PDA

View Full Version : Who Has The Best Core?



teclis_16
19-07-2014, 14:14
If you were to play an army and only be able to take core units, which army would you play?

Blinder
19-07-2014, 14:29
It depends on what I was trying to do with the army. Assuming decent character support was still an option (and even if not), I'd easily see myself still working on my Brets because it's just a couple flavors of Knight I'm missing out on (and it isn't like I'm usually going to do all that well anyway). If I'm trying to put together some weird "I won a GT with an all-core army except my general so there's nothing wrong with Core" argument I'd probably pick WoC. I'd probably lean that way for "I want a smaller army to start with that I can expand however I want but I don't want to be the area whipping boy." If I were looking for sheer "entertainment value" I'd probably consider O&G (who can also bash things pretty well out of Core, but certainly don't mind some extra toys). If I wanted something that looked impressive I might go and do some fancy painting with some elves of some sort...

bork da basher
19-07-2014, 14:33
for me warriors of chaos. i actually WANT to field their core choices rather than it just be a tax i have to pay to get specials/rares. warriors, chariots, hounds are pretty much awesome whilst you have a OK horde option with marauders, decent fast cav with horsemen and a fun but by no means terrible unit in forsaken.

warriors have to take the prize overall simply because they're a core choice that is just as good or better than most other armies elites but have great options and marks of chaos to boost their utility further.

im liking dark elves next.

SpanielBear
19-07-2014, 15:07
I'm not going to argue that Wood Elves have the best core... But Glade Guard and Eternal Guard are damn fine at what they do!

Ograr
19-07-2014, 15:26
Daemons of Chaos core has something for everyone!
You even get to throw some magic around, assuming it's purely only core and no heroes.

CountUlrich
19-07-2014, 15:55
Dwarves and WoC both are extremely high on the list.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Alltaken
19-07-2014, 16:24
Dwarfs, de or woc

Dwarfs are great units.
De got corsair, we, dark riders
Woc got warriors and charriots + the old usefull dogs

We have glade guard, eg aren't bad, but too costly to be considered for best infantry, and glade riders ambush.

Nubl0
19-07-2014, 16:48
I do like eternal guard and glade guard a lot, however it's probably between warriors and De for best core. Dark riders are amazing and chariots are brutal. Gotta give a shout out to lizards and skaven though, the humble skink/slaves are very good.

EvanM
19-07-2014, 17:36
dwarfs by far. their core can do so much stuff, you can make a whole army out of it.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
19-07-2014, 18:43
Dwarfs, de or woc

Dwarfs are great units.
De got corsair, we, dark riders
Woc got warriors and charriots + the old usefull dogs

We have glade guard, eg aren't bad, but too costly to be considered for best infantry, and glade riders ambush.
Uh...what's wrong with ambush? They come on wherever they're safest and can do the most damage. And at fast cav m9 they're points few opponents will ever score off of you.

EvanM
19-07-2014, 19:02
the fact that you have to ambush kind of sucks unless if you really wanted to do it. most players would prefer to be able to field them without ambush.

glade guard actually serve a good purpose now with all the arrow upgrades.

i mean its still scary to think what a WoC army would look like even without special/rare. warrior hordes, chariots.... yeah seriously. who's core units are gonna be able to take that on?

Gerod253
19-07-2014, 21:01
In a vacuum I'd take Empire because of the wide variety of State Troops available. You could make an all core army and it would look visually pleasing on the table.

A close second would be VC for a core filled with zombies and skeletons to wear down the opponent through sheer attrition.

Scammel
19-07-2014, 21:17
OK Core includes Ironguts, making them a serious contender (though a great deal of their strength comes from favourable interactions with characters).

SpanielBear
19-07-2014, 21:31
Uh...what's wrong with ambush? They come on wherever they're safest and can do the most damage. And at fast cav m9 they're points few opponents will ever score off of you.

I wouldn't build a list around ambush, but I like it as an option. 1 unit of glade riders doesn't break the bank, and can as you say turn up and do various nifty things like charge fleeing units, add some more poisoned/flaming shots, block charges and so on and so on.

