Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?

Now, I don't mean "are Warriors worth taking over Wyches", because we all know the answer to that one.

I want to know whether Warriors are worth taking beyond the minimum required for your detachment of choice.

What do you think? Do you use more than the minimum required? If so what do you take them for - ranged poison? Easy way to add transports? Their special or heavy weapon options? To create a pile of corpses for the enemy to trip over?

Please, share your thoughts

One of the best obsec units in the game. 5 in a venom with duel cannons and a blaster can literally threaten everything in the game (obviously some things more than others) I usually run at least 2, usually 3-4 in my 1500pt list. I could run more but I always include at lease one deepstriking raider with 10 warriors and splinter racks. This little unit will consistently put 7-9 wounds on anything with toughness values. It's only 150 pts and adds a cool dynamic to a dark eldar army. So to answer your question in a word, yes... and absolutely!

A unit of 5 in a venom with dual splinter cannons is just over a hundred points. I'm don't always take the blaster upgrade as I have bad luck with single shots and the 18 inch range isn't my favorite.

Multiple units of 5 with/without blaster (depending on points) in dual SC Venom.
But I think the Venom is by far the more useful member of the pair.

I will guardedly agree with flakmonkey, but also add in the Raider to that concept.
But Warriors are pretty darn solid in the cost to damage output capability they possess. I think the only infantry type Troop choice that really competes with us on that metric are the Eldar ones, and maybe Blooddrinkers. We're a very solid value Troop choice, so, by definition, I would tend to say "yes, worth taking".

The only argument against taking them I could see would be based on not feeling they are "killy" enough, but, frankly, I think they hold up well versus anything else in our codex, so don't really agree with that concept.

I like to run the 5 mans in venoms without blasters too.  It encourages me to keep my venoms at max range and minimize LOS more.  The warriors themselves are great for dealing with various deepstrikers and outflankers that show up near my force when I'm playing a mobile, vehicle heavy list and they make great objective holders for their price while sitting in cover once FNP starts kicking in.

I'm actually considering a game of Kill Team (using the Heralds of Ruin rules if you guys are familiar with them) where I run the maximum 25 kabalite warriors.  Beat some Tau today with a much smaller force of bikes, grotesque, and a court, but I think a full host of warriors would be quite effective in a small scale game like that.

Blood drinkers? I would add skitarii vanguard to that list.

Bloodletters - cut me a break, it was late

For the Skitarii I tend to knock them out of the running for their inability to get Obj.Sec, which I do think is one of the most powerful aspects of Troop options. They are certainly not bad though, I agree they are a very potent unit.

I expect I'll get some hate for this, but I think Warriors are pretty awful.

I hear people saying that their damage output is stellar for their cost, and all I can think of is that we must be looking at a different unit. Rapid Fire poison weapons. Wow. And, because we're *the* poison army, said weapons are of course Poison (4+). Outstanding. Yeah, who'd want pseudo-rending or the ability to glance a land raider, when we can have the power to wound a marine on a 4+? Likewise, who'd want a good, reliable meltagun when we can pay 50% more for a shot that's worse at penetrating and has only half the chance to explode a vehicle?

I think their damage output is mediocre at best. Which might be less important, if it wasn't for the fact that their survivability is absolutely atrocious. 5+ armour might as well not exist at all. They don't even get proper FNP until turn 3, and even that rarely matters. But, even this might not matter... if it wasn't for their weapons having an optimum range of 12".

What's more, their weapons don't gel at all with the PfP mechanic - which gives bonuses that apply only in melee. Even if I hammered nails into my skull to the point where charging S3 T3 units into melee seemed like a good idea, I can't whittle my target with shooting first because all my weapons are sodding rapid fire.

Literally the only thing they offer is ObjSec Venoms. But, for me, this isn't remotely sufficient to justify them. Not when I can take venoms just as easily via Lhamaeans and such. Especially since I can't even remember the last time ObjSec mattered in one of our games. Nor, for that matter, the last time I was losing and thought to myself "Oh woe is me! If only I'd brought more warriors then this calamity could have been averted! Why didn't I heed the warning? Doomed are those who do not fill out their troop slots!"

