TOW 1.0 - Warriors Of Chaos

[Trokair]

1 hour ago, JerekKruger said:

Completely unrelated to the Darkoath box: thoughts on using the Fomoroid Crusher as a Chaos Giant? Is he big enough? I get the feeling he's similar size to the 6th edition metal O&G giant, but the question then becomes "is that really big enough" in today's world of much larger GW minis.

That is actually what I am intending to do. It is a lovely model and I had been thinking of getting one just as a painting project anyway.

In terms of size, while he is much smaller than the plastic giant kit he is still big, and should stand out quite clearly.

Here you can see him next to some other AoS Slave to Darkness models, easily twice as tall as a Warrior, and (axe/lance aside) taller than the knight or character, and so bulky as well.

 

 

Also while the kit comes with a little tactical rocks cape, it isn’t required, so I may build up some taller basing for him to stand on, especially if I can make it look similar to the stone he is carrying.  

 

 

[Sarouan]

It should work. They also released the old metal giant miniature, which is also much smaller than the plastic giant. It's really a question of what you like best.

[JerekKruger]

23 hours ago, Sarouan said:

It should work. They also released the old metal giant miniature, which is also much smaller than the plastic giant. It's really a question of what you like best.

Yeah, I think size wise he's fine compared to infantry etc., it's just that if you have him in the same army as things like Ogroid Theridons (representing Chaos Ogres or Minotaurs or whatever) I feel like he might not feel gigantic enough. 

The same is obviously true of the metal giant when compared to, for example, Rockgut Troggoths in O&G.

[JerekKruger]

What are people's thoughts on the Daemonic Mount? I absolutely love the AoS lord on Daemonic Mount mini, and to me Daemonic Mounts are the quintessential Chaos Mount. Something about the fact that it's an actual Daemon, likely gifted by the Chaos Gods to their mortal Champion, or perhaps won in a battle of wills, just feels narratively right. Plus let's be honest, we all kinda want our Chaos Lord to be this guy

But GW have made it hard to love them. The first issue is that during them in a 40x60mm base is a squeeze. It can be done, but they do look a little cramped. 50x75mm is fine, but then they don't rank up nicely with knights, and that upsets my sense of aesthetics. 

Adding to that is that in the latest FAQs Chaos Steeds were given First Charge, allowing a unit of Chaos Knights lead by a character on one to use the ability. Daemonic Mounts do not have that rule, which makes them much less appealing in that role.

You also lose Barding, meaning your Chaos Lord can't (easily) reach a 2+ Save.

In exchange what do you get? A significantly better attack profile (WS 4 vs. 3, S 5 vs. 4, 2 attacks, Armour Bane 1, Magical Attacks and 1 Stomp Attack), one extra Move (useless in the leading Chaos Knights role), and an extra wound.

To me it just feels like Chaos Steeds are the better option in most cases, at least for Lords. I could perhaps see Sorcerer Lords benefiting from a Daemonic Mount, but if I had the points I'd probably prefer a Manticore for flying.

[Sarouan]

I think the role of hero on daemonic mount is more as a "solo missile" to deal with war machines, solo leaders or small units rather than leading a unit himself (chaos steed does the trick for that purpose). There are items that allow it to have a 2+ save but I don't think it's really necessary : the purpose is to give different targets to your opponent so that he can't shut them down all.

[JerekKruger]

2 hours ago, Sarouan said:

I think the role of hero on daemonic mount is more as a "solo missile" to deal with war machines, solo leaders or small units rather than leading a unit himself (chaos steed does the trick for that purpose). There are items that allow it to have a 2+ save but I don't think it's really necessary : the purpose is to give different targets to your opponent so that he can't shut them down all.

Oh yeah, from a purely gameplay perspective I think that's right. But I want to create me own homebrew Archaon leading his own homebrew Swords of Chaos 🙁

[Trokair]

What about using the big AoS mounted lords as lords on chariot, they might not be able to join units that way, but you get a bigger base to try and fit them onto.  

[JerekKruger]

35 minutes ago, Trokair said:

What about using the big AoS mounted lords as lords on chariot, they might not be able to join units that way, but you get a bigger base to try and fit them onto.  

That's a possibility. Chariots have the unique property of being the only troop type immune to both Killing Blow and Monster Slaying, so make pretty decent mounts for independent characters.

I definitely plan to do this for the 40k Juggernaut (with a non-SM mount), as impact hits make so much sense for it.

[JerekKruger]

I've been comparing WoC units to other factions, and I'm getting the distinct feeling that Chaos Warriors need a buff.

