Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
You're better off getting something like chaos warriors to hold objectives

Apples to oranges; two completely different units that are used in completely different ways. To say one is better off with one or the other is like saying one is better off with a combat hero than with a wizard; the sentiment means nothing without a larger context. And of course given multiple choices one is almost always better off with one of each than two of either.

Slower yes, but warriors can survive unlike furies which have nothing. They can seize an objective sure, but that's all they can do. The warriors are capable of dealing back some useful damage.

There is a larger tactical picture at play where the furies use lies is being able to do things the warriors cannot. In a game of 5 warriors and 5 furies verses two units of five warriors, the former wins . Because if the 10 warriors leave an objective behind the furies take it, but if the units split up then one gets ganged up on. There have been countless times where I have won a game despite being nearly or completely destroyed because I outplayed the opponent on objectives. In AoS even being tabled does not mean a loss; only the victory points matter. Just yesterday I won a game (by a massive margin, no less) yet every single model in my army was dead at the end because I was worse in combat than my opponent. But the game is more than that, and that is why I won.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is a larger tactical picture at play where the furies use lies is being able to do things the warriors cannot. In a game of 5 warriors and 5 furies verses two units of five warriors, the former wins . Because if the 10 warriors leave an objective behind the furies take it, but if the units split up then one gets ganged up on. There have been countless times where I have won a game despite being nearly or completely destroyed because I outplayed the opponent on objectives. In AoS even being tabled does not mean a loss; only the victory points matter. Just yesterday I won a game (by a massive margin, no less) yet every single model in my army was dead at the end because I was worse in combat than my opponent. But the game is more than that, and that is why I won.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is a larger tactical picture at play where the furies use lies is being able to do things the warriors cannot. In a game of 5 warriors and 5 furies verses two units of five warriors, the former wins . Because if the 10 warriors leave an objective behind the furies take it, but if the units split up then one gets ganged up on. There have been countless times where I have won a game despite being nearly or completely destroyed because I outplayed the opponent on objectives. In AoS even being tabled does not mean a loss; only the victory points matter. Just yesterday I won a game (by a massive margin, no less) yet every single model in my army was dead at the end because I was worse in combat than my opponent. But the game is more than that, and that is why I won.

I respect your play method, I'm just speaking from the view of a guy who prefers straight-up attrition to win

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Slower yes, but warriors can survive unlike furies which have nothing. They can seize an objective sure, but that's all they can do. The warriors are capable of dealing back some useful damage.

You just don't know how to use Furies & the like.

You snag objectives with them. You wack annoying but dangerous low model count units - like individual wizards, Skaven weapon teams, most artillery, and sometimes you land or charge them in ways that'll change how your opponent moves/charges.

ccs wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Slower yes, but warriors can survive unlike furies which have nothing. They can seize an objective sure, but that's all they can do. The warriors are capable of dealing back some useful damage.

You just don't know how to use Furies & the like.

You snag objectives with them. You wack annoying but dangerous low model count units - like individual wizards, Skaven weapon teams, most artillery, and sometimes you land or charge them in ways that'll change how your opponent moves/charges.

Again, different play styles.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well you figure they move 12" charge 2d6, then retreat + run in the combat phase for another 12" +2d6. They can easily move 30" across the board or more in one turn. Just the potential to snag objectives like that will force the opponent to act accordingly, meaning they can do their job even if they don't actually do their job. Like units that can teleport.

That was basically how I used mine sans there being objectives for me to capture. I moved 12" toward some blight drones, charged 11" to get around behind them and then used Sneaky Little Devils to move another 12" which placed them in my opponent's deployment zone. While there, they reduced the number of plague/corruption points the Nurgle player had unless he wanted to send something back (his forces were already mid-table) to deal with them. I figured that was the best thing they could do since they were likely to do enough damage to anything and pretty much anything that attacks them would kill them. My opponent almost took the bait which probably would have lost them the game as he was going to send his blight drones to deal with them which was the one unit couldn't lock down and keep away from the Nurgle Garden spawn points for more rounds than the game had. I also used them this way as I really didn't want to get tabled this game. So I wanted to use them to make any attempt to table me excruciatingly annoying.

