PDA

View Full Version : Can I argue?



Minigiant
12-03-2010, 09:13
Can i argue/debate the fact that the warriors of chaos are one of the most balanced playing armies around?

I dont play WoC so this is from an entirely unbiased point

By the looks of it, WoC have everything from being able to play in each phase and they have all the unit types e.g Fast cavalry and heavy cavalry, Chariots, Light and heavy infantry

So what do you think of this view?

Jack of Blades
12-03-2010, 09:16
I think the army's internal balance is bad but the external one is... mostly fair by the looks of it. It holds up to other books in a quite balanced manner but the book itself isn't that well written.

Raffazza
12-03-2010, 09:30
Play in each phase?
Other than the shooting I assume?

But I have no problems with the list really

Bladelord
12-03-2010, 09:39
Throwing weapons with Marauder Horsemen? Hellcannon?? Magic items? well they have a shooting phase but normally it's nothing special.

Armond
12-03-2010, 10:16
I think for a shooting phase to be pretty efficient, you need range. Throwing axes lack range. The hellcannon is a whole other animal though.

Lordsaradain
12-03-2010, 10:26
The whole Eye of the Gods rule is pretty badly executed IMO.
And forsaken should really be skirmishers. But otherwise the book is good.

Odin
12-03-2010, 12:54
They really can't do much in the shooting phase unless you have a very specific army build (Hellcannon, throwing axes and perhaps Kholek) - and even then they're not going to compete with a real shooty army. So they rely very heavily on magic and speed of movement to control the pace of the game (which makes Khornate or infantry armies pretty weak).

So as Jack of Blades says, the internal balance is rubbish (Sorcerer Lord > Lord, Cavalry > Infantry), but the external balance is fine.

brendel
12-03-2010, 13:19
Mmmm... Blanced in the sence that it can act in each phase, yes i'd agree with that.

The Red Scourge
12-03-2010, 13:30
The army has pretty poor internal balance. Their trademark special was turned against and made largely irrelevant in a FAQ. But they can provide decent fun in a very brutal and hardhitting way :)

Griefbringer
12-03-2010, 14:15
Just because an army is versatile does not automatically mean that they are balanced.

the Goat
12-03-2010, 14:42
I agree overall they are balanced compared to the power level of the average Warhammer army. However they are not very fun to play. As others have said the internal balance between many of their unit choices is drastically off kilter. Their army wide special rules are obnoxious: all character models must challenge ALWAYS!!! and the Eye of Gods table is not very rewarding even when you successfully do what the gods want.

Lord Malorne
12-03-2010, 14:52
No, they are not balanced.

King_Pash
12-03-2010, 15:20
Personally, I would class them as a close-combat army with good magic. Shooting really isn't their forte but they can do well in both other phases.

So, what do you guys think is the most balanced army? I would argue High Elves or Empire. The former as they can be made balanced in all phases (although combat is a bit of a tricky one), the latter as they are pretty average in all phases (a bit more in shooting I suppose).

willowdark
12-03-2010, 15:22
The army has a lot of choices, it's just that tournament-centric internet wisdom insists that most of them aren't good.

While I've never seen Trolls on the field, I often see Ogres, Drogres, Forsaken and Chosen. This is my local environment which is competitive, but only boasts about 20 or so players, unlike 50+ which you see at GTs. In a 50+ environment you need maximum efficiency to win consistently, so most choices beyond Knights get left home. But in my ~20 environment, these choices get made and people have a better experience for it.

So while a Forum will tell you that WoC is a limited army that's not fun to play, I'll say that there is tons of variety in the list and no two Chaos players in my area play the same way.

Some people take Warshrines, some people take Hellcannons. Some take the ASF Giant and some take spawns. There's room in the list to take the things you want and still have a fun army and a good chance to compete in a friendly environment.

Of course, the only army I consistently have trouble beating is a Sorcerer heavy list with multiple units of Knights. That being said, his list also boast 2 x 12 Warriors on foot, one with the Rapturous Standard, and a block of 10 Chosen.

rtunian
12-03-2010, 15:26
I dont play WoC so this is from an entirely unbiased point

i'd say you are uninformed, not unbiased. we don't have enough information about you as a person to say whether or not you have any bias or tendancy towards a certain opinion. generally, i always say that an uninformed person should not enter into debate...

but anyway, as to whether or not woc is a "balanced" army, balanced in what respect? is it in line with every other army in the game? is it a mix of different strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to overpowered in one area and dramatically weak in another? what sort of balance are you even asking about..?

warriors are no daemons. i'll put it that way. yes chaos armor is a biznatch, yes infernal gateway is two and a half biznatches, but warriors have exploitable weaknesses. so in a certain sense, they are balanced.

in another sense, they aren't. as noted elsewhere in this thread, they are weak in the shooting phase, which inherently means that they do not bring a balanced attack. they can do movement, magic & combat very well, but are poor at shooting.

and in yet another sense, they are balanced, in terms of being in line with other army books in their era.

so it really depends what kind of balance is under discussion