Further thoughts on Marauders and Repeater Crossbows

This is not a fully formed thought but is something that needs exploring and I am putting up here to perhaps stimulate conversation. It has to do with expectations. What expectations can we have for a Core Unit?

In some armies such as the Dwarf and Wood Elf army, that expectation is they can do damage to any enemy they encounter. For other armies such as the Vampire Counts, Goblins (and probably Tomb Kings?), the expectation is the core units will not do any damage but the Special and Rare units will get the job done.

So lets get started.

Vampire Counts have line troops which are their basic infantry. As a non-VC player, it seems to me those are two-fold: Zombies and Skeletons.

No unit facing Zombies is going to be overly fearful. With an all-but-pointless WS of 1 and S of 2, they will hit just 33% of the time and wound even less than that; only against T3 troops will they even wound that often. Against troops with an "average" stat line of WS3, T3, they will need 9 attacks just to get one wound on average. 

Of course, with their irrelevant initiative of 1, they will seldom have all their line troops attacking back since they are likely to be hit 66% of the time and, with a T of just 2, probably be wounded close to that often. 

So they have an excellent chance of receiving damage every turn of close combat while only doing damage back in return once every four or five turns. 

The Skeletons are slightly better with S and T of 3. So against other troops with an "average" stat line* (where "average" is defined as M4, WS 4, everything else but wounds, attacks and LD as a 3) they will still hit 33% of the time and be hit 66% of the time.

These are their core units, their basic block infantry. These units cannot be counted upon to actually inflict casualties do to their poor stat line. Their saving graces are their cheap costs, ability to re-spawn, and unbreakable nature. 

Compare that to the famed Marauders. They have an  average WS of 4, Average S/T of 3, and decent I of 4. 

Against Zombies and Skeletons they are going to do some damage. Against others, such as Dwarf Warriors and/or Ogre Bulls, they are going to struggle. And against some it will depend on who has the hot dice...say, Repeater Crossbowmen.

Example: say I take 25 Marauders with Full command and give them Lt Armor, shield, and the Mark of Tzeentch to make them as rugged as possible. They start with a Static Combat Resolution score of +4 or +5 due to ranks, banner, and possibly outnumbering.

If I run into Zombies or Skeletons, I expect to win the combat more often than not even though they are likely to cancel most of my SCR. I figure to run my unit 5 wide so will more than likely hit 3 - 4 times per average turn and wound 1-2 zombies or Skeletons who are seldom going to save. Meanwhile, they will then have just 2 - 3 attacking back and hit perhaps once per turn which means I should only lose a Marauder once every 3 turns...less if my saves are working.

Conversely, if I run into Ogre Bulls, the numbers change. With my superior initiative I still look to strike first with 6 attacks (assuming a champion) and hit with 4. Now, however, I wound just  1.33 of them and I believe he saves one in 3. Furthermore, it takes 3 wounds to kill one and reduce his power to strike back. So it takes me 3 - 4 turns to reduce his combat power while he, conversely, is striking back 4 times, hitting 1.33 times, wounding 66% of those and reducing my save to 6+/6+.  I figure to lose that combat if my SCR score does not force him to break.

Clearly, the Marauders then are a unit whose effectiveness is defined by what unit they encounter.

 Contrast that with a unit such as the Chaos Warriors. They are still a Core unit but have WS5, S4, T4. That means against most CORE units, they will hit 66% of the time and wound 66% of the time. Meanwhile, they will only be hit 33% of the time and most core units will wound them either 50% of the time (for the very best enemies) and perhaps even just 33% of the time for the more common ones. 

The Chaos Warriors, then, expect to win the majority of their close combats. It is an upset when they lose one (though I have lost every one I have been in but two....). 

So what does all this have to do with anything?

Altered expectations. 

My Marauders have faced:

Dwarf Warriors.

Ogre Bulls.

Dark Elf Cold One Knights.

Grail Knights. 

A Hydra.

Dark Elf Repeater Bolt Thrower Crews.

Brettonian Pegasus Knights.

That is a much tougher than expected line-up. I have not yet gotten to go up against the softer enemies like the Goblins or Vampire Counts.

As a result, they have done two things consistently; died in droves and failed to do any damage.

I have yet to face the Goblin horde. I have yet to face the Vampire Counts.

Overall, they SHOULD encounter units they have at least a chance against. However, to this point they have only faced such a unit once (the Dark Elf Repeater Bolt Thrower Crew) and failed to wound in that instance...not a terrifyingly huge statistically upset since I had only about 4 guys attacking.

The Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen, meanwhile, have encountered the Skinks a couple times, the Vampire Counts at least once, Gnoblars, Marauders, and so forth; they have had targets that fall within the realm of what they can expect to damage.

Since I have not encountered units I can expect to damage but he has played a unit with a similar stat line that he has seen do damage, it is natural he would see the Marauders as a viable combat force whereas I, who due to a variety of factors, have only seen them battle units they have no reasonable expectation of damaging, see them as a worse than useless force...particularly in light of the following.