Raf
19-07-2014, 22:28
If you were to play an army and only be able to take core units, which army would you play?

My answer depends specifically on whether or not you can include characters (i.e. mandatory general ...) Without characters, I think Bretonnians fare best as a result of Peasant's Duty. The peasants can use the leadership of some nearby knights. Without any characters at all, Vampire Counts crumble.

With characters, then I take lots and lots of goblins. They kind of need decent leadership, but are fun.

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2014, 23:06
Orcs and goblins have solid core, with two types of fast cav, missile troops, cheap hordes of crap (Gobbos), T4 blocks, and the Savage Orc Big 'Uns that tend to be found in the most competitive OnG lists.

EvanM
19-07-2014, 23:19
I think the only armies that can't play with only core troops would be tomb kings and vampire counts. Skellies and stuff just suck.

Dominatrix
19-07-2014, 23:27
Skaven or Dark Elves. They belong in the minority of armies where fielding core doesn't feel like a tax.

Josfer
20-07-2014, 00:31
Skaven? Really? I wouldn't touch skaven with a ten foot pole if I were only able to pick core. You have NOTHING to win a combat with. Same goes for VC and TK...

EvanM
20-07-2014, 01:53
Skaven core goes well with Skaven special/rare but no, even stormvermin suck.

teclis_16
20-07-2014, 02:28
You are aloud to take Characters.

I would choose Dwarves. They have strong shooting and solid close combat.

SteveW
20-07-2014, 02:29
Knights of the realm, peasant bowmen, and men at arms. It's a whole functional army you can win games against full armies with.

Alltaken
20-07-2014, 03:10
Uh...what's wrong with ambush? They come on wherever they're safest and can do the most damage. And at fast cav m9 they're points few opponents will ever score off of you.
Optional ambush is pretty interesting. Fast cav auto ambushers sounds bad in every senario I can picture, its fast cav not doing what fast cav is supposed to do

olderplayer
20-07-2014, 03:11
The answer changes a lot if one can only play core or considers core along with other options. Is there any army that deliberately chooses to play with more core than allowed? That used to be true with Daemons of chaos with a bloodletter and a plague bearer block plus a good block of horrors or two It may still be true of certain Daemons builds but the point cost of Daemon core and limitations kind of kill it for me.

Dark Elves have the best core options in darkshards, corsairs, witches, and dark riders. If you were required to play a game with only core and nothing else, dark elves would probably clean up.

Warriors have really two good options, chariots and warhounds. WoC chariots are probably point for point the beast core unit in the game; played an entire army of core chariots wit minimal character support and they were really tough to beat. Warriors and marauders are over-costed now. Marauder horsemen are still worth taking but nothing compared with dark riders.

Skaven core are great if and only if they are supported by leadership bubble. Both slaves and clanrats are cheap with the steadfast rules in 8th edition.

Wood elf core is decent but glade riders being ambushers is an issue and point-wise are less capable and much easier to kill than dark riders; glade guard are good but probably a bit too expensive and less well protected than darkshards (which enjoy light armour and shield options and have double shot AP in their base cost while glade guard have to pay extra for MS2); eternal guard is worth playing if in a venom thicket but I'dc take witches and corsairs over them on a point wise basis.

Ogres are kind of missing. I think Ironguts are a good buy for the points and gnoblers are decent if used right. Ogres are fairly costed. The biggest problem is that two lores, death and shadow, have initiative tests that nerf them in the magic phase.

Bretts core is really good if used right, the lance formation really benefits from 8th edition and allows one to hide the mages in the middle of the second rank. Longbows with stakes are under-rated, as are halberd troops (undercosted for their stats and if linked to a knight's leadership and they get the blessing benefit; knights errant and knights of realm are good choices. However, Empire core Knights are really quite good when upgraded to inner circle knights and have a better armour save.

Lizardmen core are really good but the -1LD and cost of skinks in the new book is a big nerf and the rules changes nerfed the skrox unit more than expected. Saurus warriors are better than before with predatory fighter abilities but suffer from the initiative test spells.

