Thoughts on V2

Moderators: KevinC, mattbird

Re: Thoughts on V2

Postby Larro » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:30 pm

Chaos Ogre with chaos armor and great weapon is 50 points. 200 points for a minimum unit. If you are spending 200 points, take 5 chaos knights (also 200 points). You get 10 S5 attacks, 5 S4 attacks, M7, 1+ saves, better leadership, and won't be attacking last every round you aren't charging. I wouldn't take chaos ogres over Golems, because I'd be taking chaos knights. If you are thinking about marks, the chaos warriors get more mileage than the ogres do.

Your argument is disingenuous because you're forgetting that you have tons more wounds with 4 Chaos Ogres vs. 5 Chaos Knights. 7 more, actually. With a 4+ Save vs. a 2+ Save, sure, you're more vulnerable, but Ogres have more attacks on the frontage and mitigate the wounds better. If you lose 2 wounds on the Chaos Knights, you're in significantly worse shape than you are if you lose even 1 full Ogre.

And honestly, if your answer to Chaos Ogres is "well, Chaos Knights are better," than no shit, but we aren't debating that. Chaos Knights are pretty much the best cav in the game these days, but I fail to see how this measures Golems vs. any of their 40mm brethren.

Golems will face the same problem. As shock troops, bull centaurs will do better. Before you tell me these are over-costed, you better say what roll you would take a 40mm unit for, rather than just using shock troop cav and leaving the 40mm guys at home.
Unless they get revamped as broken good, I wouldn't ever take them, I'd rather have 2 earth shakers for the cost of a unit of golems.

Bull Centaurs will only do better unless the Golems are changed. With a 3+ Save, WS4 and LD9, for 55-60 pts., you'd be fine. Their Magical Flaming attacks, with T5 and 3+ save would definitely have a roll compared to the 4+ Save T4 centaurs.

And if you want 2 Earthshakers, rock on, but the current ES is total balls. I'd sooner take a Hellcannon.

On the topic of treekin:
I've seen Treekin butcher armies before. Joined by a mage on unicorn, treekin + character moonstoned them onto a flank. In the context of wood elves, treekin can be viable (the list lacks chaos knights/dragon ogres/bull centaurs).
I've also seen treekin used to keep the enemy facing. You can't turn a flank to treekin, so it makes the advance of wild-riders, and the wardancers that much easier. They aren't under-costed, they are under-used (ugly lots of money isn't a good combo).

Where do you play Warhammer that a Mage on Unicorn with Treekin + Moonstone is the game winning combo? I've never seen a competitive WE list ever feature a Unicorn, let alone Treekin. If you're playing bad players, sure, this combo might be viable, but show up to a legitimate GT with that and play top players and watch your 700-pt. one trick pony get dumped on.

My experience with ogres is that they don't have staying power in combat. You need the great weapon, because S4 isn't good enough. But with the great weapon, you're striking last all too often. I'd take S5 T5 over S6 T4 strike last any day. Getting magical attacks is nice (since you don't have static combat res to combat wraiths/spirit hosts), and flaming is better than a poke in the eye.

Funny, none of this is ever an issue for my Minotaurs for BoC. Minotaurs are fantastic, and they're armorless. They're cheap enough, fast enough, and hitty enough to work well in an army that has no ranks to speak of and usually has to win on the charge. The Golems, if reduced in price, will provide a similar role for an army that actually generates CR, AND will give a Flaming Magical answer. The Golems just need added durability (armor and WS) and a points reduction to be a viable unit choice.

- Larry
"Just being born means you've lost to Larro. Or haven't you gotten the memo yet?" - Nidal

"Larry was right. I know he never gets tired of hearing that." - Canterman
User avatar
Posts: 3296
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:52 pm


Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests