PDA

View Full Version : Strength 4 bloodletters?



Pages : [1] 2

GrandmasterWang
07-11-2012, 07:53
Blood letters are one of the best core troops in the game, with high movement, initiative and killing blow.

At 12 pts a pop, a lot of people are predicting a big nerf in the next daemon book.

I was wondering how people would feel about them if they were strength 4 armor piercing but everything else was the same? Too strong still, too weak? Would you field them, fear them?

I feel that strength 5 is just too much for them. I mean it made sense with the old beefy metal models, but the new weedy plastics while looking great dont really convey a sense of strength imo.

Would dropping them to strength 4 with armor piercing be a nerf too far without a pts drop? I think they would still be solid core troops, matching up well with 11 pt special greatswords and the like. With killing blow and ws 5 they would still have utility and not encroach on the other dieties specialities.

DaemonprincePaul
07-11-2012, 08:27
I would still use them but i wouldnt care about them as much. I really dont see the problem with strength 5 tbh.

Rosstifer
07-11-2012, 08:30
They could make them S3 with Great Weapons I suppose. Or just hike up the points. Or leave them as is. You never can tell with GW.

ArtificerArmour
07-11-2012, 08:33
You see, this is actually a big issue.

What I think gw will do is keep them the same but increase them to 15pt. Too much, I think youll agree, but this is gw and Bletters have had alot of flack over 5 years.

Other possibilities but keeping at 12pt

Drop to st 3/4, and give great weapons (no!)
Make movement 3/4
Drop inititive.
Drop killing blow and/or keep it on heralds.
Drop hatred locus (doubtful)

AP is a slaanesh gimmick so i doubt would be used. But changes to bletters will affect crushers too

Scammel
07-11-2012, 08:33
S4 with AP seems fair for the cost, having S5 whilst striking in I order, hitting most of the game on 3s in addition to a decent, unmodifiable save and unbreakable is very good for what you pay.

GrandmasterWang
07-11-2012, 08:50
Yeah, I threw in the ap to keep their armor midifier the same. As they have always been good vs high armor stuff so wouldnt want to remove that entirely

Re: the strength 5, that is the same as an ogre bruiser/ varghulf/ hydra etc. Besides flamers I cant think of any weedy models with such a high strength and flamers have now been fixed (regarding their strength, relax Daemonreign haha). I could see them going to 15 pts actually. Didnt they use to cost that much back in the day?

ArtificerArmour
07-11-2012, 08:59
Gw have always tried to keep lesser daemons costing the same across the board in fantasy. 40k is a different kettle of fish.

I think the other daemons are balanced for 12pts. But bletters could probbly lose killing blow and/or -1m and still be competative for 12pt.

jtrowell
07-11-2012, 09:05
S3 with great weapon would probably be the best way to balance them better, and even then they would still look very good compared to Empire greatswords for exemple.

The only flaw is that it would reinforce the urge to play then as horde or at least large blocs, while striking in initiative would allow for small support units.

RanaldLoec
07-11-2012, 09:06
I could see bloodletters remaining unchanged but with a points increase.

When you compare bloodletters with chaos warriors (in my opinion the most powerful core choice in the game due to the options open on top of the killer stats) I think there is room for a points increase and allowing the bletters to keep there st5.

sninsch
07-11-2012, 09:35
S3 with great weapon would probably be the best way to balance them better, and even then they would still look very good compared to Empire greatswords for exemple.

The only flaw is that it would reinforce the urge to play then as horde or at least large blocs, while striking in initiative would allow for small support units.

From fluff perspective it feels wrong to give them S3, come on this are lesser daemons from the god of war. They should keep a bigger strength than humans and elves. I think one point more or the loss of the locus ability(keep it as an upgrade for the heralds) would be the right way.

xxRavenxx
07-11-2012, 09:53
Perhaps Drop to S4, and allow the purchase of ensorcelled weapons for extra points? That gives them customisation, which is nice, along with fixing some of the issue.

DaemonReign
07-11-2012, 10:02
In my opinion Bloodletters are currently 'worth' 13pts/model.
And yes with that in mind I fully expect GW to put them at at least 14pts/model because they're an old model that already repaid production-costs etcetera.. And well it's just best to assume Daemons will be nerfed as though we're still playing 7th Edition - just to soften the dissappointment. Daemons in 40k and Fantasy are basically very likely to trade places in terms of general competativeness when the new book(s) come out. That's a shame but I've got a home edition of Fantasy DoC that is acutely balanced so it won't effect me personally.

S4 Armour Piercing with Killing Blow and no other Changes to the profile. Not a bad idea. Not as 'on point' as simply making them 13pts (with S5), in my opinion. I'm not sure 12pts is really fair if we're talking S4 either.
Don't really Think there's anything wrong with their current profile (save for the 1 Point discount).
If we're gonna nerf 'Letters I would also drop the cost of 'Nettes (again: by a Point) and Horrors need a new set of spells (for starters) Before they even begin to reach 12pts in actual value again.
Plaguebearers are fine though - which is ironic because it wouldn't surprice me if they actually get better now that we just got a new plastic kit. *haha*

Giving them Great Weapons is horrible idea that I would ignore completely. [Meaning it's one of those things that might actually make me not even buy the new book..]

RanaldLoec
07-11-2012, 10:46
In my opinion Bloodletters are currently 'worth' 13pts/model.
And yes with that in mind I fully expect GW to put them at at least 14pts/model because they're an old model that already repaid production-costs etcetera.. And well it's just best to assume Daemons will be nerfed as though we're still playing 7th Edition - just to soften the dissappointment. Daemons in 40k and Fantasy are basically very likely to trade places in terms of general competativeness when the new book(s) come out. That's a shame but I've got a home edition of Fantasy DoC that is acutely balanced so it won't effect me personally.

S4 Armour Piercing with Killing Blow and no other Changes to the profile. Not a bad idea. Not as 'on point' as simply making them 13pts (with S5), in my opinion. I'm not sure 12pts is really fair if we're talking S4 either.
Don't really Think there's anything wrong with their current profile (save for the 1 Point discount).
If we're gonna nerf 'Letters I would also drop the cost of 'Nettes (again: by a Point) and Horrors need a new set of spells (for starters) Before they even begin to reach 12pts in actual value again.
Plaguebearers are fine though - which is ironic because it wouldn't surprice me if they actually get better now that we just got a new plastic kit. *haha*

Giving them Great Weapons is horrible idea that I would ignore completely. [Meaning it's one of those things that might actually make me not even buy the new book..]

agreed demons don't get weapon options they get demonic gifts.

I find the units in the demon book quite stale as they have no variety in armament.

I think it would interesting too see demonic gift options for units.

Eg demonettes: multiple limb horrors 1pt the model gains the extra attack rule.

Bloodletters: hellglaives 2pts the model gains +1st when rolling to wound.

Obviously I've made these up on the spot so I'm not saying there a fair points value but giving demons access to halberds, great weapons, extra hand weapons doesn't seem right as they don't have access to items and equipment like other armies and that's a unique point that I think should be kept.

someone2040
07-11-2012, 10:50
My honest oppinion is they should be strength 4 with a weapon that gives them +1 strength (like ensorcelled weapons).

When there are models like Kroxigors in the game that are only strength 4, and hell, beefcake Saurus and Chaos Warriors are only strength 4 as well. No way Bloodletters deserve to be strength 5 base.
In the end, it only make a minor difference really (As the only strength based test that comes to mind is dwellers), but I think it works better that way.

Fear Ghoul
07-11-2012, 11:38
I would make Bloodletters S4 and T4 with killing blow for 12 pts. Seems reasonable to me and a fair representation of their abilities. Having a core unit with S5 just seems wrong to me.

Rake
07-11-2012, 11:41
If you use the Empire GS (to remove the character synergy both have with hatred) as a base what you are getting for 2 more points is simply beastly.

+1 Movement was very important in the old edition. Much less so in this one but still nice. Maybe 1/2 a point?

+1 WS is an absolute must for elites today given that almost all elite units (barring ogres, lizards and orcs and Empire) have it. Easily worth 1 point.
Then we come to the FIRST contentious point:

S5. Granted both have strength 5. One hits on initiative 4 (behind elites ahead of core) the other LAST. Key distinction here. ill be nice here and make this be worth 1 point

Then you also have unstable VS stubborn = What would you rather loose to an unlucky roll: the whole unit or a few models? another point

We also have killing blow. Nice perk vs heavy (1+ )armor and fantastic vs characters. Given the new monstrous cavalry fetish reigning in GW this will be a real strength. again ill be nice and call this 1/2 a point. I think it should be a whole point but what the hell.

And finally we come to the ward save. Ward save is hands down better than an armor save one point higher. A LOT better. 1 point

If they keep the same mentality as in the last few books expect the daemons to get hit with the nerf. I would expect Bloodletters to be costed at 15 for the new edition. The problem is that GW lacks the imagination to think outside the box and realize that Bloodletters should be worth MORE than than the other types of daemons in a medieval setting where HTH rules the day. If they try to keep the costs the same, expect gross mistakes, especially if combined with GW unavoidable (but better this edition).

theunwantedbeing
07-11-2012, 11:41
I feel that strength 5 is just too much for them. I mean it made sense with the old beefy metal models, but the new weedy plastics while looking great dont really convey a sense of strength imo.

They're Daemons, just because it looks a bit weedy it doesn't mean it is.

Also, plenty of things are strength 4/5 and they vary wildly in size.
Inner circle knights for example, are just humans and yet they are the same strength as ogres are, despite ogres having arms the same size as those inner circle knights.

Nothing wrong with them being st5 if you ask me.

Rake
07-11-2012, 11:41
If you use the Empire GS (to remove the character synergy both have with hatred) as a base what you are getting for 2 more points is simply beastly.

+1 Movement was very important in the old edition. Much less so in this one but still nice. Maybe 1/2 a point?

+1 WS is an absolute must for elites today given that almost all elite units (barring ogres, lizards and orcs and Empire) have it. Easily worth 1 point.
Then we come to the FIRST contentious point:

S5. Granted both have strength 5. One hits on initiative 4 (behind elites ahead of core) the other LAST. Key distinction here. ill be nice here and make this be worth 1 point

Then you also have unstable VS stubborn = What would you rather loose to an unlucky roll: the whole unit or a few models? another point

We also have killing blow. Nice perk vs heavy (1+ )armor and fantastic vs characters. Given the new monstrous cavalry fetish reigning in GW this will be a real strength. again ill be nice and call this 1/2 a point. I think it should be a whole point but what the hell.

And finally we come to the ward save. Ward save is hands down better than an armor save one point higher. A LOT better. 1 point

If they keep the same mentality as in the last few books expect the daemons to get hit with the nerf. I would expect Bloodletters to be costed at 15 for the new edition. The problem is that GW lacks the imagination to think outside the box and realize that Bloodletters should be worth MORE than than the other types of daemons in a medieval setting where HTH rules the day. If they try to keep the costs the same, expect gross mistakes, especially if combined with GW unavoidable (but better this edition).

The Low King
07-11-2012, 12:55
Ive never had too much of a problem with them, 15 points would definatly be too much....
Losing killing blow or going to strength 4 would make them fine for 12 points in my veiw.

Haravikk
07-11-2012, 12:55
I think Strength 4 with the weapon option to increase to Strength 5 should do it. Killing Blow already means they can potentially ignore armour so Armour Piercing doesn't seem important, and with a lower Strength as they are they can justify staying the same cost so it's up to you if you take a big block of Strength 4's, or a smaller unit of Strength 5's as heavy hitters.

Fear Ghoul
07-11-2012, 14:02
They're Daemons, just because it looks a bit weedy it doesn't mean it is.

Also, plenty of things are strength 4/5 and they vary wildly in size.
Inner circle knights for example, are just humans and yet they are the same strength as ogres are, despite ogres having arms the same size as those inner circle knights.

Nothing wrong with them being st5 if you ask me.

My problem with S5 on Bloodletters is that it puts them in the same S category as Chaos Lords and Vampire Lords, which seems wrong. S4 and T4 seems more appropriate.

DaemonReign
07-11-2012, 14:27
My problem with S5 on Bloodletters is that it puts them in the same S category as Chaos Lords and Vampire Lords, which seems wrong. S4 and T4 seems more appropriate.

I don't find the S5 problematic at all.
Mortal Lords of other races can take Great Weapons etcetera.
Look at the Daemonic Lords - compare their Strength to their respective minions and it's pretty much the same as between a Skeleton and a Vampire Lord..
Anyway - sure if we increase Bloodletter's Toughness to 4 then we can drop Strength to 4 and still have a unit that is well-worth 12pts and probably a bit more. They become very, very, well-rounded if you do that.
I wouldn't mess with their Toughness. In fact, I wouldn't mess with them at all save for bumping their cost to 13pts. ;)

@ RanaldLoec
Yep. Mundane Equipment is not Daemonic. It should be all about Gifts, or Gift-like traits.
Just cause you mention this bit, I'll give you an example from the rule-set I've been playtesting for the last year:

Bloodletters 13pts/model
Options:
1. Blessing of the Bloodgod +1pts/model: MR2
2. Battlehardened +2pts/per model: Heavy Armour (5+ AS)

Daemonettes 11 pts/model
Options:
1. Furious +1pts/ per model: Every '6' rolled To Hit doubles the Hit.
2. Supernatural Sprint +2pts/ per model: Unit and joined characters are subject to the Swiftstride Special Rule.

Plaguebearers 12pts/model
Options:
1. Cloud of flies +2pts per model: Opponent gets -1 to hit with melee attacks.
2. Nurgle's Rot +2 points/model: Every model in base contact with the unit at the start of each round of Close combat takes a wound on the roll of a 6, allowing no armour saves. *As per Gift*

Horrors 12 pts/model
* Stats/Special Rules unchanged from current Book.
Options:
1. Crackling Explosions, 1 point/model = When a Horror is slain in close combat it deals an automatic Flaming Hit on which-ever model killed it, using its own Strength value at the time of its demise. Note that casualties caused by Instability does not cause such Hits.
2. Windcatchers, 1 pts/model = In each friendly Magic Phase this unit of Horrors may Channel Power Dice per 'Size-Level' (i.e. 1-4) instead of just once. Note that the Windcatchers upgrade has no effect for purpose of Channeling Dispel Dice.

So as you can see Bloodletters have been 'nerfed' both in the sense of a slight increase to cost, but also by not really having upgrades that are all that great.. Both the "Battlehardened" and "Blessing of the BloodGod" upgrades are kind of situational - where-as Daemonettes, Plaguebearers, and Horrors all have upgrades that are much harder to stay away from when you make your Army List.
It should also be noted, of course, that the Lore of Tzeentch has been refitted into a proper 8th Edition Magic Lore - with respect to the Pink Horror Magic Chart - because as I said earlier that's an integral part of why Horrors are costing 12pts still.

This Little list of Changes might not look as much at first glance. There's a myriad of ideas that could be implemented instead, of course - but in the various games I've played using this Army List it's been a true delight to work with the new dynamic that these options allow. The net-result is also that almost Everything becomes more expensive in the end, even for the units where we did not raise the cost of the base models - because it's just hard to refrain from tampering with those upgrades.

It's something like this I would like to see in a real AB. And - truth be told - if GW doesn't impress me next year I'll just keep using these "houserules". :)

Jadawin
07-11-2012, 15:01
From my experience against Bloodletters the main problem is the locus ability giving them hatred. This is a PITA with models with such high stats to begin with, and if I am honest would be the only thing I would like to see changed. I think that the locus ability should give them frenzy instead, which of course has a positive and negative side.


@Daemonreign: interesting house rules, the "cloud of flies" for your Plaguebearers seems a little nasty, only 2 points for -1 to hit is a little cheap IMHO, but from your previous posts I know that your group plays warhammer on the scale it should be played;). So it probably balances out.

Malorian
07-11-2012, 16:38
I think they are fine. I was just change the locus to frenzy rather than hatred.

GiraffeCrab
07-11-2012, 16:53
Would it be an idea to give them the berserk rage rule? Emphasise the fury and the rage of blood letters without them gaining extra attacks or loosing strength? If plague bearers and furies are strength 4 then I would assume that a blood-letter would be a bit stronger than both of them.

Edit: I always thought that high levels of attacks was a slaanesh thing same with armour piercing. It would be a bit lame to give blood letters the same number of attacks as daemonettes or to increase the attacks of daemonettes any more.

ArtificerArmour
07-11-2012, 16:58
I think "hatred" doesnt suit them. They dont hate anyone - if anything they respect worthy foes. Frenzy or adfitional attack would suit them better.

Wesser
07-11-2012, 17:08
Indeed I still get surprised that they aint frenzied...

As for what they should cost... they're easily on a level with White Lions and even have benefits beyond that (core....). I'll throw it out there. As they are now Bloodletters would still be a steal at 15 pts..

Seriously the unit has no weaknesses. Daemonettes still struggle with the heaviest of armour or high toughness while plaguebearers don't work well against numerically big units. Bloodletters are great against everyone with no exploitable weaknesses. Sure with a big volume volume of shooty hits and/or dropping hordes of cheap troops on them you'll eventually wear them down as they mercifully only have T3, but when you're likely to meet more than one horde of these guys it gets icky...

Taken as a whole Bloodletters is probably the most overpowered thing in fantasy for its points.

Fear Ghoul
07-11-2012, 17:12
I think "hatred" doesnt suit them. They dont hate anyone - if anything they respect worthy foes. Frenzy or adfitional attack would suit them better.

They are magical avatars of the God of Hatred...

ArtificerArmour
07-11-2012, 17:27
They are magical avatars of the God of Hatred...

Anger. Martial prowess. Honour. Yet they dont have frenzy. They dont have to challenge.

Beastmen hate the world. They deserve hatred.

You could go on to argue since everyonw fights everyone everyone would hate everyone.

Dont get me wrong, hatreds a good mechanic. But bletters dont need it. Nor killing blow. They should have one or the other, not both.

Majinmonkey
07-11-2012, 17:41
Yeah if anything, I've heard of Khorne as the fairest of the chaos gods, he values strength and martial prowess, and looks down on politics, lust, and emotional things.

And by look down I mean smite with his big ol' fist.

So saying that bletters are honorable might not be strictly true, but I do agree that emotion is something beyond them, thus hated as well.

Maoriboy007
07-11-2012, 18:45
Does 13 points for bloodletters (as they are) still sound too cheap to anyone else? I mean thats the cost of a GW Grave Guard with less WS movement initiative and ASL, GG get +1 str (a marginal difference in most cases) but the Bloodletters are a core unit that get steadfast and a ward save as well.

decker_cky
07-11-2012, 19:00
Compared to units in 8th edition armybooks, Bloodletters as they currently stand would be 14 pts IMO. I think GW should really rethink (eg, remove) the locuses though. Like with marks, it makes sense to charge abilities per model rather than per unit. The only units that are comparable value are 7th edition books, which seem to be getting ignored in terms of value for 8th edition books.

Askari
07-11-2012, 19:13
Does 13 points for bloodletters (as they are) still sound too cheap to anyone else? I mean thats the cost of a GW Grave Guard with less WS movement initiative and ASL, GG get +1 str (a marginal difference in most cases) but the Bloodletters are a core unit that get steadfast and a ward save as well.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but Grave Guard also have +1 Toughness and can be brought back to life incredibly quickly.

DaemonReign
07-11-2012, 19:24
Comparing them to Graveguard has other variables.. Smaller base footprint, replenished in the magic phase, synergies with Deep & cheap stuff like zombies and skellies that don't exist for Daemons.
14pts wouldn't be the end of the World for Bloodletters. It's a Point more than is necessary to balance them but manageable.
We raised the cost of Heralds to account for Locus effecting generally bigger units in 8th. Works too..

EDIT
Oh yeah.. Askari is right.. Graveguard are Toughness 4.. It's actually them that are undercosted compared to Bloodletters. ;)

Malorian
07-11-2012, 19:29
Does 13 points for bloodletters (as they are) still sound too cheap to anyone else? I mean thats the cost of a GW Grave Guard with less WS movement initiative and ASL, GG get +1 str (a marginal difference in most cases) but the Bloodletters are a core unit that get steadfast and a ward save as well.

The ability to be raised back from the dead is obviously a big difference...

Edit: ninja'd

decker_cky
07-11-2012, 19:31
IMO even for elite units, unstable + reviving isn't as good as daemonic instability.

Vipoid
07-11-2012, 19:36
Seriously the unit has no weaknesses. Daemonettes still struggle with the heaviest of armour or high toughness while plaguebearers don't work well against numerically big units. Bloodletters are great against everyone with no exploitable weaknesses. Sure with a big volume volume of shooty hits and/or dropping hordes of cheap troops on them you'll eventually wear them down as they mercifully only have T3, but when you're likely to meet more than one horde of these guys it gets icky...

I think the problem is that the closest thing the squad has to a weakness is T3, and that can only be properly exploited by certain armies - i.e. ones with either lots of ranged attacks (archers, crossbowmen etc.) or, armies with fast (I5+) units, which can at least damage the squad before it gets to swing. And, even then, they still have a 5+ ward save against your attacks.


Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but Grave Guard also have +1 Toughness and can be brought back to life incredibly quickly.

As someone who made the mistake of letting a horde of bloodletters get into combat with a horde of grave guard, I assure you they can't be brought back quickly enough... :cries:

liddan
07-11-2012, 19:58
Bloodletters is kind of a weird core unit. Very offensive but also very squishy for 12 pts. They have a mathematical advantage against many hardy special and rare units while they have a mathematical disadvantage against many cheap core units which can produce more attacks back. Perhaps high elf spearmen should also be in the underpriced section aswell but they have an advantage over bloodletters. Of course bloodletters have some advantage of being daemonic and kb against some enemies but in the plain numbers game.

RanaldLoec
07-11-2012, 22:16
Bloodletters are good but I've seen them suffer vs big blocks of orcs, empire halberdiers, chaos marauders.

There good but that toughness of 3 and 1 attack each means they do suffer some what vs cheap st4 units and quick multiple attack or rerolls like darkelves, highelves, demonettes.

They hit hard and fast but there not over powered just a little too cheap like greatweapon mok marauders.

DaemonReign
07-11-2012, 23:35
There good but that toughness of 3 and 1 attack each means they do suffer some what vs cheap st4 units and quick multiple attack or rerolls like darkelves, highelves, demonettes.

They hit hard and fast but there not over powered just a little too cheap like greatweapon mok marauders.

Very good summary. I wanted to say earlier that if Bloodletters are 'the most op unit in the game' then we got problems because Savage Orcs with two hand weapons, Witch Elves, and a decently set up line of Empire troops are ALL more than a match for someone who's just shuffling a couple of hordes of 'letters over the table.

I sincerely think they reason people are talking about nerfing them heavily, or increasing their cost to elven-elite-levels (which is nuts!) is because their daemons.. .. as the old saying goes..
Not just trauma over the end of 7th Edition, nor simpleminded prejudice, but as I keep saying about Daemons people usually tend to strike down on the wrong things when talking about 'how op' they are.
Bloodletters are great, but what makes Daemons potentially crazy is stuff like the Despair Icon, Master of Sorcery, Locus, and such details that simply cost HALF of what they should cost..
Those are the kind of things we fixed in the little rewrite I'm using, and while we added other things to add variety and depth (which essentially made things more 'fun') I suddenly had a much harder time beating every one of the races in our group.
It's easy to jump on what's right in-front of you.. but that's not always where the real culprits are.. Just saying..

And I would take GG any day over Bloodletters. Was completely startled by Grave Guard not becoming more expensive with the latest VC book, because they deserved that just as much as 'letters and instead they essentially got a point cheaper.. :eyebrows:

GrandmasterWang
08-11-2012, 02:55
Spare a thought for the poor 13 pt tomb guard with halberds.

I like the idea of letters being strength 4 with the hellblade option giving 1 strength. Removes the disassociation of them being naturally as strong as a daemon prince.

I quite like those changes to all daemonreign. Good fluffy options. As someone who plays quite often with a whole slew of house rules I like your groups style.

I think one of the big reasons so many feel letters are op is their access to hatred. Without rerolls they are still vey fearsome but the 1 attack only becomes much more of a drawback.

DaemonReign
08-11-2012, 04:03
I'd be ok with S4 base and adding to the 'Hellblade'-description that it grants "+1S & KB".
I'd still put that at 13pts though.

Encorcelled weapons is a WoC (Mortal) thing though. So I wouldn't call them that exactly.

The Hatred... Well I'm just used to it by now, I guess.. Again: Currently those "horde o' 'Letters" are getting that Hatred too cheaply, and if Daemons (instead) paid an appropriate amount of points for their stuff things actually add up quite quickly and limit them - without the need for going wild with nerfing on anything specific.
Like these houserules I refer to:
13pts Bloodletters means a Horde is +40 points for me usually (edit: well, make that 120pts 'cause I'm a sucker for the 'Battlehardened' upgrade), and the Herald is 10 more or something like that.. and when you stack up stuff like the equivalent of MoS being 50pts (etcetera) you quickly get a much smaller 'force' on the table compared to using the official rules. On the flip-side, you can still go for higher model count but that means foregoing a lot of the nasty toys that are so very discounted presently.

Glad you like some of those revisions. I made them together with an "international team" over at the Daemonic Legion Forum. My private gaming group just let's me use them instead of the official book, and honestly I think at this point they really prefer that I do so it's really a win-win situation (even though I lose much more often.. *lol*)

EDIT
When I say I'm a sucker for those armoured Bloodletters I mean that in a big way..
Made this little unit of converted Armoured Bloodletters directly inspired by this 'upgrade':
157140
157141
157142
.. and I know this ain't a damn painting-section of the forum but I wanted to show these pics to underscore how 'serious' I've been about this project.. because there are fan-made re-writes all over the place and frankly we set out with quite high standards..

