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.

I've noticed nobody ever runs marauders or reavers in any lists I'm seeing. Are we giving GW the sign to cut out rank and file altogether?

The problem, I think, is that a lot of people adopted 'Wounds' as their points counter and that makes a unit like Blood Reavers a bad choice.

I don't play Chaos but I have a lot of rank-n-file in my Order force. A good points system from GW is needed to make Blood Reavers a viable choice. However, it will always be true that horde armies are less favoured over elite armies due to the hobby commitment.

I run 2x20 reavers. They can be crap but can often suprise opponents with the nastiness as they aren't half as bad as many think and if they just do a bit better than average they'll cause some hurt (with the Bloodsecrator around).

Meatripper axes for lots of rend too.

I faced them once in Clash Comp rules and they were a delight to see. In that game they acted as a speed bump and objective holder but they have so many uses. That's just a new thing I enjoy about AoS as compared to previous years of 8th ed at events or tournaments.

I think it very much depends on how you play. As Bottle points out, in a wounds-based game, there are so many better units to field that doesn't require the same buffs to be effective.

In a points/pool comp, I reckon they see more use. I run slightly more than 20 Reavers and Marauders myself, and they almost always perform by claiming and holding on to objectives. With some buffs, the Reavers also dish out plenty of damage!
(I play PPC comp which values Reavers at 4pts as compared to a Chaos Warrior at 16 pts).

My area runs Azyr for events and SCGT for pickup games (as that is considered "tournament official". Still very little rank and flie despite points being used.

The main reason I use them is cos I run pure bloodbound most of the time and in the fluff there's supposed to be millions of them. Would probably be better off using something else on the whole but I like the way it looks. I'd much rather send them in at something that can deal out big damage and has taken few wounds themselves, than a more elite unit. If they are ignoring rolling for battleshock they'll probably last at least a turn or two and do some damage themselves. The only other unit I have with 20 wounds is 10 Blood Warriors and I don't want to be wasting them in such a way. Have used all sort of ways of playing btw, mostly just deployment as per the rules but have been known to dabble with Azyr and SCT too.

 auticus wrote:
My area runs Azyr for events and SCGT for pickup games (as that is considered "tournament official". Still very little rank and flie despite points being used.

SCGT favors superfriends and/or monster mash builds, sadly. Aside from having some basic troops for board control its more points-efficient to take something else. And that's basically the answer to your original question; most comps favor elite builds, sometimes heavily (wounds count). Coupled with the hobby commitment aspect and that's why they aren't seen often.

I like to bring in large bands of marauders because I made them look very "vikingy" ( I know, not a word, but) and while they tend to "blow goats" they are fun to hurl around.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I like to bring in large bands of marauders because I made them look very "vikingy" ( I know, not a word, but) and while they tend to "blow goats" they are fun to hurl around.

Now *THAT'S* Viking-y!

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I like to bring in large bands of marauders because I made them look very "vikingy" ( I know, not a word, but) and while they tend to "blow goats" they are fun to hurl around.

Now *THAT'S* Viking-y!

I made some homemade longboats out of wooden canoe models and used them originally from the old generals compendium, I was into the Norsii thing.

I field them because I like fielding painted models, I like painting skin, so they are painted and thus played.

In game they can be a surprise to other players. With a move of 6", a +1" from their horn, and further speed from the wiping of a Bloodstoker they are really quick. In terms of damage ouput with meatripper axes, and +2 attacks from a set up Bloodsecrator they are pretty killy. Big downside is their lack of a save, which makes them seriously fragile as they can never have a save, so they are attacking and killing or they are useless.

In terms of why in general they are not played, as others have said if you are balancing on wounds or model count they are are not great options. Even in a well designed points system they will have real world disadvantages. Mainly, that you will need a lot of them which makes games take longer, is more expensive, represent a greater hobby commitment, and is more difficult to transport. So, if you can buy one box of 10 Blood Warriors (AUD105) and they perform roughly equivalently to 40 Bloodreavers (AD 196) which would you choose?

Finally I think in AoS the rank and files guys tend to be less... fun? For me combat is now the focus and I like units that can do things. I don't enjoy having 15 guys in combat, rolling 16 dice and ending up with one casualty on an infantry unit. I want monsters breathing fire, wizards summoning hordes of the dead, characters who can break the sky.

Note that I am not arguing this is somehow better than other games or even necessarily unique (I still have my 3rd edition Warhammer book that I have had signed by Rick Priestley, own more historical games than I care to remember, etc.). That is just what I enjoy about AoS, and why I think Bloodreavers are maybe not that attractive.

I personally just dont like the look of some of the bloodreavers and prefer the more savage barbaric look to the maruaders, the horsemen look really good and when making a "Viking" style army a solid core of them led by the old wulfric model just makes me happy, especially with my longboats behind them. effective? meh, sometimes yes, alot of times no.

I introduced a "free wound" system into our community. We organize game sizes based on wounds but we say "80+20" for example which is 80 wounds of whatever you like and then 20 wounds of what is widely regarded as the "not worth it" units from your faction. My chaos now always rock Marauders, my brother always takes Reavers, my empire usually turn up with militia. It is not designed as a balancing mechanic by any means but it lets you make more thematic and fluffy lists without feeling like you have wasted 20 wounds on units that aren't worth it.

In a system where anything goes there's little reason to take chaff over elite deathstars.

hobojebus wrote:
In a system where anything goes there's little reason to take chaff over elite deathstars.

Other than because one wants too of course?

hobojebus wrote:
In a system where anything goes there's little reason to take chaff over elite deathstars.

The funny part is, until the points garbage started creeping its way into the local lexicon for me?
I was seeing the chaff far more than the elite deathstars.

Short of our events which used azyr points, the people playing AOS used wounds and I have really never seen chaffe. Even with points (SCGT is popular now because its "tournament official") I note I never see chaffe.

I think the main thing was really pointed out:
* chaffe requires you to buy a lot of models
* chaffe requires you to paint a lot of models
* its easier to just buy a fraction of the models
* its easier to play with just a fraction of the models
* "core tax" is now gone so nothing gives incentive to use chaffe

Dai wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
In a system where anything goes there's little reason to take chaff over elite deathstars.

Other than because one wants too of course?

My mate has a goblin army he loves he tried using it in AoS while others brought multiple greater demons and other strong elite armies, he got trashed every time then gave up playing.

I'm a skaven and undead player I love large blocks of naff skeletons on the board and it makes me sad that no longer works if you have even mildly competitive players in your group.

 Kanluwen wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
In a system where anything goes there's little reason to take chaff over elite deathstars.

The funny part is, until the points garbage started creeping its way into the local lexicon for me?
I was seeing the chaff far more than the elite deathstars.

I doubt it has much to do with points and much more to do with this:

My mate has a goblin army he loves he tried using it in AoS while others brought multiple greater demons and other strong elite armies, he got trashed every time then gave up playing.

I'm a skaven and undead player I love large blocks of naff skeletons on the board and it makes me sad that no longer works if you have even mildly competitive players in your group.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
In a system where anything goes there's little reason to take chaff over elite deathstars.

The funny part is, until the points garbage started creeping its way into the local lexicon for me?
I was seeing the chaff far more than the elite deathstars.

I doubt it has much to do with points and much more to do with this:

My mate has a goblin army he loves he tried using it in AoS while others brought multiple greater demons and other strong elite armies, he got trashed every time then gave up playing.

I'm a skaven and undead player I love large blocks of naff skeletons on the board and it makes me sad that no longer works if you have even mildly competitive players in your group.

I'm sure that's a possibility, but prior to the announcement of "points play" from GW proper? Nobody really cared. People would talk about what they're bringing, and the people who would do things like multiple Greater Daemons with nothing else on the board would get asked not to run those setups again or to give a bit of warning that they were going to bring such a thing.

When is the last time you seen skaven other then elite choice? Or a ghouls/ zombie/ skele horde?

GW maze well of just removed them and been done with it. They will just say they arnt selling rebox them to five per box. Say unit is 5 + and raise the price of the current box. Then make the units the average crap people will ignore and move on.

