06-2006, 11:08
ok moving this on a little how about this?

a MSU tatic, although a MSE approach might be better with thier cost.

lots of small units of warriors, preferably khorne,slanesh or undicided running across the field. with many small units backed up by say one big anvil or 2 even of ...../shudders marauders and simply attempt to out manuver your opponent.
it seems to work with dark elves and groups of executioners possibly it could work with warriors.

thoughts?

Sanjuro
05-06-2006, 11:22
I don't think Slaanesh and Khorne would be good for a MSU tactic. You will need to be able to flee from bum charges, and Khorne and Slaanesh cannot do that. Undivided is probably best, since they get two chances to rally (which is basically a guaranteed rally).

der_lex
05-06-2006, 11:27
The only unit I find that stands a chance in one on one combat is saurus, but only with a mark like quetzl. (lets see, 5+ base save, hand weapon, shield, and Quetzl for fun! Thats a 2+ in combat I believe?)

Actually, my regular Lizardman opponent has topped fielding Sauruses against my Chaos armies altogether because they always get their behinds handed to them by Chaos Warriors. Saurus, like Chaos Warriors, are a unit that looks good on paper, but their abysmal initiative means that their front rank will normally never even be able to hit back during a prolonged combat against, say, Chaos Warriors with extra hand weapons or Halberds.

As for the CW's themselves, I usually take one or two 4 by 4 blocks with halberds as the center of my battle line (depending on things like Marks and how many points we're playing for), and as long as they stay together they work rather well. 7th ed might throw a spanner in the works there, though. 20-man blocks just seem a bit too expensive, so I'll probably have to practice playing with 5 by 3 blocks instead...

Kharnath
05-06-2006, 11:36
aye good point fleeing crap situations is esential, although it could work out well in other ways, what you loose in fleeing you gain in not having to take break tests form shooting as you only need to loose a few guys to take a test.

possibly nurgle too then, as they can still run and the enemy has to take multiple fear tests from all your units. no you wont auto break but with lots of fear tests you might be able to throw his battle plan out a lot.

Neknoh
05-06-2006, 11:40
Actually, with loads of smaller units of Chaos Warriors coupled with several units of 4 Chaos Knights and perhaps one unit of Nurglings, you'll have yourself an easey time to autobreak the enemy units if you coordinate your charges.

Kharnath
05-06-2006, 11:51
yeah 10 warriors 150 + MoN = er something (not one of my armies as you can tell)

lets say 180......

knights x 4 = 132 + MoN = er 162 possibly

you could get alot of them in 2000 points. and the other armies will be similar,

hmm may write a list with this in mind

Sanjuro
05-06-2006, 14:08
Mark of Nurgle is 50 pts.

And I think that's a huge waste for a MSU type army. Minimum points cost for warrior units would be 190-200 pts depending on equipment.

kyussinchains
05-06-2006, 19:08
MSU/MSE nurgle does work pretty well, especially against low Ld armies like empire, they fail plenty of fear tests and end up with failed charges. Plus when you gang up on them with a few units of 12 nurgle warriors, you're probably going to outnumber them too. One unit of 12 warriors and 4 knights is US 20, so you've got that in your favour, plus with the flank charge aspect you're probably going to win more combats.

I've used an army similar to the one Neknoh described and it worked out pretty well.

Sanjuro
05-06-2006, 20:46
Shows what I know. Theory-hammer isn't everything there is to this game, I suppose.

Latro
05-06-2006, 22:46
Neither is the experience of one person (no offense) ...

(edit: As a funny example: I once had my Chosen Knights of Khorne defeated by charging Skinks ... ergo, my advice is to take Skinks to kill Chosen Knights of Khorne. Yes, this actually did happen!)

One thing most, if not all, low leadership armies have in common is having lots of troops for a low pointcost. It becomes a lot harder to "gang up" on them if they happen to have a lot more units than you do ... and outnumbering gets a bit more tricky if they come in units of 25-30+ ... which is not that uncommon for horde armies.

... there is a reason that MSE Nurgle isn't seen dominating the tournament scene. Doesn't mean it can't be fun or effective in some situations though.


:cool: