# Is Light Armour now worthwhile for Marauders?



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

At the costs of the previous Army Book you could purchase a greater number of extra Marauders than you could save with the cost of Light Armour. However, with the increased cost of both Marauders and upgrades for them it seems to me this is no longer true.

Assuming they are taking the unit, do other people now favour Light Armour on:
(1) Great Weapon Marauders?
(2) Flail Marauders?
(3) HW and Shield Marauders?


----------



## DivineEdge (May 31, 2012)

Well, I am still not taking great weapon marauders, so that point is irrelevant to me. 

As for flails, giving HW/S in addition would be nice, s5 during the frst round and then having a 5+/6++. But with that setup you will be really expensive. Ok. So no then - a 6+ don't cut it.


On shield marauders, yes. I haven't tried out marauders too much in the new book as I'm using the flashy new monsters and frantically playtesting everything so I can review it, but 10 points for a marauder with a 5+/5++ isn't terrible. 

And to be honest, marauders are still good and competitive, just priced in with the options in other books.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

You can't switch weapons mid combat... and a flail is a 2 handed weapon. That means you'll never get to use a shield in combat if you have a flail. I think that makes it about as silly an option as possible: a 5+ save against magic/shooting is almost certain to be either downgraded to a 6+ or to be removed entirely (in either case its not really worth paying points for over having extra models).


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

No no and more no. Reasons follow

Assuming they are taking the unit, do other people now favour Light Armour on:
(1) Great Weapon Marauders? Great weapon marauders are designed to fight decent troops, and are already 9pts each. Considering most opponents you will throw them at are Str4 or have 2A each its not even worth considering, especially when ASl mean you will need 20-25 of em to make em worth while. And that's a extra 20-25pts that could use on something else. Also with T3 your going to be wounded a lot and a 6+ armor save isn't going to help at all against the 6-10 wounds you will suffer 
(2) Flail Marauders? Everything that applies to GW marauders applies here
(3) HW and Shield Marauders? Actually one of the few times I would consider it, however you would be better of skipping the light armor and paying another 1pt each to give them mark of tzeentch for the 5++ save in CC (Which is infinitely better then a flat 5+ save.

Really marauders are worse then they where before so its actually a lot harder to justify spending more points on them, not easier. Imagine if terminators went up 5pts each, would that be sound motivation for taking thunder shields if they where a additional 5pts? No because you spending more for less. 

Still I do see armor on shield/HW marauders so its got to have some use.


----------



## DivineEdge (May 31, 2012)

Luke - they are more expensive, but I think it is totally irrelevant because the new price is the new price. You are spending more for the same, or the same for less, but it isn't like you can still buy the old marauders. If TH/SS terminators cost 50 points, less people would still take them but they would still be taken often enough. Marauders are in a similar boat. While there are now more cost-effective options, or options at least closer to them, they are still decent and priced with other options. Empire halberdiers, or swordsmen, or ghouls. Does this make sense? I understand where you are coming from, but comparing an OP old option to a watered down new option doesn't really work.

And I would still give a tzeentch anvil light armour and the mark for 55% survivability against s3.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

DivineEdge said:


> Well, I am still not taking great weapon marauders, so that point is irrelevant to me.
> 
> As for flails, giving HW/S in addition would be nice, s5 during the frst round and then having a 5+/6++. But with that setup you will be really expensive. Ok. So no then - a 6+ don't cut it. As Tim said you can't switch weapons mid combat so its irrelevant.
> 
> ...





DivineEdge said:


> Luke - they are more expensive, but I think it is totally irrelevant because the new price is the new price. You are spending more for the same, or the same for less, but it isn't like you can still buy the old marauders. Yah hence why I don't take them anymore in competitive play If TH/SS terminators cost 50 points, less people would still take them but they would still be taken often enough. You say that now, but I know for a fact that if they did suddenly increase in cost we would see a 50% drop in them showing up at tournaments immediately, hell even now they are less common as other options become more attractive. Marauders are in a similar boat. While there are now more cost-effective options, or options at least closer to them, they are still decent and priced with other options. Ghouls are undead, halberdiers/swordsmen have detachments and wargear thats why they cost 7-9pts. Does this make sense? I understand where you are coming from, but comparing an OP old option to a watered down new option doesn't really work. The argument has nothing to do with the old book and everything to due with common sense paying 2pts to upgrade a chaff unit is pointless as they are there to use steadfast and nothing else, especially in a army book where T4 S4 WS5-6 is the norm. So no regardless of anything else buying armor and shields for marauders has always been a bit of a bad idea in 8th.
> 
> And I would still give a tzeentch anvil light armor and the mark for 55% survivability against s3. So would I, but mark of nurgle with no armor or shield is probably better as it helps regardless of the enemies strength, mind you they then become more susceptible to ranged fire, but considering they are in units of 40-50 and only would have a 5+ save realistically how many more marauders would that armor save over 2-4 turns?


See the problem with your point is its one of those its a decent unit arguments. I am simply arguing from the competitive side of things, and with the current points costs upgrading marauders at all it typically a waste of pts with a few exception. 

Also you completely missed the point of my argument which was that at a certain points costs units become cost ineffective for the army they are in, and 8pts for the equivalent of a empire trooper is dumb in a army that offers warriors and monsters that can easily fight 6 times their number in empire soldiers. I mean we have all seen an idiot or two at a local gaming center that consistently loses game after game because they thought it would be cool to upgrade a unit until it was 35% of their entire army, only to find out they died just as fast or only put out mildly more damage then they would have otherwise. (Large units of paladins comes to mind here)

In friendly games to mildly competitive ones I do see some uses for certain marauder unit builds; even in 8th. For example here are some builds that I would consider using in a casual setting.

-35 marauders mark of nurgle, full command
-20 marauders fails, command (Use them on the side to destroy weaker outflanking units)
-40 marauder, full command (They exist to hold up unit, and nothing else and with LD8-10 with a nearby BS they should stay put even if they get 2 full ranks stripped each turn).
-30 GW, command (Less effective then the other builds, but should still be enough to scare of other chaff units with their Str5 attacks)

Marauders are a decent enough unit for 8th, but my point is that you shouldn't use them expecting to win combats or kill units as they can rapidly become a point sink (So most upgrade options end up handicapping your force when taken in large numbers). After all they more or less occupy the same place they always have, only now the actual combat effective builds are to pricy to be worth it in a army where costs can be so high that even at 2500pts you may only have 45 models on the table.

The perfect example of this phenomena was what happened in the VC army last edition. We saw this in how there was a mass phasing out of skeletons in favor of ghouls. The reason was a simply a difference of 1-2 points. As the ghouls came with so much that buying a skeleton for the same price was dumb in tournament settings. See every new book has a almost dedicated horde style units, and the difference between a valuable asset to your army and a fun unit that should stay out of tournaments is typically only about 1-2pts most of the time. To put things in perspective marauders aren't equivalent to swordsman, or ghouls they are the zombie/clan rats of the WoC army, and with their high cost its not really worth taking them with anything but a hand weapon and a t-shrit.

Disclaimer: I actually like the WoC book, but like all books certain units, and unit builds should not see tournament play, unless you are deliberately trying to handicap yourself.


----------



## Korgoth_of_Barbaria (Feb 21, 2013)

Light armour is never worth it in 8th edition. If your opponent is coming at you with strength 3 attacks, it's only sporting to forgo armour entirely because you're going to stomp him anyway.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

I like the idea of not taking LA because it is unjust.


----------



## Azzaphox (Jul 13, 2012)

Surely with anything st S4 or above negating the armour and indeed many magical attacks negating the armour it is only going to be of marginal use. An you could probably spend 80 points well somewhere else.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I think its only really worthwhile if you're trying to turn them into a roadblock unit with armour, shields and the MoT... but for the life of me I can't see why you wouldn't just use warriors for that instead (though this is a bit biased as I can't really see any build which makes marauders preferable to warriors).


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Tim/Steve said:


> ...I can't really see any build which makes marauders preferable to warriors.


Whether Warriors are better is a different (and possibly clearer) question. I was interested in whether if you are taking Marauders (maybe as part of a fluffy army) it is better to take light armour.

Gathering together the discussion here and elsewhere it seems that against attacks <= Str 3 LA saves more models than you could buy with the points. Against attacks > Str3 LA is worthless. The X factor in just Mathhammering it is the lack of a clear answer on what proprtion of attacks will be Str 4+.

So my unscientific conclusion is that if you are using Marauders for a defensive role it might be worthwhile once you have bought the unit up to a useful rank bonus.


----------



## Charandris (Nov 27, 2012)

Tim/Steve said:


> I think its only really worthwhile if you're trying to turn them into a roadblock unit with armour, shields and the MoT... but for the life of me I can't see why you wouldn't just use warriors for that instead (though this is a bit biased as I can't really see any build which makes marauders preferable to warriors).


This is exactly what i was gping to do as i have lots of marauder models and np warriors. Was going to sit tjese guys in a block of 40 and then use my small hammer unots to atrack things. Hopefully they will be fairly survibeable!


----------