Nubl0
08-11-2012, 04:20
I feel the current stat line does bloodletters justice from a fluff point while not being too crazy. I would just bump them to 14pts and be done with it. I'm more interested what they do to make bloodcrushers seem less terrible in comparison to the new skullcrushers. No mere mortal cab should be that much better than its daemon counterpart.

DaemonReign
08-11-2012, 04:40
@ Nubl0: In 'my own rules' we revamped Bloodcrushers as such:
*Same PointCost as now*
- Killing Blow removed from Juggernaut Attacks.
- Juggernauts have 3 wounds.
- May take Icon costing <50pts. (Yes, we added some Icons too..)
- We also moved them to the Special Section and made them 2+ unit size.
- As an aside they have the same upgrades that Bloodletters have (Battlehardened is 10pts, not 2pts as for Bloodletters, for example).

With respect to what GW will do officially, in light of the Skullcrusher-rules (and the fact that Juggers have always been basically identical save for Special Rules in WoC and DoC) I think the safest bet is to conclude that Bloodcrushers (daemonic Juggernauts) will also get T5 - and if that is the ONLY change bestowed on the unit then an unchanged pointcost would seem quite appropriate. +1T or +1W is a pretty similar buff.
I also really suspect that Bloodcrushers are moving to Special, but that might just be me.. I think they should anyway.

And there's of course the question of the 'new kit creep' where Bloodcrushers might not be treated as kindly as Skullcrushers simply by virtue of not being new. We'll see about that I guess..

Lord Dan
08-11-2012, 06:17
S3 with great weapons is the way to go.

Sh4d0w
08-11-2012, 09:12
To the people saying S3 with great weapons..........NO NO NO NO NO NO, you are honestly telling me you think that a bloodletter would be as physically strong as a human or elf? NO. To the people that said Str 4 with hellblade for +1 strength now this is a much better option.

Maoriboy007
08-11-2012, 09:14
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but Grave Guard also have +1 Toughness and can be brought back to life incredibly quickly.I'll grant you the +1 toughness, although the Bloodletters are somewhat insulated from damage themselves by thier highter weaponskill and ward save, and come with plenty of other advantages over Graveguard. Taking for granted that raising is in effect a spell, and you could just as easily be saying that bloodletters can raise thier toughness or lower thier enemies toughness strength or weaponskill, I've found in my experience that raising is somewhat overated in this edition, I generally I use most dice to try and keep undead troops from merely sucking and find raising to be a soft counter to how bad instability is this edition.


Comparing them to Graveguard has other variables..Graveguard are a good solid troop type, one of the better ones available to all armies which is why I've compared them to Bloodletters, but with the exception of toughness (and a ward save would balancve that out IMO), it just seems to me that Bloodletters are just more awesome right across the board. Even taking into account Graveguard being able to take great weapons, there is at least an element of sacrifice, having to give up armour and parry saves and what little intitiative they have in combat to get that strength bonus, so why are Bloodletters apparantly "fine"as they are getting all the benefits of high strength and initiative movement weaponskill wards etc. while being comperably cheaper and a core unit? How about Bestigors, another equally priced special unit, Bloodletters still come out on top as far as I can tell.


Smaller base footprintIsn'tThe larger Base size actually better against template attacks and fitting in those cavalry mounts into units, making it an advantage? larger base sizes are generall more a disadvantage for large monsters and the like as far as I can tell.


replenished in the magic phaseI've gone over the benefits of a magic phase earlier in the post, but its not like Demons don't have access to the Lore of life or any other equally potent spell lores. Vampires have a very good solid lore, which is no more an advantage or disadvantage to any army with access to a relatively potent magic phase, a case could be made that the undeads dependance to magic can be exploited as a weakness.


synergies with Deep & cheap stuff like zombies and skellies that don't exist for Daemons.Do Grave Guard have synergies with skeletons and Zombies who in nearly any situation are a liability in combat for elite undead units? Unless the combat is already sewn up or the situation extremely desperate Grave Guard and undead Core units rarely mix well. I'm not saying that such things don't happen but undead core are not an advantage of GG. Bloodletters are core, you can support bloodlettes with core consisting of...Bloodletters! And demons have thier own synergies although less suble, Tzeench provide range attacks and magic power, slaneesh give speed and disruption , Khorne a sharp stick, Nurgle have somewhat fallen off in this edition but maybe a rework will fix them I don't know. Demons core isn't exactly bad for the most part, even in 8th, what demons need is a new undivided core type, a cheap nasty pleb demon perhaps as army filler.


14pts wouldn't be the end of the World for Bloodletters. It's a Point more than is necessary to balance them but manageable.
We raised the cost of Heralds to account for Locus effecting generally bigger units in 8th. Works too..As they are now 14-15 opints is merely fair for Bloodletters rather than overpointed, thier awesome statline alone would justify it, leat alone ward saves demonic instability and the like


EDITOh yeah.. Askari is right.. Graveguard are Toughness 4.. It's actually them that are undercosted compared to Bloodletters. ;) If it wasn't for how much real instability penalises them in this edition I'd agree with you ;) although low WS and Inititative doesn't help.


I think the problem is that the closest thing the squad has to a weakness is T3, and that can only be properly exploited by certain armies - i.e. ones with either lots of ranged attacks (archers, crossbowmen etc.) or, armies with fast (I5+) units, which can at least damage the squad before it gets to swing. And, even then, they still have a 5+ ward save against your attacks.
As someone who made the mistake of letting a horde of bloodletters get into combat with a horde of grave guard, I assure you they can't be brought back quickly enough... :cries:Yeah, although a lot of armies actually have a majority of tougness 3 troops I find.


There good but that toughness of 3 and 1 attack each means they do suffer some what vs cheap st4 units and quick multiple attack or rerolls like darkelves, highelves, demonettes..That goes for most armies though, but with Demonic instability , great stat line and a ward, Bloodletters are probably a lot better off than most.

They hit hard and fast but there not over powered just a little too cheap like greatweapon mok marauders.I still think they're more than a little too cheap, lets clear the air, Graveguard are a damned fine heavy infantry unit. Why are they worth their points? Good armour, High strength and very good toughness. Why don't they cost more? well they are unstable for a start, yes you can raise them with magic, but you can kill them with magic just as easily too or buff your own troops with it , I'd call that even. For an elite troop the rest of thier stats range from poor to average. Compare that to what you get for a bloodletter , you get a ward instead of armour , all your stats are higher (without a GW upgrade) better instability and you get it in a core choice.


Very good summary. I wanted to say earlier that if Bloodletters are 'the most op unit in the game' then we got problems because Savage Orcs with two hand weapons, Witch Elves, and a decently set up line of Empire troops are ALL more than a match for someone who's just shuffling a couple of hordes of 'letters over the table..Bloodletters might not be the most OP unit in the game but they would probably make the top 5. Savage orcs come with a host of problems, low Ld animosity and frenzy among them. Witch elves are nasty I'll grant you, they die easy but take a lot down with them.


I sincerely think they reason people are talking about nerfing them heavily, or increasing their cost to elven-elite-levels (which is nuts!) is [i]because their daemons..[/i .. as the old saying goes....No tin this case. Demonettes Plaguebearers and even Horrors are all demons, and most prevalent opinions seem to say that they all need improvement , price drops or at the least an overhaul, but bloodletters are easily as good as those elven elites that you mentioned, so why shouldn't they cost as much? Just sayin is all.


Not just trauma over the end of 7th Edition, nor simpleminded prejudice, but as I keep saying about Daemons people usually tend to strike down on the wrong things when talking about 'how op' they are.
Bloodletters are great, but what makes Daemons potentially crazy is stuff like the Despair Icon, Master of Sorcery, Locus, and such details that simply cost HALF of what they should cost..
Those are the kind of things we fixed in the little rewrite I'm using, and while we added other things to add variety and depth (which essentially made things more 'fun') I suddenly had a much harder time beating every one of the races in our group.....Well It is dependant on what demons keep in thier next incarnations, but with the letters its an excellent statline great break system and ward save that make them brutal, when you add in the other stuff they start to get insane.


It's easy to jump on what's right in-front of you.. but that's not always where the real culprits are.. Just saying.. True enough, but you have to give something, I keep hearing that Bloodletters are fine as they are or would be overcosted with a points increase. , thats simply not the case.


And I would take GG any day over Bloodletters. SOLD! I take you up on your offer sir....


Was completely startled by Grave Guard not becoming more expensive with the latest VC book,Actually I was myself


because they deserved that just as much as 'letters ,Debatable really.


and instead they essentially got a point cheaper.. :eyebrows: The difference being that while bloodletters actually got better in the new edition, Graveguard got noticably worse. Instability is more of a penalty in this edition, Undead get none of the new combat resolution bonus' and increased importance of stats like initiative mean little for them. Loss of items like the Helm and Drakenhof banner were far more vital to them than similar items for Demons , a less reliable magic phase. The same just doesn't hold true for demons. If Demons ewre to lose thier ward save or demonic instability, as well as some of the more broken items, then yes bloodletters could probably stay at the same price, but you cant expect to have everything really.


To the people saying S3 with great weapons..........NO NO NO NO NO NO, you are honestly telling me you think that a bloodletter would be as physically strong as a human or elf? NO. To the people that said Str 4 with hellblade for +1 strength now this is a much better option.Not much of a sacrifice on behalf of the demon players if you ask me, what would be the point?


S3 with great weapons is the way to go.Loss of theie initiative order would at least be some kind of sacrifice.

Juicy21
08-11-2012, 09:21
I think strengt 4 fits them very well!, a bit stronger then a human/elf but not stronger then an ogre. atm strengt 5 feels wrong for me.. I like the idea with the weapons giving them +1 strengt tho.

Vipoid
08-11-2012, 10:22
I think strengt 4 fits them very well!, a bit stronger then a human/elf but not stronger then an ogre. atm strengt 5 feels wrong for me.. I like the idea with the weapons giving them +1 strengt tho.

So, basically the sacrifice you're suggesting to make Bloodletters more reasonable is to reduce their strength by 1... and then give them a free weapon that increases it back up to 5, with no penalties. :eyebrows:

Fear Ghoul
08-11-2012, 10:34
Does 13 points for bloodletters (as they are) still sound too cheap to anyone else? I mean thats the cost of a GW Grave Guard with less WS movement initiative and ASL, GG get +1 str (a marginal difference in most cases) but the Bloodletters are a core unit that get steadfast and a ward save as well.

Yes. At 13 pts a unit of Bloodletters with hatred will still defeat any heavy infantry unit of equivalent points. If they lost the ability to obtain hatred, or rather paid for it per model rather than through a fixed cost upgrade, then 13 pts would probably be fine.


Comparing them to Graveguard has other variables.. Smaller base footprint, replenished in the magic phase, synergies with Deep & cheap stuff like zombies and skellies that don't exist for Daemons.
14pts wouldn't be the end of the World for Bloodletters. It's a Point more than is necessary to balance them but manageable.
We raised the cost of Heralds to account for Locus effecting generally bigger units in 8th. Works too..

EDIT
Oh yeah.. Askari is right.. Graveguard are Toughness 4.. It's actually them that are undercosted compared to Bloodletters. ;)

Grave Guard are not undercosted, especially compared to Bloodletters. Try running the maths on a combat between the two and see who wins. For reference, Grave Guard actually lose in a combat versus an equal points unit of Saurus Warriors who are 11 pts.


The ability to be raised back from the dead is obviously a big difference...

Edit: ninja'd

Shouldn't matter. Lore of the Vampires can raise soldiers back (not always that many either), and other lores can destroy them again. I'd say we're even on that front.

Sh4d0w
08-11-2012, 11:42
Not much of a sacrifice on behalf of the demon players if you ask me, what would be the point?



I meant as well as costing 14pts, and to make them more vulnerable to dwellers i guess, people seem to have that issue with them, I don't really encounter that much dwellers but people seem to think it's necessary.

Lord Dan
08-11-2012, 15:57
To the people saying S3 with great weapons..........NO NO NO NO NO NO, you are honestly telling me you think that a bloodletter would be as physically strong as a human or elf?
You mean like every other Daemon core choice? Yeah, I'd say those weedy bloodletters are strong thanks to the weapons they're wielding.


To the people that said Str 4 with hellblade for +1 strength now this is a much better option.
This just seems contrived to me. There'd be absolutely no reason not to upgrade them to +1 S, so you might as well just make them base S5 and raise their point cost to save some ink.

BattleofLund
08-11-2012, 16:52
They're Daemons, just because it looks a bit weedy it doesn't mean it is.

Also, plenty of things are strength 4/5 and they vary wildly in size.
Inner circle knights for example, are just humans and yet they are the same strength as ogres are, despite ogres having arms the same size as those inner circle knights.

Nothing wrong with them being st5 if you ask me.

Totally +1 on this post. Besides, Bloodletters are really not tiny models.

DaemonReign
08-11-2012, 18:33
As someone who faces/fields VC as a secondary army of sorts I do not buy the constant downplaying of their capabilities for raising stuff. The usual effectiveness of casting Invocation on GraveGuard is specifically very advantageous. With GG I find that the tough choice is whether or not to give them Great Weapons or stick with the HW&S - if you 'guess' that match-up correctly they are a truly magnificent unit that easily compares to Bloodletters.

When I said 'synergy with cheap stuff' I meant that in a more basic sense: Daemons can't swarm up a flank with zombies like VC is able to. You can drop of a unit of Zombies somewhere and forget about it - if it is sufficiently large it will still take half a game to hack your way through it. Again I feel a lot of opinion on this matter is residual: It's true that VC struggled badly vs Daemons in 7th, but they're a formidable foe presently.

Also the fact that GraveGuard did not go up in cost is not by itself an argument for leaving Bloodletters alone. One mistake does not sanction Another as far as I'm concerned. But I maintain that a designer with scientific integrity would 'go easy' with Bloodletters - increasing their cost by 1 Point is unquestionably sound, going further than that begins to appear as increasingly murky.
And that said I am very Confident about Bloodletters being nerfed harder than that.. Because they're Daemons, because of residual reputation from 7th, because of the whining, and most of all out of the same market-related cynicism that we've already seen in the case of Flamers. GW simply wants to sell something else.
- None of that is for certain though. Ironically the 8th Ed VC book imo is a golden measure for a damn near flawless update. Daemons - as indeed ALL other Armies - should really be updated by the same virtue (i.e. a certain measure of respect for 'what is', a sense of continuity, an objective sense for where the true problems are located, and moderation in terms of 'what shouldn't be').

Vipoid
08-11-2012, 18:46
As someone who faces/fields VC as a secondary army of sorts I do not buy the constant downplaying of their capabilities for raising stuff. The usual effectiveness of casting Invocation on GraveGuard is specifically very advantageous. With GG I find that the tough choice is whether or not to give them Great Weapons or stick with the HW&S - if you 'guess' that match-up correctly they are a truly magnificent unit that easily compares to Bloodletters.

44 GG (Sword and Board) vs 40 Bloodletters: After 3 rounds of combat, there are ~26 Bloodletters remaining, and the GG are all dead.
40 GG (Great Weapons) vs 40 Bloodletters: After 3 rounds of combat, there are ~28 Bloodletters remaining, and the GG are all dead.

Yes, GG compare really well to Bloodletters... :eyebrows:

Lord Dan
08-11-2012, 19:07
44 GG (Sword and Board) vs 40 Bloodletters: After 3 rounds of combat, there are ~26 Bloodletters remaining, and the GG are all dead.
40 GG (Great Weapons) vs 40 Bloodletters: After 3 rounds of combat, there are ~28 Bloodletters remaining, and the GG are all dead.

Can you show me the math for this? I'm not understanding how HW+S grave guard kill more bloodletters than GW grave guard, nor do I understand how they lose the same amount of models (given the former have a 6+/6++) in the same period of time.

Vipoid
08-11-2012, 19:12
Can you show me the math for this? I'm not understanding how HW+S grave guard kill more bloodletters than GW grave guard, nor do I understand how they lose the same amount of models (given the former have a 6+/6++) in the same period of time.

It's not exactly the same period.

The GW GG die in the 3rd round of combat, before ever getting to swing.
There are a few HW/S GG to strike in the 3rd round of combat, but they then die to combat resolution.

I'm going out in a minute, but I'll try and upload the math tomorrow.

Malorian
08-11-2012, 19:24
Shouldn't matter. Lore of the Vampires can raise soldiers back (not always that many either), and other lores can destroy them again. I'd say we're even on that front.

It obviously matters.

If bloodletters are shot down they stay down. If grave guard are shot down they can be raised up very quickly.

Magic can do a host of things but you can't get away from the option of it.

Maoriboy007
08-11-2012, 19:43
As someone who faces/fields VC as a secondary army of sorts I do not buy the constant downplaying of their capabilities for raising stuff. The usual effectiveness of casting Invocation on GraveGuard is specifically very advantageous.I agree you shouldn't downplay raising, but neither can you overstate it, nor automatically grant a magical advantage to them and not the opposition. Ok I use 4 dice to raise 7 grave guard, what is the opponant then doing with his 4 dice? The magic phase is already fickle even before you consider the opponants attempts to thwart your efforts. Raising is not what it wsa and between trying to trying to compensate for low WS and marching with Vanhels picking off difficult to deal with disruptors with Gaze, finding dice to raise those casualties you bleed out is a real juggling act. Yes raising is good, unfotunatly it is usually also nessesary, but is it easy and automatic? Not really.


With GG I find that the tough choice is whether or not to give them Great Weapons or stick with the HW&S - if you 'guess' that match-up correctly they are a truly magnificent unit that easily compares to Bloodletters. Easily is an overstatement on equal footing, Graveguard might just hold thier ground.


When I said 'synergy with cheap stuff' I meant that in a more basic sense: Daemons can't swarm up a flank with zombies like VC is able to.I wouldnt expect to ,"demons don't have zombies" is hardly a solid argument as they have thier own methods and troops for the job that rely more on speed and hitting power,besides, I rarely see zombies "swarming up the flank" as it were when they have to stay to close to the general to merely march.


You can drop of a unit of Zombies somewhere and forget about it - if it is sufficiently large it will still take half a game to hack your way through it..Thats a big if, zombies will lose combat no nearly everything and bleed casualties like nobodys business 20-30 can go down in a single round without too much effort, and they don't operate well independantly at all unless you plan on just plain throwing them away. I might as well argue that nurgling swarms or furies are great for the same purpose.


Again I feel a lot of opinion on this matter is residual: It's true that VC struggled badly vs Daemons in 7th, but they're a formidable foe presently.With the exception of a few minor flaws the Vampire book is considered sufficiently balanced, the same is not generally said of the Demon book.


Also the fact that GraveGuard did not go up in cost is not by itself an argument for leaving Bloodletters alone. One mistake does not sanction Another as far as I'm concerned. But I maintain that a designer with scientific integrity would 'go easy' with Bloodletters - increasing their cost by 1 Point is unquestionably sound, going further than that begins to appear as increasingly murky..You continuously miss the point that where Graveguard got significantly debuffed by 8th Edition itself as well as changes new book (bye bye Drakenhof Banner) probably justifying a point drop, Bloodletters got significantly stronger in comparisen. And Bloodletters are still fantastic independant of Characters, magic and the like, where Grave Guard cant even march without a general. Compare Letters to Bestigor without magic or chatarcters etc. all of a sudden Primal Fury isn't so good and demonic instability shines. All of those massive stats, ward saves and what not still work just fine without any support for the Bloodletters, thats what makes them too good for the cost, not just the add ons.


And that said I am very Confident about Bloodletters being nerfed harder than that.. Because they're Daemons, because of residual reputation from 7th, because of the whining, and most of all out of the same market-related cynicism that we've already seen in the case of Flamers. GW simply wants to sell something else.
- None of that is for certain though. Ironically the 8th Ed VC book imo is a golden measure for a damn near flawless update. Daemons - as indeed ALL other Armies - should really be updated by the same virtue (i.e. a certain measure of respect for 'what is', a sense of continuity, an objective sense for where the true problems are located, and moderation in terms of 'what shouldn't be'). By these very words you should see why in the current philosiphy Bloodletters are imbalanced, look at Ghouls in this edition, what did they gain in the new book? Nothing, yet this still justified a 2 point increase, How about empire Swordsmen and Halberdiers? Swordsmen actually lost a point of initiative and Halberdiers stayed the same but Halberdiers went up in cost, neither were shining examples of greatness in 7th. Halberdiers have pretty average stats apart from the strength and only win out due to sheer numbers but you pay what on top of near goblin stats? Compare this to a bloodletter who gets Str 5 on top of Godlike stats and multiple special advantages? I can't see how they should stay the same in this case and unless there are general changes to how demonic instability and Wards work they shouldn't. Thats why I can imagine a new cheap "goblin/zombie" troop type maybe showing up in the new book, giving that cheap troop type to soften the hard changes Demon players might face.

DaemonReign
08-11-2012, 22:01
Great post Maoriboy. I'll try to do it justice as soon as time is sufficiently abundant. :)

Wesser
08-11-2012, 23:06
It obviously matters.

If bloodletters are shot down they stay down. If grave guard are shot down they can be raised up very quickly.

Magic can do a host of things but you can't get away from the option of it.

Ofc not but then again Grave Guards crumble and don't get any benefit from steadfast and is limited in what march moves they can make.

Obscenely daemons dont have either problem.

Bloodletters are far more comparable to White Lions. Letters got killing blow and potential hatred and ward. White Lions got ASF, armour and one more strength (however there are spells, items etc that can negate weapon bonuses). Then you got daemon unstable vs. stubborn.

Those 2 unit seem pretty even and fullfill much the same role in the army. Noone is claiming 15 pts is too much for a white lion...just saying

Why
08-11-2012, 23:10
Why are people so against X.5 points costs?
Bloodletters should be 13.5 points a model.

Malorian
08-11-2012, 23:10
Crumble means less to grave guard than it does to skeletons, and there is a lot more you can do with stubborn that you can't do with daemon instability.

High elves also have a stronger magic phase to support the white lions and get their reroll to hit pretty much every turn.


Turn hatred into frenzy. Done.

Lord Dan
08-11-2012, 23:16
Turn hatred into frenzy. Done.

To be honest with you I never understood why they dropped frenzy in the first place.

The Low King
08-11-2012, 23:32
Can you show me the math for this? I'm not understanding how HW+S grave guard kill more bloodletters than GW grave guard, nor do I understand how they lose the same amount of models (given the former have a 6+/6++) in the same period of time.

Being cheaper and survivable, more Grave Guard survive the bloodletters attacks against them (thus more damage). Also, GWs only increase the roll to wound from a 3+ to a 2+, a small difference.

The maths though (its late, im sorry for any mistakes), to try to save Vipoid some trouble:

40 bloodletters vs 40 GW Grave guard.

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 13.3 wounds, no saves (KB doesnt matter)
Grave Guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 27 attacks, 13.5 hits.
Then wounding on 2s for 11.25 wounds, ward reduces that to 7.5.
Bloodletters win by 6, so Grave Guard lose another 6 models (down to 21 vs 32)

Bloodletters strike with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 13.3 wounds, no saves.
Grave guard strike, hitting on 4s with 8 attacks, 4 hits.
Then wounding on 2s for 3.3 wounds, ward reduces that to 2.2.
Bloodletters win and the GG crumble (now im confused.....i thought he said 3 rounds)

40 bloodletters vs 44 Shield Grave guard

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s, KB on 6s, for 4.5 KBs, 8.8 wounds. After saves thats 10 wounds.
Grave Guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 30 attacks, 15 hits.
Then Wounding on 3s for 10 wounds, ward reduces it to 6.666
GG lose combat by 3.333, some crumble (now 31 vs 33)

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s, KB on 6s, for 4.5 KBs, 8.8 wounds. After saves thats 10 wounds.
Grave guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 21 attacks, 10.5 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 7 wounds, ward reduces that to 4.666
GG lose by 7 (rank), some crumble (now 14 vs 28)

Bloodletters do almost 10 wounds, remaining GG do 2 and crumble.

decker_cky
08-11-2012, 23:40
To be honest with you I never understood why they dropped frenzy in the first place.

I get it. Having all khorne armies entirely frenzied is a little dull. Wouldn't be so bad in 8th, but for 7th they would've just played as weaker warriors of chaos IMO.

Vipoid
08-11-2012, 23:49
Being cheaper and survivable, more Grave Guard survive the bloodletters attacks against them (thus more damage). Also, GWs only increase the roll to wound from a 3+ to a 2+, a small difference.

The maths though (its late, im sorry for any mistakes), to try to save Vipoid some trouble:

40 bloodletters vs 40 GW Grave guard.

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 13.3 wounds, no saves (KB doesnt matter)
Grave Guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 27 attacks, 13.5 hits.
Then wounding on 2s for 11.25 wounds, ward reduces that to 7.5.
Bloodletters win by 6, so Grave Guard lose another 6 models (down to 21 vs 32)

Bloodletters strike with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 13.3 wounds, no saves.
Grave guard strike, hitting on 4s with 8 attacks, 4 hits.
Then wounding on 2s for 3.3 wounds, ward reduces that to 2.2.
Bloodletters win and the GG crumble (now im confused.....i thought he said 3 rounds)

40 bloodletters vs 44 Shield Grave guard

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s, KB on 6s, for 4.5 KBs, 8.8 wounds. After saves thats 10 wounds.
Grave Guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 30 attacks, 15 hits.
Then Wounding on 3s for 10 wounds, ward reduces it to 6.666
GG lose combat by 3.333, some crumble (now 31 vs 33)

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s, KB on 6s, for 4.5 KBs, 8.8 wounds. After saves thats 10 wounds.
Grave guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 21 attacks, 10.5 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 7 wounds, ward reduces that to 4.666
GG lose by 7 (rank), some crumble (now 14 vs 28)

Bloodletters do almost 10 wounds, remaining GG do 2 and crumble.

