# Warriors of Chaos question



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

As some of you might already know from my Project Log I have decided to start a Fantasy Chaos army but I would like to know one thing: is a list with no Marauders viable? I want to do this army mainly because I love the new models and the modelling/painting opportunities are awesome but I really hate the Marauder models and have no interest in them whatsoever. I would really like to do an army based mainly on Warriors and equivalent (Lords, Champs, Knights, etc) but I really have no idea what said list might look like at 2000pts or if it would even be a decent list.

Any thoughts from the vets here?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

In the Previous rulebook, it certainly was. I don't have enough games with my army, but my experience has found that Knights need a bit more support, or to use them as Support (not viable with their points, IMO).

Warhounds don't cut it. Flail armed marauders mounted have enough power to wipe out Supporting units, like detachments, or Archer lines, and hit hard enough (-3 to saves) to take out heavier armoured opponents. Greatswords can have real trouble even dealing with a unit of 5+ to the rear/flank, ten times more so with a Knightly charge, supported by a Chariot / Second Mounted Marauders.

12 Strong in 2 ranks blocks LOS (on foot, 12 mounted, you insane?), protecting your warriors from Nasty Bolt Throwers. Incidentally, other than tying up Bolt Thrower/War Machines crews, and flank charges on missile units, Warhounds pale compared to Marauders. You can use them as the bait for Frenzies, though. 

The new army book suggests that they are trying to show a combined arms approach. just what I've found in 6-7 games. Sorry it's nothing Concrete.


----------



## Tiberius (Dec 15, 2007)

In short yes.

Wraith any list can be viable, however can it be Tactically Forgiving. WFB is a different game altogether. Post up your idea of a list, so that we may be more helpfull in suggesting things for you. As I would suggest leaving the Dragon out of any game under 3000pts. It is a Hero choice as well as a points drain. It equates to one or two more units on the field.

Check out your future opponents when they game, if you can. They can be good source to bounce ideas off of. As like me, they're probably not the same people you play 40k with. Most of all have fun with it, because it sounds like an Army I would enjoy playing against.


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Just to add a minor thought to this; if you are planning on running frenzied units I could see marauders being very useful for anti-baiting as well. Stop your big blocks of death being led a merry dance around the back of beyond


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

yes. I hate marauders too, they never do anything except die.

warhounds are better for baiting enemy units.


----------



## keytag33 (Apr 20, 2008)

I agree, IMO the Marauder minis look like extras from a Conan the Barbarian movie. Going all warriors with warhounds for baiting and possibly flank charges haven't decided yet. But the Marauser minis are crap


----------



## Amra_the_lion (May 26, 2008)

how about the new marauders on horseback? Those seem to be a cut above the regular marauders...


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

The marauder horsemen are excellent models. I bought a box purely to kitbash for regiments of regular Marauders. The box gives you something insane like twenty different heads for five models, so even after you assemble your five horsemen from that box, you've got enough to make sure none of your infantry look like Conan extras with stereotypical viking hats. 

Back on topic, though. Marauders are excellent. They don't have to kill anything to be worth their points-- they're inexpensive and come in large quantities, so they can be fielded in pretty epic numbers. They've got good weapon skill and can be given flails or great weapons for next to nothing, so even if you're going the static resolution route with 'em, you'll likely end up with a few chopped opponents to add to the tally. But they're not there to carry the battle-- that's the Warriors' job. Marauders aren't there to bait or flank anybody, either-- that falls to the Warhounds and/or Marauder Horsemen. No, the purpose of the Marauder infantry is to engage your opponent's crappy infantry and stop them from holding up, flanking, or otherwise generally beating your Warriors through static resolution, because Marauders are superior to most "crap" infantry. They're also there to take a charge like a prison bitch takes a.... yeah. Position the Marauders so that they're holding an enemy unit in place in combat and make sure you're prepared to send Warriors in on the flank-- people will send far superior units against the Marauders expecting to blow through them, and generally, they won't do as well as they think. If the Marauders stand (and let's face it, they probably will if you're paying attention to what's going on and have the General or BSB nearby) then your unit of Warriors, Chosen, Forsaken, etc. are in a nominal position to go in and just beat somebody up from the flank, where the bonus for having a hand weapon and shield doesn't apply-- models in light armour with a sword 'n' board won't get an armor save against a flanking unit with halberds. 

Marauders are also a good buffer unit if you have a lot of casters or a Hellcannon (or two!). The Marauders can stand in front of your casters, who can then stand on a hill or something and cast without fear of being charged by most conventional units. Most small, quick units are perfectly capable of getting to a normal caster with that setup, but a Chaos Sorcerer is the equal of a lot of other armies' fighter heroes in combat, so a small, light unit might not actually be able to take him. 