If I lose a game, it's not through my opponent snatching an objective out from under my nose in the last turn. It's because my army was literally blown out from under me, and anything of mine that was in the same postcode as an objective is now a smoking crater.

As a counter question, besides Eldar troops (which I will happily agree are amazing) what Troop option do you think is markedly better than Dark Eldar Warriors?

Like, you bemoan that we can hurt Marines on a 4+.
I think besides the Eldar, Firewarriors (who have a lot of other issues) and Bloodletters in assault every other Troop option in the game is wounding Marines on a 4+ *or worse* with their armor save intact. So...basically all you are saying is we wound Marines basically better than or equal to all other Troop options in the game. So I don't see the issue there.

Our actual weakness is not Marines, it is stuff like IG infantry or basic Nid bugs - we wound those on a 4+ while a majority of Troop options in the game get them at 3+.

Our balance is that other things, like MCs, or bikes, or almost anything on a bigger than 25mm base makes most other Troop options cower while we still keep hurting them just fine with our generic mooks. That's a strong tool.

We also gel fine with PfP insomuch as getting Troops that develop FnP 5+ by Turn 3 is pretty good, even if we are Toughness 3. That's a secondary save on a model that has Obj.Sec. and costs a pittance - it's good. Especially since late game we bounce into Fearless, so are obligated to be shot or assaulted off objectives as opposed to spooked off them.

Your other big point is upgrade options and access to dedicated transports. You appear to admit that the Venom (and, as always, I'll note the Raider) is "good". In the grand scope of dedicated transports it is in the upper half at least, I would argue, and is thus useful that we can access it cheaply for spam purposes.

I will agree some other armies have access to great weaponry upgrades which we lack. But though the Blaster is not a preeminent weapon, it is a very solid weapon and is capable of hurting every other model in the game. Which means, literally, no matter what your opponent has across the board from you, you ca fire a Blaster at it and potentially hurt/kill/explode it. Would it be nice if they were stronger? Yes. But that does not make them bad.

Like, if I had the option to *not* take Warriors and instead take Space Marines (who seem to be who you are comparing us to with the melta complaint and survivability complaint) I would not want to do it. Because Space Marine Tacticals are slow, cumbersome, have weak Transport upgrades, and are kind of expensive. Yeaah, they are survivable, and yeah, they have melta. But I can get more Warriors then them, which is survivable in its own way, and I can get better tank killing by allies or bringing in haywire if that's what I want. So, therefore, the Warrior does appear to be a better Troop than them. When I play Space Marines I only bring a handful of Troops, when I play DE I bring a bunch (I also bring a bunch with Orks and IG - though that's mostly due to how those armies work, and I bring a bunch with Eldar but that's because Eldar Troops are also amazing. I don't bring a bunch with my Slaanesh build, because my Troops are not that good).

Fully agree with Thor on this one. It's not our strength vs marines that makes them so good, it's their strength vs high toughness models. Their poor armor save is rarely a factor for me as I generally huddle mine up in ruins or rubble if they aren't in a transport. That means they have comparable survivability to marines and other troops when their fnp is included as well.

40 points for 5 fearless, obs models that can go to ground for a 3+ cover followed by 5+fnp on an objective in the late game is priceless and very hard for opponents to displace. That they can also threaten even the toughest of enemies who come near is icing on the cake.

Thor665 wrote:

As a counter question, besides Eldar troops (which I will happily agree are amazing) what Troop option do you think is markedly better than Dark Eldar Warriors?

I don't know about markedly better, but I'd certainly class Necron Warriors, Immortals, Marines, Scouts, Grey hunters, Fire Warriors and Veterans as better. Stuff like Skitarii and Daemons are more tricky because they don't have transports.