When building my list I considered more warriors, but I didn't think a unit of 5 would be any better and I didn't want to have one group of 20 while the other was 15. I am glad to have confirmation of the use of Furies. I still don't know if they are worth 100 points now that the rest of my army is 15% more expensive than it was a couple of weeks ago. They will continue to be my last 100-ish point addition. At least until I get a Chaos Lord on foot and have an extra 110 points.

It sounds like the nature of the battle didn't give them much to do so you made the best tactical move you could. FWIW denying even one contagion point a turn can be a big deal because if the Nurgle player can hit 21 on round three that is a big gain in the form of 3 drones, but you often need every point you can get to do it.

You can also put them within 3" of a tree, where they will take MWs but block the d3 contagion point generation.

Im back and this is the list i hopefully will have after christmas. I´ve chosen ravagers but im not really sure.
Im not taking demon princes nor everchosen and i think ravagers suit my army better.
Anyway, here is the list:

Allegiance: Slaves to Darkness 1450/1500 pt.
- Damned Legion: Ravagers
LEADERS
Chaos Lord on Karkadrak (250)
- General
- Command Trait : Unquestioned Resolve
- Artefact : Cloak of the Relentless Conqueror
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
Chaos Sorcerer Lord (110)
- Artefact : Mark of the High-favoured
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
- Spell : Mask of Darkness
UNITS
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
1 x Gorebeast Chariots (150)
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
BATTALIONS
Godsworn Champions of Ruin (180)

My ideal plan is to charge as fast as i can with the lord and the knights while advancing with the warriors, the sorcerer and the gorebeast. With the spell i can teleport the gorebeast if needed.
The mark of slanesh will help my knights charge better and can get more attacks if i get a 6, and the warrios and gorebeast with the sorcerer can resist with their rerrolls, no battleshock because of the undivided and will be able to hold objectives.
What do you think? This is the first time i put any thought in an army list and i have played only a handful of games so anything you say can help me get better.
I will have 2 spare warriors but i dont know if i can put 11 in a unit.
PD. Sorry for the formatting, i dont know very good how to do it

I think that is a good list to get you started. Once you have more games under your belt you'll get a better idea of what you want to do.

 FlatAutumn wrote:
Im back and this is the list i hopefully will have after christmas. I´ve chosen ravagers but im not really sure.
Im not taking demon princes nor everchosen and i think ravagers suit my army better.
Anyway, here is the list:

Spoiler:

Allegiance: Slaves to Darkness 1450/1500 pt.
- Damned Legion: Ravagers
LEADERS
Chaos Lord on Karkadrak (250)
- General
- Command Trait : Unquestioned Resolve
- Artefact : Cloak of the Relentless Conqueror
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
Chaos Sorcerer Lord (110)
- Artefact : Mark of the High-favoured
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
- Spell : Mask of Darkness
UNITS
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
1 x Gorebeast Chariots (150)
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
BATTALIONS
Godsworn Champions of Ruin (180)

My ideal plan is to charge as fast as i can with the lord and the knights while advancing with the warriors, the sorcerer and the gorebeast. With the spell i can teleport the gorebeast if needed.
The mark of slanesh will help my knights charge better and can get more attacks if i get a 6, and the warrios and gorebeast with the sorcerer can resist with their rerrolls, no battleshock because of the undivided and will be able to hold objectives.
What do you think? This is the first time i put any thought in an army list and i have played only a handful of games so anything you say can help me get better.
I will have 2 spare warriors but i dont know if i can put 11 in a unit.
PD. Sorry for the formatting, i dont know very good how to do it

I vastly prefer sticking to a single mark for everything as it allows more flexibility and is easier to remember. So understand I am bias to thinking that way. That said, I think you would be better served going Slaanesh for the whole army. From my limited experience, with 10 warriors you are probably only going to loose a couple or the unit is going to be nearly useless/destroyed anyways except for holding out for 1 more turn. Either way whatever krumpted them is going to probably eat your sorcerer (the kayak lizard lord should hold a little longer) next if you trying to activate the marks at all since the wizard is standing so close to maintain the wholly within 12". Even if you aren't going to have the Sorcerer tag along, I still think you have a better chance of making use of the Mark of Slaanesh turn 1 since it is no longer a mere wholly within 6" effect now.