Dutymeister
20-07-2014, 03:29
Not to toot my favorite army's horn, but I think for the price, Saurus are really nice. At the option to take either hand weapons or spears with shields at 11 points for a total of a S4 T4, core choice is really damned good. Not as arguably good as Ironguts or Longbeards, but I feel they deserve an honorable mention.

Lastavenger
20-07-2014, 06:48
My normal brett army consist mostly of core (with exeption of pegs and QK) but i don't think i would miss anything other than pegs. One of my regular oponents is playing WOC with only chaos knights from special/rare. He has big horde of ~50 gw marouders, 24 warriors and numers of warhounds, chariots and horsemen depending on points. I really like playing with his list. I also play a lot ageinst HE guy who bought 2 IOB and new battalion and run only units from them. Only special unit that he fields is swordmasters in one or two units. On the other hand my most regular DE opponent plays only min core tax and it would be hard for me to imagine his army now with more core. Dark riders instead of warlockst. That could be funny.

teclis_16
20-07-2014, 13:07
My normal brett army consist mostly of core (with exeption of pegs and QK) but i don't think i would miss anything other than pegs.

I've seen a couple people say Brettonia. And a friend of mine who plays Bretonnia also fields mostly core. I know first hand it wins a lot of games.

artisturn
20-07-2014, 13:22
Orcs and Goblins, is what I would take.

My VC hasn't touch the table since the O&G book came out.

Scammel
20-07-2014, 13:28
Characters allowed? Ogres then. Ironguts with a tanky SM and the Rune Maw BSB is probably the best deathstar you can get using Core troops (and one of the flat-out best deathstars in the game, for that matter)

Imperator64
20-07-2014, 14:05
A few unit's of slaves in front of a clanrat/Seer bunker can make anything cry.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
20-07-2014, 18:24
Optional ambush is pretty interesting. Fast cav auto ambushers sounds bad in every senario I can picture, its fast cav not doing what fast cav is supposed to do
You've gotta think outside the box. You don't need glade riders for double-fleeing chaff because you have eagles. Instead you have this amazing warmachine-hunting points denial tool...in CORE. A core consisting of nothing but glade riders is 25% of your army that the opponent will struggle to get off of you.

SpanielBear
20-07-2014, 19:11
You've gotta think outside the box. You don't need glade riders for double-fleeing chaff because you have eagles. Instead you have this amazing warmachine-hunting points denial tool...in CORE. A core consisting of nothing but glade riders is 25% of your army that the opponent will struggle to get off of you.

Take nothing but glade rider core and I promise you, anyone you play whom you used to call friend will develop a passionate desire to see you burned at the stake...

Avoidance works. It's very very good. But the better it is done, the less fun the opponent will be having.

I also like having a more static core as it makes excellent bait. He can't catch my Sisters, he can't catch my riders, my scouts are behind him or in his flank- but my tasty, squishy, expensive annoying core are right in front of him. Often, there's even a level 2 Mage hanging around in that free wood too.

My opponent feels like there's something he or she can get their teeth into. They can plan. They feel they can win points and influence the battle.

Which means I know *exactly* where my enemy is going to go...

forseer of fates
20-07-2014, 19:46
Witchelves clearly

Wesser
21-07-2014, 11:11
I think the only armies that can't play with only core troops would be tomb kings and vampire counts. Skellies and stuff just suck.

I'm gonna back this statement.

Every other can field perfectly good and viable armies from characters and core alone

I do however think that Tomb Kings got some decent choices. Their only fault is that the only game-changer the got in special/rare is the Casket


It's hard to pick a winner though. People may complain about Saurus for reasons unknown, but Javelin Skinks are damn good. Daemon Core is overall strong. Empire core is so-so by itself, but got strong buff options elsewhere...


I think it goes for Core:

1. Wood Elves, Ogres, High Elves, Dark Elves, Daemons, Warriors, Bretonnia, Empire, Skaven, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, Beastmen, O&G
2. Tomb Kings
3. Vampires

Snake1311
21-07-2014, 11:55
Lol @ people picking dwarfs, you realise a single unit of fast cav with longbows can ruin your day?