Marauders also provide a more solid buffer than warhounds against Fear-causing units, particularly if they're a bunch of sinners and have Slaanesh's blessings. I wouldn't leave my flanks in the hands of warhounds against an undead army, for example, as dire wolves and black knights are fast enough to get around to the flank, and I wouldn't want my flank guard to run off without at least fighting it out. 

This is more of a general tactics and formation thing, but your flank guard should go *ahead* of your main battle line. Theoretically, it forces your opponent to either expose his unit's flank to your flank guard, or expose his flank to your battle line while dealing with your flank guard. It worked for the Romans, and it works for me. A unit of Marauders leading about six inches up from a unit of Chaos Warriors works just fine for that purpose-- I generally do it with goblins and Black Orcs, but the concept and execution is identical, and it makes your opponent commit to either attacking the center and exposing his flanks (and hoping he's tough enough to not get chewed up as a result) or try to push through your flanks, which positions the unit in a way that it's exposed to the main line.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I think the main problem for marauders is the over reliance of most chaos generals on their chaos warriors not every one in your army can have chaos armour and ridicoulous WS if you try this your army will be really small and outflanked with ease unfortunately the only units available that can give you combat res cheaply are mere marauders still better than most basic infantry compare them to an empire swordsman and they only lose out because of base size but win on the number of unit options and the potential to give them marks. But I can sympathise nasty GW making the poor Chaos generals actually need a battle plan intead of charging forward and either getting shot or destroying all in your path.


----------



## keytag33 (Apr 20, 2008)

Horus you convinced me. I will be adding Marauders to my army, but I'm going to use Empire militia minis instead and call them cultists but pay for them(points wise and stats wise) as marauders and then bi-pass the crappy minis.

Just a thought.


----------



## crimson skull (Aug 3, 2008)

I played a 2k point game using the new chaos list including 2 units of 25 marauders facing ogres mmm they didn't even see combat the whole game my warriors and chariots did all the work.:laugh:


----------



## Grik (Jul 28, 2008)

neilbatte said:


> I think the main problem for marauders is the over reliance of most chaos generals on their chaos warriors not every one in your army can have chaos armour and ridicoulous WS if you try this your army will be really small and outflanked with ease unfortunately the only units available that can give you combat res cheaply are mere marauders still better than most basic infantry compare them to an empire swordsman and they only lose out because of base size but win on the number of unit options and the potential to give them marks. But I can sympathise nasty GW making the poor Chaos generals actually need a battle plan intead of charging forward and either getting shot or destroying all in your path.



Holy run on sentence, Batman! :shok:


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

I guess im the only one who likes marauder models


----------



## Imperial Dragon (Dec 22, 2007)

i like the marauder models too.

Wraith an army without marauders can work, it just means you'll had to hit hard and fast and you would will have a longer time of fighting with the enemy, you really just want to try and break them on the turn you charge, if not you'll be fighting till they break.

i wouldn't use a lord, they cost to many points for a small elite army like the one your trying to build.

While spawn may not be in chaos armour, have you thought about using a few of them, to guard the flanks or your army?


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

You don't you think of something else to replace the marauders?
I have an idea to get empire flaggelents and make them in fluff marauders/slaves


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I used marauders when I did a Tzeench army but they look just as good as nurgle and khorne.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Dragon: no I haven't. Being a primarily 40K player where Spawn are absolute shit, and way expensive to boot, I find myself reluctant to use them.

I will admit that the new Marauder Horsemen models are decent. I just don't know if they fit the theme I want to go for.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

The Wraithlord said:


> Dragon: no I haven't. Being a primarily 40K player where Spawn are absolute shit, and way expensive to boot, I find myself reluctant to use them.
> 
> I will admit that the new Marauder Horsemen models are decent. I just don't know if they fit the theme I want to go for.


Spawns are roughly as good in WHFB as they are bad in 40k, to get some picture of them :mrgreen:

Id strongly consider converting something to work like marauder horsemen if I didnt want to use the models for them. Some centaur hybrid with a warrior body as upper part and some horse thingy as the horse or something...

WHFB are, at first glance and the first bunchs of games, a quite forward march and die game. The first time you go to a tourney however that illusion will be utterly deleted from your mind. The movement phase is the most important part in fantasy, by far (as in more important then shooting for an IG army in 40k). If you run an army that is completly lacking the options of directing the movement phase youre toastuke:
Your army will be wayled by silly fast cav units or skirmishers, who will flee when youre forced to charge them, exposing your flank which leads to dead units and a very booring game...


----------