Speaking about the Warriors, I really like groups of 15. That gives you men that you can lose before losing the re-roll saves which gives them 33%-50% increased survival most of the time (if my math is right), it isn't too unwieldy to position on the table, spells, Marks or other buffs are more effective and it is few more attacks per combat activation if you position all of them to get in attacks. My last game had two groups of 15 with a Sorcerer tag along casting Daemonic Power and almost every attack/wound landed. So I was generating some 28-29 Rend -1, Damage 1 wounds with my warriors. If it were for the fact I was playing Nurgle AND they were making their Disgustingly Resilience save well over average themselves even my warriors might have been putting the hurt on their forces. And the Nurgle player could only deal me about 2 wounds that I couldn't save with the re-roll. I would have had twice the losses without the re-roll Saves buff.

As for the knights, I ran mine in a group of ten and found even with the pile in I could position them all to get in attacks. Typically I could only get in 7-8 of them. So I don't know if running them in groups of five is all that bad. Again, that depends on much you value having the ability to potentially attack early more often (since you have less units to pick) and if you plan to make use of 1 target buffs like spells. I do think that Ensorcelled Weapons are the way to go since I have my doubts that even getting the charge lances/glaives are going to hurt their target enough to allow the knights to not get bogged down. Conversely, I think targets likely to get destroyed by charging lances are almost as likely to have the same thing happen with lucky rolls (or Daemonic Power) with Ensorcelled Weapons anyways. So if things don't go right, you are better off with Ensorcelled Weapons almost all the time since they are much more reliable to use not needing a charge as well as during prolonged fights.

If you are going to run a chariot, I think the gorebeast one looks like the better one. I have bothered using mine yet so I don't quite know. And there is something to be said on what you intend to use it for too.

I can't comment on anything more than the warscrolls as I don't have my battletome yet to really read over the other stuff. I will say I am still leaning toward a general rule of thumb of including 1 Leader for every 500 or so points in my Slaves to Darkness armies. There is a lot of synergies left on the table not using their support buffs or at very least Marks. However, I do understand they are a chunk of points in a faction that doesn't have a lot extra spend frivolously.

I have to give props to furies. DON'T understimate the hability to fall back in combat.

After being totally outplayed by a seraphon player with his skinks running away all the time from my minotaurs and stealing my points... yeah.

 Galas wrote:
I have to give props to furies. DON'T understimate the hability to fall back in combat.

After being totally outplayed by a seraphon player with his skinks running away all the time from my minotaurs and stealing my points... yeah.

Welcome to the past 3 years of my AoS life

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 FlatAutumn wrote:
Im back and this is the list i hopefully will have after christmas. I´ve chosen ravagers but im not really sure.
Im not taking demon princes nor everchosen and i think ravagers suit my army better.
Anyway, here is the list:

Spoiler:

Allegiance: Slaves to Darkness 1450/1500 pt.
- Damned Legion: Ravagers
LEADERS
Chaos Lord on Karkadrak (250)
- General
- Command Trait : Unquestioned Resolve
- Artefact : Cloak of the Relentless Conqueror
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
Chaos Sorcerer Lord (110)
- Artefact : Mark of the High-favoured
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
- Spell : Mask of Darkness
UNITS
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
5 x Chaos Knights (180)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos : Slaanesh
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
10 x Chaos Warriors (200)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
1 x Gorebeast Chariots (150)
- Mark of Chaos : Undivided
BATTALIONS
Godsworn Champions of Ruin (180)

