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'm making a big Archaon to go in a Fatesworn Warband. I have 30 Marauders, and 2 units of 10 Warriors, and quite a few bits to make Spawns for filler. Should I make some more Warriors to go in there or should I make some Chaos Knights instead? I have 2 boxes of Knights but am not sure if I should trade them out (though they would look pretty darn cool on the table!)

I like the Knights' speed and Bravery modifier, they're only 3 wounds per model though rather than double the Warriors' two wounds, though they're 20 points more for the 5 Knights rather than 10 Warriors.

Beyond those mortals I have Fateweaver, Herald on Disc, Exalted Flamer, Flamers, and the Sorcerer on Steed for the Daemonic Power for Archaon.

First of all, I assume you mean you have a unit of 27 marauders and two units of 9 warriors!

I would go with a unit of 9 knights. Ensorcelled weapons are already the better option and giving rend -1 to all 5 of their attacks is pretty sweet.

You are correct! I must have been counting in base 9 Knights it shall be. That is a bunch of attacks for sure.

Think it's worth trying to fit a daemonic mount lord in there? Definitely need the sorcerer for Archaon. Almost don't need mystic shield going off if I can do that Treacherous Bond power.

Well the daemonic mount lord could use his command ability on the knights, so thats a big benefit.

Quick math lesson: 1 Archaon + 20 Warriors + Treacherous Bond = Archaon with effectively 60 wounds.

Treacherous bond only lasts until the next hero phase, so there's not even any need to use a unit so large.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Treacherous bond only lasts until the next hero phase, so there's not even any need to use a unit so large.

But it's fun. It basically turns that Warrior unit into a second HP pool, meaning your opponent has to kill both it and Archaon. Since Archaon will be taking a lot of fire from you opponent's army, every wound he can possibly get helps. Also, a unit of 20 Warriors rerolls saves of "1s", so it adds even more durability.

If the opponent can put more than 20 wounds on archaon within the duration of one casting then you're already screwed anyway. There are good reasons to take larger warrior squads at times, treacherous bond with archaon simply isn't one of them. If it's a contest of faux wounds count then use a 30-man tzaangor unit to get an 80 wound archaeon that gets further resilience from arcanite shields.

But more importantly, he's already pressed for unit numbers since he needs 8 additional units for the battalion with archaon already eating up 800 points. 20-man warrior squads are not ideal for this build.

Well the price is the same between 10 Warriors and 10 Tzaangors, unless that's being changed, but as far as survivability, I'll take Warriros over Tzaangors any day. Better save, better bravery, better large group bonus (for survivability), and their shields apply to Mortal Wounds from all sources, not just magic.

I'm also not sure you understand the tactic. I'm not worried about Archaon being wiped out in one turn. He starts dropping in combat effectiveness rather quickly once he starts taking wounds, though. By casting Treacherous Bond on the Warriors every turn, the enemy has to do 44 wounds to Arachon or the Warriors before he starts to drop off.

Or just cast treacherous bond on a different unit each turn. There's no point in taking 20-man warrior units in a Tzeentch list because Tzaangors will simply leave them in the dust with offensive power while being only marginally less defensively. Their shields work against not only any mortal wounds but regular wounds as well, only some Khorne units have shields that only work against spells. 10-man warrior units are still good though since their resilience makes them ideal for objective camping or bodyguards.

Well the spell has a range of 18", but the unit has to be within 9" to function. I also don't see how you can consider Chaos Warriors to only be "marginally" more defensive then Tzaangors. The have +1 bravery, +1 save, 1 better on the roll against Mortal Wounds, can be paired with a Tzeentch Chaos Lord for even MORE rerolls, and can reroll saves of "1" in groups of 20. Yeah, Tzaangors are for more powerful offensively, but that's not the purpose the unit serves in this case. It's a wound battery that's really freaking hard to move.

And what is the purpose of casting Treacherous Bond on a different unit each turn? 1 unit of 20 warriors cost the same (320 points) as 2 units of 10 warriors, but it's more points-efficient to take 1 unit of 20 due to the reroll at 20 models.

In any case, we're obviously not going to agree on this matter, so I'll just say "to each his own".

Because two units of warriors fills two battleline slots and two slots for the battalion, which is the point I raised at the start. If it weren't for that we wouldn't have had this discussion.

Yeah, the number of mortal units is tough to fit in there with the Fatesworn. And dammit I forgot about the battalion cost itself! Not a cheap one at 120.

I'd have to trade out 1 unit of Warriors for a Spawn or just not take the Lord on Mount to buff the Knights. I like the 9 Knights.

Maybe big-arse Archaon just isn't meant to fit into there. Little horse Archaon may be better.

Nah, splitting up the marauders would be a better option. You'll need those warriors for objectives and generally holding the line. Don't give up on big Archaeon!

Hmmm, re-mathing.....