If I take a unit of Marauders that are intended to win a combat, they start adding up in points. 

First off, I know I have to at least partially rely on static combat resolution. That means 5 wide by 4 deep, a minimum of 20 models. However, since they are so fragile and slow, I know they will take casualties so I want at least 5 additional models. So now I am up to 100 points, not a bad number. Next, I am going to take a Mark. One can make an argument for the Mark of Tzeentch to give them some defense against Magic, but I am more inclined to take the Mark of Nurgle which is better than an armor save.**

I am also going to take Light Armor and Shield if I don't know who I am facing since against Skinks, the Vampire Count army, and even Ogres I will have at least some save. I am now up about 160 points or so for a unit that desperately needs the charge to have a solid chance of doing damage against average opponents.

Compare that to a similar points value of Chaos Warriors. 10 Warriors with Full command, Nurgle, and Shield are about 200 points, or about 40 points more, give or take a nickel. However, they figure to do damage to any enemy they encounter and with T4 and a save of 3+/2+ will stand a lot of punishment. 

So for a similar point total, the expectation is completely different. With the Marauders, their damage dealing potential depends on encountering a favorable match-up in opponents whereas with the Warriors they should always do some casualties.

So when I see two units with similar points values but one having the probability of hurting my opponent while the other is likely to just give my opponents some easy points, it is clear why I have such distaste for the Marauders.

The roll of screen is done better by the Warhounds. They both block line of sight, both are cheap, but the Warhounds have a M7 and are Fast Cavalry. The Warriors, meanwhile, can provide the same role as Marauders as a slow, immobile screening unit while still being worth getting into combat at a similar price. Their only disadvantage is starting 2 behind the Marauders in SCR. 

So from the standpoint of looking at my own army list, other than a cheese use for Marauders (10 man units to grab table quarters), I just see other units that do the same job better for similar points. Kind of like taking Forsaken instead of Chaos Warriors :-)

On the bright side, that is further reason to take them. Units like them, the Chaos Spawn, maybe even the Forsaken will be appearing with more regularity. On the other hand, so will the Warshrine and/or Chariot :-)

So what are your expectations for Core Units? Are they capable of dealing damage or are they only good as screens, march blockers, Frenzy charge drawers, and so forth?

* A quick scan shows that in Core Units, about 3.7 is the average. Some armies such as Goblin Armies have 2s, most versions of Elf armies have 4s, Ogres have 3s, Bretonnian Man at Arms have 2s, and so forth. More armies have 4s than otherwise.

** An armor save forces the opponent to make no additional rolls. However, the Mark of Nurgle reduces their odds of striking by 17%, thus meaning they need to make more to-hit rolls to do the same number of wounds and thus have a smaller party of hits that still need to roll to wound. That is worded awkwardly so a quick number crunching.

10 rolls to hit needing 4s expect to hit 50% of the time, or 5 hits. If they wound 50% of the time, 10 shots will wound 2.5 times. Assuming the save is 6+ (Mark of Tzeentch), <1>

However, if it is 1 harder to hit, that same 17% alteration, the 10 shots now hit 3.33 times. Those 3.33 hits now need to hit 50% so approximately 1.8 wounds. 

Marauder versus Repeater Crossbowmen

My brother and I have a long-standing debate. He (a Dark Elf player) thinks equal points of Marauders are more valuable than I ( a Chaos Warrior player) think equal points of Repeater Crossbow unit are worth.

By definition, this is a pointless argument. The points costs don't exist in a vacuum. Here is what Games Workshop says is the best use for R.C.

Warriors with repeater crossbows provide a versatile and reliable bastion of fire for a Dark Elf army. They work well in large units were they form a solid line of fire. Neither unit type can move and fire, so be sure to set them up with good lines of sight in mind. Always equip them with shields, the increased save is useful, especially in combat where they get an additional bonus for hand weapon and shield.

Conversely, the use for Chaos Marauders is this:

The men of the north are natural fighters, born into hardship and brought up in a world where only the strong prosper. Every man is expected to be a tough and capable warrior, independent and fierce. Chaos Marauders fight with heavy axe, blade or flail, and their favourite tactic is to charge in great howling mobs towards the foe.

In the official tactica, they also say Marauders provide "much needed bulk" or something along that line. 

My contention is Marauders as bulk are pointless since they rely exclusively on static combat resolution bonuses to win fights since they are among the worst fighters available. We have not run a statistical model.

There is a serious problem with any statistical model which is one reason I have not bothered to do one until now. They are based on thousands of events whereas a statistical model assumes every individual roll happens exactly the way they should happen over thousands upon thousands of events. Individual events that go strictly according to percentage are actually the anomaly. 

Also, they happen in a vacuum. For example, in the first one I am about to do, I will assume the Dark Elf player is a complete moron who never threatens flank charges or charges with good units that should be protecting their shooters, never moves their Crossbowmen to give them an extra turn or three of shooting with their mobility advantage, and never march blocks. 