Thanks for posting me that - it's saved me a lot of effort. :D

As to why I said 3 rounds, I believe I rounded the wounds in favour of the GG (rather than using decimals), since it didn't really hurt my point.

Your method is probably better, but mine was easier when just doodling in my notebook. ;)

Lord Dan
08-11-2012, 23:54
The maths though (its late, im sorry for any mistakes), to try to save Vipoid some trouble:

40 bloodletters vs 40 GW Grave guard.

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 13.3 wounds, no saves (KB doesnt matter)
Grave Guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 27 attacks, 13.5 hits.
Then wounding on 2s for 11.25 wounds, ward reduces that to 7.5.
Bloodletters win by 6, so Grave Guard lose another 6 models (down to 21 vs 32)

Bloodletters strike with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 13.3 wounds, no saves.
Grave guard strike, hitting on 4s with 8 attacks, 4 hits.
Then wounding on 2s for 3.3 wounds, ward reduces that to 2.2.
Bloodletters win and the GG crumble (now im confused.....i thought he said 3 rounds)

40 bloodletters vs 44 Shield Grave guard

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s, KB on 6s, for 4.5 KBs, 8.8 wounds. After saves thats 10 wounds.
Grave Guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 30 attacks, 15 hits.
Then Wounding on 3s for 10 wounds, ward reduces it to 6.666
GG lose combat by 3.333, some crumble (now 31 vs 33)

Bloodletters strike, hitting on 3s with 30 attacks, 20 hits.
Then wounding on 3s, KB on 6s, for 4.5 KBs, 8.8 wounds. After saves thats 10 wounds.
Grave guard strike back, hitting on 4s with 21 attacks, 10.5 hits.
Then wounding on 3s for 7 wounds, ward reduces that to 4.666
GG lose by 7 (rank), some crumble (now 14 vs 28)

Bloodletters do almost 10 wounds, remaining GG do 2 and crumble.

I think you messed up on the second round of wounding on the shield armed GG. 8.8 wounds, 10 after saves... ;)

I get that bloodletters wreck grave guard- I wasn't debating the point. I was confused by the fact that in Vipoid's example the shield-armed Grave Guard killed more bloodletters than the great weapon armed grave guard.

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 00:53
Just a couple of comments on Maoriboy's reply to my earlier post, now that I have a bit of time:

* I think LoV compensates VC for Crumble. That may not be true for TK.
* Daemons don't have Zombies. I just concider that a fact. :)
* I think 8th Edition is balanced. Daemons do have some sharp edges, and some boring squareness that should be dealt with - but it should be done with moderation. Not saying they shouldn't/couldn't be generally nerfed - but How Much is the issue.
* Ghouls were nerfed too heavily. Removing Ghoulkin OR increasing their cost would have been an act of moderation. But everyone already had tons of Ghouls from them being a bit too good before..
* Empire players might be forced into using their troops in a very specific way, but once they do (with Cruddace's book) things stack up quite nicely for them. I've seen Cruddace's Empire shrugg off my hordes of Bloodletters like never before lately.

Anyway, I respect your position and I have a feeling you'll be happier with the new DoC book than I'm gonna be. :p

Phazael
09-11-2012, 05:28
Funny to see threads like this from time to time. Experience at both the casual and tourney level have taught me that bloodletters are actually the second worst DoC core, though it does not seem that way on paper. Saurus are cheaper and outperform them. They get crushed in head to head against things like plaguebearers and daemonettes from their own book. Basic Ogres out grind them, but its a bloodbath. Just about any elven infantry unit really puts the hurt on them on a per point basis, as well. Warriors and Marauders alike also outperform them in both equivalent points and commonly seen formations. They will never kill their equivalent points in skaven core before being ground out, either. Put even similar points of Dryads on the board against them and watch what happens, too. Frankly, outside of the big red lawnmower formation everyone is ******** about, they kind of suck for their cost. The graveguard comparisson is unfair, because that unit frankly blows for its cost (it was priced around ******** from the old Regen banner) and the better comparison would be ghouls, who actually hold their own against Bloodletters despite being less expensive.

They do have two main advantages; daemonic instability and a statline that renders most kill spells ineffective. They are also unique among DoC core in that you do not need a herald to get some value out of them, but the kind of carnage that a Plaguebearer or Daemonette unit causes with a herald kind of leaves them in the dust. They are just a sort of prickly pear that has no obvious weakness or counter, so people get upset by them. Dump the boosted charge banner and they would be fine.

Tygre
09-11-2012, 06:04
Str3 would make them weaker than a Plague Bearer.
Frenzy would make Khorne armies no fun to use. It is a pain not being able to control your armies movement. Hatred is a good alternative.
T3 and a 5+ save will mean they still will die in droves. They are more resilient than most troops against warmachines but against normal troops not so much.
In my last Daemon game, my Daemon army against an Orc army, was reduced to 3 Bloodletters and a Bloodthirster on 1 wound. (I know anecdotyle evidence is not worth much but that is my experience)

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 06:42
I didn't mean for this post to come across as contrary, so let me apologize in advance for so much number-crunching. I actually agreed with most of your points, Phazael, so I thought I should go through and test the accuracy of some of my own preconceptions:


Saurus are cheaper and outperform them.
40 Bloodletters vs. 43 Saurus (~500 points)

BL have 30 attacks to start, requiring 3's to hit and 3's to wound. They have a 5++ save.
S have 40 attacks to start, requiring 4's to hit and 3's to wound. They have a 6+/6++ save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 9.25 after saves. 33.75 Saurus remain.
S: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 8.88 after saves. 31.12 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 9.25 after saves. 24.02 Saurus remain.
S: 17.01 hits, 11.34 wounds, 7.56 after saves. 23.56 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 15.70 hits, 10.47 wounds, 7.27 wounds after saves. 16.75 Saurus remain.
S: 13.37 hits, 8.91 wounds, 5.94 wounds after saves. 17.62 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 11.74 hits, 7.83 wounds, 5.43 wounds after saves. 11.32 Saurus remain.
S: 10.66 hits, 7.10 wounds, 4.73 wounds after saves. 12.89 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 8.59 hits, 5.72 wounds, 3.97 wounds after saves. 7.35 Saurus remain.
S: 7.35 hits, 4.9 wounds, 3.2 wounds after saves. 9.66 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 6.44 hits, 4.29 wounds, 2.98 wounds after saves. 4.37 Saurus remain.
S: 4.37 hits, 2.91 wounds, 1.94 wounds after saves. 7.72 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 5.14 hits, 3.43 wounds, 2.38 wounds after saves. 1.99 Saurus remain.
S: 1.99 hits, 1.32 wounds, .88 wounds after saves. 6.84 Bloodletters remain.

BL: 4.56 hits, 3.04 wounds, 2.11 wounds after saves. 0 Saurus remain.



They get crushed in head to head against things like plaguebearers
See the math for above, given that it's almost identical. The only difference is that the Plaguebearers have poisoned attacks, though this doesn't even compensate for the loss of 10 attacks out of the front rank. I could go through and do it, but I'm confident that the Bloodletters win here again.



and daemonettes
40 Bloodletters vs. 40 Daemonettes (~500 points)

BL have 30 attacks to start, needing 4's to hit and 2's to wound. They have a 5++ save.
D have 40 attacks to start, needing 4's to hit and 4's to wound. They have a 5++ save.

D: 20 hits, 10 wounds, 6.67 wounds after saves. 33.33 BL remain.
BL: 15 hits, 12.5 wounds, 8.33 wounds after saves. 31.67 D remain.

D: 20 hits, 10 wounds, 6.67 wounds after saves. 26.66 BL remain.
BL: 13.33 hits, 11.10 wounds, 7.40 wounds after saves. 24.27 D remain.

D: 17.13 hits, 8.56 wounds, 5.7 wounds after saves. 20.96 BL remain.
BL: 10.48 hits, 8.73 wounds, 5.82 wounds after saves. 18.45 D remain.

D: 14.22 hits, 7.11 wounds, 4.74 wounds after saves. 16.22 BL remain.
BL: 8.11 hits, 6.75 wounds, 4.50 wounds after saves. 13.95 D remain.

D: 11.97 hits, 5.98 wounds, 3.99 wounds after saves. 12.23 BL remain.
BL: 6.11 hits, 5.09 wounds, 3.39 wounds after saves. 10.56 D remain.

D: 10.28 hit, 5.14 wounds, 3.42 wounds after saves. 8.81 BL remain.
BL: 4.40 hit, 3.67 wounds, 2.44 wounds after saves. 8.12 D remain.

D: 8.12 hits, 4.06 wounds, 2.70 wounds after saves. 6.11 BL remain.
BL: 3.05 hits, 2.54 wounds, 1.69 wounds after saves. 6.43 D remain.

D: 6.43 hits, 3.21 wounds, 2.14 wounds after saves. 3.97 BL remain.
BL: 1.98 hits, 1.65 wounds, 1.10 wounds after saves. 5.33 D remain.

etc., etc. For the sake of time, the Daemonettes win in about 3 more rounds of combat, though they only have ~3 models remaining. They win, though it's definitely not a "crushing".



Basic Ogres out grind them, but its a bloodbath.

This one intrigued me, though I think the initial attacks from the BL will pretty much neutralize the Ogres as a threat.
40 Bloodletters vs. 12 Ironguts (~500 points)

BL have 30 attacks to start, and require 3's to hit and 3's to wound. They have a 5++.
IG have 36 attacks to start, and require 4's to hit and 2's to wound. They do not have a save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds. 7.55 IG remain.
IG: 11.33 hits, 9.44 wounds, 6.29 wounds after saves. 33.71 BL remain.
IG(stomp): 4 wounds, 2.66 wounds after saves. 31.05 BL remain.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds. 3.10 IG remain.
IG: 4.66 hits, 3.88 wounds, 2.58 wounds after saves. 28.47 BL remain.
IG(stomp): 2.06 wounds, 1.37 wounds after saves. 27.1 BL remain.

BL: 18.06 hits, 12.04 wounds. 0 Ogres remain.



Just about any elven infantry unit really puts the hurt on them on a per point basis, as well.
Maybe Pheonix Guard thanks to the 4++, however anything else just gets chopped to pieces after making their attacks (and remember PG are +3 points per model). Pick one that you think might stand up to them and I'll crunch some numbers.



Warriors and Marauders alike also outperform them in both equivalent points and commonly seen formations.
What kits/formations are best against them?



They will never kill their equivalent points in skaven core before being ground out, either.
Yeah, no objections here.



Put even similar points of Dryads on the board against them and watch what happens, too.
Well, it would be the Saurus combat except that Dryads don't any get saves against BL and start with 3 fewer models. In short, they'd lose even worse than the Saurus did.

Urgat
09-11-2012, 09:31
Can you crush the numbers for orcs (HW+board), savage orcs (AHW) and black orcs? (I'll assume gobs would be somewhat like skavens)

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 12:07
@ Malorian: I feel sorta like Tygre expressed too on the issue of Frenzy. I like how the way things are represented now mortal Khorne-maniacs are 'overwhelmed' with bloodlust (and all that Khorny jazz) where-as Khorne's purer incarnations are a bit more Cold and Disciplined. That said, I guess I wouldn't throw a fit and boycotte the entire book if Bloodletters were made Frenzy - and I agree too that a cost-increase would not be warranted if that happened.

@ Phazael: Refreshing.. You're talking about what actually happens in games. I have to say though I Think you're exaggerating almost as much as the folks who are seriously arguing for 15pts etcetera. Bloodletters are Worth ~1 more pt than their current cost. The other DoC Core-choices are either 'just right' (PB's) or more-or-less overcosted - although it's not by more than ~1pts in those cases either so really it's not a huge deal.

@ Lord Dan: I'm assuming your math-hammer is technically correct, which just goes to show the limitations of math-hammer because in real Life (for whatever reason) combats just don't go down as your numbers suggest. A Horde on Horde combat between 'Letters and 'Nettes will invariably result in the Slaanesh Daemons completely murdering the Bloodletters. And that's just an example.. But (hey) run the same numbers again but this time say that Bloodletters are costing 13pts instead. :)
At any rate, you've already described combats that need to continue undisturbed for at least a couple of Turns in order to reach the resolution that (appearantly) is statistically 'likely' - and that's just not how things play in the end.
S3 and 'Great Weapons' is an insult btw. I'll just leave it at that. :)

Urgat
09-11-2012, 12:56
At any rate, you've already described combats that need to continue undisturbed for at least a couple of Turns in order to reach the resolution that (appearantly) is statistically 'likely' - and that's just not how things play in the end.
For curiosity's sake, how would you judge a unit then? Because sure thing, the result is not going to be the same if the unit fighting the BL are flank-charged by a bloodthirster, or are buffed by a friendly spell, and just as well, it'll be likely that the combat wouldn't go on undistrubed in an actual game... that being said, numbers like those provided by Dan give a fair idea of whichever unit is superior in straight melee on a point per point value; nobody expects to get more info out of it and, afaik, there's not a single person on Warseer (or anywhere in the world for that matter) who can give a fair assessment of a unit taking into account whatever outside elements that could interfere, so this point is pretty moot. The demigryph topic clearly shows how little value people give to hands-on experience in an actual game, and so they should, because I used to have an example to claim that snotlings could beat bloodletters in combat in previous editions, if you want. So failing that, you do like you do with top speed for cars and planes, or theorical math projections for a CPU, or whatever capacities you want to illustrate while knowing they're subject to plenty outside factors: you theorise and try and reach a fair average. I don't like mathammer, but I accept its value as what it is, a medium to give a basic idea of how something should behave compared to something else, under an equalitarian set of rules.

S3 and 'Great Weapons' is an insult btw. I'll just leave it at that. :)

You're right, these are no great weapons as they wield it with one hand, so it should be S3 and that's it :p

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 13:14
afaik, there's not a single person on Warseer (or anywhere in the world for that matter) who can give a fair assessment of a unit taking into account whatever outside elements that could interfere
That's what you need to do though, to some extent.
You need to look at things hollistically.
In a bubble math-hammer is one part of that.
Then you need to factor in what else the units have. And what's going on around them, what's in the rest of the list.
Extensive playtesting doesn't hurt either.

Urgat
09-11-2012, 13:19
But it's not possible. The combinations of external factors are pretty much infinite. You have to theorize any kind of combination by deciding to focus on them in the first place, and based on the basic numbers, you can pretty much deduce it anyway. For the BL vs demonettes example, if the BL are buffed by a spell, considering how close the final result is, no need to be Einstein to gather that the BL would win. Therefore there's no further need to theorise on that point: any external factor favorizing either side in such a close fought combat will most likely end in the favorized side's victory. And I can say that with just Dan's numbers. On the same idea, it's easy to tell that if the khorne player runs average dices, and the Slaanesh doesn't have luck on his side, he'll lose. Taking taht into naccount is possible with just Dan's numbers, again. Testing it on the battlefield will just confirms this, so there's no real need.

Fear Ghoul
09-11-2012, 14:16
@ Phazael: Refreshing.. You're talking about what actually happens in games. I have to say though I Think you're exaggerating almost as much as the folks who are seriously arguing for 15pts etcetera. Bloodletters are Worth ~1 more pt than their current cost. The other DoC Core-choices are either 'just right' (PB's) or more-or-less overcosted - although it's not by more than ~1pts in those cases either so really it's not a huge deal.

The points costs are a statistical representation of a models capabilities with respect to other models, so how else would we calculate the approximate cost of a model? Anecdotal evidence of in-game events are precisely that - anecdotal and subjective. You may argue that Bloodletters aren't so good because it takes them several turns to grind down the opposition, but they are still winning and thus putting the opponent at a disadvantage. The lengthy combat may allow the Bloodletters to be outflanked but then so may be anything the Bloodletters are fighting. By my calculations, even 13 pts Bloodletters defeat 11 pts Saurus Warriors, and that was without taking into consideration their killing blow ability (couldn't be bothered). The mathematics (objective analysis) tells us that Bloodletters should be either 13.5 or 14 pts per model as they currently stand. Daemonettes are probably also undercosted if they defeat Bloodletters.

the_picto
09-11-2012, 14:55
@ Lord Dan: I'm assuming your math-hammer is technically correct, which just goes to show the limitations of math-hammer because in real Life (for whatever reason) combats just don't go down as your numbers suggest. A Horde on Horde combat between 'Letters and 'Nettes will invariably result in the Slaanesh Daemons completely murdering the Bloodletters. And that's just an example.

Where do you get that from though? There's no reason to believe that horde on horde combat between letters and nettes won't follow statistical averages, and if it doesn't there's no reason to think it would suddenly swing in the nettes favour rather than the letters. How many times have you seen an equal number of nettes taking on an equal number of letters?


That's what you need to do though, to some extent.
You need to look at things hollistically.
In a bubble math-hammer is one part of that.
Then you need to factor in what else the units have. And what's going on around them, what's in the rest of the list.
Extensive playtesting doesn't hurt either.

In your example of letters vs nettes, as they are both from the same army they will both potentially have the same outside factors affecting them. Both units could have a herald of tzeentch buffing them or a bloodthirster flank charge in support, so we can discount outside factors in this case.

theunwantedbeing
09-11-2012, 15:08
Equal point units fighting each other is nonsense as far as in-game battles go and are really quite pointless in regards to deciding whether a unit is under or over costed.

You pit a realistic model count and equipment setup of the unit you are testing vs an equally realistic setup of another unit.
You then pit them against a third equally realistic unit to see how they compare.
This isn't the end though.
Now you have to do it all again with different sized units.

Only then right at the end have you done any sort of useful math-hammer where you can generate a meaningful conclusion from doing fights in a vacuum.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 16:17
@ Lord Dan: I'm assuming your math-hammer is technically correct, which just goes to show the limitations of math-hammer because in real Life (for whatever reason) combats just don't go down as your numbers suggest. A Horde on Horde combat between 'Letters and 'Nettes will invariably result in the Slaanesh Daemons completely murdering the Bloodletters.

I've been giving this some thought, and I believe I have an answer for you: hordes of Daemons almost always have a herald, correct? The herald of slaanesh grants ASF, allowing the Daemonettes to re-roll to hit in every round of combat, while the herald of khorne grants hatred, allowing the bloodletters to re-roll to hit in the first round of combat. In this case, I agree, the daemonettes would ultimately win by a much larger margin.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 16:19
Can you crush the numbers for orcs (HW+board), savage orcs (AHW) and black orcs? (I'll assume gobs would be somewhat like skavens)

40 Bloodletters vs. 72 Orc Boys (HW+S)

BL have 30 attacks and require 3's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
OB have 30 attacks and require 4's to hit and 4's to wound (3's in the first round), and have a 6++ save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 11.11 after saves. 60.89 Orcs remain.
OB: 15 hits, 10 wounds, 6.66 after saves. 33.34 BL remain.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 11.11 after saves. 49.78 Orcs remain.
OB: 15 hits, 7.5 wounds, 5 after saves. 28.34 BL remain.

BL: 18.89 hits, 12.59 wounds, 10.49 after saves. 39.29 Orcs remain.
OB: 15 hits, 7.5 wounds, 5 after saves. 23.34 BL remain.

BL: 15.56 hits, 10.37 wounds, 8.64 after saves. 30.65 Orcs remain.
OB: 15 hits, 7.5 wounds, 5 after saves. 18.34 BL remain.

BL: 12.22 hits, 8.15 wounds, 6.79 after saves. 23.86 Orcs remain.
OB: 11.93 hits, 5.96 wounds, 3.97 after saves. 14.37 BL remain.

BL: 9.58 hits, 6.38 wounds, 5.32 after saves. 18.54 Orcs remain.
OB: 9.27 hits, 4.63 wounds, 3.09 after saves. 11.28 BL remain.

BL: 7.52 hits, 5.01 wounds, 4.17 after saves. 14.37 Orcs remain.
OB: 7.18 hits, 3.59 wounds, 2.39 after saves. 8.89 BL remain.

BL: 5.92 hits, 3.95 wounds, 3.29 after saves. 11.08 Orcs remain.
OB: 5.54 hits, 2.77 wounds, 1.84 after saves. 7.05 BL remain.

BL: 4.7 hits, 3.13 wounds, 2.61 after saves. 8.47 Orcs remain.
OB: 4.2 hits, 2.11 wounds, 1.41 after saves. 5.64 BL remain.

BL: 3.76 hits, 2.50 wounds, 2.08 after saves. 6.39 Orcs remain.
OB: 3.19 hits, 1.59 wounds, 1.06 after saves. 4.58 BL remain.

That's 10 rounds of combat, which would mean a turn 2 charge and combat for the rest of the game. This one surprised me for sure, as I thought all those rounds where the Orc's damage output was unchanged would have ground down the Bloodletters, but alas.


As for a savage orc combat, did you want me to make them Big Uns? If not, the combat is almost identical to this one as the savages lose their frenzy after the first round of combat, and they actually start out with significantly fewer models.


40 Bloodletters vs. 40 Black Orcs (w/ GW)

BL have 30 attacks to start, need 3's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++.
BO have 30 attacks to start, need 4's to hit and 2's to wound, and have no save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 26.67 BO remain.
BO: 13.33 hits, 11.11 wounds, 7.40 after saves. 32.60 BL remain.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 26.67 BO remain. 13.34 BO remain.
BO: 6.67 hits, 5.55 wounds, 3.7 after saves. 28.64 BL remain.

BL: 19.09 hits, 12.72 wounds. 0.62 BO remain (0 next turn).

So, a resounding victory for the BL. Let's try it with x2 choppas for completeness sake.


40 Bloodletters vs. 40 Black Orcs (w/ AHW)

BL have 30 attacks to start, require 3's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
BO have 40 attacks to start, require 4's to hit and 3's to wound (2's in the first round), and have no save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 26.67 BO remain.
BO: 18.22 hits, 15.27 wounds, 10.18 after saves. 29.82 BL remain.

BL: 19.88 hits, 13.25 wounds. 13.42 BO remain.
BO: 11.71 hits, 7.8 wounds, 5.2 after saves. 24.62 BL remain.

BL: 16.41 hits, 10.94 wounds. 2.48 BO remain. (0 next turn)


I thought about running a sword and board formation, but thought better of it. A 6+/6++ isn't worth sacrificing 10 attacks, as it's those first two rounds of combat that really decide it. As soon as the BL reduce the damage output of the BO by almost 40% without any reduction to its own output (see the end of the second combat), it's all over for the BO.

the_picto
09-11-2012, 16:47
I've been giving this some thought, and I believe I have an answer for you: hordes of Daemons almost always have a herald, correct? The herald of slaanesh grants ASF, allowing the Daemonettes to re-roll to hit in every round of combat, while the herald of khorne grants hatred, allowing the bloodletters to re-roll to hit in the first round of combat. In this case, I agree, the daemonettes would ultimately win by a much larger margin.

However, the chances of the herald of slaanesh living past round one is not high. W2, T3 and 5++ does not a durable character make. The letters may have to sacrifice some potential kills on the nettes to put enough attacks on the herald to drop her, but once she's down the fight evens up again and the we're back to the nettes having a minor victory.

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 17:01
I've been giving this some thought, and I believe I have an answer for you: hordes of Daemons almost always have a herald, correct? The herald of slaanesh grants ASF, allowing the Daemonettes to re-roll to hit in every round of combat, while the herald of khorne grants hatred, allowing the bloodletters to re-roll to hit in the first round of combat. In this case, I agree, the daemonettes would ultimately win by a much larger margin.

Right. Unless...
- The Deamonettes (striking first) manages to kill the HoK Before his Locus comes into play..
- Or the 'Letters direct attacks on the HoS and takes her out of the Picture..
- Or the 'letters have been Siren Songed so that they're fighting in some disadvantageous position..
- Or maybe somebody just cast Birona's on those 'Letters..
- Etcetera, etcetera..

While you're at it.. How about them 13pts Bloodletters?

Theunwantedbeing is on the right track, too. Serious rules-development is a two-stage process. Theorethical and practical. Math-hammer and hollistic playtesting.
Asserting that it can't be done, as Urgat seems to argue, is just not true.
What IS TRUE is that GW doesn't spend enough effort on doing it, what is also true is that thread like this are filled with about 80% subjective opinion rather than anything resembling science.
Saying that BLs are Worth 15pts is just as untrue as saying that they're the worst core in the book.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 17:05
While you're at it.. How about them 13pts Bloodletters?


What are they fighting?

Bob Arctor
09-11-2012, 17:19
Not to mention that the Herald's position in the unit will effect how many attacks can be generated against them and whether they survivive the first round or not, or how many kills the Heralds themselves cause, etc.

I have to agree that pitting 2 hordes of troops in a bubble against each other is extremely unrealistic. For starters none of the examples include the extra attack for a champion (certainly present in units that size) and in the case of the Grave Guard what is the likelihood they won't have the Banner of the Barrows? I'm sure if you ran the numbers again with +1 to hit it would look a lot better for them. I play most my games at the 1500-2400pts level and can count on one hand the number of times I have seen 2 hordes of anything fight each other head on. The last time it happened was when I pitched a horde of Bloodletters against a horde of Savage Orc Big'uns. After several rounds the Daemons were wiped out (including 2 other units that had charged in to help) and there were still 20 Boyz left. However this example is anecdotal so probably worthless. Personally, if I saw a horde of Bloodletters on the other side of the table from me I would probably reform my unit into minimum frontage and deny them a shed-load of attacks.

