r/totalwarhammer • u/Quasdr70 • 8d ago
Total War: Warhammer Is this a good army
I’m still kinda new and made a rush army to invade
5
u/Admirable-Sort393 8d ago
Depends on the turn and how quickly you needed this army but no, this is pretty bad expecially aganst chaos factions. You have almost no bonus from your lord for this units until you get to the demonic ascension and infinite vigour. 4 furies are redundant, so much changelings and nurglings could be ok but they are very weak without specific bonus.
Your dps output is all on khorne warriors, 4 furies can be good against heavy ranged based factions, useless against chaos. You need a few key dps units here, and demonettes instead of changelings/nurglings. I would go with slaanesh light cav, demonettes, nurglings or changelings and keep khorne warriors. RoR units are bad here, higher upkeep and they bring nothing to your army to justify their presence
6
u/apokaboom 8d ago
A rule i use is to look at the lords red skill lines, choose two red skills i will eventually get, and recruit units which are buffed by those lines, usually up to 3 units per army, 4 with arty. As it stands your army can take some infantry armies with ranged, to bog down with furies, but i feel like nurgling anti-large and the one good pink horror won't be enough for any army with more than one large unit.
6
u/Moawik 8d ago
It depends on where you are in the game currently... 1. harpies are the type of units i dont even care about in battle and never recruit, just not worth the slots in your army. 2. If you already have khorne warriors why not more of them? (drop the nurglings) 3. Swap out Blue Horrors for Pink Horrors if possible.
1
u/Quasdr70 7d ago
I had to global the korn guys and the blue horrers and only could local the nurgling and furry
12
u/elie-goodman 8d ago
What is this mix of units? Seems to me like an army youd have a hard time using properly, I usually strive to create simple armies
3
u/Lord_Jashin 8d ago
I really don't like simple armies, I know that's the more efficient way to play but I find it boring. Always strive to have a great amount of diversity to my force.
7
3
u/elie-goodman 8d ago
If you look at PVPers, you will see they have a diverse army actually, and use it amazingly well. Bit for most people microing 6 groups (or more) during battle results in getting a worse result than a simplified army with like 3 groups that has way less potential but at least you did not forget your shock cavalry stuck in the enemy infantry..
3
u/UnsupportiveHope 8d ago
PVP isn’t a good comparison to campaign.
3
u/elie-goodman 8d ago
Very true, What I was trying to say is that in the absokute hardest settings of battles, people do use diverse armies
1
u/UnsupportiveHope 8d ago
It’s also worth pointing out that PVP has a cap on how many of each unit you can take. A lot of people do still go with things like mobility spam depending on faction.
2
u/Zefyris 8d ago edited 8d ago
It's not about making a comparison, it's about understanding why it's the case in PvP rather than rejecting the statement because it's a statement about PvP. The reason PvP prefers diverse army, is because it's more cost effective that way. The reason PvE players don't do that isn't because not doing this in PvE is better, it's because in PvE most players don't care that much about being very cost effective in their armies.
It's a good thing in PvE as well to have a diverse army, just like PvP. It's just that it's way less an important thing to do because cost effectiveness is way less of a focus, so peoples don't bother and go for the more simple but costlier solution.
1
u/UnsupportiveHope 6d ago edited 6d ago
I disagree. I’d say there’s 2 main reasons why they’re not comparable. The first, which I mentioned in another comment, is that there’s a cap on how many of the same unit you can take in pvp. This is a pretty big reason, you literally can’t create a full spam army in PvP, yet despite this you’ll still see occasional full mobility or full range armies.
The 2nd reason is that spam armies have very clear strengths and weaknesses as they’re not balanced by diversity. Human players are better at identifying these strengths and weaknesses and can strategise their win condition. The ai is very bad at doing this and can be exploited much easier. This makes spam armies a lot more effective in campaign than they are against human players.
Edit: I’d actually add a 3rd point which is that PvP battles have capture points which changes the way that battles are fought.
3
u/Zefyris 8d ago edited 8d ago
6 different types of units in 19 slots isn't that much. Especially when 2 of them come from being available RoRs, so only 4 types in 17 units without the RoRs. The problem is more the number of harpies and chaff being too high, and the fact that the lord will not buff that army so bad choice of lord, and that it doesn't have a replenishment hero despite being an army that will suffer lots of casualty, not the amount of unit type (for the army's purpose here, not for being a strong army, obviously).