Thor665 wrote:

Like, you bemoan that we can hurt Marines on a 4+.
I think besides the Eldar, Firewarriors (who have a lot of other issues) and Bloodletters in assault every other Troop option in the game is wounding Marines on a 4+ *or worse* with their armor save intact. So...basically all you are saying is we wound Marines basically better than or equal to all other Troop options in the game. So I don't see the issue there.

Because it comes back to the issue of us being a glass cannon, minus the cannon.

Yes, virtually every other race also wounds marines on 4s. But every other race doesn't get obliterated by those marines.

Thor665 wrote:

Our balance is that other things, like MCs, or bikes, or almost anything on a bigger than 25mm base makes most other Troop options cower while we still keep hurting them just fine with our generic mooks. That's a strong tool.

It was. Back in 5th. When MCs were generally of nid statlines - T6 with 3+ saves. When you start to add in 2+ saves, poison means a lot less. Especially compared to stuff like pseudo-rending or plasma. And, when many of the most problematic MCs are in fact Gargantuan Creatures - with nigh immunity to poison, then it becomes worthless. Especially when we have poison instead of D-weapons or Grav.

Thor665 wrote:

We also gel fine with PfP insomuch as getting Troops that develop FnP 5+ by Turn 3 is pretty good, even if we are Toughness 3. That's a secondary save on a model that has Obj.Sec. and costs a pittance - it's good. Especially since late game we bounce into Fearless, so are obligated to be shot or assaulted off objectives as opposed to spooked off them.

Except that FNP isn't a secondary save, it's the only save we get. And, Fearless would mean a lot more if our models didn't just evaporate to a single bolter volley.

Thor665 wrote:

Your other big point is upgrade options and access to dedicated transports. You appear to admit that the Venom (and, as always, I'll note the Raider) is "good". In the grand scope of dedicated transports it is in the upper half at least, I would argue, and is thus useful that we can access it cheaply for spam purposes.

Does that make warriors good though?

I'd argue that it just makes them a tax to take gunships.

Thor665 wrote:

Like, if I had the option to *not* take Warriors and instead take Space Marines (who seem to be who you are comparing us to with the melta complaint and survivability complaint) I would not want to do it. Because Space Marine Tacticals are slow, cumbersome, have weak Transport upgrades, and are kind of expensive. Yeaah, they are survivable, and yeah, they have melta. But I can get more Warriors then them, which is survivable in its own way, and I can get better tank killing by allies or bringing in haywire if that's what I want. So, therefore, the Warrior does appear to be a better Troop than them. When I play Space Marines I only bring a handful of Troops, when I play DE I bring a bunch (I also bring a bunch with Orks and IG - though that's mostly due to how those armies work, and I bring a bunch with Eldar but that's because Eldar Troops are also amazing. I don't bring a bunch with my Slaanesh build, because my Troops are not that good).

When you say you wouldn't take SMs over Warriors, are you including all the stuff they get? Chapter Tactics, Doctrines, Formation Bonuses etc.?

I mean, you say that you can have more Warriors than Marines, but what about the double-Gladius? That would give every unit in your army - including your 6+ troops - a free free Rhino, Razorback or Drop Pod. I'm pretty sure that would let them at least rival your Warriors in sheer numbers, if not outright exceed them.

Thor665 wrote:

Bloodletters - cut me a break, it was late

I asked because I wasn't sure whether you were talking about blood letters or not. Personally I have never rated them highly. I always felt they were the weakest of the daemon troop options. But now I'm suspecting I might have dismissed them too readily.

When someone said 'Blooddrinkers', I thought they were talking about Blood Angel Troops.

I'd rather take Warriors than my chaos Marines.

CptMetal wrote:

I'd rather take Warriors than my chaos Marines.

What makes Chaos Marines so bad?

I know that they are bad (and certainly much worse than DE Warriors), I'm just trying to remember exactly why.