My personal feelings on what they should do with Bloodletters: at miminum increase their cost to 13pts, and 14pts wouldn't be out of the question either. They could also drop the killing blow, but I would keep them at 13pts max if that were to happen. I don't think they need a strength drop and changing them to S3 with great weapons would be a terrible idea imo, since they aren't actually carrying swords (or axes on my models) they are just extensions of the Daemons form.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 17:34
Personally, if I saw a horde of Bloodletters on the other side of the table from me I would probably reform my unit into minimum frontage and deny them a shed-load of attacks.

You'd deny him 9 attacks, while reducing your own attack output by 20.

Bob Arctor
09-11-2012, 17:45
Or 12 attacks if you are on 20mm bases. You then gain the advantage of retaining ranks and steadfast for longer (obviously less of an advantage when your Undead).

Another thing not taken into account is that most units would be gone after the first round if they lost by 4+ on combat res and were no longer steadfast.

The Low King
09-11-2012, 18:05
I think you messed up on the second round of wounding on the shield armed GG. 8.8 wounds, 10 after saves... ;)

I get that bloodletters wreck grave guard- I wasn't debating the point. I was confused by the fact that in Vipoid's example the shield-armed Grave Guard killed more bloodletters than the great weapon armed grave guard.

I dont think so, i factored in killing blow so it was 8.8 normal wounds and 4.5 killing blow wounds, resulting in 10 wounds (it 13.333 wounds total)...though on rechecking i think it should have been 3.4 KB wounds.

Fear Ghoul
09-11-2012, 18:25
While you're at it.. How about them 13pts Bloodletters?

Unless you're ignoring me for whatever reason, I already told you that 13pt Bloodletters still defeat an equal points worth of Saurus Warriors. If Saurus Warriors are too cheap then fair enough, otherwise the problem lies with the Bloodletters.


Theunwantedbeing is on the right track, too. Serious rules-development is a two-stage process. Theorethical and practical. Math-hammer and hollistic playtesting.
Asserting that it can't be done, as Urgat seems to argue, is just not true.
What IS TRUE is that GW doesn't spend enough effort on doing it, what is also true is that thread like this are filled with about 80% subjective opinion rather than anything resembling science.
Saying that BLs are Worth 15pts is just as untrue as saying that they're the worst core in the book.

Yes, and we all know what happens when GW designers decide that the maths is wrong. We get a broken 7th edition with a severely undercosted Daemons book. I wouldn't mind so much except that broken units are rarely those that follow the maths. It is nearly always the other way around, but some people just hate maths.

By the way, your games don't count as definitive scientific proof of anything. If you collated the experience of lots of gamers and eliminated additional variables and accounted for self-reporting bias, then maybe we'd have some scientific evidence.


I have to agree that pitting 2 hordes of troops in a bubble against each other is extremely unrealistic. For starters none of the examples include the extra attack for a champion (certainly present in units that size) and in the case of the Grave Guard what is the likelihood they won't have the Banner of the Barrows? I'm sure if you ran the numbers again with +1 to hit it would look a lot better for them. I play most my games at the 1500-2400pts level and can count on one hand the number of times I have seen 2 hordes of anything fight each other head on.

We're not talking about the cost of upgrades, but rather the base cost of the Bloodletters. You're not going to end up with a balanced unit if your base cost is wrong. And the moment you start handing out upgrades the comparison becomes endless. Sure you could give Grave Guard the Banner of the Barrows, but then the Bloodletters could have a Herald, and then the Grave Guard could have a Wight King, etc.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 18:32
Or 12 attacks if you are on 20mm bases. You then gain the advantage of retaining ranks and steadfast for longer (obviously less of an advantage when your Undead).
I thought the example was specifically for Orcs. Yeah, if you're on 20mm bases you'd reduce his attacks by 12.


Another thing not taken into account is that most units would be gone after the first round if they lost by 4+ on combat res and were no longer steadfast.
In statistical terms a failed break test is a failed attempt at rolling an average, so I don't think there's a way to mathematically take break tests into account. I guess you could if you assume you pass until you fail, for example leadership 10 would fail on the 6th break test, though for low leaderships it would mean an auto-fail.

I understand that a 5-turn fight would never go on without something else coming in, however this kind of number crunching is how we determine when and where to bring something else in. For example if I saw a unit of 40 Bloodletters coming down on my 12 Ironguts, I'd know that in order for the Ironguts to win I would need to assist them in some way. These decisions in the movement phase are what make or break the game, and the only way to have a solid understanding of how to allocate resources on the field is to understand how each component operates independently.

Math-hammer doesn't tell us who wins combats, it tells us how to win combats.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 18:38
I dont think so, i factored in killing blow so it was 8.8 normal wounds and 4.5 killing blow wounds, resulting in 10 wounds (it 13.333 wounds total)...though on rechecking i think it should have been 3.4 KB wounds.

I see what you did. There's really no reason to separate killing blow in this case as the Daemons have ward saves, however your initial statement of 10 wounds was correct. My bad!

Phazael
09-11-2012, 19:02
@Decker: In a vacuum, sure the Saurus get ground out by the letters. In reality, the uberfrog of incredible broken undercostedness trumps whatever measly L2 herald of Tzeench can conrtibute. Elves and Vamps, its more or less the same in the buff wars department. Marauders are the only ones that get a fair shake and they get to out number the bloodletters almost two to one. Basically, nearly every army outside of Ogres and Mortals has some easy and common synergy trick (see witch elves + cauldron for some real lulz) that gives them an edge in a full list against bloodletters. Its a major reason why I stopped using them (along with my preference for MMU) and I have generally done better at other GTs than other DoC players as a result. In my view they are really good against other elite GW infantry, but crap out against most other things, which is why I feel their cost is right on target. The only broken thing about them is the charge banner giving them superior reach to cavalry units. I maintain people's anger at them mostly comes from their lack of obvious weakness in the magic phase. People do not like not having a silver bullet for things in the game.

On the BL vs Plaguebearer or Nettes, examples, no one fields those units without a herald and nine times out of ten, the heralds end up challenging each other, in which the khorne one will nearly always get curb stomped (HoS generally sporting Siren and Torment, HoN generally Palanquin with Vapors and Breath) and in horde on horde, the HoS generally lasts about one round after the challenge, if deployed on a corner. The HoN is huge and gets raped imediately after the challenge. But an interesting thing happens when you stack those units against a lot of other infantry out there. The Nurgle blocks are about as good at tackling elite infantry units and have the added bonus of being able to take on monsters (especially with Noxious Vapors in play). The Daemonettes are one of the few units out there capable of mowing through steadfast forever skaven and goblin type units and have tactical uses the Bloodletters will never have with Siren (both the standard and the herald gift) in the mix. The only real edge, to me as a DoC player, that the Bloodletters have is not being as dependant on a herald to make the unit work, but tactically the Daemonettes and Plaguebearers are always better.

Unless you are going to say that Daemonettes and Plaguebearers need to be jacked up in cost (and who honestly could make that argument), I cannot see bloodletters being any more than what they now cost. They just get to abuse the horde rules like most GW units do while still swining at Init, which chaffes a lot of people. Well, people who are not HE players who essentially get all the Daemon benefits rolled together into one package. For 3 points more, Swordmasters swing first with better WS and rerolls against most opposition, plus more attacks, but no one complains about them anymore for some reason, even though they put anything in their general point range to shame. Honestly if the big red eraser is killing your hobby, then you guys are not running with enough chaffe or are deathstarring up yourselves. Chaffing out Daemon hordes is easier than ever now, thanks to the flamer nerf. Flank and Spank combat resolution remains the best way to beat braindead DoC builds.

Ratbeast
09-11-2012, 19:06
nloodletters should have frenzy, anything khorne should

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 19:22
Sorry Fear Ghoul not intentionally ignoring you over here. Been trying to keep up with this thread while being swamped with stuff to do for the last 24h so again sorry I just missed it.

Interesting reflections Phazael.. I still feel we could live with BLs costing Another Point, if for no other reason to meet all the daemon-haters half way. :)

The Low King
09-11-2012, 20:38
I see what you did. There's really no reason to separate killing blow in this case as the Daemons have ward saves, however your initial statement of 10 wounds was correct. My bad!

Lol, im really confused now, the Killing Blow attacks i factored in were the Bloodletters attacking the Grave guard with shields (thus bypassing their 6+ save)....though i could have messed up.


I think maybe the answer is to re-jig bloodletters a bit, change their rules rather than just the points cost. Playing with the support options a bit could justify their current cost. For example, Daemons have a few nasty combos that make them greater than the sum of their parts (Siren song, Leadership Bomb...). If you changed heralds, or had rules making it so you cant take magic in a khorne army or something, suddenly they become better.

Urgat
09-11-2012, 21:38
The points costs are a statistical representation of a models capabilities with respect to other models, so how else would we calculate the approximate cost of a model? Anecdotal evidence of in-game events are precisely that - anecdotal and subjective. You may argue that Bloodletters aren't so good because it takes them several turns to grind down the opposition, but they are still winning and thus putting the opponent at a disadvantage. The lengthy combat may allow the Bloodletters to be outflanked but then so may be anything the Bloodletters are fighting. By my calculations, even 13 pts Bloodletters defeat 11 pts Saurus Warriors, and that was without taking into consideration their killing blow ability (couldn't be bothered). The mathematics (objective analysis) tells us that Bloodletters should be either 13.5 or 14 pts per model as they currently stand. Daemonettes are probably also undercosted if they defeat Bloodletters.

I want to point out that I don't support this view either. Comparing two units of equal point values can give us the outcome of a particular fight between these two units, but it's not because one unit beats the other than it's more fairly priced, it just means that it's not a good match up and that they don't necessarily serve the same purpose. If you pit demonettes against a unit of minotaurs of the same point value, I suspect the bloodletters will fare better than the demonettes, for instance. Does it mean, then, that the bloodletters are better value than the demonettes? Of course not, it just means that demonettes are better suited to kill low toughness troops, and bloodletters are better against higher toughness troops. Same kind of troops, but still different strengths.


snip

thank you very much. For savage orcs, I wanted regular ones, the matter, I guess, was actually to know if they'd lose their frenzy early on or not, which sadly seems to be the case. Do'nt the 50% more attacks change anything at all? Anyway, I kindda expected it, but the orcs, even with numbers, don't really hold amazingly against the damn redboyz... BO are really disapointing in that regard but, truth be told, I've never thought the steep price increase has ever really been matched stats-wise compared to a regular boy. There's a reason why big'uns are favoured I guess.


Asserting that it can't be done, as Urgat seems to argue, is just not true.

Alright, how do you propose to do it though? You've got to take into account, for every single unit in the game, a match up against every other unit in the game, at same point cost, outnumbering, outnumbered, with any buff or hex cast on them in any combination, as well as their opponent, while being flanked or rear flanked or combo-charged by any other combination of unit, each of these units outnumbering or being outnumbered too, within or outside range of the general, the BSB, or both, etc etc etc. How is that feasible? I'm welcome to suggestions, but you realise that's what taking into account external factors means... I may be cynical, but for me, taht's a bit too much to ask from anybody.

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 22:35
Do'nt the 50% more attacks change anything at all?
Actually I'd forgotten that with AHW and Frenzy they'd have 20 more attacks, not 10. Let's run through it to be sure:

40 Bloodletters vs. 55 Savage Orc Boys (AHW)

BL have 30 attacks, require 3's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
SOB (lolz) have 50 attacks, require 4's to hit and 4's to wound (3's in the first round), and have a 6++ save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 11.10 after saves. 43.9 SOB remain.
SOB: 25 hits, 16.66 wounds, 11.11 after saves. 28.89 BL remain.

Now here the combat is tied from a wounds perspective, however the Orcs would have a rank over the BL and win combat by 1. Nothing huge, but it means they don't lose frenzy. The problem, however, is they will now need 4's to wound due to the choppa rule no longer being in effect.

BL: 19.26 hits, 12.84 wounds, 10.7 after saves. 33.2 SOB remain.
SOB: 25 hits, 12.5 wounds, 8.33 after saves. 20.56 BL remain.

Here the SOB will lose their frenzy, as despite having an extra rank still they did 2.5 fewer wounds to the BL and will lose combat by some small margin. Probably not enough to break them but, unfortunately, it's enough to remove frenzy. Additionally as soon as the SOB have fewer than 30 models their damage output starts decreasing, so it's likely that they're going to have significantly fewer attacks in the next round of combat.

BL: 13.7 hits, 9.13 wounds, 7.16 after saves. 26.04 SOB remain.
SOB: 18.02 hits, 9.01 wounds, 6.01 after saves. 14.55 BL remain.

BL: 9.7 hits, 6.46 wounds, 5.38 after saves. 20.66 SOB remain.
SOB: 15.33 hits, 7.66 wounds, 5.11 after saves. 9.44 BL remain.

BL: 6.29 hits, 4.19 wounds, 3.49 after saves. 17.77 SOB remain.
SOB: 13.58 hits, 6.79 wounds, 4.52 after saves. 4.92 BL remain.

BL: 3.28 hits, 2.18 wounds, 1.82 after saves. 15.95 SOB remain.
SOB: 12.97 hits, 6.48 wounds, 4.32 after saves. .66 BL remain. (0 next turn)


Well, color me impressed!

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 23:07
Urgat,
First of all I Think it's a bad idea all together to try and fix individual units in Army Lists. It's better to redo it all if you're honestly interested in getting a good result.
Because the first step is rather easy: You just make an educated guess on what needs changing, or what 'looks balanced' in comparison to other units, or simply based on your experience.
So we have posters in this thread ranging from those that feel Bloodletters are good 'as is', those who nerf them only minutely (like S4+1 instead of 5), the moderates that would prefer +1pts cost, the cautious ones who'd prefer some combo of the previously mentioned or simply +2 pointcost, and finally the people who just won't be satisfied until Daemons is the ugly step-Child of this entire Edition (S3+Great Weapons, 15pts cost, unstable, no Wardsave, or even a combination of the above!).
So what's next? Well...
Let's remove the option of keeping Bloodletters 'as is' (because otherwise why are we all here?)
Let's also remove ALL the traumatic bs at the other end of the spectrum.
Let's also look at how GW tends to 'fix' units - changing Stats/Special rules is an uncommon thing, in most cases we're looking at altered cost as the single mean of rebalancing units.
This means that we should also, in all seriousness, toss out all notions of "S4+1" and "Frenzy" etcetera - not because these are necessarily bad ideas, but because if we include these ideas we're simply setting up an individualized wishlist.
So that leaves us with either +1 or +2 in cost for Bloodletters.
Next Question: Is our new pointcost to be inserted in the present Army Book, or are we assuming that the rest of the List is also going to be updated to the Standards of 8th Edition?
If we're only changing Bloodletters and leaving all other things then I pretty much Think this discussion is moot.
On the other hand, if we're going to fix the entire book then that's a giant Project. And here we have a long list of things that are necessarily going to be more expensive: Master of Sorcery, Despair Icon, Siren Song, The Masque (off the top of my head) are all things that will either have double the cost, or simply be nerfed into oblivion. All Heralds are going to go up in cost in varying degree on account of Locus, All Casting values in the Daemonic Lores of Magic are going to be almost doubled (although some spell-mechanics will be tweaked as well), and then you're looking at items like The Icon of Endless War (since Phazael mentioned it specifically) that belong to a second tier of items that may also be removed or revamped in some way.
Then you need to ask yourself how Bloodletters fit into that new equation.
What you want is an army list with no 'no-brain' choices, a list where facing any opponant is a challange decided either by your Dice or your wits (but never by a generally altered cost-efficiency).
And that takes playtesting, really - something that you really can't get too much of (and GW chronically does too Little of it btw - because it's not in their interest to care like we do).

So if all we're talking about here is kicking Bloodletters in the nads Flamer-patch-style then fine, go ahead, anything goes!
On the other hand if we're talking about what they should/could be like (or cost, really..) in an Army List where all the other 'no-brain' and 'no-way' choices have been balanced out, then +1 or possible +2pts is where you'll end up. Of course, this is all assuming that we want to see Bloodletters fielded in games regularly. If we're just tired of seeing those red basterds on the table (as I understand some are, for good or worse) then we're back to "anything goes".

13pts Bloodletters (including countless other minute Changes to the current book) is something that I've playtested for over a year now. I've seen no signs of that cost being anything but balanced for them. I would happily go with 14pts too, but in that case I wouldn't raise the cost of the HoK (Locus, more specifically) to the extent that we did - so this would really be shuffling Points around.

And you need to look at the whole list at all times. Daemons are an elite army. Like High Elves. They don't have Skaven Slaves, Zombies, Goblins, or anything resembling such units. Without going too much into detail; This does effect how you need to evaluate units in order for the 'sum of all parts' to truly function. This is what Cruddace kinda failed at with TK, from what I understand.

Oh well.. Longwinded damn post.. Not expecting to win any hearts and minds with it. And I know you're not an idiot Urgat, I know I'm blabbering on about a bunch of obvious stuff that you already grasp all by yourself. To some extent I agree with you that there probably isn't a state of "perfection" in terms of cost-efficiency and balance (not if we're going to have the dynamic and varied game that we all utlimately love!) but there are degrees of that perfection to be attained. And with myself as the nearest example: Can you blame me for trusting 1 year of playtesting over guesstimations solely based on 12pts BL's seeming undercosted in the current book? - Something, btw, that almost everyone on all sides of any fence agrees on (more or less).

Above all, regardless of whether we're talking about buffs or nerfs being applied - I Think 'moderation' is pretty much Always prudent. You wouldn't Believe how may darlings we've killed in the last two years with respect to our Little re-write, and I almost can't Believe how fortunate it is that we have the humility to do that!

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 23:14
Actually I'd forgotten that with AHW and Frenzy they'd have 20 more attacks, not 10. Let's run through it to be sure:

40 Bloodletters vs. 55 Savage Orc Boys (AHW)

BL have 30 attacks, require 3's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
SOB (lolz) have 50 attacks, require 4's to hit and 4's to wound (3's in the first round), and have a 6++ save.

BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds, 11.10 after saves. 43.9 SOB remain.
SOB: 25 hits, 16.66 wounds, 11.11 after saves. 28.89 BL remain.

Now here the combat is tied from a wounds perspective, however the Orcs would have a rank over the BL and win combat by 1. Nothing huge, but it means they don't lose frenzy. The problem, however, is they will now need 4's to wound due to the choppa rule no longer being in effect.


Wait a minute.. Bloodletters have Toughness 3, no?
Savage Orcs have Strength 4 base and S5 (with Choppas) in the first round of combat, no?
So they wound on 2's in the first round of combat, and on 3's for the rest of the combat.

So the Bloodletters lose more handsomely I'd say. :)

And just imagine how poorly my 13pts 'Letters would fare...

Tygre
09-11-2012, 23:30
Savage Orcs have Strength 4 base and S5 (with Choppas) in the first round of combat, no?


Only if the Savage Orcs are Big 'Uns. And then there is only one Big 'Uns unit in the army.

DaemonReign
09-11-2012, 23:33
Ah right.. My bad!
I guess I'm kinda used to running them as Big'uns.. haha

Lord Dan
09-11-2012, 23:57
Ah right.. My bad!
I guess I'm kinda used to running them as Big'uns.. haha

Most all of us are. :p

DaemonReign
10-11-2012, 07:38
OK so regular Savage Boyz (let alone Big'Un savages!!) beat Bloodletters in a stand-up fight. I hope this is somewhat of a Wake-up call for some people who's been attending this thread.
Math-hammer like this is still only a part of the concideration needed for arrive at a good cost - an important part, for sure, but only a stepping stone none-the-less.
It was good to get some nuance on this issue from someone who can't be discarded as a daemon fan-boy or whatever. ;)

Urgat
10-11-2012, 08:16
Urgat,
First of all I Think it's a bad idea all together to try and fix individual units in Army Lists. It's better to redo it all if you're honestly interested in getting a good result.
Why? Everybody pretty much agrees on the units that need boosts or fix, and all in all they're clearly the minority within the new rules.


Because the first step is rather easy: You just make an educated guess on what needs changing, or what 'looks balanced' in comparison to other units, or simply based on your experience.
So we have posters in this thread ranging from those that feel Bloodletters are good 'as is', those who nerf them only minutely (like S4+1 instead of 5), the moderates that would prefer +1pts cost, the cautious ones who'd prefer some combo of the previously mentioned or simply +2 pointcost, and finally the people who just won't be satisfied until Daemons is the ugly step-Child of this entire Edition (S3+Great Weapons, 15pts cost, unstable, no Wardsave, or even a combination of the above!).
So what's next? Well...
Let's remove the option of keeping Bloodletters 'as is' (because otherwise why are we all here?)
Let's also remove ALL the traumatic bs at the other end of the spectrum.
Let's also look at how GW tends to 'fix' units - changing Stats/Special rules is an uncommon thing, in most cases we're looking at altered cost as the single mean of rebalancing units.
This means that we should also, in all seriousness, toss out all notions of "S4+1" and "Frenzy" etcetera - not because these are necessarily bad ideas, but because if we include these ideas we're simply setting up an individualized wishlist.
So that leaves us with either +1 or +2 in cost for Bloodletters.
Well, that's fine, no?

Next Question: Is our new pointcost to be inserted in the present Army Book, or are we assuming that the rest of the List is also going to be updated to the Standards of 8th Edition?
Wowowo. Hold your horses there. You're totally veering off-topic and I don't want to be dragged into that. I was merely saying that mathammer was a good way to gauge a unit's efficient in a stated context, and then argued that playtesting stuff to cover external factors (as you suggested) was impossible, but it seems to me you're trying to pull me into an argument about rebalancing the whole damn game, and I feel we're going ahead the way flamers (the Tzeentch kind, not the warseer kind) lie if I keep going on. Sorry, but I feel I'm getting into too many arguments these days, so I'll have to pass. And I'm sure there's points I'd want to adress in the rest of your post, so I'll refrain from reading it (coz I'm weak and wouldn't be able to resist).
Edit: skimmed through your post anyway to see if you at least adressed my question (you did go on about the flamers, you :p), and you're not replying to it at all. You're commenting about how stuff is, and how things should be, the way people would do it, but your favored way of doing tests so as to cover all the possibilities remains impossible in my eyes. Probably in yours too, because you totally danced around it :p

Wesser
10-11-2012, 09:22
OK so regular Savage Boyz (let alone Big'Un savages!!) beat Bloodletters in a stand-up fight. I hope this is somewhat of a Wake-up call for some people who's been attending this thread.
Math-hammer like this is still only a part of the concideration needed for arrive at a good cost - an important part, for sure, but only a stepping stone none-the-less.
It was good to get some nuance on this issue from someone who can't be discarded as a daemon fan-boy or whatever. ;)

Nuance? You're talking about one unit in one army thats got a chance.

I play VC and Empire and rly have extremely few options of dealing with letters. The common enough 40-unit? If my VC can't tarpit it with zombies successfully things are looking grim. Or Empire? Maybe an ubder-horde of around 70 Halberdiers supported by a waltar can do it. Certainly not much else.

Point is. You don't make bloodletters seem any less undercosted if you keep comparing them only to the few couple of units that stand a chance when half the armies and almost every other unit gets torn apart.

For what they do now, I'd pick them every time at 14 pts.

Or they can lose the killing blow and get frenzy instead. That would also make them at least manageable

DaemonReign
10-11-2012, 12:04
@ Urgat: What exactly was your 'question'? :)

@ Wesser: When facing Empire I've learnt to fear Statetroops and their detachments with Cruddace's book. Buffs from Warrior Priests, Altars, WizMobiles, and Augments in general is not something the Empire player can Count on, of course, but preventing Any and All such buffs to go through is damn near impossible in my experience. These Days I expect to lose if I build a braindead list of red hordes and just march forward. Also Mortars are pretty damn reliable, but that probably requires a bit bigger games as you need about 3 of them.
And VC.. Well GraveGuard with Banner of Barrows and whatever extras you got, that's not something Bloodletters laugh at. Or make sure those Bloodletters are just generally useless hacking their way through endless ranks of Zombies all game.
I don't see any kind of problem here. Savage orcs stomps Bloodletters Point for Point and yet OnG is way easier to beat with Daemons compared to both Empire and VC. Which just goes to show really..

brynolf
10-11-2012, 13:39
From what I can see, the discussion hasn't covered the (IMO) most important thing about daemon core units: that all the four choices should be extremely specialized (but still equally valid for their points, of course). Daemonettes should counter cheap hordes but struggle against heavily armoured elites, bloodletters should be the opposite of that. Giving 'letters Frenzy would be fluffy and all, but would make them even more versatile, from a pure combat perspective.

If I had any say in it all, I would lower the WS of 'nettes to 4 and remove their AP. They could get another attack if that's warranted, we don't want them to become too cheap. They're elites after all.

'Letters stay at 1 attack with KB, but get AP (or hell, even Ignore armour save completely). Something like this would make them a neat counter to knights and the like, but S5 is still very useful against gobbos and such. So a lowered S would work.

Something along those lines would be nifty in my eyes.

Wesser
10-11-2012, 15:19
From what I can see, the discussion hasn't covered the (IMO) most important thing about daemon core units: that all the four choices should be extremely specialized (but still equally valid for their points, of course). Daemonettes should counter cheap hordes but struggle against heavily armoured elites, bloodletters should be the opposite of that. Giving 'letters Frenzy would be fluffy and all, but would make them even more versatile, from a pure combat perspective.

If I had any say in it all, I would lower the WS of 'nettes to 4 and remove their AP. They could get another attack if that's warranted, we don't want them to become too cheap. They're elites after all.