I will also assume the Chaos player is a moron who intends the Marauders to win a combat and can come up with no better plan than walking straight forward into a line of Repeater crossbows without any precautions such as a mark of Nurgle or Tzeentch.

For this model I will use the smallest possible sample size and will make the following assumptions. If something happens 50% of the time, I will assume the first time it does not happen (IE, if a shot hits 50% of the time, we will assume it misses the first and hits the second). If it happens once in three times, I will assume it hits the second time.

Marauders cost 4 points, Repeater Crossbows 10. So 2 Crossbows versus 5 Marauders is the statistical model.

So we start 24 inches apart and give the first turn to the Marauders. That should give them every possible advantage and they should win this.

Walk forward 8". 

Shooting 1: 4 shots:Start needing a 3, over half range, multiple shots, they are needing 5s. One of three hits so we will have 1 try to wound, 50%, no wounds first turn.

Walk to 8". 4 shots needing 4s, 2 hits, this time one wound. 4 Marauders left.

Charge. Stand and shoot kills one more, leaving 3 marauders to face 2 Dark Elfs. I have two shots at passing my panic test so I will auto-pass it. Only about 11% of the time will I fail it so 9 of 10 times I make it into close combat.

Close Combat:

3 attacks, needing 50% to hit, 1 hits, have 50% chance to wound, no wounds.Dark Elfs attack back, 50% to hit, 1 hits. Eternal Hatred means re-roll, 50% to hit, to give every possible advantage to the Marauders, we will say it misses.

Round 2

Dark Elfs have Initiative 5 to 4 for the Marauders. 50% hit, no re-roll this time. This is the second of 2 50%, so one Marauder dies. 2 Marauders left. 50% hit, so one hit, this time I kill a Dark Elf who only saves one in 6 times. 

Round 3: Dark Elf attacks first, 50% hit. This is his third attack so he misses. I have 50% to hit, 1 try to wound, wounded last turn so no wounds.

Round 4: Dark Elf hits this time, no wound. I hit once, kill once and win with 2 guys left.

So lets switch the model and make hits/wounds/saves happen on the first event occurrence.

Marauders move to 16".

4 shots, 2 hit. 1 wound. 4 Marauders left.

Marauders move to 8". 4 shots, 2 hit, 1 wound. 3 Marauders left.

Marauders charge, one more dies on the charge, 2 left.

Marauders attack twice, wound once, saved.

Elves attack twice, hit once, re-roll means they hit twice, kill one Marauder. One left, needs to pass break test on a 6 which is 50%. 

Dark Elf attack 2 times, hit once, no wound.

Marauder attacks once, hits, no wound. Takes break test on 7.

Dark Elfs attack twice, wound once.

When the advantages are all Marauder, they have 40% of their force left. When they are all Dark Elf, the Elf ends with 100% of his force left. Of course, an easy split of the 16.6667% chance of save means they only get 50% of their force.

As you can see, with dumb players who don't do any maneuvering, march blocking, flanking, or anything of that nature, it comes down to where the model falls. If the breaks go the Marauder way, they are left with a decimated force that gave up 1/2 points. If the breaks go the Dark Elf way they are left with a fully functional force.

So if you run the model each way the Dark Elf player ends with 15 points for the two games to 10 for the Chaos player and if you run the model a third time, now it is 10 crossbows to 2 marauders.

Of course, this is one reason I think these models are often an exercise in futility. More often you will see one game where the Dark Elf player consistently rolls 1 under the score he needs to hit and when he does hit the wounds do not go through and then the next game he will hit 9 of 10 and wound 8 of 9 or something ridiculous like that. I have been on both ends of those things.

Ultimately, it comes down to play style. 

Marauders in my armies are only useful as screening units. They need to attack with 4 guys against units with no save to expect to do even a single wound. That means I have no confidence in their ability to do damage so their only real uses are as support for Wulfrik or screening purposes.

For screening, Warhounds are better. Costing 2 points more, they are much faster which allows my Knights/Shaggoths/etc to get into combat faster, though they die just as quick and run much easier. 

If Marauders could skirmish they would be worth 6 or 8 points apiece as they are harder to hit, and if they could move and shoot, they would be worth 8 or 10 points apiece. With no range weapon, they are just pointless casualties in my playing style. 

Conversely, in my playing style, line troops who can shoot enemies to ribbons as they come across the field and then be just as good as my screening units in close combat, those I could always find a use for.

Long story short; I have a sneaking suspicion both sides of the debate see this model as proving their point. To me, it clearly shows Marauders are over costed in the Chaos army (though possibly under costed in many other armies) and an equal number of Repeater Crossbowmen is a better value while my disputing party will think it shows his point.

As usual with things that entirely hinge on playing style and knowing your own armies weaknesses...their value is completely subjective. One mans waste of points is another mans gold mines.