I'd pick Brets. Multipurpose relatively cheap heavy cavalry (decent output, high resilience, high static), and cheap long-range shooting, what else could you want :)

CountUlrich
21-07-2014, 12:59
Lol @ people picking dwarfs, you realise a single unit of fast cav with longbows can ruin your day?

I'd pick Brets. Multipurpose relatively cheap heavy cavalry (decent output, high resilience, high static), and cheap long-range shooting, what else could you want :)

We have core shooters who could pick off that cav archers, and even those quarellers are better in combat than most other armies' core troops, not to mention our longbeards ...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Snake1311
21-07-2014, 13:04
The fast cav can fire on the move. So it can move out of your arc, and shoot at you.

Alternatively, it can come into range of just part of your unit, and heavily reduce your shooting.

JellyPie
21-07-2014, 14:51
Skinks are easily top 3 , maybe even number 1.

Cheap
Poison is great
Great chaff

Only downside is LD 5 but with careful placement and Coldblooded that really doesn't mean much.

Alltaken
21-07-2014, 15:01
You've gotta think outside the box. You don't need glade riders for double-fleeing chaff because you have eagles. Instead you have this amazing warmachine-hunting points denial tool...in CORE. A core consisting of nothing but glade riders is 25% of your army that the opponent will struggle to get off of you.
They will shoot or break the rest you fielded. Glade riders as optional ambush would have been great. Ambush as a fact the unit is far from best core, its a mispurpose. Not even warmachine hunting is assured since you cant charge as you come along and 5 shots is not that much and any crappy bow shot or magic missile wrecks you.

I dont think they're bad, but their stats call for a certain use which that skill skews it for worse

Snake1311
21-07-2014, 15:05
They would have been OP with optional Ambush at 3 points IMO.

At the moment, you still get that fast cav - vanguard functionality with woodies, but it comes out more expensive than usual, and out of your special slots.

Alltaken
21-07-2014, 15:10
The fast cav can fire on the move. So it can move out of your arc, and shoot at you.

Alternatively, it can come into range of just part of your unit, and heavily reduce your shooting.
Dwarf shooting munches fast cav, like it doesnt even exists. Múltiple 10 man units destroy fast cav, its not even a contest

mostlyharmless
21-07-2014, 16:22
In terms of raw power in the stat line: Warriors of Chaos, hands down

In terms of variety and versatility: Dark Elves

Just my opinion, of course.

BlackPawl
22-07-2014, 08:31
Skaven? Really? I wouldn't touch skaven with a ten foot pole if I were only able to pick core. You have NOTHING to win a combat with. Same goes for VC and TK...

You can have stormvermins (with razor banner), large units of slaves and weapon teams - I think Skaven are the only army with template weapons in their core choice.
Some time ago I have played 10 units à 20 clanrats, each with a weapon team (I think 7 wft, 2 ratling guns and a poison wind mortar). Hell it was fun! :D

TheRipper
22-07-2014, 09:12
Dark Elves.

Witch Elves and Dark Riders.

rolly_321
22-07-2014, 13:56
Skaven have by far the best core tarpits.

WoC have the best elite core infantry & core chariots (with TK chariots also a contender).

Wood Elves have the best avoidance and msu core.

Dwarfs have the best rank and file range and combat battle line core.

Empire have the best cav core.

Ogres have the best core for character support (butcher/slaughtermaster or firebelly in a bull/guts horde is insane)

Dark Elves have the best light infantry core.

Beastmen with that +1S banner are.. the best core unit to give that banner.

Lizardmen have the best skirmishing/chaff core


The more I think about it the more it seems to me it's highly meta dependent.

Alltaken
22-07-2014, 18:02
Skaven have by far the best core tarpits.

WoC have the best elite core infantry & core chariots (with TK chariots also a contender).

Wood Elves have the best avoidance and msu core.

Dwarfs have the best rank and file range and combat battle line core.

Empire have the best cav core.

Ogres have the best core for character support (butcher/slaughtermaster or firebelly in a bull/guts horde is insane)

Dark Elves have the best light infantry core.

Beastmen with that +1S banner are.. the best core unit to give that banner.

Lizardmen have the best skirmishing/chaff core


The more I think about it the more it seems to me it's highly meta dependent.
Why would you say wood elves have the best avoidance msu core? And dwarfs best combat line?