'Letters stay at 1 attack with KB, but get AP (or hell, even Ignore armour save completely). Something like this would make them a neat counter to knights and the like, but S5 is still very useful against gobbos and such. So a lowered S would work.

Something along those lines would be nifty in my eyes.

No to that.

The only thing I hate more than units that are good at everything in the game and have no real weaknesses (as I think bloodletters are), is units that do something overwhelmingly well, but is bad at all else.

This is especially true for core picks. Specialization here would mean every opponent thinking "If he uses 'nettes I'm screwed, but if he use letters then im home safe".

Daemon core is already too much rock-paper-scissor compared to other armies. For the sake of mono-armies and all non-daemon players who'll want a balanced game.. let's hope they wont make that part worse

The Low King
10-11-2012, 15:38
The only thing I hate more than units that are good at everything in the game and have no real weaknesses (as I think bloodletters are), is units that do something overwhelmingly well, but is bad at all else.

Weaknesses:
-Shooting (in fact, any ranged attack)
-All the weaknesses of hordes
-Multiple Low Strength attacks

Lord Dan
10-11-2012, 15:58
The only thing I hate more than units that are good at everything in the game and have no real weaknesses (as I think bloodletters are), is units that do something overwhelmingly well, but is bad at all else.

Er...I'm not grasping how a unit couldn't fall into one of these categories. By my estimation it can be either:

Good at everything
Good at something and bad at something
Bad at everything

Sooo...can you elaborate a bit?

Urgat
10-11-2012, 16:03
@ Urgat: What exactly was your 'question'? :)

what's the method you'd use that would take into account any and all external factors in a fight, as opposed to straight mathammer. It doesn't really matter, it was off-topic too anyway.


Er...I'm not grasping how a unit couldn't fall into one of these categories. By my estimation it can be either:

Good at everything
Good at something and bad at something
Bad at everything

Sooo...can you elaborate a bit?
It can be be average at everything :p
I'd support that each god had specialised troop, but that would really only promote multigod armies so... nah.

DaemonReign
10-11-2012, 17:14
T3 is definately a weakness for a 12pts model in an army where that is as cheap as models come. The fact that you pretty much have to get 30+ of them compounds that. Like Phazael said: If you really feel there's nothing you can do to beat Bloodletters, then just feed them crap and prevent them from being worthwhile.

@ Urgat: Ok. Fair enough. I was trying to describe my thoughts on that actually.. but I obviously failed to give a coherent account for it.. or maybe my post was just too long..

Wesser
10-11-2012, 17:18
Er...I'm not grasping how a unit couldn't fall into one of these categories. By my estimation it can be either:

Good at everything
Good at something and bad at something
Bad at everything

Sooo...can you elaborate a bit?

Bloodletters:

Good against characaters?: Yes, high str. and killing blow
Good against monsters/MI/MC?: Decent. Got better WS than most of these combined with high str. Can still be stomped.
Good against cavalry?: Yes. In fact there might not be a better anti-cavalry unit in the game
Good against elite infantry: Yes, same as for cavalry.
Good against chaff infantry?: Decent. Their number of attacks is still limited and zombies can hold them for quite a while. Still point for point letters will tend to make their worth.
Good against shooting?: Still decent. they may only have T3 but with that ward save they're nowhere near as vulnerable as comparable elites such as swordmasters, executioners or even hammerers.

So there... while they may not be perfect for every kind of situation they are great against everyone except constantly reraised zombies, Phoenix Guards and Chosen-star.


I just don't like a) grossly overpowered crap that can do everything with no brain attachments needed (Bloodletters), or B) design that makes it glaringly obvious how you should use your units. Aka. "Daemonettes must only fight light infantry or you are an idiot".

The Empire book is great example of rules talking down at players:

"If you take a Helblaster with no engineer you're being an idiot"
"If you dont take warrior priest you dont understand the army"
"The units are pretty much over the top for financial purposes, so bring those".

That's what Cruddace did to the Empire book, more or less telling us how to play. I kinda dont want that for more books

Vipoid
10-11-2012, 17:29
T3 is definately a weakness for a 12pts model in an army where that is as cheap as models come. The fact that you pretty much have to get 30+ of them compounds that. Like Phazael said: If you really feel there's nothing you can do to beat Bloodletters, then just feed them crap and prevent them from being worthwhile.


To be fair, a 5+ ward save does help mitigate this weakness somewhat. Not entirely, I'll grant, but a 5+ save (4+ vs magic) that can't be negated by higher strength weapons is still a decent defence.


Regardless, for what it's worth, the thing I hate most about Bloodletters isn't S5, but the fact that they have killing blow. I'd much rather they lost that than a point of strength - at least that way you could put a character against them, without fearing that he'll be killed outright. But, that's just me.

DaemonReign
10-11-2012, 22:18
I'm onboard with what you say about Designer's telling us how to play Wesser. Stuff like that should be avoided. And letting costs in pts be influenced by 'sales' is also terrible, just terrible. You're not wrong about Cruddace's Empire book, and sales-driven balancing is something that's really become a malaise of this Edition (although not as terrible as the hard AB-creep of last Edition).

With Bloodletters though you just seem to be looking at them through a crimson veil.

They are dangerous for Characters, absolutely. Although Close-combat chars have problems beyond just Bloodletters, and can really only be 'protected' in the longer run by the kind of Wardsaves that Daemons don't have access to (not even Tzeentch, which is a flaw in the current book btw). Killing off Heralds of Khorne isn't too hard either, a juicy target for that KB-sniping stuff Cruddace has given you.. for example.
They're all right against Monsters, MI/MC too. Not stellar but yes, can handle those situations although it's rarely cost-efficient.
Good against Cavalry, and elite infantry (although there are better units vs Elites)..

But chaff? Seriously? Feeding them chaff is exactly what you should be doing if you got nothing better to counter them with. As a Daemon-player I definately don't field BL-Hordes with the ambition to be stuck with chaff.
Shooting - they are T3 and 12pts per model, and as soon as you start chipping away models beneath that magical Horde-requirement the likelihood for the Daemon-player to get a return on his investment diminishes very, very rapidly. There are few targets in the game who usually present such a juicy target for BS-based shooting as those standard "32-model BL Hordes" - I usually make mine closer to 50 models principally out of FEAR of BS-based shooting. Sure they got Wardsave. That's all they got and it's a lot less than many other comparable units in this instance.
And they flat out suck against any unit consisting of models costing 5 or less Points - those are the kind of combats that represent a total failure to even be in with a unit of Bloodletters. Goblins, Zombies, Skellies - it's all an Epic fail regardless of whether it takes 2 or more combats to send them fleeing or wipe them out.
They are not 'good' against ALL other elite units either. WitchElves invariably slaughter them, Savage Orcs too, Swordmasters, properly deployed Graveguard, Saurus... Even Statetroops (if you drink the coolaid and use these as Cruddace intended for us, haha).

They are marginally undercosted. By a Point (or two - but that's shaky).
You call them grossely overpowered. No offense but that's a gross exaggeration.

theunwantedbeing
10-11-2012, 22:38
Bloodletters: Good against characaters?: Yes, high str. and killing blow
However, with a single attack per model you really aren't at all that much of a risk from killing blow and St5 is the same as any great weapon horde(often less).
You're looking at a maximum of 9 attacks headed the character's way, of which 25% should miss (4+ to hit, with a hatred re-roll) which puts you at 6.75 rolls to wound.
On average, yes that is just over one killing blow...but that is a worst case scenario.

Good against monsters/MI/MC?: Decent. Got better WS than most of these combined with high str. Can still be stomped.
Ws is fairly meaningless as they hit all similar troops on a 4+ anyway, and they tend to have plenty of attacks at a high enough strength to offset any worries.
Being flanked by MI/MC is not something Bloodletters want happening to them, especially as they are only single attack models.

Good against cavalry?: Yes. In fact there might not be a better anti-cavalry unit in the game
White lions are much better anti-cavalry unit.
Most St6 hordes tend to be, especially MI units that generate multiple St6+ attacks.

Good against elite infantry: Yes, same as for cavalry.
Elite Infantry tend to have the raw killing power to be dealing more damage than BL's do, plus they often fight before the BL, meaning they win any fights they aren't outnumbered massively in.

Good against chaff infantry?: Decent. Their number of attacks is still limited and zombies can hold them for quite a while. Still point for point letters will tend to make their worth.
Any St5 single attack unit works well against chaff, BL are more expensive than most great weapon armed rubbish.

Good against shooting?: Still decent. they may only have T3 but with that ward save they're nowhere near as vulnerable as comparable elites such as swordmasters, executioners or even hammerers.
That would be because they have a 5+ ward rather than a 5+ armour save.

Swordmasters go first, with a better weaponskill and multiple attacks to tend to cut through chaff, elites and cavalry far more quickly than those bloodletters can.
Executionairs have a higher strength which is more useful for a number of reasons, plus they do have certain buffs available to them that BL don't.
Hammerers are St6, which is more useful...plus toughness 4 does help vs low strength units that aren't seeing a difference between a 5+ ward and a 5+ armour save.

You also have to factor in the lack of shooting for the daemon army.
The above unit's you like to compare them to are invariably going to be backed by some sort of ranged units, bloodletters tend to be the best target for such ranged units simply because they are easier to kill than anything else in the army and pose a threat with their St5 attacks.
Those elites aren't going to be worrying much about daemonic shooting being thrown at them.

DaemonReign
10-11-2012, 23:27
theunwantedbeing made me Think about shooting and I had this sudden realization with regards to this thread-topic..
The thing is: In my Little bubble I've been so focused on actually having moderated a serious revision of the DoC book, that I immediately (as me an Urgat discussed earlier) approach the issue of Bloodletters as though the 'entire' book is also being rebalanced.
My assertion that Bloodletters are Worth 13pts/model is thus based on Flamers - amongst other things - actually being viable choices.
So if we're talking about just changing Bloodletters, in light of the current book and the August WD patch for Daemons, then we're definately not talking about a Point-increase.
In that context Bloodletters are exactly as they should be, although they could do with some more choices in terms of Icons.. *haha*

The Low King
11-11-2012, 00:27
Good against shooting?: Still decent. they may only have T3 but with that ward save they're nowhere near as vulnerable as comparable elites such as swordmasters, executioners or even hammerers.


Hmmm, elves yes, hammerers?

S3 shooting:
Wounds Bloodletters on 4s, wounds hammerers on 5s, that means 1/3 less damage for hammerers. Then they each have a 5+ save. Hammerers are more survivable.

S4 shooting:
Wounds bloodletters on 3s, hammerers on 4s, 1/4 less damage. Hammerers have a 6+ save, bloodletters a 5+. Hammerers are slightly tougher.

S4 AP shooting
Wounds bloodletters on 3s, hammerers on 4s, 1/4 less damage. Bloodletters have a 5+ save. Bloodletters slightly tougher.

S5 shooting
Wounds Bloodletters on 2s, hammerers on 3s. 1/5 less damage. Bloodletters have a 5+ save, slightly tougher.

S6+....who the hell fires this at infantry? Bloodletters are tougher

Then again, dwarf players have more to shoot back with, and the master rune of Grungni.

Lord Dan
11-11-2012, 00:57
Hmmm, elves yes, hammerers?

S3 shooting:
Wounds Bloodletters on 4s, wounds hammerers on 5s, that means 1/3 less damage for hammerers. Then they each have a 5+ save. Hammerers are more survivable.

S4 shooting:
Wounds bloodletters on 3s, hammerers on 4s, 1/4 less damage. Hammerers have a 6+ save, bloodletters a 5+. Hammerers are slightly tougher.

S4 AP shooting
Wounds bloodletters on 3s, hammerers on 4s, 1/4 less damage. Bloodletters have a 5+ save. Bloodletters slightly tougher.

S5 shooting
Wounds Bloodletters on 2s, hammerers on 3s. 1/5 less damage. Bloodletters have a 5+ save, slightly tougher.

S6+....who the hell fires this at infantry? Bloodletters are tougher

Then again, dwarf players have more to shoot back with, and the master rune of Grungni.

Remember too that Daemons are both faster (meaning less time to shoot them) and immune to psychology (meaning they'll never panic from shooting).

Krish
11-11-2012, 02:46
Chaos warriors: 15 pts

armour save 4+ attacks 2 strength 4 m 4 t 4

blood letters: 12 pts

ward save 5 + attacks 1 strength 5 m5 t3 killing blow immune to psychology, magic resistance 1 , hatred, magical attacks

So really, they should be 16 or 17 pts.

DaemonReign
11-11-2012, 06:42
Noo.. Why not: 20(!) Points! Why not 40pts!?
And then the Daemon-player should like.. pay you 10 bux under the table at the start of each round of combat just so you don't rage-quit on his broken a$$..

Look Krish:
4+ AS is better or equal to 5+ Wardsave against the majority of attacks in the game - add the extra Toughness and Warriors are simply; Tougher.
2S4 attacks is better than one strength 5 - and don't Chaos Warriors have Encorcelled Weapons anyway?
Killing Blow is good, but absolutely pointless vs single wound models.
Magic Resistance really doesn't deserve to get a mention.
Hatred comes from the Herald and should be more expensive (i.e. Heralds should cost a bit more) but if you're going to include it then it's only fair to include the Static Buffs that can be given Chaos Warriors too.
15pts for a Bloodletter is a joke - unless, sure, you decrease the cost of Heralds of Khorne to compensate or give BLs Toughness 4 (or something) none of which I would want to see..
13-14pts is the reasonable spectrum, assuming that (essentially) the rest of the List is rebalanced too.

And yet, I'm prepping myself for the next Daemon-book in Fantasy really being mostly about satisfying people who just stopped thinking rationally about Daemons in 7th Ed. So - and again - you're much more likely to be satisfied with whatever's coming than I am likely to be. *haha*

Urgat
11-11-2012, 09:05
sales-driven balancing is something that's really become a malaise of this Edition

Yes, as the new flamers perfectly examplify :p


don't Chaos Warriors have Encorcelled Weapons anyway?

No, chaos knights do, not chaos warriors.


you're much more likely to be satisfied with whatever's coming than I am likely to be. *haha*

I'm afraid (for you) that you're going to be right. That being said, I don't think you'll find your army suddenly becoming crap or anything, so no big deal anyway.

Krish
11-11-2012, 10:15
mhm 15 pts ( and still by many considered overpowered ) vs much better bloodletter 12 pts. 5 + unmodified ward save worst then 4+ armour save? ( for any with str 4 its 5+ and then less against anything with str 5 -like blodletter its 6+ almost non existing save, lets add cannons to the equation ). Ehh i wont even comment the rest. ( ah i forgot - bloodletters have magical attacks too :-) )

Vipoid
11-11-2012, 10:25
Killing Blow is good, but absolutely pointless vs single wound models.


Exactly!

Who'd want to completely ignore armour and regeneration anyway? :rolleyes:

AmaroK
11-11-2012, 10:57
Noo.. Why not: 20(!) Points! Why not 40pts!?
And then the Daemon-player should like.. pay you 10 bux under the table at the start of each round of combat just so you don't rage-quit on his broken a$$..

Look Krish:
4+ AS is better or equal to 5+ Wardsave against the majority of attacks in the game - add the extra Toughness and Warriors are simply; Tougher.
2S4 attacks is better than one strength 5 - and don't Chaos Warriors have Encorcelled Weapons anyway?
Killing Blow is good, but absolutely pointless vs single wound models.
Magic Resistance really doesn't deserve to get a mention.
Hatred comes from the Herald and should be more expensive (i.e. Heralds should cost a bit more) but if you're going to include it then it's only fair to include the Static Buffs that can be given Chaos Warriors too.
15pts for a Bloodletter is a joke - unless, sure, you decrease the cost of Heralds of Khorne to compensate or give BLs Toughness 4 (or something) none of which I would want to see..
13-14pts is the reasonable spectrum, assuming that (essentially) the rest of the List is rebalanced too.

And yet, I'm prepping myself for the next Daemon-book in Fantasy really being mostly about satisfying people who just stopped thinking rationally about Daemons in 7th Ed. So - and again - you're much more likely to be satisfied with whatever's coming than I am likely to be. *haha*

Just a question : Have you ever played other army that is not daemon of chaos? I have daemons myself, but I also have other armies: beastmen, tomb kings, lizarmen, high elves, ogres, warriors of chaos... And really, I canīt find 13-14 points reasonable to the current incarnation of bloodletters in their current book.

Most people is mentioning their stats and abilities, and sure, they are elite (and beyond that for other armies): high WS, high I, str 5 attacking on high initiative, killing blow, +5 ward save, access to hatred.... All of this is hard to be found at the same time even in the special section of other armies, and of course not for 12 points. But people forgets about the daemonic break test, which makes the troops virtually unbreakable: you know they are not going to flee (not panic, no fear) and they are not going to crumble unless you win for a huge margin (and thats not so easy with this kind of troops). Other armies would kill for having access to such units with immune to psychology and/or improved break tests and /or causing fear. Not happy with all of this, any unit have access to magic banners eventhough they are core, and they can repeat it: extra d6 for the 1st charge for everyone? Sure, why not :D And all of this is without having a look with the rest of the army sinergies and access to other gimmicks (leadership bomb elements, easy access to loremaster mages, spammable daemonic gifts, overpowered special characters...) that make the bloodletters performance even greater beyond their own stats.

Deamons got an overpowered book in an overpowered edition. Maybe 8th has tonned it down it a bit, but just a single bit. The book should be taken down to an average power level, and, for me, to a more defiant way to be played. Right now, its too easy to place your virtual unbreakable, inmune to psychology, ward saved hordes in the field and just march towards the enemy. Bloodletters are the first offenders in this regards, too much of a no brainer shock troop. I hope they get either worse in stats in abilities or more expensive in points, to get a balance with the other core daemons first, and also with the other 8th edition core troops.

theunwantedbeing
11-11-2012, 11:25
Most people is mentioning their stats and abilities, and sure, they are elite (and beyond that for other armies): high WS, high I, str 5 attacking on high initiative, killing blow, +5 ward save, access to hatred.... All of this is hard to be found at the same time even in the special section of other armies, and of course not for 12 points.
You're making an error here.
Firstly, points cost is the only balancing factor...being a core choice does not magically give you a points break over special or rare choices.
Chaos warriors for example have higher stats than most special choices, and they are core as well. They also have a higher cost than most special choices.


But people forgets about the daemonic break test, which makes the troops virtually unbreakable:
Virtually? they are unbreakable.


you know they are not going to flee (not panic, no fear) and they are not going to crumble unless you win for a huge margin (and thats not so easy with this kind of troops).
You assume they will always be steadfast on a high leadership and have a re-roll from a nearby BsB.
This will not always be the case.


Other armies would kill for having access to such units with immune to psychology and/or improved break tests and /or causing fear.
My dark elves would love to have 30" range St4 crossbows, this is a moot point to make.
I'de also like cannons, but I do not have them and likely never will.


Not happy with all of this, any unit have access to magic banners eventhough they are core, and they can repeat it: extra d6 for the 1st charge for everyone? Sure, why not :D
This is a fair point. Although the banner you mentioned is the only banner used multiple times, the other banner they get access to is almost usless.
The banners from the other gods are all much more useful, some are far more useful.
Dwarves can do the same trick currently, but with war banners and other more useful effects remember.


And all of this is without having a look with the rest of the army sinergies and access to other gimmicks (leadership bomb elements, easy access to loremaster mages, spammable daemonic gifts, overpowered special characters...) that make the bloodletters performance even greater beyond their own stats.
You cannot complain at Bloodletters when you are really complaining about the synergy of items that have little to do with them, especially when such synergies work as well (if not better) on other units within the army.

All armies have access to various synergies and augment spells and so forth anyway.

AmaroK
11-11-2012, 12:15
You're making an error here.
Firstly, points cost is the only balancing factor...being a core choice does not magically give you a points break over special or rare choices.
Chaos warriors for example have higher stats than most special choices, and they are core as well. They also have a higher cost than most special choices.


Iīm not making any error. Many armies have to go through a 25% of underperforming troops to get their powerful units from special or rare. This is not the case of bloodletters. Chaos warriors are also undercosted for what they are and what they can do, and I hope they are going down in stats and/or raise their price.


Virtually? they are unbreakable.


No, they are not. They are unstable. Unbreakable donīt loose models by combat resolution :D But it was a way of speaking anyways.


You assume they will always be steadfast on a high leadership and have a re-roll from a nearby BsB.
This will not always be the case.


Im not asuming that, I never said such a thing. I just assume people field them in big hordes and they can stay on the table for ages, even loosing the combats. Bloodletters are not the kind of unit you usually beat by a lot anyways.


My dark elves would love to have 30" range St4 crossbows, this is a moot point to make.
I'de also like cannons, but I do not have them and likely never will.


If they would, they should pay for it. My reasoning was more about taking into account that 13 points isnīt so well priced because of what I mentioned, than other armies should have access to that... which I wouldnīt like at all :P


This is a fair point. Although the banner you mentioned is the only banner used multiple times, the other banner they get access to is almost usless.
The banners from the other gods are all much more useful, some are far more useful.
Dwarves can do the same trick currently, but with war banners and other more useful effects remember.

Sure, and dwarves have ward saves on their troops, and cause fear, and str 5 on initiative, or killing blow, or inmune to psychology or... The point here is that most of the core troops donīt have access to magic banners in other armies. This is an add in the base bloodletter value, even if they have "useful" banners or not... and they are useful.



You cannot complain at Bloodletters when you are really complaining about the synergy of items that have little to do with them, especially when such synergies work as well (if not better) on other units within the army.

All armies have access to various synergies and augment spells and so forth anyway.

I complain both the bloodletters by themselves as well as synergies of the army. You have to factor whatīs in the army to give a point tag to the troops. Lets say orcs can boost themselves by magic, but they dont have access to all lores, while daemons can have any with loremaster; lets say vampire counts can lower your leadership so you can fail fear, but they donīt have the mask, nor -2 leadership standards that can march into the lines of the enemy nor have such a strong core troop to decimate the enemy... just 2 examples, I know much can be discussed about them, but the point is you have to take into account all the army, not just a single unit. If the rest of the daemon army wouldnīt be so tricky, maybe I could accept bloodletters as they are now with their current points.... though I doubt it ;)

DaemonReign
11-11-2012, 13:07
Yes, as the new flamers perfectly examplify :p

Yup. [You do know they made them quite OP in 40k right? Chaos Daemons became a 'top tier' army with Screamer-Flamer spam in 40k with the August patch.. Quite a mystery....]


No, chaos knights do, not chaos warriors.

Ah ok.


I'm afraid (for you) that you're going to be right. That being said, I don't think you'll find your army suddenly becoming crap or anything, so no big deal anyway.

Not too worried about the nerfing going haywire. Don't really care too much about that. More worried about the character of it all.. the fluff.. it gets very.. subjective.
Almost anything is acceptable as long as it's done with taste.

I'm likely to keep 'playtesting' this Little re-write Project regardless of what happens actually.. So if bad turns to worse I sorta have a backdoor escape.

@ Amarok: 8th Edition is lightyears from 7th in terms of dynamic. The elasticity of 'balance' is very much increased. Daemons are balanced right now. [They lost some Power in the transition, most other armies gained a lot of viability - and all this inserted into the dynamic of 8th just plain spells balance.]
As for your question: I've collected/played OnG off-and-on for about 15 years. I've fielded VC-lists quite a number of times. I play against Empire, Dwarves, Dark Elves, VC, and OnG in my local Group. In 7th Ed it was clear that Dark Elves and Daemons rode a higher road compared to the rest of those armies - now, in 8th, it's just plain balanced. (We don't use Special Characters though)
I'm partial to Daemons though because I've gotten infatuated with them aesthethically. As a reference our OnG Collection is 10k legal (and painted) while my DoC Collection is 30k legal (again: only the stuff that's painted).
So I'm a bit bent on Daemons.. Aesthethically. Beyond that I'm as interested in fair play and balance as the next guy.

It's pointless, this discussion.. This thread have gone on for many pages now, and for a while there we had conclusive 'evidence' compiled to demonstrate that Bloodletters are Worth +1-2pts their current cost.. And then we turn a page in the thread and somebody restarts the discussion at Square one by throwing something knee-jerky out about 16pts or whatever.
Have fun with that. I'm done with this.

Urgat
11-11-2012, 13:22
Yup. [You do know they made them quite OP in 40k right? Chaos Daemons became a 'top tier' army with Screamer-Flamer spam in 40k with the August patch.. Quite a mystery....
No I didn't know that, but it doesn't matter: it's a new kit, and they didn't make it overpowered in WFB to sell it more.


Not too worried about the nerfing going haywire. Don't really care too much about that. More worried about the character of it all.. the fluff.. it gets very.. subjective.
Well... you know, I don't consider the current AB particularly stellar when it comes to fluff, so if they change it, maybe it'll be a bit more true to how it was before, or not, but in either case, can't really be worse I think.

TsukeFox
11-11-2012, 15:42
I would make Bloodletters S4 and T4 with killing blow for 12 pts. Seems reasonable to me and a fair representation of their abilities. Having a core unit with S5 just seems wrong to me.

Ya core with str5 is crazy good.
Str4 magical killing blown is fair-
Tomb Kings have to pay 13 points for Str5 killing blow on a model with light armour-no ward save.
T4 should be left for the awesome new Nurgle models.

As is now there is no reason for daemons to bother taking those other lesser core choices unless they are going for a themed army.

Further!!!
Let all lesser daemons ( that is any daemon that is not a character ) have their ward save negated by magic weapons!!!

decker_cky
11-11-2012, 16:01
I think 13.5 is where bloodletters should be currently (erring to 14 pts as a core choice). If they're going to keep hatred (or change it to frenzy) in any form, it should be on the base models, and that boosts the fair price to roughly 15 pts.

