Why is chaos horde infighting still a thing?

[Crukih]

So I know this existed back in the day, and for some reason I thought they got rid of it. I just have to ask, why is this still here and what was the intended purpose of it? Especially when you find out you don't get attrition for single entities. On legendary difficulty, the game already incentives you enough to make doom-stacks, now its the only way not to have my armies kill each-other. I've made my second army full of giants, feral manticores and hellcannons just to have some variety instead of 38 dragon ogre shaggoths...

[the commando]

pretty sure the only unit type that suffers from horde infighting is marauder units.

[Aleera]

Originally posted by the commando:

pretty sure the only unit type that suffers from horde infighting is marauder units.

He is correct, only the marauders take infighting damage. Unless you're Sigvald, you shouldn't even recruit them.

[Crukih]

My bad. I thought it was because of single entities. I started as sigvald, rushed to get Kholek and noticed my whole army suffering attrition, so I disbanded everything and just stacked shaggoths.
So with Sigvald buffing marauders, and one of his tech tree abilities actually increasing the upkeep of exalted heroes and sorcerers, your saying that he is EVEN MORE ♥♥♥♥ compared to Kholek and Archaon than I previously thought.

[Ardariel]

Originally posted by Crukih:

My bad. I thought it was because of single entities. I started as sigvald, rushed to get Kholek and noticed my whole army suffering attrition, so I disbanded everything and just stacked shaggoths.
So with Sigvald buffing marauders, and one of his tech tree abilities actually increasing the upkeep of exalted heroes and sorcerers, your saying that he is EVEN MORE ♥♥♥♥ compared to Kholek and Archaon than I previously thought.

It only to prevent you from swarming enemy with low-tier mass armies, thats all. Not a big deal, tbh.

[abyssalfury]

Originally posted by Crukih:

My bad. I thought it was because of single entities. I started as sigvald, rushed to get Kholek and noticed my whole army suffering attrition, so I disbanded everything and just stacked shaggoths.
So with Sigvald buffing marauders, and one of his tech tree abilities actually increasing the upkeep of exalted heroes and sorcerers, your saying that he is EVEN MORE ♥♥♥♥ compared to Kholek and Archaon than I previously thought.

It's more that Sigvald's the early game focused Lord. Pretty much all of his bonuses are about making the early game easier, until you get to the point where you can build your doomstacks and murder everything. I'd say he's honestly far better as a faction leader then Kholek with his garbage faction effects, unless you specifically want to level up Kholek ASAP.

Anyway, attrition is still around because they haven't touched Chaos. It's not like it's the only thing that they could have easily fixed to make Chaos far more enjoyable. But it shouldn't really be that big a deal, unless you're specifically keeping two stacks next to each other or spawning a ton of small armies, how often are you actually dealing with it?

[Crukih]

It's not a deal when strictly playing to win. The thing is, I like to try and spice things up a bit, rather than just auto-resolve everything with doomstacks, I like to build thematic armies. It just seems really strange. I have two armies, one led by kholek at the moment with 18 shaggoths and a mage, all gold chevrons. Archaons is made up of chosen and chaos knights.

I tried summoning sigvald and wanted to see if I could make 3 thematic armies, so tried making him with marauders, chaos warriors and hellcannons. Even though the other 2 armies contain no marauders, those units still suffer attrition. It just seems strange. One of the biggest complaints I and a lot of other people have, is how the meta all resolves around doomstacks and cheesing. I would like to have some marauder horsemen to actually have a ranged option, and also to play into the idea of it being an actual end time army, with hordes of marauders rallying around a small but elite contingent of chosen and monsters. But that's not possible.

It just seems like a really bizarre and outdated mechanic, and I'm not entirely certain what it was even meant to prevent. Spamming low tier armies? I thought the whole horde growth mechanic already sufficiently dealt with that? When I played warhammer 1, because of the way each building increases how much growth is required, I would also delete the marauder building to go straight for chaos warriors. This time around, I tried to play it thematically, and challenge myself with a more gradual power increase, only to find there is yet another mechanic that makes a less optimal strategy even less optimal. It just feels like beating a dead horse.

[Father Ribs]

Attrition in chaos warbands = various champions fighting each other to make larger personal warbands?

[abyssalfury]

Originally posted by Crukih:

It's not a deal when strictly playing to win. The thing is, I like to try and spice things up a bit, rather than just auto-resolve everything with doomstacks, I like to build thematic armies. It just seems really strange. I have two armies, one led by kholek at the moment with 18 shaggoths and a mage, all gold chevrons. Archaons is made up of chosen and chaos knights.

I tried summoning sigvald and wanted to see if I could make 3 thematic armies, so tried making him with marauders, chaos warriors and hellcannons. Even though the other 2 armies contain no marauders, those units still suffer attrition. It just seems strange. One of the biggest complaints I and a lot of other people have, is how the meta all resolves around doomstacks and cheesing. I would like to have some marauder horsemen to actually have a ranged option, and also to play into the idea of it being an actual end time army, with hordes of marauders rallying around a small but elite contingent of chosen and monsters. But that's not possible.

It just seems like a really bizarre and outdated mechanic, and I'm not entirely certain what it was even meant to prevent. Spamming low tier armies? I thought the whole horde growth mechanic already sufficiently dealt with that? When I played warhammer 1, because of the way each building increases how much growth is required, I would also delete the marauder building to go straight for chaos warriors. This time around, I tried to play it thematically, and challenge myself with a more gradual power increase, only to find there is yet another mechanic that makes a less optimal strategy even less optimal. It just feels like beating a dead horse.

Fair enough. I don't think anyone would argue for it being a good mechanic.

As for it's purpose, outside of flavour....only thing I can really think of it that they wanted Chaos to be the doomstack army, and that you'd only spawn a new horde when you could give them a decent army rather than having them follow around daddy until it gets to a decent level. Which only really works if everyone else doesn't play the same way.

[funkmonster7]

I always roll with Archaon. When I can churn out Chaos Warriors while Empire is still using Swordsmen, I just roflstomp all over them. But I haven't played WoC in a long time... their campaign really sucks. Ironically I completed their campaign in WH1 because it was easy to do so.

[Arthur two sheds Jackson]

infighting make no sense, why it only affect warrior of chaos, kinda inconsistent...an obselete feature that belong to the past, thats the first thing they will get rid of in a rework

[☸𝕵𝖔☸]

Btw you can start with sigvald and kick him for kholek when the horde level is 5 and you have the dragon ogres building.

Then 5 turn later you just recruit sigvald again, give him back his high ranked marauders, and start recruiting shaggoths/dragon ogres with Kholek.