The Shredder wrote:

I don't know about markedly better, but I'd certainly class Necron Warriors, Immortals, Marines, Scouts, Grey hunters, Fire Warriors and Veterans as better.

I might agree they are all "better" if they cost the same, but they all cost more, and I'm not even sure if you'd get me to agree on the Scout, and Vet one even then.

The Shredder wrote:

Yes, virtually every other race also wounds marines on 4s. But every other race doesn't get obliterated by those marines.

We suffer less then a large amount of Troop options, including many that cost more than us.

The Shredder wrote:

It was. Back in 5th. When MCs were generally of nid statlines - T6 with 3+ saves. When you start to add in 2+ saves, poison means a lot less.

We still wound them easier than other Troops regardless though.

The Shredder wrote:

Especially compared to stuff like pseudo-rending or plasma.

Pseudo-rending I'll hand you.
Plasma - meet Blaster.

The Shredder wrote:

And, when many of the most problematic MCs are in fact Gargantuan Creatures - with nigh immunity to poison, then it becomes worthless. Especially when we have poison instead of D-weapons or Grav.

We can still wound Gargantuan creatues better than any other Troop option out there, and, again, our Blaster is certainly competitive in the wounding of those types of units compared to what other Troop units can bring.

I will agree that if we were better it would be nice, but the question isn't what it would be nice to be better at wounding. It's what Troop units are better at it than our Troops, and then a point compare/contrast.

The Shredder wrote:

Except that FNP isn't a secondary save, it's the only save we get.

No, it's a secondary save, and there are also weapons that can ignore it and not our armor. But the point is that we are actually pretty durable for our cost.

The Shredder wrote:

And, Fearless would mean a lot more if our models didn't just evaporate to a single bolter volley.

Stick to cover and I suspect you will find it will take more than a single volley. Yeah, Turn 1, in the open, a bolter volley will gak us up. That doesn't make us a bad Troop selection.

Space Marines out of cover being shot by Stormtroopers will also disappear - does that intrinsically make Space Marines bad? Centurions in the open targeted by Disssies will also disappear, Centurions remain a great unit. The ability of a unit to die in a bad situation is not proof of failure of unit.

The Shredder wrote:

Does that make warriors good though?

I'd argue that it just makes them a tax to take gunships.

Yes - Troops allowing access to good vehicles makes them a value buy, and consequently makes them better than if they did not have that access. Like, Necron Warriors - take away the Crescent and they are vastly less impressive as an option, the same holds true for us.

The Shredder wrote:

When you say you wouldn't take SMs over Warriors, are you including all the stuff they get? Chapter Tactics, Doctrines, Formation Bonuses etc.?

I am including CTs and CDs as those are part of the basic Troop.
I am not counting Formations, as those are not. I will agree that the DE have a noted lack of Formations, and a noted lack of good Formations - but that is not a weakness of our individual unit entries, it is a weakness of the codex.

The Shredder wrote:

I mean, you say that you can have more Warriors than Marines, but what about the double-Gladius? That would give every unit in your army - including your 6+ troops - a free free Rhino, Razorback or Drop Pod. I'm pretty sure that would let them at least rival your Warriors in sheer numbers, if not outright exceed them.

I will agree the Gladius is a great formation.
It is not great because you get to take Tactical Marines though - it is great because you get free units on the board.

Give me a Gladius option with DE or Tacs and I would take the DE one every time.

The Shredder wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

I'd rather take Warriors than my chaos Marines.

What makes Chaos Marines so bad?

I know that they are bad (and certainly much worse than DE Warriors), I'm just trying to remember exactly why.

They are Tactical Marines with less bonuses, and Tactical Marines aren't exactly stellar to start so...

Thor665 wrote:

We still wound them easier than other Troops regardless though.

That's true, but other armies aren't relying on basic weapons to take down MCs.

Thor665 wrote:

Plasma - meet Blaster.

Your Blaster only has 1 shot. That matters quite a lot in terms of stripping wounds from MCs.