DaemonReign
11-11-2012, 16:02
No I didn't know that, but it doesn't matter: it's a new kit, and they didn't make it overpowered in WFB to sell it more.

Right.
They did want to push the SoulGrinder in Fantasy though.
People had Flamers already. Save for making them a Core Choice and removing the unit size cap they were never going to make a profit off making a new Flamer model in Fantasy - at least not in the short term perspective that shareholders concern themselves with. So they moved them to Special (to make room for the stuff added to the Rare Section) and made them down right bad (so that the SoulGrinder gets the USP of being the one decent ranged unit in the army).
So it does matter. It falls perfectly in line with units like Skullcrushers and Mournfang Cavalry and the only thing that shrouds it for some people is that Daemons exist in both systems.
All off-topic of course.. Which is the only reason I replied (well that and I respect you) because I'm getting off the merry go round as far as the thread-topic goes. Cudos to Lord Dan, theunwantedbeing, Phazael, and others, for making it interesting until hopelessness ensued.

Cheers.

AmaroK
11-11-2012, 16:50
@ Amarok: 8th Edition is lightyears from 7th in terms of dynamic. The elasticity of 'balance' is very much increased. Daemons are balanced right now. [They lost some Power in the transition, most other armies gained a lot of viability - and all this inserted into the dynamic of 8th just plain spells balance.]
As for your question: I've collected/played OnG off-and-on for about 15 years. I've fielded VC-lists quite a number of times. I play against Empire, Dwarves, Dark Elves, VC, and OnG in my local Group. In 7th Ed it was clear that Dark Elves and Daemons rode a higher road compared to the rest of those armies - now, in 8th, it's just plain balanced. (We don't use Special Characters though)
I'm partial to Daemons though because I've gotten infatuated with them aesthethically. As a reference our OnG Collection is 10k legal (and painted) while my DoC Collection is 30k legal (again: only the stuff that's painted).
So I'm a bit bent on Daemons.. Aesthethically. Beyond that I'm as interested in fair play and balance as the next guy.

It's pointless, this discussion.. This thread have gone on for many pages now, and for a while there we had conclusive 'evidence' compiled to demonstrate that Bloodletters are Worth +1-2pts their current cost.. And then we turn a page in the thread and somebody restarts the discussion at Square one by throwing something knee-jerky out about 16pts or whatever.
Have fun with that. I'm done with this.

Well, my question is not about what you face, but what you actually play. I have been collecting different armies as I mentioned before, and I still keep them all and play them all. Only when I had more than 3 or 4 I started to have a real grip of what was overpowered in my own armies and what not, and thats because I used it myself, even if I faced it many times with other rivals. Every time I play with daemons I feel I dominate the game unless it is against other 7th edition hard army (DE, skavens, Lizardmen). That doesnīt mean Im always winning, its just the feeling from them. Try to do a hard list with daemon and let a friend of yours play it. Then make the hardest list you can think about with OnG. Check if you have the same feeling with both armies in term of dominating the field and strenght. I definitely donīt get that feeling.

About the "evidence" that Bloodletters are +1-2 points... well, thats your opinion. If someone thinks differently and have a different opinion, it shouldnīt be called "knee-jerky". You donīt agree? Im ok with it, but everyone can give their own point of view. And as you said, having a 30k daemon army doesnīt make you the most objective people to talk about them. In the last tournament I attended, all daemon players (4 over 16) used bloodletters as a base troop for their core, supported by daemonettes with their tricks. Something must be wrong with them if they are so overused....


I think 13.5 is where bloodletters should be currently (erring to 14 pts as a core choice). If they're going to keep hatred (or change it to frenzy) in any form, it should be on the base models, and that boosts the fair price to roughly 15 pts.

You are forgetting their daemonic instability. If they are going to keep such a break test (helped with steadfast/bsb), Id say the point price should be boosted even more. I really hope theres a change on instability, something like keeping as it is now in the range of the general, and become like it was in 6th out of the bubble (you know, failed test = poof). It would make them more defiant to play and the army not so independent to go wherever they want without worrying about fleeing, where the general is etc. But its just a personal taste, many will dislike this, Iīm sure.

TsukeFox
11-11-2012, 18:52
Or make it that daemons crumbled like the undead armies. But I suppose the daemons cannot resurrect like the undead.

decker_cky
11-11-2012, 19:05
You are forgetting their daemonic instability. If they are going to keep such a break test (helped with steadfast/bsb), Id say the point price should be boosted even more. I really hope theres a change on instability, something like keeping as it is now in the range of the general, and become like it was in 6th out of the bubble (you know, failed test = poof). It would make them more defiant to play and the army not so independent to go wherever they want without worrying about fleeing, where the general is etc. But its just a personal taste, many will dislike this, Iīm sure.

With instability, that's where I think they belong. They aren't as good as chaos warriors. Better in some matchups for sure, but bloodletters actually have a pretty tough time against basic infantry, which will remain steadfast for a long time and causes as much damage to bloodletters as they do to clanrats.


Or make it that daemons crumbled like the undead armies. But I suppose the daemons cannot resurrect like the undead.

That would actually be pretty interesting - an elite army that crumbles like undead but can't be raised.

AmaroK
11-11-2012, 19:34
With instability, that's where I think they belong. They aren't as good as chaos warriors. Better in some matchups for sure, but bloodletters actually have a pretty tough time against basic infantry, which will remain steadfast for a long time and causes as much damage to bloodletters as they do to clanrats.



That would actually be pretty interesting - an elite army that crumbles like undead but can't be raised.

I donīt think they are as good as chaos warrior... they are better. If you win vs chaos warrior lets say by 4, you can make them flee because at best they are going to be leadership 5-6, and surely they are not going to be steadfast most of the times. Even if they are steadfast, thereīs a chance they can run away. Bloodletters wont run. They maybe loose some models, maybe nothing at all (good leadership roll/steadfast). And being in an edition where you have to kill the unit to a man or catch it when fleeing, that adventage is huge for daemons.

Crumbling on the other hand could be a bit too much of a nerf, who knows. But something should be done about instability.

Vipoid
11-11-2012, 19:43
With regard to the instability thing, do Bloodletters even lose that often?

I know that they don't perform as well against non-elite units, but unless they're physically wiped out, surely they're still not going to be losing those combats (at least in terms of combat resolution)?

theunwantedbeing
11-11-2012, 20:23
I donīt think they are as good as chaos warrior... they are better. If you win vs chaos warrior lets say by 4, you can make them flee because at best they are going to be leadership 5-6, and surely they are not going to be steadfast most of the times.

Yes.
However what is beating Chaos Warriors by 4pts that isn't going to easily be shredding Bloodletters?

decker_cky
11-11-2012, 20:51
Wait....how are bloodletters better than chaos warriorseven head to head? Aside from great weapons, every equipment of chaos warriors wins. If you add a herald to the bloodletters they jump ahead round 1, but giving the best mark to chaos warriors per equipment choice makes them win even that first round (then pull ahead even quicker after that).

Chaos warriors are also much better against weaker troops, which bloodletters struggle against.

AmaroK
11-11-2012, 21:22
Wait....how are bloodletters better than chaos warriorseven head to head? Aside from great weapons, every equipment of chaos warriors wins. If you add a herald to the bloodletters they jump ahead round 1, but giving the best mark to chaos warriors per equipment choice makes them win even that first round (then pull ahead even quicker after that).

Chaos warriors are also much better against weaker troops, which bloodletters struggle against.

I didnīt say they are better head to head, I meant they are better as all around troop. And they are better because they have similar damage output, but bloodletters are virtually inbreakable whilst chaos warrior are not. Lets say that weaker troop get an okkam mindrazor buff. Chaos warrior can eventually loose the fight, and run away from combat. Bloodletters are going to use their ward save against the high strenght attacks anyways, and they are going to stay if they loose, even if loosing some models. Yes, bloodletters can struggle with weaker troops, but as an all around core troop, bloodletters are better. And I said before that I consider chaos warrior to be undercosted as well.

theunwantedbeing
11-11-2012, 21:45
Yes, bloodletters can struggle with weaker troops, but as an all around core troop, bloodletters are better.
In that highly specialised example you just came up with bloodletters(or indeed any daemon) is potentially better than chaos warriors in terms of losing less badly.
Yeah, Bloodletters are completely unfairly priced by a good 4pts/model going off that logic. :rolleyes:


And I said before that I consider chaos warrior to be undercosted as well.
Really? Oh dear.
I guess you'll need to make a new thread if you want to discuss that.
Let me guess, chaos warriors should be 25pts each? before upgrades! and be in4 as well, with only one attack and no chaos armour. (answer in a new thread please)

decker_cky
11-11-2012, 21:51
Ignoring pretty much mindrazor and nothing else, Chaos Warriors are considerably more flexible in their targets. Warriors can chew through chaff on top of killing elites. If you want resiliency against something like mindrazor, you can take tzeentch warriors with handweapons and shields. If you want general killy unit, you can have frenzied warriors with halberds, or even frenzied warriors with AHW for an ideal mindrazor target.

AmaroK
11-11-2012, 22:07
In that highly specialised example you just came up with bloodletters(or indeed any daemon) is potentially better than chaos warriors in terms of losing less badly.
Yeah, Bloodletters are completely unfairly priced by a good 4pts/model going off that logic. :rolleyes:)

My highly specialised example happens in the boards, 1 on 1 with exact points in an isolated enviroment doesnīt. If you want to blink an eye on bloodletters and say it is all right, go for it. If a core infantery with WS 5, STR 5 attacking on high initiative (and because of this pretty resiliant to the most used mass killing spells like dwelers, purple sun and pit of shades), 5+ ward save, immune to psychology and fear causing, having killing blow and cheap access to hatred and virtually unbreakable for just 12 points sounds fair for you, go for it. But give me an example of such an infantery in the core section of 8th edition books, because they are going to cope with those in the future.


Really? Oh dear.
I guess you'll need to make a new thread if you want to discuss that.
Let me guess, chaos warriors should be 25pts each? before upgrades! and be in4 as well, with only one attack and no chaos armour. (answer in a new thread please)

As you asked me here, Ill reply you here while theres another thread. Chaos warrior should be I4 and chaos armour but not at 25 points each. It will depend on marks, cost on upgrades and the rest of the army book, specially marauders and the rest of the core section. Meanwhile it is pointless to do such a consideration. But right now, with magic (specially tzeench one) not made for 8th edition, with tricky magic objects (puppet and the likes), the eye of the gods as they are now (chosenstar), I think they are a bit too cheap, yes.

EDIT:
Ignoring pretty much mindrazor and nothing else, Chaos Warriors are considerably more flexible in their targets. Warriors can chew through chaff on top of killing elites. If you want resiliency against something like mindrazor, you can take tzeentch warriors with handweapons and shields. If you want general killy unit, you can have frenzied warriors with halberds, or even frenzied warriors with AHW for an ideal mindrazor target.

The example given is just to ilustrate how Bloodletters can cope with high strenght enemies and/or unexpected ones better than Chaos Warriors. In my experience, such matches happen more often than it seems, and loosing a fight with Chaos Warriors, being as expensive as they are, is deadly. Tzeentch warriors on the other hand are pretty much over the top in this edition, and I expect them to be gone for good in the next army book (the mark effect as it is now, I mean). Anyways, we are comparing bloodletters to chaos warriors (7th edition ones), but I think the correct comparation should be with 8th edition books, as well as the other core choices in the daemon book to get the right points.

Vipoid
11-11-2012, 22:19
If anyone is interested in discussing whether Chaos Warriors are overpowered/undercosted, I started a thread for it here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?357574-Chaos-Warriors-Undercosted&p=6508999#post6508999).

theunwantedbeing
11-11-2012, 23:39
My highly specialised example happens in the boards, 1 on 1 with exact points in an isolated enviroment doesnīt.
Your example may happen a lot for you, but that doesn't mean it happens for everyone.


If you want to blink an eye on bloodletters and say it is all right, go for it. If a core infantery with WS 5, STR 5 attacking on high initiative (and because of this pretty resiliant to the most used mass killing spells like dwelers, purple sun and pit of shades), 5+ ward save, immune to psychology and fear causing, having killing blow and cheap access to hatred and virtually unbreakable for just 12 points sounds fair for you, go for it.
Resilience to certain uber spells is fairly meaningless. They drop much faster to massed hits from things than things that would otherwise be less resilient to those spells.
5+ ward. It's good.
Immune to psychology and Causing Fear. Mostly irrelevant as they rarely if ever generate a benefit, especially as you already have a high weaponskill.
Killing blow is handy, but ultimately fairly meaningless against the majority of troops you face. Being St5 to start with also devalues it.
Virtually unbreakable is nice of course. Better than not having it obviously, it's a perk of being a Daemon along with the ward save.

Access to hatred is a factor to do with the cost of the Herald, not the Bloodletters per model cost.
Multiple Banners (mentioned earlier in the thread) is an issue for how daemonic gifts work, not to do with Bloodletters per model cost.

So yes, 12pts is reasonable for them.

AmaroK
12-11-2012, 00:12
Your example may happen a lot for you, but that doesn't mean it happens for everyone.


Resilience to certain uber spells is fairly meaningless. They drop much faster to massed hits from things than things that would otherwise be less resilient to those spells.
5+ ward. It's good.
Immune to psychology and Causing Fear. Mostly irrelevant as they rarely if ever generate a benefit, especially as you already have a high weaponskill.
Killing blow is handy, but ultimately fairly meaningless against the majority of troops you face. Being St5 to start with also devalues it.
Virtually unbreakable is nice of course. Better than not having it obviously, it's a perk of being a Daemon along with the ward save.

Access to hatred is a factor to do with the cost of the Herald, not the Bloodletters per model cost.
Multiple Banners (mentioned earlier in the thread) is an issue for how daemonic gifts work, not to do with Bloodletters per model cost.

So yes, 12pts is reasonable for them.

Why donīt you quote nor answer my last sentence? Ill repeat it for you:

"But give me an example of such an infantery in the core section of 8th edition books, because they are going to cope with those in the future."

Kinda funny you skipped that part on purpose. Give me those 12 point core examples, with all the abilities bloodletters have, in the new books and maybe I can agree with your statement that 12 points is reasonable for them.

Resilenece to certain spells is meaningless why? that doesnīt happen often also? You play in a strange way, no augments, no test spells...
5+ ward against everything is just good? Jesus...
Immune to psychology and causing fear irrelevant? I hope you face leadership bombs, or loose a unit because of a panic test (yes, it happens! really!!)when you loose your general or your bsb (this also happens!! believe me!!) or operate out of the leadership bubble of your general. Then you will tell me how irrelevant is this. Killing blow meaningless again... But you can deny armour and regen, either from infantery or cavalry, as well as fearing enemy characters... meaningless indeed.Virtually unbreakable nice. Oh well, they are daemon, they must be better than the rest :P
Access to hatred is a factor to do with the cost of herald and multiple banners is an issue on how daemonic gifts work, so they have nothing to do with Bloodletters cost... eventhough they affect bloodletters performance and benefit them! How could this be factored in how much they cost....

Maoriboy007
12-11-2012, 01:02
Just a couple of comments on Maoriboy's reply to my earlier post, now that I have a bit of time:. Ditto :)


* I think LoV compensates VC for Crumble.Yes it does..and no it doesn't. The fact is undead are unstable regardless of whether or not you have a successful magic phase, and that raises an issue of how balanced a magic phase dedicated to offsetting a weakness can be compared to an opponants magic phase soley dedicated to screwing you over. What makes LoV any kind of compensation is it is a very good lore and that it synergises well against the weakness built into the army, but those built in weakness prevent it from being a "real" advantage.


That may not be true for TK.Instability is just one of the problems that plague the TK book, honestly after all that anticipation I was very disappointed over the fancy widow dressing that was attempting to cover a horribly written ruleset.


* Daemons don't have Zombies. I just concider that a fact. :).I think a new balanced Demon army could probably do with a "chaff" demon type.


* I think 8th Edition is balanced .Fairly balanced with issues is my own opinion, each to thier own. I had about the same number of issues with the 7th edition ruleset. The 7th Edition armybooks however were a different story...


Daemons do have some sharp edges, and some boring squareness that should be dealt with - but it should be done with moderation. Not saying they shouldn't/couldn't be generally nerfed - but How Much is the issue.Agreed, its very dependant on what kind of other changes occur, but Demon players have to be willing to accept some kind of real hard changes or a decent point increase. ONE point? really? Minus 1 strength but a +1 strength weapon instead? Frenzy instead of Hatred? What would be the point?


* Ghouls were nerfed too heavily. Removing Ghoulkin OR increasing their cost would have been an act of moderation. But everyone already had tons of Ghouls from them being a bit too good before.I thought Ghouls were actually worth 10 points in 7th , considering they actually got weaker before the price increase seemed backwards, but go figure.


* Empire players might be forced into using their troops in a very specific way, but once they do (with Cruddace's book) things stack up quite nicely for them. I've seen Cruddace's Empire shrugg off my hordes of Bloodletters like never before lately.Shrug off might be a bit strong, survive until rescued maybe?


Anyway, I respect your position and I have a feeling you'll be happier with the new DoC book than I'm gonna be. :p You might still be happier with the demon book than I'll ever be with the Tomb Kings book. :cries:


OK so regular Savage Boyz (let alone Big'Un savages!!) beat Bloodletters in a stand-up fight. I hope this is somewhat of a Wake-up call for some people who's been attending this thread.
Math-hammer like this is still only a part of the concideration needed for arrive at a good cost - an important part, for sure, but only a stepping stone none-the-less.
It was good to get some nuance on this issue from someone who can't be discarded as a daemon fan-boy or whatever. ;) There are some really good reasons Savage Orcs are not 12 points though. Animosity, Leadership , Phsycology (including Frenzy), Low WS and Initiative no armour , their resilience is probably comperable to the toughness and ward differences the two have. As it is the Savage Orcs win a somewhat phyrric victory, although a victory it may be.

Lord Dan
12-11-2012, 01:38
As it is the Savage Orcs win a somewhat phyrric victory, although a victory it may be.

I can't think of any unit that can stand up to a horde of Bloodletters and win without taking substantial casualties in return. In this case the Savage Orcs have 27% of their unit remaining at the end of the combat, which I find impressive.

Rosstifer
12-11-2012, 01:50
I can't think of any unit that can stand up to a horde of Bloodletters and win without taking substantial casualties in return. In this case the Savage Orcs have 27% of their unit remaining at the end of the combat, which I find impressive.

3+ Ward Chosen? But they need fixing more than Bloodletters!

Lord Dan
12-11-2012, 01:51
3+ Ward Chosen? But they need fixing more than Bloodletters!

Isn't the 3+ ward only against shooting?

Texhnolyze
12-11-2012, 06:21
Isn't the 3+ ward only against shooting?

No, it is vs all...

Lord Dan
12-11-2012, 07:39
No, it is vs all...

Oh, you're talking about if they roll a 12 on the eye of the gods chart.

DaemonReign
12-11-2012, 11:17
Agreed, its very dependant on what kind of other changes occur, but Demon players have to be willing to accept some kind of real hard changes or a decent point increase. ONE point? really?

Yes Bloodletters could go up a Point.
Heralds of Khorne should also go up 10-15pts for the sake of Locus.
Then I double the cost of MoS, cut the Despair/Icon & Masque 'in half', *etcetera*
It all feeds into a 'net result' where-as 'If you wish to field the stuff possible currently, you'll pay the justified price of having substantially fewer models on the table' - that sort of thing.

I'm all for 'real hard changes', but I want them applied with elegance and taste - and just jacking Bloodletters up to 16pts (or whatever) is just missing the forest for the trees.

Notice that while I argue for a +1pts increase of Bloodletters, the net-result of a 'Horde with Herald' is actually +1,5pts/model (without even having to determine any one cost in 'half-points').
Then, if we take a step back and look at the whole list, further Changes (such as MoS being 50pts and not 25, or Despair Icon being half as effective!) add up making Daemons appropriately costed.
All I can say is: It works. These are not 'theory-hammer' wishes I'm talking about here, but the actual rules in my games with Daemons for over a year now.
If it wasn't a definate improvement from the current Book, or if it didn't appear as balanced and properly costed, then I doubt my friends would put up with me using this home-brew anymore.. Right? :)

theunwantedbeing
12-11-2012, 12:18
Kinda funny you skipped that part on purpose. Give me those 12 point core examples, with all the abilities bloodletters have, in the new books and maybe I can agree with your statement that 12 points is reasonable for them.
There are no examples of Bloodletters in other armies, for obvious reasons.
If you are going to take the viewpoint that Bloodletters are only fair because an exact duplicate appears in another army then you are never going to be happy.


Resilenece to certain spells is meaningless why? that doesnīt happen often also? You play in a strange way, no augments, no test spells...
Dwellers, they get a bonus over St3/4 units.
Pit of Shades/Purple Sun....no benefit over in5 units (elves, skaven & chaos warriors) or indeed in4 units (Empire, Bretonnians, etc)
Pointing out a slight bonus isn't a reason to bump the cost of a model, they're still just as vulnerable to hexes and such and more vulnerable to tougher better armoured troops against massed hits of a lowish strength.


5+ ward against everything is just good? Jesus...
You put too much emphasis on the word "ward". With a 2/3 chance to fail, they are hardly reliable.
Remember, they often hit lesser foes on a 3+, how often do you expect them to miss? That number is the same as the times you will expect them to pass that ward save.


Immune to psychology and causing fear irrelevant? I hope you face leadership bombs, or loose a unit because of a panic test (yes, it happens! really!!)when you loose your general or your bsb (this also happens!! believe me!!) or operate out of the leadership bubble of your general. Then you will tell me how irrelevant is this.
Leadership bombs are not as prevalent as you like to think they are, perhaps in your local meta they are.
Leadership reducing abilities are incredibly rare.
Similarly, they are far less effective in 8th than they used to be due to how the the General and BsB grant their effects.


Killing blow meaningless again... But you can deny armour and regen, either from infantery or cavalry, as well as fearing enemy characters... meaningless indeed.
Yes the imporant word here being can.
Having killing blow itself does not deny armour and regen, you need to roll a 6 to wound.
Yes it is a benefit beyond not having it, however it is not a particularly big benefit given the statlines of the current bloodletter.
Note you can't negate the regen of a hydra or any other thing that cannot be harmed by regular killing blow,
Against most infantry that St5 is plenty to negate armour to the point where having the odd killing blow hit only marginally improves the odds of a kill, often not at all.
Cavalry? Most cavalry isn't going to hit you head on so you'll have very few attacks to make much use from that killing blow.
Similar deal with characters. You're looking at best 10 attacks on a single character (often more like 6, or perhaps as low as 3) which means that killing blow hit becomes highly unlikely.


Virtually unbreakable nice. Oh well, they are daemon, they must be better than the rest :P
So you have a massive bias against daemons?
Why would you point that out when trying to convince somebody that a daemonic unit is undercosted?


Access to hatred is a factor to do with the cost of herald and multiple banners is an issue on how daemonic gifts work, so they have nothing to do with Bloodletters cost... eventhough they affect bloodletters performance and benefit them! How could this be factored in how much they cost....
It would be factored into the cost of whatever provides the benefit.
Do bloodletters provide that benefit?
No
Then we cannot factor the cost of it into them.

Vipoid
12-11-2012, 12:44
Yes the imporant word here being can.
Having killing blow itself does not deny armour and regen, you need to roll a 6 to wound.


Rolling some 6s with a horde of bloodletters isn't exactly unlikely though - it's not the same as having a hero model with just a few attacks and hoping to roll a 6.



Note you can't negate the regen of a hydra or any other thing that cannot be harmed by regular killing blow,


Nor can any other unit with Killing Blow, what's your point?



Yes it is a benefit beyond not having it, however it is not a particularly big benefit given the statlines of the current bloodletter.


Yes there is. Against basic troops, it probably won't help that much. Although, it's nice to have against elite units, knights etc. (i.e. models that rely on a 1+ or 2+ save for protection).

However, by far the biggest benefit of the having Killing Blow is that it's a massive deterrent against Lords and Heroes. This is especially true if said characters rely on killing the opposing models, before they get to attack. You can kill an enemy hero with killing blow before he gets to swing at your lord/hero, but can you kill 50 bloodletters? Also, some characters don't even have a ward save - relying instead on regeneration and/or the aforementioned 1+/2+ armour save - against those, 1 killing blow and they're dead, with no saves. And, even if they do get a save, it's unlikely to be better than a 4+ ward (probably less for a lot of heroes) so, even then, you've got a 50% chance of killing them outright. For a 12pt core unit, that seems pretty amazing to me.





Against most infantry that St5 is plenty to negate armour to the point where having the odd killing blow hit only marginally improves the odds of a kill, often not at all.
Cavalry? Most cavalry isn't going to hit you head on so you'll have very few attacks to make much use from that killing blow.
Similar deal with characters. You're looking at best 10 attacks on a single character (often more like 6, or perhaps as low as 3) which means that killing blow hit becomes highly unlikely.


Well, assuming that said character is WS5+, then 10 attacks will average 5 hits, giving you a 5/6 chance of scoring a Killing Blow. So, against a lord or hero without a ward save, that's a 5/6 chance of killing them outright. Against a character with a 4+ ward save, the chance is just under 1/2, which is hardly bad either, you know, for a core unit.

If they can only get 6 attacks, then the chance of a killing blow is 1/2 (and will kill a character with a 4+ ward save 1/4 of the time). That still sounds like pretty decent odds to me (and doesn't even include the possibility of Hatred).