My ideal plan is to charge as fast as i can with the lord and the knights while advancing with the warriors, the sorcerer and the gorebeast. With the spell i can teleport the gorebeast if needed.
The mark of slanesh will help my knights charge better and can get more attacks if i get a 6, and the warrios and gorebeast with the sorcerer can resist with their rerrolls, no battleshock because of the undivided and will be able to hold objectives.
What do you think? This is the first time i put any thought in an army list and i have played only a handful of games so anything you say can help me get better.
I will have 2 spare warriors but i dont know if i can put 11 in a unit.
PD. Sorry for the formatting, i dont know very good how to do it

I vastly prefer sticking to a single mark for everything as it allows more flexibility and is easier to remember. So understand I am bias to thinking that way. That said, I think you would be better served going Slaanesh for the whole army. From my limited experience, with 10 warriors you are probably only going to loose a couple or the unit is going to be nearly useless/destroyed anyways except for holding out for 1 more turn. Either way whatever krumpted them is going to probably eat your sorcerer (the kayak lizard lord should hold a little longer) next if you trying to activate the marks at all since the wizard is standing so close to maintain the wholly within 12". Even if you aren't going to have the Sorcerer tag along, I still think you have a better chance of making use of the Mark of Slaanesh turn 1 since it is no longer a mere wholly within 6" effect now.

Speaking about the Warriors, I really like groups of 15. That gives you men that you can lose before losing the re-roll saves which gives them 33%-50% increased survival most of the time (if my math is right), it isn't too unwieldy to position on the table, spells, Marks or other buffs are more effective and it is few more attacks per combat activation if you position all of them to get in attacks. My last game had two groups of 15 with a Sorcerer tag along casting Daemonic Power and almost every attack/wound landed. So I was generating some 28-29 Rend -1, Damage 1 wounds with my warriors. If it were for the fact I was playing Nurgle AND they were making their Disgustingly Resilience save well over average themselves even my warriors might have been putting the hurt on their forces. And the Nurgle player could only deal me about 2 wounds that I couldn't save with the re-roll. I would have had twice the losses without the re-roll Saves buff.

As for the knights, I ran mine in a group of ten and found even with the pile in I could position them all to get in attacks. Typically I could only get in 7-8 of them. So I don't know if running them in groups of five is all that bad. Again, that depends on much you value having the ability to potentially attack early more often (since you have less units to pick) and if you plan to make use of 1 target buffs like spells. I do think that Ensorcelled Weapons are the way to go since I have my doubts that even getting the charge lances/glaives are going to hurt their target enough to allow the knights to not get bogged down. Conversely, I think targets likely to get destroyed by charging lances are almost as likely to have the same thing happen with lucky rolls (or Daemonic Power) with Ensorcelled Weapons anyways. So if things don't go right, you are better off with Ensorcelled Weapons almost all the time since they are much more reliable to use not needing a charge as well as during prolonged fights.

If you are going to run a chariot, I think the gorebeast one looks like the better one. I have bothered using mine yet so I don't quite know. And there is something to be said on what you intend to use it for too.

I can't comment on anything more than the warscrolls as I don't have my battletome yet to really read over the other stuff. I will say I am still leaning toward a general rule of thumb of including 1 Leader for every 500 or so points in my Slaves to Darkness armies. There is a lot of synergies left on the table not using their support buffs or at very least Marks. However, I do understand they are a chunk of points in a faction that doesn't have a lot extra spend frivolously.

I choose undivided in the warriors because of the numbers. Having the sorc with them and him being undivided, i can save them from a wound i failed with a 6+. If they were bigger and could take advantage from the unit size more reliably maybe i would have chosen other mark. And yes, i think that ensorcelled weapons can be more reliable if i cant charge one turno or get stuck in combat.

 FlatAutumn wrote:
I choose undivided in the warriors because of the numbers. Having the sorc with them and him being undivided, i can save them from a wound i failed with a 6+. If they were bigger and could take advantage from the unit size more reliably maybe i would have chosen other mark. And yes, i think that ensorcelled weapons can be more reliable if i cant charge one turno or get stuck in combat.