• The most notable comparison is with Black Orcs, who are a point cheaper per model whilst coming with Full plate as standard, Furious Charge (getting Charges off might be hard, but this is big if you can), Choppas (better than Ensorcelled Weapons on the Charge, and better when using non-hand weapons) and Motley Crew (making it far easier to mix resilience with offensive output).
• Bestigors are the same points as Chaos Warriors, and as long as their Champion is alive they only trade a point of Weapon Skill for a point of Movement (worth it imho). They come with Great Weapons as standard. Finally, Warband, Primal Fury and Blood Rage all combine for some nice offensive buffs.
• Dwarfs have a number of veteran options which make for good comparisons with Chaos Warriors, but I'll focus on Longbeards as the least specialised of these (Ironbreakers are more of an anvil unit, and Hammers are more of a fighty unit). Longbeards lose a point of Movement and two points of Initiative in exchange for a point of Leadership, all for one point less than Chaos Warriors. Gromril Weapons are similar to Ensorcelled Weapons, and Veteran is similar to the Mark of Chaos Undivided, but they get Shieldwall and Venerable, and one unit can gain Drilled. Finally, they have a smaller base size.

There are other comparisons that can be made, but generally speaking it just feels like Chaos Warriors are a bit lacking when compared to similar units in other armies. It's hard to make them offensively effective without either giving them Frenzy, or severely hurting their defense, but for their price their defense is not that amazing either.

Personally I think I'd make the following changes to them:

1. Give them the option for Full Plate. Seriously, look at them, how are they not wearing Full Plate. Yes, this steps on the toes of Chosen, but Chosen get their 6+ Ward as well, so I think Full Plate is fine for Chaos Warriors. This also allows them to be very good in an anvil role (3+ save is no joke), or be more offensive without being too fragile.
2. Make them a point cheaper (12 points per model base).

I think these two would make them more competitive with other factions elite infantry. Thoughts?

[Sarouan]

Comparing with units from other factions is a very bad idea. Black Orcs and Bestigors are Special units, Chaos Warriors are Core. Black Orcs have severe limitations as to how many you can take (you must take 1 Black Orc character to fit 1 unit of Black Orcs), meaning you can't have easily several units of Black Orcs because they have to pay a character tax.

Dwarves are an all-heavy infantry list, they don't have cavalry or beasts and lack severely in mobility. M3 is a bigger deal than you think, low initiative means they can't really rely on killing enemies before they strike. Chaos Warriors have halberds for that.

I think Chaos Warriors are fine as they are. They are meant to fill the core percentage, so of course they're not the most interesting choice of their list. That's why other units you're citing in different lists aren't core. While full plate armor is surely nice, having a save of 4+ with shields isn't to be laughed at in this game, since save modifiers are way rarer than in Battle.

[JerekKruger]

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Comparing with units from other factions is a very bad idea.

I think that's an exaggeration. You need to be careful when doing it yes, but I think it can be useful.

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Black Orcs and Bestigors are Special units, Chaos Warriors are Core. Black Orcs have severe limitations as to how many you can take (you must take 1 Black Orc character to fit 1 unit of Black Orcs), meaning you can't have easily several units of Black Orcs because they have to pay a character tax.

Special units are meant to be rarer, but I don't think that means they are meant to be better value points wise. Generally they bring something a bit more interesting to the table over Core units, which in the case of Black Orcs is definitely the case (Quell Animosity is amazing).

Character tax is only really a tax if you don't want the character is your army. Black Orcs don't really fall into that category, they are excellent. Other than being short on points, I can't see a situation where you'd rather take a ordinary Orc War/Big-boss over a Black Orc one.

Personally I think fitting two units of Black Orcs into an army is very doable, unless you are specifically going for a theme where Black of Characters aren't welcome.

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Dwarves are an all-heavy infantry list, they don't have cavalry or beasts and lack severely in mobility. M3 is a bigger deal than you think, low initiative means they can't really rely on killing enemies before they strike.

All good points (other than M 3: I definitely think it's a very big deal, just as I think Bestigors getting M 5 is a huge bonus). 

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Chaos Warriors have halberds for that.

Meh. Paying points for +1 Strength and Armour Bane (1), but losing the ability to use a Shield whilst doing so doesn't seem worth it.

Plus let's be honest, even with their stats, 7 attacks (assuming a front row of 6 and a champ) at WS 5, S 5, AP -1 and Armour Bane (1) is not going to do that much. Expected damage of 3 and a bit assuming hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s and the enemy having a 5+ save (if the enemy has T 4 or a better save that rapidly diminishes). You really need volume of attacks to make doing damage a viable way of winning combat.