Now if I give it a second ought I never seen a vampire skaven goblin greenskin army since the second week of aos. All I see is new players (one or two people a week max) bringing things from the four different armies. One guy had deathclaw, the wood elf tree guy, elite sigmarines and thats it.

OgreChubbs wrote:
When is the last time you seen skaven other then elite choice? Or a ghouls/ zombie/ skele horde?

GW maze well of just removed them and been done with it.

Perhaps you can look at say, the TGA Death forums for people doing skeleton hordes. You can look at Tabletop Minis youtube channel to see someone doing a skeleton horde. I am starting out on a skeleton horde. Someone (can't remember who) posted this awesome Getting Started Guide for the Death Alliance where skeleton horde is recommended: https://www.reddit.com/r/ageofsigmar/comments/4aex21/death_army_equivalent_to_starter/
The Flesh-Eater courts have certainly also sparked others to do a ghoul hordes.

I really seems you keep talking about AoS things you have no or very little exposure to or experience with. And it seems you'd do better if you would talk as if what you are seeing in your own little gaming community is the sole and absolute truth - You come across as the guy standing in Congress with a snowball in his hand claiming that it's proof climate change is a hoax.

At tournament level there is a role for chaff against, say, teleporting Stormcast armies or anything that can alpha strike with summoning.

There was a number of Goblin armies at SCGT. Anyone who plays AoS and has encountered them will testify how nasty a massive block of skeletons or the like can be.

My last game of AoS had me face units of 40+ zombies, skeletons etc. These armies take time to build, paint, collect so give it time if your scene isn't based on a WHFB 8th scene.

I run 1 unit of reavers with my khorne army to unlock the gore blade they are a great investment

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
My area runs Azyr for events and SCGT for pickup games (as that is considered "tournament official". Still very little rank and flie despite points being used.

SCGT favors superfriends and/or monster mash builds, sadly. Aside from having some basic troops for board control its more points-efficient to take something else. And that's basically the answer to your original question; most comps favor elite builds, sometimes heavily (wounds count). Coupled with the hobby commitment aspect and that's why they aren't seen often.

What's the problem with SCGT in your opinion? Haven't tried it myself.

 Mymearan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
My area runs Azyr for events and SCGT for pickup games (as that is considered "tournament official". Still very little rank and flie despite points being used.

SCGT favors superfriends and/or monster mash builds, sadly. Aside from having some basic troops for board control its more points-efficient to take something else. And that's basically the answer to your original question; most comps favor elite builds, sometimes heavily (wounds count). Coupled with the hobby commitment aspect and that's why they aren't seen often.

What's the problem with SCGT in your opinion? Haven't tried it myself.

To answer your question simply; flawed balance. Rank-and-file simply aren't as points efficient on average as characters and/or monsters. The lists performing the best accordingly use just a handful of infantry/cavalry to grant some board control and work for scenarios, while the bulk of the list is filled out with monster mash or superfriends. That said, I would not call it a "problem" so much as I would call it a downside of the comp; to call it a problem gives the flaw more weight then I think it really has. SCGT is a good comp (why we see so many people using after all) but some of its upsides in simple layout and non-granular values carry with them the downside of balance not quite as good as it could be.

I also think that is intentional (I'm not a fan of what it favors). People seem to want their armies to be smaller and populated with a lot of super powerful figures but have low model count.

That seems to be a good chunk of the appeal of using SCGT.

 auticus wrote:
I also think that is intentional (I'm not a fan of what it favors). People seem to want their armies to be smaller and populated with a lot of super powerful figures but have low model count.

That seems to be a good chunk of the appeal of using SCGT.

Elite squads are easier to maneuver. Playing horde daemons has been very harsh to my knuckle bones... Also, painting a large amount of figures can be very daunting for a beginner to medium-beginner painter . God, I wish the bloodreavers were as straightforward to paint as the stormcast. I have absolutely no idea what I'll be using to hang myself when I finish the stormcast half of the starter and go into chaos...

Not only are a lot of figures daunting for a beginner to a paint, they are a lot more work to paint no matter the skill level, and I think that its just plain easier to get 10 models as opposed 50 ready for a game.