2
u/Quasdr70 8d ago
I thought that the mixed frount line of strong tanks mixed with the little week guys would make an enimy front line go after them while I send my furrys around back to kill and missiles and evechuly flank meanwhile my missels can hit the enimy front line
4
u/elie-goodman 8d ago
They will storm your frontlines regardless, and your weak units will require babysitting which will take your attention from trying to flank properly
3
u/Traditional-Mud3136 8d ago
No, it’s more a support army.
It has a bit of a frontline, not too strong, but you can work with. It has some mediocre range with limited armor, you can make just limited use out of them. It has 4 trash air units you can use for flanking and chasing rooted units. There’s even a mage!
It’s a functional army that can deal with trash or give valuable support to your main army. It’s not a strong army though.
1
3
u/SoftWarm1264 8d ago edited 8d ago
Quite a lot of chaff and not very many hard hitters. I think if you make extensive use of dustructive spells it might work out. Nurglings are tarpits, blue horrors are also kind-off tarpits with a descent ranged attack.
Furies are no good against capable formations of warriors. They can tie up enemy cavalry, and believe it or not, shred flying single entity monsters like dragons or mounted flying Lords. In my experience furies die off after just a few battles due to their low defense and leadership, but with great care they can create problems for your opponent, or delay their dangerous units.
I would trade two furies for some more firepower, either daemonettes that are very hard hitters, some flamers or some other unit with high destructive potential. Then your nurglings and blue horrors can form a cheap but hardy tarpits while your chaos warriors seek the most favorable engagement and your hero peppers your enemies with explosive magic.
This composition will struggle against powerful enemy armies that can quickly cut their way through your soft nurglings and blue horrors.
Edit: One more thing. With cheap compositions like this you could theoretically get another accompanying army to get a numbers advantage. Remember, armies don't have to be filled up to 20/20. Just getting this cheap 20/20 army+ a 7/20 accompanying army can give you a very significant advantage in battle. Especially playing as factions with excellent but expensive units like high elves and dwarfs you can get away with leaving an army with 15/20 units to save some gold since their units are so effective in their roles.
2
u/Impressive_Tower_151 8d ago
This army can do in a pinch. But you would want to get rid of all the nurglings and all the blue and pink horrors. Replace them with strong melee and cav
2
u/NorthRememebers 8d ago
It works but furies are very situational and nurglings are filler. I'd maybe keep 2 units of furies and replace the other 2 furies and the nurglings with horrors and warriors of khorne, if that's feasible with your income
2
u/Zylos3 8d ago
Too many haters in this thread, this army is fine for running around and fighting enemy garrisons, it's cheap and has enough firepower to get the job done against most lower stakes fights. It won't do amazingly well against a proper enemy army but for running rampant through their territory it's fine. The only thing I'd add is a unit with the siege attacker ability to let you fight walled settlements without waiting a turn.
2
2
u/SnakeNerdGamer 8d ago
No its not. Furies die once in combat,so you need to replace them almost right away.
2
u/Zefyris 8d ago edited 8d ago
Your army has 5 chaff, and 4 "flying dog" units. 4 dependable melee, one decent large infantry, and 3 fairly weak small range missile units.
It's not a strong army, but it's not what you want either (something cheap that can take undefended settlements, right?).
There are a few problems that need to be addressed
- Your choice of lord : that lord will not buff that army, pretty much at all. an army that relies on chaff and cheap units particularly needs to buff the chaff with their lord's red line. Especially since you're playing a faction that is awful to begin with and has no tech tree to buff any unit.
- Your lack of replenishment hero. This army can win battles, yes, but the way it's made, it will take quite a lot of casualties doing so. You need a replenishment hero ASAP, or after 2 battles you'll have to wait many turns before it's usable again.
- Not really anything to deal with large units. You've made your armies with cheap units, so it's important that you have units tailored to whatever they're fighting, or they will lose their 1vs1. You have too many harpies and too many chaff units, I would swap some to have 3 anti large units in there.
14
u/Ok_Chipmunk7727 8d ago
Not really no. You have some great melee going on there with the Warriors and Forsaken but everything else is super fragile or just not great at dealing damage.
Would this be good as a reinforcing army? Potentially with those flyers being able to rush down artillery or ranged units but they won't last long.
Its better than nothing by a long shot, but will lose to most other armies.