I can only see glade riders as the point for we. And chaos warriors are better than dwarfs anyday, their combat power defeats dwarf reselience every time.

SpanielBear
22-07-2014, 18:30
Why would you say wood elves have the best avoidance msu core? And dwarfs best combat line?

I can only see glade riders as the point for we. And chaos warriors are better than dwarfs anyday, their combat power defeats dwarf reselience every time.

Well WE Glade Riders do start off the battle field. Hard to avoid the enemy any better than that...

teclis_16
23-07-2014, 21:18
Why would you say wood elves have the best avoidance msu core? And dwarfs best combat line?

I can only see glade riders as the point for we. And chaos warriors are better than dwarfs anyday, their combat power defeats dwarf reselience every time.

Dwarves can easily go toe to toe with Chaos Warriors. It's an even fight between them.

Alltaken
23-07-2014, 21:24
Dwarves can easily go toe to toe with Chaos Warriors. It's an even fight between them.
Please do the numbers, consider marks too.

SteveW
23-07-2014, 21:34
Please do the numbers, consider marks too.

Each of them have so many options that no one setup proves anything. Do you count a charge from sword n board warriors into a unit of sword n board dwarfs(+1 parry save)? Or a unit of GW wielding Dwarfs(+1 S on charge) into a unit of GW wielding Warriors? Or a charge from halberd wielding warriors into GW wielding dwarfs? Then add marks? Dwarfs having situational modifiers make them a pain to mathammer.

TheRipper
23-07-2014, 21:44
Please do the numbers, consider marks too.

What numbers though? The numbers if you just run an equivalent points cost unit of dwarf warriors head first into the chaos warriors?

These types of comparisons never bear fruit because they don't account for tactics or support. By the time your chaos warriors get to the dwarf lines, they've taken 2-3 turns of shooting from the dwarfs.

And while Dwarf warriors with great weapons are not suited to dealing with chaos warriors head on, longbeards with HW+S can hold a chaos warrior unit on the charge and then you counter with the great weapon warriors into the flank.

Alltaken
23-07-2014, 22:00
What numbers though? The numbers if you just run an equivalent points cost unit of dwarf warriors head first into the chaos warriors?

These types of comparisons never bear fruit because they don't account for tactics or support. By the time your chaos warriors get to the dwarf lines, they've taken 2-3 turns of shooting from the dwarfs.

And while Dwarf warriors with great weapons are not suited to dealing with chaos warriors head on, longbeards with HW+S can hold a chaos warrior unit on the charge and then you counter with the great weapon warriors into the flank.
This is not a tactics and sunergy comparison, that is way subjective I think to discuss. This is a unit vs unit in a vacuum discussion, only charge bonus is able to be considered. And seeing that warriors hit first with more attacks and at a 3+ (dont recall vs longbeards) and have the same toughtness and armor save or better as warriors statistically win pretty much allways against dwarfs, try it.

EvanM
24-07-2014, 02:56
Warriors pretty much win against anyone one on one. GW dwarf warriors are like half the points of chaos warriors though and dwarfs have a smaller frontage.
No one takes chaos warriors because they always get shot before combat, yet people take GW wielding dwarfs.

TheRipper
24-07-2014, 04:16
This is not a tactics and sunergy comparison, that is way subjective I think to discuss. This is a unit vs unit in a vacuum discussion, only charge bonus is able to be considered. And seeing that warriors hit first with more attacks and at a 3+ (dont recall vs longbeards) and have the same toughtness and armor save or better as warriors statistically win pretty much allways against dwarfs, try it.

Well then who cares? Games aren't played in a vacuum.

Josfer
24-07-2014, 07:54
No one takes chaos warriors because they always get shot before combat
No one takes chaos warriors, because you can't stand back and wait for your opponent to come with nearly zero shooting and if you want to get to your enemy you better not do that with M4.

@comparison:
Let's compare vanilla warriors first to have a base line: Warriors hit on 3+, wound on 4+ and have double the attacks in the front row.