Also, unlike GHs (who can take 2 Plasmaguns), Veterans (who can take 3) etc., you're limited to 1 blaster per squad.

Thor665 wrote:

We can still wound Gargantuan creatues better than any other Troop option out there, and, again, our Blaster is certainly competitive in the wounding of those types of units compared to what other Troop units can bring.

When you say "better than any other troop option out there", I feel your discounting several troop options. e.g. Eldar troops also wound on 6s, but deny it its armour save. Marines can have 5 Grav shots at the thing, which wound on 3s with rerolls and also deny it its save.

More importantly though, it still takes a ludicrous number of our troops to kill the thing. Yes, we can wound it. Now all we need to do is get ~800pts of Warriors in rapid fire range.

Thor665 wrote:

]
No, it's a secondary save, and there are also weapons that can ignore it and not our armor. But the point is that we are actually pretty durable for our cost.

I disagree. Even for our cost we are incredibly fragile, and FNP on T3 models doesn't change that.

Thor665 wrote:

Stick to cover and I suspect you will find it will take more than a single volley. Yeah, Turn 1, in the open, a bolter volley will gak us up. That doesn't make us a bad Troop selection.

I find cover rarely helps. Not even counting weapons with Ignore Cover, I find our troops are just too easy to wound for the cover save to make a difference.

Thor665 wrote:

Space Marines out of cover being shot by Stormtroopers will also disappear - does that intrinsically make Space Marines bad?

Eh? No they won't. Stormtroopers are garage, even against marines. Much like our own liquifier gun, S3 utterly cripples them. And, with poor armour and toughness, they'll suffer a lot more in return.

Thor665 wrote:

Centurions in the open targeted by Disssies will also disappear

This certainly isn't my experience.

Thor665 wrote:

Yes - Troops allowing access to good vehicles makes them a value buy, and consequently makes them better than if they did not have that access. Like, Necron Warriors - take away the Crescent and they are vastly less impressive as an option, the same holds true for us.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If you're buying a troop choice to get the transport, then I'd argue that they're just a tax for said transport - rather than it being a bonus for them.

With regard to Necron Warriors, I find them fine even with no transports (I've never once taken a Nightscythe with mine).

Thor665 wrote:

I am including CTs and CDs as those are part of the basic Troop.
I am not counting Formations, as those are not. I will agree that the DE have a noted lack of Formations, and a noted lack of good Formations - but that is not a weakness of our individual unit entries, it is a weakness of the codex.

Ah, that makes things very different.

When I look at a troop choice, I include stuff like Formations. You say that it's not a weakness of the individual unit, but I'd disagree. If one unit has access to a bonus (e.g. via a formation), and another does not, then to me it seems disingenuous to discount the bonus of the first during comparisons. Even if it's not in the unit entry, it's a bonus that unit can have access to in a game. Moreover, in most cases it's a bonus that isn't reliant on external factors (support units, psychic powers or such).

Thor665 wrote:

I will agree the Gladius is a great formation.
It is not great because you get to take Tactical Marines though - it is great because you get free units on the board.

But wasn't that your whole point about Warriors? That they're good because you can field a lot of them? My point is that you can do the same with Tacticals, but even more efficiently.

Thor665 wrote:

Give me a Gladius option with DE or Tacs and I would take the DE one every time.

But that's my whole point - DE don't get a gladius. Marines do. You said earlier that we shouldn't be talking about what units should be like, but this is exactly what you're doing. If we're going to talk about what units are and make comparisons, then you have to accept that double-gladius Tactical Marines are a hell of a lot more efficient than our troops.



On this topic, I'll be interested to see how Corsair troops stack up to ours.

Chaos Marines are bad.

They are bad because you pay a lot of points for a troop squad that can be scared away. They aren't horde troops they are to expensive for that but they aren't reliable enough for elite troops.

The enemy is packing bikes or Nurgle or Centurion squads? I'll take Warriors every time.

