Tactica: Warriors of Chaos 8th Ed

[Jack of Blades]

Cost. Flail Marauder units are designed to be cheap and relatively suicidal, and in a small unit of 10-15 Mark of Khorne increases their cost by 45-60%. Mark of Slaanesh is a third of that and provides the bare basic of what you're interested in.

You're telling me that 20 points for something which provides the MoS, keeps the unit combat worthy even if half of it dies on the way in (unlike Slaanesh), gives it another rank of attacks which also means that it's disproportionally more dangerous than its size is cost inefficient? Haha, I'm not gonna buy that

[Mr. Shine]

Let's pit the two choices against each other for fun!

After two rounds of combat, a 14-strong unit of Slaanesh Marauders with Flails (80 points) will have ~5.67 models still left standing against a 10-strong unit of Khorne Marauders with Flails (also 80 points), who will have ~2.25 models still standing.

Who's going to win 5-6 attacks versus 4 attacks?

[OldMaster]

Let's pit the two choices against each other for fun!

After two rounds of combat, a 14-strong unit of Slaanesh Marauders with Flails (80 points) will have ~5.67 models still left standing against a 10-strong unit of Khorne Marauders with Flails (also 80 points), who will have ~2.25 models still standing.

Who's going to win 5-6 attacks versus 4 attacks?

Hey, that's not fair, you deployed 7x2 with those Slaaneshi Marauders =p
If we both have a frontage of 7, then...

it's 4,84 against 2,43, which means our attacks are about equal.
You win in subsequent combats, though. =p


So cheap Slaaneshi flail units are better than cheap Khorne flail units. Do you guys even use such small numbers?

[Havock]

Not me, no points for that.

[Mr. Shine]

Hey, that's not fair, you deployed 7x2 with those Slaaneshi Marauders =p
If we both have a frontage of 7, then...

Only because 7-wide makes sense for a unit of 14, while it doesn't make so much sense with a unit of 10

So cheap Slaaneshi flail units are better than cheap Khorne flail units. Do you guys even use such small numbers?

It's something I'm planning to try out in the 1000-point games I play, as I'm finding a 40-strong Khorne/Great Weapon horde a bit unwieldy both in terms of what they face off against and in terms of their sheer size, as we play on a 4'x4' board (and yes, my friends use the same board size even for 2000-point games, ugh).

[Havock]

Why bother wwith marauders then? Go with warriors.

[Harwammer]

With small units the abilities to flee and maintain ITP throughout the game are more important than maxing out damage (my opinion). Note I don't use foot marauders: only mounted ones. I use warriors as my infantry (which are much more affordable if you don't use chosen or double shrines).

[Mr. Shine]

Why bother wwith marauders then? Go with warriors.

To avoid a completely boring force

More seriously though, my usual 1000-point list contains a unit of 15 Tzeentch Warriors with shields. I'm considering dropping my 200-point Knights unit and playing around with some other units' extras to try and fit in another unit of Khorne Warriors with Halberds instead, though.

[Dada]

Any1 got any idea if kazyk the befouled is any good in an army? Have't got any idea of his stats or anything, Just know that he is 190pts... The rotbeast upgr for chaos knights sure looks ni e with the extra wound and regenerate for 15pts ea.

[Jack of Blades]

Warrior unit sizes. Do I go 12? 18? 20+? I really dislike wasting 2 attacks per profile by going for larger units but is there any point when the unit is just too small to stand up to other units? I want my undivided warrior units to hit as hard as possible for the least points investment possible so they can clean up units weakened by artillery and magic and combo-charge intact units with cavalry/monsters, so I'm thinking units of 12 right now. Units of 12 will also be harder to hex, I don't plan on buffing them with magic and they will take less casualties from artillery hits. It just seems a more efficient use of points to go with smaller units. If I'm facing something like a horde of gw grave guard I wouldn't want to use just one 18 warrior unit against it anyway and all I'll be losing by forming half another unit out of those 6 warriors I drop is 6 attacks.

Yeah... I think I just needed to ask myself

[Mr. Shine]

To some extent I think it depends on how many Musicians and Standard Bearers you're willing to pay for, though there is of course something to be said for having ranks, even though we lose the benefit (for which we've paid a premium) of having two attacks...

[Jack of Blades]

Meh, to me it's a question of how many lost attacks you're willing to put up with input noted!

[Citadel97501]

Well it really depends on the type of unit, if its a Khorne + Halberd unit you are probably best off with 14 or so as it should be used like a hammer, and this gives you your highest amount of attacks for the fewest points.

However if your using Tzeentch + Shields, your probably going to want 20 or so since the unit should be used as an anvil.

I personally don't mind using 20 or 27 Tzeentch + Shields, the Blasted Banner, and a Sorcerer Lord as this makes a unit that is nearly unbreakable and a severe danger if they try to leave it alone.

[Havock]

20 is a good number for any warrior unit, it gives you plenty of output and you have the ranks to break steadfast in a few turns against all but the tarpittiest of tarpits.

[Mr. Shine]

I find multiple ranks of 6-wide is probably the all-purpose best, just to ensure that everyone will always get to attack and no frontage is wasted while maximizing those in contact against the smallest units (5-wide 20mm-base units) - so units of 18-30 are probably my favoured sizes, though a Tzeentch unit of 5x3 is what I use as a small bunker in my 1000-point list. 5-wide

[TheOneHawk]

The advantage of more than 12 is that your unit can't be made combat ineffective as easily. Warriors are tanky, but they're not invincible. As soon as they start dying in a unit of 12, you're losing attacks. 18 gives you a buffer.

[Djekar]

I generally prefer to run them in blocks of 18 or 20 depending on role. I've made blocks of 40 as well, which fare about as well as you would expect.

[Dreadlordpaul]

i run my warriors in a block of 24

[Mr. Shine]

I generally prefer to run them in blocks of 18 or 20 depending on role. I've made blocks of 40 as well, which fare about as well as you would expect.

As a horde or bus?

I've been playing with the idea of a horde of 30-40 for a laugh... I imagine it goes either incredibly well and they destroy everything they come across, or they end up being far too unwieldy and get torn apart at range.

[Gradek]

Am I better of with a Khorne Lord on Juggernaut having a talisman of protection or the dawnstone?