Compared to GW dwarves, they even have the same armor save and are hit only on 4+ and after they killed some dwarves. GW dwarves have a higher S, thus wound on 3+. So per attack you deal the same damage, while warriors have +50% damage while costing only +40% points and striking first, but face a 6+AS (-17% dmg). 30So until the dwarves get an extra support attack from being a horde, warriors win. But if you're a horde and lose models first and once you attack aren't a horde anymore that advantage is lost, so you still have to be a horde after the warriors strike. I did some of the numbers and I think there isn't a sweet spot between 21 and 41 dwarves at which point you face 28 warriors making them a horde and losing that advantage anyways. In conclusion you have less attacks with the same kill chance and will lose combat. And in the optimum numbers the dwarves will kill about 25% more points than they lose, so it's not even a good war of attrition if you're not comparing HUGE numbers over multiple turns.
Add to that MoN (+14% pts, -33% losses) or MoK (+14% pts, +33% dmg) or a shield (+7% pts, -30% dmg, -17% if MoK) or halberds (+21% pts, +60% dmg) or even a combination of MoN/MoK+shields/halberds and GW dwarves don't stand a chance.
On the charge GW dwarves have the upper hand against vanilla warriors as they get +50% dmg output wounding on 2+ and removing the AS, but getting the charge is less likely as warriors have +1M and even can take a banner for an additional +1M (the points for the banner only matter in really small numbers where GW dwarves face a serious problem anyways).

Compared to shield dwarves they are hit on 4+, wounded on 5+, have a 4+ AS (8% dmg) while hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+, and facing 5+/6++ (10% dmg) resulting in 25% more dmg from attacks. Getting charged decreases dmg by 20%, while getting off the charge (as said unlikely) increases dmg by 77%. So unless they are on the charge, shield dwarves will lose on any front. If they are on the charge they win pts wise, but the warriors will win combat and a war of attrition isn't a good thing again. As before warriors can be buffed a lot with marks, shields and halberds.

I didn't really look at options that are played for fluff reasons or other phases of the game like MoS or halberd/GW+Shield as I only wanted to compare the combat probabilities.

One last thing to add: Dwarves can get hatred if they get lucky. In this case they have a huge advantage and will only be beaten by the most optimal choices (which are played the most anyways, but whatever)

teclis_16
24-07-2014, 21:10
Chaos warriors have a better stat line but keep in mind after giving them weapons and blessings they can be 18 or 19 points a model. Dwarves warriors are half that. Even longbeards are 5 points cheaper.

boli
24-07-2014, 21:49
Chaos warriors have a better stat line but keep in mind after giving them weapons and blessings they can be 18 or 19 points a model. Dwarves warriors are half that. Even longbeards are 5 points cheaper.

This is why I say stormvermin for point per in stats are actually very good, you can almost get 3 per chaos warrior. Add to that 50 point magic banner (they are so going to be upped in cost and moved to special) they are surprisingly competitive.

-Totenkopf-
24-07-2014, 22:09
I think you are correct. Undead all core armies just aren't viable.. At all. Every other book can muster a decent list using only core, some better than other, but it can still be done and have a shot..
I would love to play a small tourney or campaign using these rules: core and characters only and no cheese of using Special Characters to make rare or special choices core..

SteveW
24-07-2014, 22:56
I think you are correct. Undead all core armies just aren't viable.. At all. Every other book can muster a decent list using only core, some better than other, but it can still be done and have a shot..
I would love to play a small tourney or campaign using these rules: core and characters only and no cheese of using Special Characters to make rare or special choices core..

Tomb kings are slightly better off here than VC but still up a creek without a paddle.

Josfer
25-07-2014, 04:42
Chaos warriors have a better stat line but keep in mind after giving them weapons and blessings they can be 18 or 19 points a model. Dwarves warriors are half that. Even longbeards are 5 points cheaper.
Did you read what I wrote directly before your post (but 13h in advance)? If you take any of the configurations you normally see (MoK+Halberds, MoN+Halberds, MoN+Shield, MoT+Shield) and the dwarves aren't on the charge or hating, they'll lose (CR- and pointswise) and against the halberd configurations even GW dwarf warriors will struggle if they are on the charge and not hating. The front row with their two to three attacks per model just demolishes them. Add to that striking first, higher WS and a superior armor save (if not charged by GWs).