I get that (I prefer Undivided myself but Daemon Princes can't be that anymore), but you only have two Leaders and Marks only activate they are wholly within 12" of a unit with the same mark. So you are risking your Sorcerer if you can't protect him with the Warriors to get an effect that needs a six to work. I like to joke that all armies are built on the idea that I am going to roll 6s 50% of the time, but here I think you are coming dangerously close to that being what you are trying to accomplish. It just seems too risky to me. I am interested in how well it works for you if you try it though.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

ccs wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Slower yes, but warriors can survive unlike furies which have nothing. They can seize an objective sure, but that's all they can do. The warriors are capable of dealing back some useful damage.

You just don't know how to use Furies & the like.

You snag objectives with them. You wack annoying but dangerous low model count units - like individual wizards, Skaven weapon teams, most artillery, and sometimes you land or charge them in ways that'll change how your opponent moves/charges.

Again, different play styles.

Well, given what you write, you appear to not understand that different tools have different purposes.
That furies & blocks of warriors have different functions =/= furies not useful or incapable of dealing useful damage.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 FlatAutumn wrote:
I choose undivided in the warriors because of the numbers. Having the sorc with them and him being undivided, i can save them from a wound i failed with a 6+. If they were bigger and could take advantage from the unit size more reliably maybe i would have chosen other mark. And yes, i think that ensorcelled weapons can be more reliable if i cant charge one turno or get stuck in combat.

I get that (I prefer Undivided myself but Daemon Princes can't be that anymore), but you only have two Leaders and Marks only activate they are wholly within 12" of a unit with the same mark. So you are risking your Sorcerer if you can't protect him with the Warriors to get an effect that needs a six to work. I like to joke that all armies are built on the idea that I am going to roll 6s 50% of the time, but here I think you are coming dangerously close to that being what you are trying to accomplish. It just seems too risky to me. I am interested in how well it works for you if you try it though.

I dont remember exactly but one of the traits of the sorcerer makes that his mark affect units within 18" instead of 12". If not one of the traits, it had something like that. Thats why i thought it could be good enough.

What would be better to build, gorebeast or normal chariot?

I don't have the new book yet but is only the normal chariot Battleline? That would make a big difference to me - in the last version of WHFB I bought 5 chariots and a bunch of knights to make a cav-only list with 5 Nurgle chariots (125pts each) being minimum Core at 2k points. The Gorebeasts were specials in that edition so being able to build an army around the normal chariots made them my choice.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

What would be better to build, gorebeast or normal chariot?

I don't have the new book yet but is only the normal chariot Battleline? That would make a big difference to me - in the last version of WHFB I bought 5 chariots and a bunch of knights to make a cav-only list with 5 Nurgle chariots (125pts each) being minimum Core at 2k points. The Gorebeasts were specials in that edition so being able to build an army around the normal chariots made them my choice.

Yes, the horse Chaos Chariot is still battleline which if that is important to the player does give it something the Gorebeast Chariot doesn't have. I play a mono-S2D based off Warriors and/or Knights so the battleline is of less importance to me. However, creating a far more interesting army I can definitely see that being important. It doesn't have the group of 3 discount anymore though.

Which is strange because multi-model units of chariots are already low-effectiveness and the first model in the unit gets to be an exalted charioteer with better stats, further pushing towards taking only 1-man units.

The Slaves to Darkness battletome has a ton of strange stuff that makes me doubt when it was written.

A ton of units being more expensive. Literally 0 horde discounts, a TON of rerrolls for everything with ease.

The Chariots will probably be FaQ'd to only get Champions in units of 3. They had the same scenario in the Cities book.

 Eldarain wrote:
The Chariots will probably be FaQ'd to only get Champions in units of 3. They had the same scenario in the Cities book.

Yeah that's what I'm expecting. Still grossly incompetent that the rules writers did not recognize that issue.

My expectation is that that book was written a few years ago and has sat in a warehouse somewhere waiting for the ivory tower up on high to say its time to maximize profit and release it.