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I think Chaos Warriors are fine as they are. They are meant to fill the core percentage, so of course they're not the most interesting choice of their list. That's why other units you're citing in different lists aren't core. While full plate armor is surely nice, having a save of 4+ with shields isn't to be laughed at in this game, since save modifiers are way rarer than in Battle.

I guess. They just don't feel like a unit I'd want to take in their current form. If I want less elite infantry than Chosen I think I'd go for Marauders over Chaos Warriors, and then both Marauder Horsemen and Warhounds are more appealing from the point of view of filling my core "tax".

[Sarouan]

It's a bad idea because points aren't linked to a unit in a vaccuum, but also to how the list is built and how units interact with other choices in it. When you have units available in Core and others in Special, it already limits you how you take them (freely or limited to a special amount of points). Try to take Black Orcs and Bestigors in Allies for your main list, and you'll instantly see why Chaos Warriors are superior.
 

31 minutes ago, JerekKruger said:

Special units are meant to be rarer, but I don't think that means they are meant to be better value points wise. Generally they bring something a bit more interesting to the table over Core units, which in the case of Black Orcs is definitely the case (Quell Animosity is amazing).

Character tax is only really a tax if you don't want the character is your army. Black Orcs don't really fall into that category, they are excellent. Other than being short on points, I can't see a situation where you'd rather take a ordinary Orc War/Big-boss over a Black Orc one.

Personally I think fitting two units of Black Orcs into an army is very doable, unless you are specifically going for a theme where Black of Characters aren't welcome.

It's not a question of power or usefulness. There's simply a natural limit on how many Black Orcs you want to have in a Orcs and Goblins army list, first because they're actually expensive and second because you also need other kinds of characters in your list. Like wizards, specifically level 4, who are also expensive. Or night goblins, because they're also needed to unlock those juicy night goblin units. If you play Orcs and Goblins like me, you will be faced with that dilemna everytime you're building your list.

In comparison, you can take as many chaos warrior units you want, and you don't need to take an expensive character for every of them. That's why it's bad to compare them only on point value : they don't fit the same role and most importantly, they don't have the same restrictions to include them in your army list.

Of course taking 2 units of Black Orcs is doable - but it's not optimized. Because that means you must have 2 Black Orc characters that are also costy and if you do, you actually restrict yourself for the rest of other Orc and Goblin units you need to have in your army to fit important other roles.

31 minutes ago, JerekKruger said:

Meh. Paying points for +1 Strength and Armour Bane (1), but losing the ability to use a Shield whilst doing so doesn't seem worth it.

Plus let's be honest, even with their stats, 7 attacks (assuming a front row of 6 and a champ) at WS 5, S 5, AP -1 and Armour Bane (1) is not going to do that much. Expected damage of 3 and a bit assuming hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s and the enemy having a 5+ save (if the enemy has T 4 or a better save that rapidly diminishes). You really need volume of attacks to make doing damage a viable way of winning combat.

Shields aren't necessary if you kill your opponent before they have the chance to strike - and even less necessary if the enemy has a huge save modifier that will nullify whatever armor you have. Chaos Warriors have high initiative, high CC, good strength that's even better with +1. Why do you think halberd were considered the best option for them in 6th edition of Battle ? Because the point is for Chaos Warriors to strike first, then the enemy has no one to strike back at them. Halberds are still a very solid option for them in TOW because of that. Bestigors wish they had them instead of automatic heavy weapons that force them to strike last and waste their otherwise good Initiative 4.

Chaos Warriors are more worried by losses due to shooting. Good thing shields can still be used with halberds against that (and that was really their main purpose in previous editions of Battle too).

That's the trick with their high stats : they don't need as much volume of attack like other core units, it's the opposite. They can work very well in smaller units and still have the advantage. Hitting on 3 and wounding on 2 on average is awesome.

31 minutes ago, JerekKruger said:

I guess. They just don't feel like a unit I'd want to take in their current form. If I want less elite infantry than Chosen I think I'd go for Marauders over Chaos Warriors, and then both Marauder Horsemen and Warhounds are more appealing from the point of view of filling my core "tax".

Depends on how you want to build your army. Marauders and warhounds are cheap, so you have a take a lot to fulfill your core tax. With Chaos Warriors, it's easier.

Freedom is the most important here, in the end. You don't have that with Black Orcs and Bestigors, and that's the point.

Edited April 19 by Sarouan