If you don't want to do it yourself, give me configurations that you think would win against one of the four worth the same amount of points and I'll do the numbers for you.

Snake1311
25-07-2014, 09:11
No one takes chaos warriors, because you can't stand back and wait for your opponent to come with nearly zero shooting and if you want to get to your enemy you better not do that with M4.


I think we can all agree on this bit.

Although, if your group/comp didn't allow special characters (and especially if they ran scenarios), you'd probably still some in most lists, since (among other things) by being core they are the best option for infantry/monsterous infantry; otherwise something like a light council camping out in a building, or watchtower, ends up a near-autoloss.

Scammel
25-07-2014, 09:17
Did you read what I wrote directly before your post (but 13h in advance)? If you take any of the configurations you normally see (MoK+Halberds, MoN+Halberds, MoN+Shield, MoT+Shield) and the dwarves aren't on the charge or hating, they'll lose (CR- and pointswise) and against the halberd configurations even GW dwarf warriors will struggle if they are on the charge and not hating. The front row with their two to three attacks per model just demolishes them. Add to that striking first, higher WS and a superior armor save (if not charged by GWs).

If you don't want to do it yourself, give me configurations that you think would win against one of the four worth the same amount of points and I'll do the numbers for you.

All academic comparisons, as Dwarfs are priced according to the army around them. A match-up between Dwarfs and another infantry unit isn't particularly accurate if the other unit hasn't taken shooting casualties.

GuroG
25-07-2014, 09:33
WofC for me ladies & gents!


Luck - Courage - Skill!

Josfer
25-07-2014, 09:35
All academic comparisons,
Well Teclis_16 started it and I showed that his estimation was wrong. Yes, these are academic comparisons, as is most mathhammer. Fact is: Dwarf warriors are (in most cases) no match for chaos warriors, neither combat- nor pointswise.

And for another academic comparison: if you have someone shooting the chaos warriors, either the dwarf warriors shrink in numbers (because someone has to shoot the chaos warriors) or the warriors rise in numbers for an equal points comparison.

Josfer
25-07-2014, 11:04
Although, if your group/comp didn't allow special characters (and especially if they ran scenarios), you'd probably still some in most lists, since (among other things) by being core they are the best option for infantry/monsterous infantry; otherwise something like a light council camping out in a building, or watchtower, ends up a near-autoloss.
Trolls are great, even if they are special (and your 25% core can be easily filled with chariots, horsemen and dogs). And can opener GW ogres can be quite usefull and could assault such a building too.

If you want to cover that case, even Forsaken might be an option as they are way faster and have about 3 attacks per model and can get hatred, magic resistance(2) or swiftstride. And I can't emphasize the speed enough, because how will a light council get into a building faster than a speed based list will catch it? The building has to be in or near their deployment zone. Do you want it to cast another turn because your warriors are too slow and fail that ultra long charge? Even with the banner of swiftness they'll cross 24" only in three turns or on a dangerous charge roll of 9+ (28%), while swiftstride M6 forsaken only need a 6 (89%). Now put that building a few inches into the deployment zone and the forsaken have a (slightly) better chance to do the charge than the warriors theirs on 24" when the warriors can't even make that charge ever. Not even speaking of the chances to assault that building in turn one if it's somewhere near the middle.

Lord Solar Plexus
25-07-2014, 11:05
No one takes chaos warriors because they always get shot before combat, yet people take GW wielding dwarfs.

Hardly. There aren't all that many gunlines around to necessitate not taking Warriors. HE, DE, TK and Goblin shooting mostly bounces off. Dwarfs and some OK builds can hurt them, as will Hellblasters, but I'm pretty sure these would gleefully shoot at chariots given half a chance. And yet chariots are taken even though they might be shot. Cannon and centre-hole template stuff are a lot better against chariots, as are Terrorgheists, Banshees, Luminarks, Warp Flame Throwers and other multiple wound shooting.


Well then who cares? Games aren't played in a vacuum.

Precisely. It's pretty much irrelevant. Probably just a means to pass some time. :)