BooMeRLiNSKi
12-11-2012, 13:17
Seriously... you seem to have slipped into saying some utterly ridonkulous things...


Resilience to certain uber spells is fairly meaningless. Really? You know better than that.


They drop much faster to massed hits from things than things that would otherwise be less resilient to those spells.

Template shooting? Not against anything from an 8th book and not really anyway... if you're thinking trebs, grudge throwers etc.


Immune to psychology and Causing Fear. Mostly irrelevant as they rarely if ever generate a benefit, especially as you already have a high weaponskill.

So being hit on 5's doesn't change a combat? Not panicking off the table or out of support position is irrelevant?


Killing blow is handy, but ultimately fairly meaningless against the majority of troops you face. Being St5 to start with also devalues it.

Sorry?! KB is awesome, plenty of armies and lists out there that have characters that do all the heavy lifting in the combat for the unit they are in and you've got a massive no go zone for them.

AmaroK
12-11-2012, 14:22
There are no examples of Bloodletters in other armies, for obvious reasons.
If you are going to take the viewpoint that Bloodletters are only fair because an exact duplicate appears in another army then you are never going to be happy.

Yes, the obvious reasons is that the Bloodletters are way better than any of the 8th edition core troops, and just this fact makes them unreasonable as core, and less for those points.


Dwellers, they get a bonus over St3/4 units.
Pit of Shades/Purple Sun....no benefit over in5 units (elves, skaven & chaos warriors) or indeed in4 units (Empire, Bretonnians, etc)
Pointing out a slight bonus isn't a reason to bump the cost of a model, they're still just as vulnerable to hexes and such and more vulnerable to tougher better armoured troops against massed hits of a lowish strength.

From now, Im going to follow your logic:

OK, as it is a slight bonus against those spells and not that important, you should agree to make them I4 or even I3, no? (empire I4? swordsmen, hallberdiers and co shouldnt have recieved the memo, I guess)


You put too much emphasis on the word "ward". With a 2/3 chance to fail, they are hardly reliable.
Remember, they often hit lesser foes on a 3+, how often do you expect them to miss? That number is the same as the times you will expect them to pass that ward save.

OK, as it is hardly reliable (just removing 1 third of the total wounds you get by average, what a crap :P), you wouldnīt feel bad if it goes 6+, no? Anyways, itīs hardly reliable after all...


Leadership bombs are not as prevalent as you like to think they are, perhaps in your local meta they are.
Leadership reducing abilities are incredibly rare.
Similarly, they are far less effective in 8th than they used to be due to how the the General and BsB grant their effects.

OK, as they are so rare, what about making daemons not immune to psychology, and making them able to fail panic tests? Hey, you say they are rare after all...


Yes the imporant word here being can.
Having killing blow itself does not deny armour and regen, you need to roll a 6 to wound.
Yes it is a benefit beyond not having it, however it is not a particularly big benefit given the statlines of the current bloodletter.
Note you can't negate the regen of a hydra or any other thing that cannot be harmed by regular killing blow,
Against most infantry that St5 is plenty to negate armour to the point where having the odd killing blow hit only marginally improves the odds of a kill, often not at all.
Cavalry? Most cavalry isn't going to hit you head on so you'll have very few attacks to make much use from that killing blow.
Similar deal with characters. You're looking at best 10 attacks on a single character (often more like 6, or perhaps as low as 3) which means that killing blow hit becomes highly unlikely.

OK, once again, killing blow is mostly a marginal skill, so lets remove it from bloodletters. Actually you canīt do much with it, Im sure you will agree with this removal also.


So you have a massive bias against daemons?
Why would you point that out when trying to convince somebody that a daemonic unit is undercosted?

Because I own a daemon army myself, and I want to play them in a way that is defiant and in line with my other armies, and not knowing I have an overpowered army that have more tools than my rival. Im not saying that is all the fault of bloodletters, of course, but they arenīt 12 points in their current incarnation, thats for sure.


It would be factored into the cost of whatever provides the benefit.
Do bloodletters provide that benefit?
No
Then we cannot factor the cost of it into them.

We can since they can carry the magic banner. But Im sure you will agree to remove the ability to carry it from bloodletters, so the cost isnīt factored, no?

So overall, I3 or 4, no killing blow, +6 ward save, no immune to psychology, no magic banner... All of these you said it wasnīt so important, so Iīsure you wont mind Bloodletters wouldnīt have them. Maybe now we can agree with 12 points after all :D

PeG
12-11-2012, 16:12
I would increase cost for letters with maybe one point but especially look at the cost of gaining the locus ability and the herald. You can compare with different models in other armies (I mainly play WE so dryads would be an option for the same cost but please dont argue that WE are overpowered).

I frequently go up against WoC and regardless of math the usual outcome of letter block in the face of a warrior block for similar points is that none of the units is capable of killing anything else when the fight is over. Usually the herald goes down relatively fast and after that hatred is gone.

Letters also struggles against some units that warrios (that I also play sometimes) have an easy time against such as skaven clan rats, slaves (a unit of slaves of equal points would probably do fine against letters if within inspiring prescence).

Bob Arctor
12-11-2012, 16:54
So overall, I3 or 4, no killing blow, +6 ward save, no immune to psychology, no magic banner... All of these you said it wasnīt so important, so Iīsure you wont mind Bloodletters wouldnīt have them. Maybe now we can agree with 12 points after all :D

If you play Daemons, you should know already that Bloodletters are I4. You keep making statements like they are I5. Also you (and others) keep saying they can take the same icon over and over again - they can't. This was corrected by an FAQ very soon after 8th edition came out and hasn't been changed back since.

Also I agree with PeG, Chaos Warriors are a very hard unit for Bloodletters to deal with unless the Warriors are using great weapons (as this nerfs their main advantage over Bloodletters for no benefit).

decker_cky
12-11-2012, 17:50
BTW, regarding comparing bloodletters and chaos warriors to the core units of any currently released 8th edition book, there's obviously no comparison since having elites in core is one of the things that sets those books apart from other books. In all editions following the current format (core, special, rare), chaos warriors in core were comparable to special choice elites in other armies (bloodletters were terrible until the SoC book boosted them then the current book).

Krish
12-11-2012, 21:39
Oh my , oh my, what an ugly offtopic, thread was about priceing the units and now we have two threads about move to rare or special. The only point is not if bloodletter or chaos warriors belong to core but why bloodletters which are better than ( by many overpriced ) chaos warriors are much cheaper than them. And sure warriors can be better, with all upgrades but they price is 17 - 18 then, and bloodies are still 12 ...

Lord Dan
12-11-2012, 22:14
And sure warriors can be better, with all upgrades but they price is 17 - 18 then, and bloodies are still 12 ...

Interestingly Bloodletters still rock their socks, given that they wound on 3's, will have a bunch more models for the same price, and have Killing blow.

Xerkics
13-11-2012, 00:31
I think average unit of chaos wars i seen is either 3 rows of 6 or 5 of 5 = 25 pverall. Can anyone do the math for 5 x 5 khorne Chaos warriors with Halberds vs Bloodletters of equivalent points? No standards or characters.

Lord Dan
13-11-2012, 01:04
Oops, messed up the math early on. I'll try again a bit later.

Xerkics
13-11-2012, 01:14
Oops, messed up the math early on. I'll try again a bit later.

Also if you have the time do one where they got extra hand weapon as well im curious whether thats better , cause halberds seem to be better most of time in my experience.

Lord Dan
13-11-2012, 01:43
Also if you have the time do one where they got extra hand weapon as well im curious whether thats better , cause halberds seem to be better most of time in my experience.

Okay, so basically Warriors get stomped if they run a 5x5 formation. You're paying a ton of points for +2 static combat resolution, while ditching +1 combat resolution for an extra 25 S5 attacks would be far more beneficial. As the Warriors go first and that opening salvo is critical, I'd recommend trying them in a 10x2+5 formation to maximize attacks. I'll try them both with halberds and AHW:

25 Khorne Warriors (Halberds) vs. 36 Bloodletters

Bloodletters start with 30 attacks, require 4's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
Warriors start with 45 attacks, require 4's to hit and 2's to wound, and have a 6+ save.


Round 1
W: 22.5 hits, 18.75 wounds, 12.5 after saves. 23.5 Bloodletters remain.
BL: 11.75 hits, 7.83 wounds (1.95 Killing Blow), 6.85 after saves. 18.15 Warriors remain.

Warriors win the combat by 5.65 and Bloodletters are not steadfast, meaning that on an average Ld. roll of 7 you're losing another 5.65 Bloodletters. This would result in 17.85 Bloodletters remaining.


Round 2
W: 19.07 hits, 15.89 wounds, 10.59 after saves. 7.26 Bloodletters remain.
BL: 3.63 hits, 2.42 wounds (.60 Killing blow), 2.11 after saves. 16.04 Warriors remain.

Warriors win the combat by 6.15, meaning, once again, the Bloodletters lose an average of 6.15 more models. I won't bother doing another round of combat, as I really don't see the point. As you can see in this formation, the Warriors pwnz.


25 Khorne Warriors (AHW) vs. 36 Bloodletters

Warriors start with 55 attacks (good gravy!), require 4's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 6+ save.
Bloodletters start with 30 attacks, require 4's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.

W: 27.5 hits, 18.33 wounds, 12.22 after saves. <--- This is all that matters. The warriors do, on average, just .27 fewer wounds than they do with Halberds. This indicates to me that the combat is going to be very close to the last one.

Overall I'd argue halberds are still the superior and more versatile option.

TsukeFox
13-11-2012, 03:45
Math-hammer is awesome-!!

TsukeFox
13-11-2012, 04:09
Okay, so basically Warriors get stomped if they run a 5x5 formation. You're paying a ton of points for +2 static combat resolution, while ditching +1 combat resolution for an extra 25 S5 attacks would be far more beneficial. As the Warriors go first and that opening salvo is critical, I'd recommend trying them in a 10x2+5 formation to maximize attacks. I'll try them both with halberds and AHW:

25 Khorne Warriors (Halberds) vs. 36 Bloodletters

Bloodletters start with 30 attacks, require 4's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
Warriors start with 45 attacks, require 4's to hit and 2's to wound, and have a 6+ save.


Round 1
W: 22.5 hits, 18.75 wounds, 12.5 after saves. 23.5 Bloodletters remain.
BL: 11.75 hits, 7.83 wounds (1.95 Killing Blow), 6.85 after saves. 18.15 Warriors remain.

Warriors win the combat by 5.65 and Bloodletters are not steadfast, meaning that on an average Ld. roll of 7 you're losing another 5.65 Bloodletters. This would result in 17.85 Bloodletters remaining.


Round 2
W: 19.07 hits, 15.89 wounds, 10.59 after saves. 7.26 Bloodletters remain.
BL: 3.63 hits, 2.42 wounds (.60 Killing blow), 2.11 after saves. 16.04 Warriors remain.

Warriors win the combat by 6.15, meaning, once again, the Bloodletters lose an average of 6.15 more models. I won't bother doing another round of combat, as I really don't see the point. As you can see in this formation, the Warriors pwnz.


25 Khorne Warriors (AHW) vs. 36 Bloodletters

Warriors start with 55 attacks (good gravy!), require 4's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 6+ save.
Bloodletters start with 30 attacks, require 4's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.

W: 27.5 hits, 18.33 wounds, 12.22 after saves. <--- This is all that matters. The warriors do, on average, just .27 fewer wounds than they do with Halberds. This indicates to me that the combat is going to be very close to the last one.

Overall I'd argue halberds are still the superior and more versatile option.

You are not taking into the account that the daemon player could be playing well and making his awesome 5+ ward save on a regular bases that your opponent has in fact started to roll like a Daemon.

Gotta love a free ward save that is :

30 points in value
Brets' have to "pray" to earn a ward save. This ward save is situational.
Brets' ward save can be canceled.
Wood Elves ward save can be canceled.
Wood Elf Characters have to pay points to earn a ward save.

I hope to see a lot of changes done to the new Warriors & Daemons books.
Do away with the no brainer choices-let us learn from the 7th edition mistakes & further more learn from the mistakes done in the 8th edition ogre book.

Lord Solar Plexus
13-11-2012, 05:49
You are not taking into the account that the daemon player could be playing well

He even did that on purpose...

I don't see what bearing some obscure books have on any of this.

TsukeFox
13-11-2012, 05:53
He even did that on purpose...

I don't see what bearing some obscure books have on any of this.

I was joking- do not be so serious.

Lord Solar Plexus
13-11-2012, 08:43
Oh, I see...I need more coffee.

Xerkics
13-11-2012, 12:17
The reason why i asked for 5 rows of 5 is that i often have to fight super thin bret knight buses mournfangs or ogre units if i run a horde most of my guys wont get ti fight and i wont be steadfast . I have never seen chaos wars played in a horde.

DaemonprincePaul
13-11-2012, 12:44
You are not taking into the account that the daemon player could be playing well and making his awesome 5+ ward save on a regular bases that your opponent has in fact started to roll like a Daemon.

Gotta love a free ward save that is :

30 points in value
Brets' have to "pray" to earn a ward save. This ward save is situational.
Brets' ward save can be canceled.
Wood Elves ward save can be canceled.
Wood Elf Characters have to pay points to earn a ward save.

I hope to see a lot of changes done to the new Warriors & Daemons books.
Do away with the no brainer choices-let us learn from the 7th edition mistakes & further more learn from the mistakes done in the 8th edition ogre book.

you really hate daemons dont you? would you rather we lost our wardsave against magical attacks and spells cause i can tell you then i would stop playing the army. I dont see the problem with daemons tbh ogres and skaven are way worse, and no im not a power gamer but i really cant understand your problems with daemons. Heck i struggle to win with mine as i find that im relying on my bloodletters and herald to do the damage. I hate facing skaven with their stupid slave buseds and stupid magical cannons

Lord Dan
13-11-2012, 16:06
The reason why i asked for 5 rows of 5 is that i often have to fight super thin bret knight buses mournfangs or ogre units if i run a horde most of my guys wont get ti fight and i wont be steadfast . I have never seen chaos wars played in a horde.

If your opponent is in a horde there's no reason not to. Remember that warriors are paying 80 points for a single 5-man rank, and that after 1 round of combat against something like Mournfangs they're likely to take at least the 6 wounds necessary to knock them down from +3 ranks to +2 ranks. At that point you're far better off sacrificing +2 ranks for +1 rank (10x2+5, meaning after 6 wounds you still have +1 rank of 5 models) for a maximum number of attacks. Another good formation is 6x4+1 if your opponent is in a 5x5 formation, or 7x3+4 if he's in a slightly wider formation. With warriors the basic rule of thumb is that you want as many people attacking as possible, regardless of what that does to your rank bonus.

Xerkics
13-11-2012, 16:17
Also we play 2 on 2 mp games and deploying that wide can be an issue but ill look into it thanks

Lord Dan
13-11-2012, 16:45
Also we play 2 on 2 mp games and deploying that wide can be an issue but ill look into it thanks

Remember, you don't have to deploy that wide. Start out in a smaller, versatile 6x4 formation and then swift reform into a 10-wide only if your opponent is also in a horde formation. Warriors deploying this wide isn't to ensure that the 3rd rank gets supporting attacks (you likely won't have a 3rd rank after a round of combat) it's to get as many attacks out of the front and second rank as you can.

Why
14-11-2012, 03:52
Hey while were in mathhammer mode how about 75 gors with AHW vs 50 bloodletters. How about the gors fail fear and primal fury in the third round to make it interesting :D

Lord Dan
14-11-2012, 04:41
Hey while were in mathhammer mode how about 75 gors with AHW vs 50 bloodletters. How about the gors fail fear and primal fury in the third round to make it interesting :D

It's what I do. I haven't faced Beastmen in a while, however I assume the hatred granted by primal fury "renews" each combat turn?

50 Bloodletters vs. 75 Gors (AHW)

Bloodletters start with 30 attacks, require 3's to hit and 3's to wound, and have a 5++ save.
Beastmen start with 40 attacks, require 4's to hit and 4's to wound (they'll re-roll 2 times out of 3 per Why's request, which is close to odds with a BSB nearby), and have no save.


Round 1
BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds. 61.67 Gors remain.
G: 20 hits (30 with reroll), 15 wounds, 10 after saves. 40 Bloodletters remain.


Round 2
BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds. 48.34 Gors remain.
G: 20 hits (30 with reroll), 15 wounds, 10 after saves. 30 Bloodletters remain.


Round 3
BL: 20 hits, 13.33 wounds. 35.01 Gors remain.
G: 20 hits, 10 wounds, 6.66 after saves. 23.34 BL remain.


Round 4
BL: 15.56 hits, 10.37 wounds. 24.64 Gors remain.
G: 17.32 hits (25.98 with reroll), 12.99 wounds, 8.66 after saves. 14.68 BL remain.


Round 5
BL: 9.78 hits, 6.52 wounds. 18.12 Gors remain.
G: 14.06 hits (21.09 with reroll), 10.54 wounds, 7.03 after saves. 7.65 BL remain.


Round 6
BL: 5.1 hits, 3.4 wounds. 14.72 Gors remain.
G: 12.36 hits, 6.18 wounds, 4.12 after saves. 3.53 BL remain.


Round 7
BL: 2.35 hits, 1.56 wounds. 13.16 Gors remain.
G: 11.58 hits (17.37 with reroll), 8.68 wounds, 5.79 after saves. 0 BL remain.


Analysis:
So if the combat manages to go on uninterrupted for 3 1/2 turns (:shifty:) the Gors will eventually grind down the BL. It should be noted, however, that the Gors lose combat for the first 4 rounds. Even with steadfast the likelihood of passing all four break tests is just 11%, which bumps to the still-below-average 45% with a BSB nearby. The Beastman player should ensure that they have both their general and BSB nearby if they wish to grind down the bloodletters, however if they want to win the combat without tying up a 600 point unit for half the game they need to intervene through some other means.

The daemon player should focus on breaking the unit, which can only be done by outside means- keep the enemy general OR BSB away from the combat an you're statistically winning most of the time.

decker_cky
14-11-2012, 04:52
Analysis:
So if the combat manages to go on uninterrupted for 3 1/2 turns (:shifty:) the Gors will eventually grind down the BL. It should be noted, however, that the Gors lose combat for the first 4 rounds. Even with steadfast the likelihood of passing all four break tests is just 11%, which bumps to the still-below-average 45% with a BSB nearby. The Beastman player should ensure that they have both their general and BSB nearby if they wish to grind down the bloodletters, however if they want to win the combat without tying up a 600 point unit for half the game they need to intervene through some other means.

157523

Worth noting in this one that beastmen generally have an advantage in the augment/hex potential for the magic phase, so there's likely to be more wins for the gors, and it should take less than 3 1/2 turns.

Then again nobody takes 75 gors.

Maybe I should start taking 75 gors....ultimate bloodletter counter.

Next example should be 10 bloodletters against 60 skavenslaves!

Why
14-11-2012, 05:08
(Said in a dramatic comic book narrator style voice)
"Look! Beastmen are dangling on the edge of underpoweredness. When the hated bloodletter horde, (widely considered overpowered,) representatives of Daemons of Chaos, comes to crush the Beastman reprensentative gor unit into the dirt! The world has ruled them off as lost."
(Turns away as if in pain)


(Random civilian voices)
"Look in the sky! Is that a bird?"

"Is it a plane?"

"Is it a hellpit abomination?"


(Back to dramatic voice)

"No!!!! It's mathhammer man! Defender of average rolls all day every day! He swoops in a proves to the world Gors would slowly grind down Bloodletters!(Depending on many uncalculated variables) What a champion for truth and justice!"

There you go enough praise to last a lifetime:D

ArtificerArmour
14-11-2012, 08:20
Thats what ive been doing wrong, not taking 75 gor!

How could I spend those points elsewhere!

(the bsb is in the unit, as any 206 bsb player should put him, and assuming he isnt killing blowed. Which I can tell you happens alot!)

blackraven
14-11-2012, 08:57
bloodletters work how they are now ith the rest of the book... high stength and killing blow in khornes thing.... high movement and attacks with armour piercing is slaanesh... magic is tzeentch..(obv)........hight toughness and poisoned attacks is nurgle...

BooMeRLiNSKi
14-11-2012, 09:47
Before any other stat and point adjustments the first thing they need to lose is Killing Blow. It shouldn't be on a hordeable core troop like that and it's not a particularly good fluff fit.

DaemonReign
14-11-2012, 10:28
SKULLS FOR THE SKULLTHRONE!!!
... KB fits like a gloove afaic..
If any troop-type should have it it's Bloodletters.

DaemonprincePaul
14-11-2012, 10:49
Before any other stat and point adjustments the first thing they need to lose is Killing Blow. It shouldn't be on a hordeable core troop like that and it's not a particularly good fluff fit.

Executioners have killing blow and they are very much hordable? you have a problem with them as well?

DaemonReign
14-11-2012, 11:01
& GraveGuard... TombGuard if I recall correctly(?)...
I assume the reply will be 'they're not Core'...
And 'not Daemons' either, of course - which can be taken as an argument by both sides I suppose. :D

BooMeRLiNSKi
14-11-2012, 11:17
& GraveGuard... TombGuard if I recall correctly(?)...
I assume the reply will be 'they're not Core'...
And 'not Daemons' either, of course - which can be taken as an argument by both sides I suppose. :D

Well it'd be pretty dense not to assume that reply when I initially stated "It shouldn't be on a hordable core troop like that" wouldn't it?

And no it doesn't fit the fluff afaic... and i c btr

P.S. may as well add here


Executioners have killing blow and they are very much hordable? you have a problem with them as well?

Please read what I have written before you reply as it saves us both wasted time and effort.

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 11:28
I have to say, whilst I accept that there is a fluff-justification for Bloodletters having Killing Blow, I agree with BooMeRLiNSKi - Killing Blow just isn't the sort of ability that should be given to a core unit; especially one that is easily hordeable.

Scammel
14-11-2012, 11:38
And 'not Daemons' either, of course - which can be taken as an argument by both sides I suppose.

I can think of very, very few units which wouldn't want to be Daemons at the drop of a hat. It's an argument that can be taken by both sides, but it's a very weak one on one of those sides.

DaemonReign
14-11-2012, 11:57
I can think of very, very few units which wouldn't want to be Daemons at the drop of a hat. It's an argument that can be taken by both sides, but it's a very weak one on one of those sides.

Not this again..
I can Think of very, very, few Daemon lists that wouldn't be made a lot more competative with warmachines, dirt-troops costing less than 5pts, access to BRB Magic Items and Standards, etcetera, etcetera.

The 'argument' is just as full of arbitrary bias on either side mate. :p

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 12:00
dirt-troops

Do you mean 'dirt-cheap troops'?

Or do have some races literally use piles of dirt as troops. ;)

sninsch
14-11-2012, 12:01
Make bloodletters 1 or 2 points more expensive. Plague bearers and daemonettes 1 point less. Horrors need a complete overhaul.
Only a few units in den daemon book are underpriced, fix them and the cost of the overcosted units and all will be pleased ;).

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 12:03
Make bloodletters 1 or 2 points more expensive. Plague bearers and daemonettes 1 point less. Horrors need a complete overhaul.
Only a few units in den daemon book are underpriced, fix them and the cost of the overcosted units and all will be pleased ;).

To be honest, I'd be happier for Bloodletters to stay at 12pts and lose Killing Blow.

Scammel
14-11-2012, 12:21
Not this again..
I can Think of very, very, few Daemon lists that wouldn't be made a lot more competative with warmachines, dirt-troops costing less than 5pts, access to BRB Magic Items and Standards, etcetera, etcetera.


Applies to damn nearly every army in the game. Elves would love to have T4 troops, Ogres would love to have non-sucky Ld, Beastmen would love to have armour, Dwarves would love to have a movement phase. What the Daemon army lacks doesn't change the fact that the special rules associated with them are very, very good, especially on troops such as Bloodletters and that said 'Letters could perhaps be a point or two more expensive to account for this fact.

warplock
14-11-2012, 12:45
Do you mean 'dirt-cheap troops'?

Or do have some races literally use piles of dirt as troops. ;)

Some of my 'emerging zombie' models are not much more than that. They fit both descriptions!

DaemonReign
14-11-2012, 13:27
Applies to damn nearly every army in the game. Elves would love to have T4 troops, Ogres would love to have non-sucky Ld, Beastmen would love to have armour, Dwarves would love to have a movement phase. What the Daemon army lacks doesn't change the fact that the special rules associated with them are very, very good, especially on troops such as Bloodletters and that said 'Letters could perhaps be a point or two more expensive to account for this fact.

Well then we're essentially in agreement, and it comes down to.. personal preference really.
Increase cost by 1-2pts/model (depending on whether you want to hike the cost of the HoK or not, basically)
Remove KB (or anything else that makes them a bit too gravy for 12pts currently) and yes removing KB would technically but them around 11-12pts/model I reckon, although I'd personally prefer it to be about adjusting the cost.

@Sninch: I agree with you on 'letters and 'nettes but I Think PB's are just fine in 8th Ed (HoN could be 5-10pts more expensive though without it hurting balance).
Horrors do need an overhaul but that's mostly a case solved by updating the Lore of Tzeentch to the standards of 8th Ed - which involves both raising the ridiculously low casting value of Flames of Tzeentch and Bolt of Change, to making a proper mass-killer out of Tzeentch Firestorm.. My Point is that it's give-and-take, but most of the problems with Horrors currently can simply be attributed to them eating Power Dice when they used to Add them (to make a long story horribly short).

theunwantedbeing
14-11-2012, 15:06
I agree with BooMeRLiNSKi - Killing Blow just isn't the sort of ability that should be given to a core unit; especially one that is easily hordeable.

