View Full Version : Chaos: is Undivided still a thing?

Lord Hurin
26-10-2014, 21:21
In 40K you can't take the mark of Chaos Undivided at all anymore, never mind whether it's a good idea or not. I always liked the aesthetic better anyway, plus if you wanted to use the odd marked unit it fit in better.

I have a bunch of Chaos stuff that I might expand on, but is it even remotely competitive to use basic Warriors, Marauders, Knights and Marauder Horsemen with no Mark of Nurgle?

27-10-2014, 04:46
Remotely competative? Yes. It's not ideal but warriors already have a really strong statline and gear so they are far from garbage even unmarked. Marauders aren't the best unit but I think that if they have a place, it's being a cheap, unmarked hand weapon and shield tarpit. For marauder horsemen you definitely want mark of slaanesh but they aren't completely unplayable without.

27-10-2014, 10:42
The issue is, once upon a time 'Undivided' was the basic trooper, and marks were expensive upgrades with situational benefit. Sometimes they would help you, sometimes they would not be worth the points. Frenzy for Khorne was good, but had it's disadvantages. Immune to Psychology for Slaanesh could be a huge help, but some games you never had to take a Panic test, let alone Fear or Terror, and then it was a waste. Extra magical power for Tzeentch was awesome, but you were paying for magical benefit with the cost of your combat troops, so your army was weaker combat wise, and you could lose that magical benefit by losing those weakened units. And causing Fear with Nurgle was great, until it didn't matter because you didn't need it to win.

Now, the marks are all general upgrades (except Khorne, still Frenzy and awesome :) ), and the most generally useful is Nurgle. There's really no 'situational' use where having a flat penalty to be hit isn't great. It's great against any army, pretty much all the time. It has nothing to do with being 'Nurgle', as it could have just as easily been the special rule for the Mark of Tzeentch (altered the strands of fate), or the mark of Slaanesh (intoxicating aura disrupts enemies) and then those would have been the most common marks chosen.

Unfortunately by removing any downside to taking marks (except Khorne) besides paying points, they've left the only potential downside to doing so being that the bonus might not be applicable to the situation, and thus the points wasted, but by making ONE of the optional, 'situational' bonuses basically be applicable to nearly every situation, there's really no reason not to do it.

You can of course still run your list without that mark, or any mark, but if you were to make an exact mirror of your force and cut a few points to add that mark, it would just be a better force. 10 Warriors with Nurgle is just flat out better than 12 Warriors with nothing.

Lord Hurin
29-10-2014, 02:06
Hmm, fair enough. I definitely remember those days when marks were used more to flavour your army than as a tactical decision. I'm stripping my old models now and have found quite a decent core of minis. As a rough estimate:

Chaos Champion on foot with 2 hand weapons
Mounted Chaos Sorcerer (with the goat head helmet)
Chaos Sorcerer on foot with familiar (the robed one with the tentacle hand and a book)

Around 25 old bulky Chaos Warriors (the ones who are a nightmare to rank up)
About 10 of the newer Warriors with capes
Almost 30 Marauders
5 Marauder Horsemen
5 Chaos Knights (the metal ones)

So right away I'd want to bulk out that Warrior block. Being tough, powerful and expensive is 20 enough for Warriors?

Beyond that I'm not sure what to get. Probably some more Marauder horsemen and some Warhounds for fast stuff. I've always love Dragon Ogres and Shaggoths. What else is considered "must have" in a Chaos army these days?

30-10-2014, 04:26
Warriors generally work economically best in units 6 wide. A 6 wide unit will ensure that you get all of your models into combat against a 5 wide standard size (20mm) opponent. Being multiple attack infantry models, you also get more out of your Warriors by having them in base to base (2 attacks) than you do having them give you supporting attacks, so if an opponent's unit is larger/wider, you'll likely want to reform (quick reform if possible) to widen yourself out by as many models as you can get into contact. Chaos Warriors are one of the few armies out there where you see units that are 6, 7, or 8 wide, just to bring the most to bear on your opponent and get the most out of your points, so don't feel that you're stuck at your starting unit size (and don't feel that you HAVE to deploy your warrior unit the way you have envisioned it, if your opponent has some hordes of infantry you want to match up with, deploy them wider than the 6).

As for total numbers, in smaller games two ranks of six is often a good little unit, but of course a single casualty and you start losing attacks, which means that an opponents attempt to whittle you down in range and stand and shoot will be effective at reducing your strength, and that opponents striking first will get a bigger benefit from casualties caused (+CR for kills, and -CR on your side for loss of attacks). For this reason a solid investment of 18 men (3x6) is usually the go-to size for a unit, with 24 being on the upper side of what you'll generally see.

Warriors taken in Hordes is expensive, and you're paying more points (to get the wider unit) to get fewer attacks (because of the limit to 1 attack for supporting models), and would generally be better off taking another unit (either warriors or something else), but a Horde of warriors can be effective. They are generally resilient to unit killing spells (high Initiative, relatively high S) and shooting (oh, as long as you have the point, always give your warriors shields, just so they can hide behind them while advancing, it's pretty much always worth it). The problem is, when you run into someone who doesn't care/isn't concerned/has a great counter to a unit of Warriors, a horde means a lot of invested points that could have been spent giving your army some versatility.

That being said, one of the simplest armies that's ever completely stopped me was a 2000pt force with two hordes of Chaos Warriors. My army just wasn't set up to beat that, and combined with units of Hounds and Marauder cavalry to guard its flanks and take out/impede my own chaff and redirectors, there wasn't much I could do against it, and since then I've been a fan of the build (and it looks cool).

Marauders are still a solid choice. They are slightly more expensive than they were, but most of the people who will tell you not to take them will tell you not to take Warriors either, and it's not because either choice is 'bad', but because some other things are ridiculously placed and strangely costed (and also conveniently come in new, large plastic kits, comprising single models! Huzah! Who would have thought?)