Note that loyalist Marines are the exception because of ATSKNF. That is what makes them great.

We do suffer against low toughness hordes though...

The Shredder wrote:

What makes Chaos Marines so bad?

I know that they are bad (and certainly much worse than DE Warriors), I'm just trying to remember exactly why.

Take a tactical marine squad: remove the ability to combat squad, take away drop pods, razorbacks, plasma cannons, grav weapons, skyfire missiles, thunder hammers, storm shields, and multi-meltas.  Add in some somewhat useful but overly-priced customizations (that can generally just be removed with the death of the character holding it), oh and autocannons, yay?.  Then force them to make and accept challenges whenever possible and of course... remove ATSKNF.  Reduce the price one point per model, and you've pretty much got chaos marines.

There are still ways to play CSM, but none of them involve actual chaos marines.  Generally people just take blobs of cultists and do things to make them more resistant to psychology.  This is how I ended up building a giant renegades and heretic blob army.  Cult troops are also pretty useful (well plague and noise marines anyway), but are a bit pricey and require a specific HQ to move them from elite.

As for Warriors themselves?  They have a niche, and it's toughness 6+, non gargantuan creatures that don't out-range them.  So basically wraithguard and nurgle bikers/spawn.

In my game room we often have large renegades vs dark eldar battles and the warriors really don't do anything the 3 point renegades can't.  Less, in fact as they don't have assault/krak grenades, or any real customization to speak of.

For a more direct comparison - take the only other army that can (or will be able to on release) take splinter rifles.  Corsairs come with a brace of pistols (2 pistols either shuriken or splinter) and a lasblaster you can swap out for a splinter rifle.

Should you?  No. That crappy lasblaster performs equal or better than the splinter rifle vs everything up to toughness 5 outside of 12".  Within 12" the las-blaster is the equal of the splinter rifle vs toughness 4, and only loses out when the target hits toughness 5.  The catch with corsairs is that within 12" they'll either be using splinter or shuriken pistols depending on the target anyway.

TLDR; Are warriors worth it?  Like the "are blasters worth it?" thread I neglected to post in the short answer on this is no.  The long answer is "but you're playing dark eldar so you literally have no other choice.".

Sounds like Chaos really need a new book.

Yes. Yes Chaos does need a new book. I played them once after the last codex dropped and that's about it. And I got several thousand points of Iron Warriors.

If the next codex sucks, I'll consider selling them.

Maybe your metas are different than mine, but I find warriors priceless for the influx of white scar and ravenwing bike armies alone. Compared to the other troop choices you're pushing as superior, I take less damage than them from grav, deal more damage to them than the gauss flayers, bolters, pulse rifles, and shuriken weapons do, and cost less than any of them.

Is every army I face against a biker army? No, but our warriors are also superior in matches against Tyranid MC's, Flying Circus, and the various Skitari robots that I still don't know the names of. If warriors were better at fighting every unit in the game, then it would be obscene for them to also cost less. As it stands, I'd much rather be better at fighting tough, elite units than the common infantry chaff most armies field.

The Shredder wrote:

Sounds like Chaos really need a new book.

GW itself has made 3 attempts to fix them since the 6th edition codex, starting with the black legion (which is bleh) and crimson slaughter supplements (which brings a lot of character, but not enough balance).  The khorne demon kin list is the most recent and goes further towards addressing the weaknesses of both the CSM and Chaos Demons books.  If nothing else, it's an interesting list.  There have also been rumors about a similar tzeench book for months but nothing solid.

Through out all these though, the chaos marines themselves remain almost entirely unchanged (does causing fear count?), and so you'll still pretty much never see one in use.

Then of course there is forgeworld and the renegades, which actually seem to have given up on chaos marines altogether.  I don't think there is anything in the newest book that is shared with CSM besides the LOW and chaos spawn.  You can still use the old book to field your defilers and noise marines, as the new one only covers khorne and nurgle, but the new detachments are awesome.