I don't understand this at all.
Why should no core unit be allowed killing blow?
Why is it such an unfair rule on a horde?

BigbyWolf
14-11-2012, 15:19
you really hate daemons dont you? would you rather we lost our wardsave against magical attacks and spells cause i can tell you then i would stop playing the army. I dont see the problem with daemons tbh ogres and skaven are way worse, and no im not a power gamer but i really cant understand your problems with daemons. Heck i struggle to win with mine as i find that im relying on my bloodletters and herald to do the damage. I hate facing skaven with their stupid slave buseds and stupid magical cannons

Paul, just because someone makes an argument you don't agree with is no grounds to accuse them of "hating Daemons". TsukeFox makes some very good points. And the fact that you struggle to win and have to rely on the Bloodletters is really just enforcing his argument against no-brainer choices.


Before any other stat and point adjustments the first thing they need to lose is Killing Blow. It shouldn't be on a hordeable core troop like that and it's not a particularly good fluff fit.

I mostly agree with this, either lose it or give them a substantial price increase would be my view.

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 15:23
I don't understand this at all.
Why should no core unit be allowed killing blow?
Why is it such an unfair rule on a horde?

I just don't think that core units should have a good chance of killing characters in a single hit.

This seems especially true with Bloodletters, as they already have very impressive combat stats - killing blow just seems like a step too far - especially considering that some armies are very reliant on characters to help their units win combats.

theunwantedbeing
14-11-2012, 15:28
I just don't think that core units should have a good chance of killing characters in a single hit.
Why?
What if it was a special unit, would that make it okay? If so, why?


This seems especially true with Bloodletters, as they already have very impressive combat stats - killing blow just seems like a step too far - especially considering that some armies are very reliant on characters to help their units win combats.
Given their stats, killing blow doesn't actually add a whole lot to their combat abilities.
So why is it more important for those other armies(which ones?) to not have to risk fighting killing blow units from a single army?

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 15:35
Why?
What if it was a special unit, would that make it okay? If so, why?


It would seem... more reasonable on a special unit I guess.

Perhaps it's simply because I don't like the idea of an entire army having Killing Blow. :p


Given their stats, killing blow doesn't actually add a whole lot to their combat abilities.
So why is it more important for those other armies(which ones?) to not have to risk fighting killing blow units from a single army?

To turn this around, why is it so important that Bloodletters keep killing blow? Especially since, according to you, it doesn't add much to their combat abilities.

The Low King
14-11-2012, 15:36
I don't understand this at all.
Why should no core unit be allowed killing blow?
Why is it such an unfair rule on a horde?

Usually an army might have a couple of units maximum with killing blow (thus you can avoid them), with bloodletters you could have an entire army of units with killing blow, meaning characters simply cant fight in combat or they die.
And hordes have it even better because of the sheer number of attack they dish out, most units with killing blow have a limited number of attacks (Grave Guard, TG, excecutioners) or cant be horded (Wardancers).

Scammel
14-11-2012, 15:38
What if it was a special unit, would that make it okay? If so, why?


Because special units are a considerably rarer sight. Having KB across the most of the army makes the enemy's expensive characters slightly irrelevant, don't you think? Especially when the game is supposed to be heavily focused on such characters, I'd quite like it if my 250pt Beastlord got to do something becoming of one as opposed to getting decapitated by basic troops who are striking at the same time as him.

theunwantedbeing
14-11-2012, 15:43
So no reason beyond "it's unusual" and "I don't want my expensive character's being killed".
In other words, no good reason why a core unit can't have killing blow.

Scammel
14-11-2012, 15:50
it's unusual

In fact, it's rather 'special'.


I don't want my expensive character's being killed

I think you misinterpreted a bit: 'I want my expensive characters to be relevant in a game where characters are supposed to be important'.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-11-2012, 15:50
Plenty of excellent reasons, unwanted.


Unless you want your expensive characters getting killed or find it usual...?!? See, you don't, so you agree. What then is the problem other than clinging to outdated tradition?

theunwantedbeing
14-11-2012, 15:52
Plenty of excellent reasons, unwanted.

That's actually a different user.
I still can't see any of these supposed excellent reasons.

Would somebody please list them for me under the title "excellent reasons" please?

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 15:53
So no reason beyond "it's unusual" and "I don't want my expensive character's being killed".
In other words, no good reason why a core unit can't have killing blow.

Well, they're not good reasons in your opinion. Others (myself included) may disagree and may think that those are perfectly valid reasons.

On a similar note, I've noticed that you've yet to provide a reason why Bloodletters should have killing blow.

theunwantedbeing
14-11-2012, 16:26
On a similar note, I've noticed that you've yet to provide a reason why Bloodletters should have killing blow.

It should be obvious that they deserve it.

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 16:40
It should be obvious that they deserve it.

Well, it might be obvious to you, but I'm afraid I don't see it.

Could you perhaps treat me like an idiot (I'm sure it won't be too hard ;)) and explain why they deserve it?

Phazael
14-11-2012, 18:36
I could care less if Bloodletters lost KB, as it rarely affects fights outside of making characters paranoid. But look at it from the DoC character perspective: All DoC Heralds are very vulnerable to even the most basic of troops, while also having a huge impact on the ability of the troops in the unit to fight. See the Herald of Slaanesh for the perfect example. If you don't want to lose characters to KB, then there are solid ways to minimize that risk, like only engaging with characters on flanks of the unit or equipping the Trickster's Helm. Frankly, if you are unable to engage the Red Lawnmower on multiple sides, then you are most likely rocking deathstar/horde builds yourself and I have little pitty for you in that case.

And there are plenty of examples of core units with special abilities and a lot of them are actually better in a one on one fight of equal points than the Bloodletters (hi2u HE Spearmen, Savage Orks, Ogre Bulls, Ghouls, Marked Marauders, ect). Arguing that they should be special because they have KB (a very situational ability, unlike say ASF, Frenzy, or Stomp) is shakey at best. Besides, what would you have Khorne core be then, Flesh Hounds?

The Low King
14-11-2012, 18:40
So no reason beyond "it's unusual" and "I don't want my expensive character's being killed".
In other words, no good reason why a core unit can't have killing blow.

No. Its the fact that being able to spam killing blow effectively renders characters useless.
Its the same reason that you cant spam flaming attacks on everything, being able to do that would completely invalidate regeneration. On the other hand, if only one unit can have flaming attacks then regeneration is still useful, you just have to be careful where you send the unit. Same with killing blow; if one or two units in an army can have killing blow then you have to be careful with your characters, if everything on the table has killing blow then all the wounds, armour and toughness that your character pays for is completely useless.

(note, this is not my point of veiw, im just trying to explain the argument. I play Dwarfs, i wouldnt care if they had Heroic killing blow on a 2+)

liddan
14-11-2012, 18:48
There are plenty of other special abilities that beat killing blow and exist on core units. ASF, frenzy, hatred just to name a few

Scammel
14-11-2012, 18:57
There are plenty of other special abilities that beat killing blow and exist on core units. ASF, frenzy, hatred just to name a few

Certainly, but none of those rules render certain units completely irrelevant though. Bloodletters do unto characters as, say, Spirit Hosts do unto warmachines, the latter might as well just not be there. The difference of course being that Spirit Hosts are an occasional, physically small choice whereas Bloodletters are quite hard to avoid with characters that need a central position to do anything in the first place.

Maoriboy007
14-11-2012, 19:20
What if the presence of a Herald granted Bloodletters killing blow instead or as well as Hatred? Call it the Glory of Khorne. Or have it be a banner granting KB?

The Low King
14-11-2012, 19:51
There are plenty of other special abilities that beat killing blow and exist on core units. ASF, frenzy, hatred just to name a few

All of wich are powerful, none of wich allow you to instakill a 300 point character.


What if the presence of a Herald granted Bloodletters killing blow instead or as well as Hatred? Call it the Glory of Khorne. Or have it be a banner granting KB?

That would be much more reasonable, anything that limits the number of killing blow units you can actually take.

warplock
14-11-2012, 20:25
What if the presence of a Herald granted Bloodletters killing blow instead or as well as Hatred? Call it the Glory of Khorne. Or have it be a banner granting KB?

My favourite suggestion.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-11-2012, 20:41
I still can't see any of these supposed excellent reasons.


I'm sure you can. You just don't accept them.



Would somebody please list them for me under the title "excellent reasons" please?

I would not. They have all been presented on this and the last page. You will have to make some effort yourself - or simply remain unconvinced, that isn't the end of the world either.

The Low King
14-11-2012, 20:42
Hmmmm.....ive heard suggestions (by daemons players) of a Lord level herald.....

So what if the hero level herald gave hatred, and the lord level one gave Killing blow?

Lord Dan
14-11-2012, 20:52
What's wrong with a core unit having killing blow? You're paying a ton of points for them (though I agree with DaemonReign's suggestion of another 1 point per model), and the army is supposed to represent a bunch of elite otherworldly minions. Just like the fact that my characters avoid Tomb Guard, Grave Guard, Wardancers, Executioners, and others with KB, so too will they avoid Bloodletters like the plague.

Scammel
14-11-2012, 21:03
Just like the fact that my characters avoid Tomb Guard, Grave Guard, Wardancers, Executioners, and others with KB

Okie dokie, I'll try and avoid them. Shame my character couldn't chop up some of those expensive troops, but at least I can send him up against those Skellies or Warriors. Or better yet, I can try magic or shooting to render them to such a point where my character won't have to be at risk for too long.


so too will they avoid Bloodletters like the plague.

What, that massive 10-model wall making a beeline for my army (with M5, mind) that won't run away, is a pain to shoot down with a permanent 5+ and plenty of bodies and is highly resistant to whatever mega-spell I can throw at it?

Vipoid
14-11-2012, 21:09
Hmmmm.....ive heard suggestions (by daemons players) of a Lord level herald.....

So what if the hero level herald gave hatred, and the lord level one gave Killing blow?

Depending on its cost, and what else it brings, perhaps the Lord level one should grant Hatred *and* Killing Blow.

On this subject, I'm sure my daemon-playing friend wouldn't object to a cheaper Lord option (he's never liked that there's only 1 Lord that doesn't cost 450+pts, base).

Shadowfane
14-11-2012, 21:13
Is this thread still going on?!


Okie dokie, I'll try and avoid them. Shame my character couldn't chop up some of those expensive troops, but at least I can send him up against those Skellies or Warriors. Or better yet, I can try magic or shooting to render them to such a point where my character won't have to be at risk for too long.



What, that massive 10-model wall making a beeline for my army (with M5, mind) that won't run away, is a pain to shoot down with a permanent 5+ and plenty of bodies and is highly resistant to whatever mega-spell I can throw at it?

Ah, hyperbole, the opiate of the bull-headed. (not that I'm just blaming you, both sides appear to be well versed in its uses - you just happen to be the latest poster :p )

The fact of the matter is that a permanent 5++, whilst irritating, is not a significant hindrance if you're determined to remove a unit of bloodletters from the field via shooting.
Similarly, whilst certain mega-spells (Hi, Dwellers!) are somewhat neutered, the shadow spell requires all of one additional spell cast first to lower initiative before firing off a Pit, and the dreaded 13th careth not about the apparent invulnerability of the Red Menace as it turns them all into slightly confused rats...

I mean yes, you've got some points, just like Daemonreign and pals do, but lets try to avoid turning this into hysteria, hmmm? ;)

The Low King
14-11-2012, 21:14
What's wrong with a core unit having killing blow? You're paying a ton of points for them (though I agree with DaemonReign's suggestion of another 1 point per model), and the army is supposed to represent a bunch of elite otherworldly minions. Just like the fact that my characters avoid Tomb Guard, Grave Guard, Wardancers, Executioners, and others with KB, so too will they avoid Bloodletters like the plague.

Im just going to quote the answer i gave to the same question on the last page:


Usually an army might have a couple of units maximum with killing blow (thus you can avoid them), with bloodletters you could have an entire army of units with killing blow, meaning characters simply cant fight in combat or they die.
And hordes have it even better because of the sheer number of attack they dish out, most units with killing blow have a limited number of attacks (Grave Guard, TG, excecutioners) or cant be horded (Wardancers).

To explain in more depth:

Tomb Guard, Grave Guard, Wardancers and Executioners are Special Choices. That means at the absolute max they you can have half your army made up of them. That means you just have to avoide half the army. Furthermore, they all compete with other very good choices (Chariots and Sphinxes, the entire VC special, Treekin, black guard). Wardancers also can only do killing blow every other round of combat.

Bloodletters on the other hand are core (and have Bloodcrushers, heralds and thirsters to back them up) therefore you can have an entire army of Killing blow troops (and i have seen entire Khorne armies, they are completely viable). That means your characters physically can not avoid combat with them.

The additional problem is that unlike wardancers they are very viable line troops rather than KB ninjas and have the support (as mentioned) of bloodcrushers, thirsters and heralds (all with killing blow). Unlike if they were in a dwarf or ogre army, filling your entire allowance with KB troops is very viable. In say a dwarf army trying that would just give you 2500 points of the same troops, very vulnerable to certain things. But in a Daemon army you can take 2500 points of KB troops (possibly even with 100 points for some hounds or something if you want).

theunwantedbeing
14-11-2012, 21:19
I'm sure you can. You just don't accept them.
Killing blow being uncommon is not a good reason for a unit not to be allowed it.
Ward saves on units are uncommon, should daemons really be allowed ward saves?

The risk to enemy characters?
Are enemy character's forced to fight them in close combat? No
Are enemy character's forced to fight them at the front of a horde of them where they'll suffer the maximum number of attacks? No
Does killing blow work all the time? No, it's a 1/6 chance on the roll to wound.
Can enemy character's take anything that can protect them from killing blow? Yes, they can all have a 4+ ward save and some can even take immunity to killing blow items.

They are not valid reasons as to why Bloodletters should not be allowed to have Killing Blow.

What exactly is killing blow useful against and where does it provide a bonus?
Against....
Infantry & Cavalry with a 5+ save or worse, it does nothing.
Infantry & Cavalry with a better save, you negate it on 11% of all attacks where you hit on a 3+ (8% if you hit on a 4+)
Infantry & Cavalry Characters, you have an 11% chance to kill them outright per attack if you hit on a 3+ (8% on a 4+)
Infantry & Cavalry with Regeneration, you have an 11% chance to negate it per attack when you hit on a 3+ (8% when hitting on a 4+)

So if you have a full horde you can expect to see
against better than 5+ save troops and those with regeneration, an extra 3.33 wounds get by (this is less if they have ward saves)

It's not a massive extra amount of killing ability, especially when coupled with the killing power they already have by being St5 and Ws5.

Those 300pt characters who are unable to fight as they auto-die due to killing blow?
When facing 9 bloodletters in a horde formation (because they were dumb at positioning) means they should expect to suffer 0.75 killing blow deaths
Against just 6 (if they were a bit smarter and attacked the edge of the unit, not the middle) they'll expect just half a killing blow death each round
Against just 3 (if they were extra clever and flanked them or hit them in the rear) they'll expect just 0.25 killing blow deaths each round.

Half that amount when you've given them the manditory 4+ ward save they will always have.
So really there isn't a great deal of risk for them, on the off chance you took them instead of a mage lord.

Lord Dan
14-11-2012, 21:29
If you want to take an entire army of bloodletters for the killing blow, that's more power to you. You're also going to lose the game to just about everything, because as we've demonstrated Bloodletters get ground down by almost anything that can be fielded in large numbers.

This is why you don't see a lot of Daemon armies with more than one horde of Bloodletters. They could take more, but more isn't efficient. So let's not argue that Killing Blow on a core choice is overpowered because it could be fielded in excessive amounts. Daemon players already don't do it, which indicates to me that it's a non-issue.

The Low King
14-11-2012, 21:53
If you want to take an entire army of bloodletters for the killing blow, that's more power to you. You're also going to lose the game to just about everything, because as we've demonstrated Bloodletters get ground down by almost anything that can be fielded in large numbers.

This is why you don't see a lot of Daemon armies with more than one horde of Bloodletters. They could take more, but more isn't efficient. So let's not argue that Killing Blow on a core choice is overpowered because it could be fielded in excessive amounts. Daemon players already don't do it, which indicates to me that it's a non-issue.

Ive seen daemons do it, and seen them win with it

Scammel
14-11-2012, 21:54
Ah, hyperbole, the opiate of the bull-headed. (not that I'm just blaming you, both sides appear to be well versed in its uses - you just happen to be the latest poster )


Granted to an extent, but as a general rule (especially considering the nature of most general-centric infantry battlelines) it's a fairly tall order to completely avoid or stop a Bloodletter horde connecting with whatever unit(s) you've got your characters in.

Lord Dan
14-11-2012, 22:18
Ive seen daemons do it, and seen them win with it

I've seen someone roll 12 for winds of magic every turn.

The Low King
14-11-2012, 23:15
I've seen someone roll 12 for winds of magic every turn.

Sorry, what? i responded to your comment "This is why you don't see a lot of Daemon armies with more than one horde of Bloodletters." by saying that i do see daemon players with more than one horde of bloodletters...how exactly did you expect me to argue against that statement?

DaemonReign
14-11-2012, 23:34
@ The Low King: In this Little re-write us guys were working on we elaborated on Lord-Level 'Heralds' for the longest time. The basic transition was pretty much the same as seen in most armies between Heros and Lords. Basically a buffed up Herald with greater Gift-allowance, 3 wounds, some increased stats - and costing ~200pts base.
This idea did not make it to play-testing however because of the redundancy created (the reason to ever bring a GD, let alone a DP, simply diminished) and the flagrant risk of removing one of the signature-weaknesses of the Daemon Army: Namely that 50% of our allowed Characters in any given game must be taken from a selection of Single Model 'Point-sinks' (no hiding in units, sitting ducks for cannons, no ranks for disruption, etcetera).
So basically the idea is nice, and I was one of its foremost advocates when we discussed it(!) - but riddled with 'issues' that didn't pass (at least) our standards of scrutiny at the time.

Regarding Characters getting munched up by Killing Blow Attacks:
I Think KB fits Khorne Daemon's fluff pretty well. Close-combat characters certainly are struggling a bit in 8th Ed, but at least everybody except Daemons have access to reliable Wardsaves through Magic Items - sure these are 0-1 choices unlike Daemonic Gifts but there's at least a handfull of really good ones to choose from.
So if KB is reduced in frequency then perhaps we should question why Lords of other armies have easy access to 1+AS & 4+Ward etcetera.

Running Mono-Khorne Armies with Daemons is pretty damn uncompetative. Running mulitple hordes of BLs in a mixed list can be very nasty but (and again I come back to this..) that's more the fault of certain items (like Master of Sorcery) being grossely undercosted, leading to (too) easily obtained synergies perhaps - and let's still not forget if you master your 'fear' of that red lawn-mower of timewarped Death on the other side of the table there are certainly ways to derail Hordes of Bloodletters (just as Phazael said upthread).

Bloodletters are good, and a bit cheap no doubt - but remember you kinda have to take 30+ for them to be really scary. It took us a while to find comparable core units that actually beat BLs in Horde Formation, but I'd venture to guess we'd have a hard time finding units that don't beat them (Point for Point) if they are - say - 20 models only.
So they're a hefty investment already - and no-matter how good you Think they are an investment like that is ALWAYS an exposed weakness, or opportunity if you will..

Nitrous
14-11-2012, 23:39
The trouble is Daemons are really four armies rolled into one.

I don't think Bloodletters are too overcosted when you consider that fluff wise they shouldn't really be played with Slaanesh.

If Bloodletters get nerfed that effects Khorne only armies pretty hard as they rely on the strength of melee.

It would be better if Daemons couldn't team up with their opposing Daemonic faction.

Arijharn
14-11-2012, 23:41
I think Bloodletters are fine now except they are far too cheap imo. 15pts or even 16 points would be more reasonable. 5++ is useful but hardly incredibly awesome. They can't parry, they don't have an armour save, and they're only T3.

Phazael
14-11-2012, 23:44
LOL at 16 point bloodletters... seriously? A bloodletter should cost more than five times what a night goblin does? It should cost 50% more than a ghoul? Double what a Savage Orc does? These are not old book units I am comparing them to here, but new book core units. Its even more ludicrous when you stack them against things from pre 8th books.

Lord Dan
14-11-2012, 23:46
Sorry, what? i responded to your comment "This is why you don't see a lot of Daemon armies with more than one horde of Bloodletters." by saying that i do see daemon players with more than one horde of bloodletters...how exactly did you expect me to argue against that statement?
I apologize for being so sarcastic.

To your question, you could argue against it by explaining why you think mono-khorne lists are effective, not just indicating that you've seen it done before.

As DaemonReign more eloquently stated above, there are reasons why mono-khorne lists aren't very effective. They're prohibitively expensive, one-dimensional from a tactical perspective, and can't put out enough mass damage to hordes of cheap troops to compensate for the casualties they take in return. Given these reasons, I propose that Mono-Khorne lists aren't viable overall and, therefore, massed killing blow isn't a real problem people face.

Moreover even if you happened to face an army of nothing but bloodletters and a general of some kind, so what? The last thing you should worry about is the fact that they could one-shot your general (there's only an 8.3% chance of that happening to a T4 hero with no ward save against 6 Bloodletters, by the way.) when you should have no problem taking advantage of the army's other weaknesses.

Why
15-11-2012, 00:11
I've seen someone roll 12 for winds of magic every turn.

I've won with wood elves.

Oh wait, were done the sacastic comments now. Move along nothing to see here;)

In all seriousness, killing blow is like a cannon. It's is very heartbreaking that one time it ruins the game for you by one shoting your genreal before he does anything. However in most cases a stone thrower is just as if not more effective.
Killing blow has a chance to one shot your general, however in most cases a rule like ASF would be much more powerful.

It's the reputation that makes in scary.

The Low King
15-11-2012, 00:13
I apologize for being so sarcastic.

To your question, you could argue against it by explaining why you think mono-khorne lists are effective, not just indicating that you've seen it done before.

As DaemonReign more eloquently stated above, there are reasons why mono-khorne lists aren't very effective. They're prohibitively expensive, one-dimensional from a tactical perspective, and can't put out enough mass damage to hordes of cheap troops to compensate for the casualties they take in return. Given these reasons, I propose that Mono-Khorne lists aren't viable overall and, therefore, massed killing blow isn't a real problem people face.

Moreover even if you happened to face an army of nothing but bloodletters and a general of some kind, so what? The last thing you should worry about is the fact that they could one-shot your general (there's only an 8.3% chance of that happening to a T4 hero with no ward save against 6 Bloodletters, by the way.) when you should have no problem taking advantage of the army's other weaknesses.

Fair enough, i was overstating their effectiveness a bit i think. It wasnt even my point of veiw, i was just trying to explain why people were arguing and got to carried away lol.

However, your maths at the end there....6 bloodletters hitting on 4s (maybe with hatred) means 3 hits. Thats then a 42% chance of getting a 6 and killing him.

Lord Dan
15-11-2012, 00:30
6 bloodletters hitting on 4s (maybe with hatred) means 3 hits. Thats then a 42% chance of getting a 6 and killing him.

Good spot: I'm wrong because I only calculated the odds for one attack.

.5 x .166 (or 1/6) = 8.3% chance of killing blow.

Multiplied by 6 attacks I get 49.8% chance of success. How did you get to 42%?

Xerkics
15-11-2012, 00:44
IF we were to change them:
I like the idea of having killing blow being granted by herald. Or keep bloodletters 12 points with ensorcelled weapons letting them upgrade to weapons with killing blow for 2 more points.

AS is i think they are ok in a vaccum but other options might need recosting , id like to see more animosity for certain powers.

Tygre
15-11-2012, 04:40
Removing killing blow from Bloodletters is like removing killing blow from Wights.
Wights and Blood Letters have always had the same rules for there weapons; in 4th and 5th edition they both caused D3 wounds; in 6th and 7th edition they caused Killing Blow.
Needing a character to give them Killing Blow is like telling an undead player that his Wight Blades do nothing unless their is a Wight Lord in the unit.
Bloodletters carry Hellblades not hand weapons.

If anything they should bring back Daemonic animosity.

decker_cky
15-11-2012, 04:58
Bloodletters didn't have killing blow in 6th edition.

Tygre
15-11-2012, 06:02
After a better look in my Hordes of Chaos they do indeed not have killing blow.
But except in that book their was always something special about their weapons, the Hellblades. In 4th, 5th, and 7th editions it was the same as Wights.

GrandmasterWang
15-11-2012, 06:17
As the creator of this topic I support bloodletters receiving a nerf.. I also support them keeping killing blow. While I feel nothing in the fluff/models supports natural strength 5, I feel that killing blow does suit them.

They are the only core troop in the game with killing blow.... How perfectly fitting for the army of the Blood God.

DaemonReign
15-11-2012, 11:21
With all due respect GrandMaster I cannot concur on Bloodletters going down in Strength. Strength 5 is just as integral, and at this point signature, as Killing Blow in the end.
I too Believe there's reason to 'nerf' BL's slightly, as does the vast majority of posters in this thread. I Believe what GW will (or at least really should!) do is to adjust their pointcost, and the optimal change afaic would be to increase the net-cost of Bloodletters by ~1,5pts out of which 1pts is slapped straight onto Bloodletters while the 'decimals' are added to the cost of the HoK (primarily).

I mean: We can of course discuss stat-Changes for the casual fun of it. But looking at the 8th Ed Army Books they are all pretty much continuing whatever was there Before. Ghouls could have lost their Poison attacks instead of going up in cost, for example.

That said I'll humour your sentiment by giving my account of the stats that you could change, reasonably speaking for Bloodletters - and this is only my personal opinion:
Initiative - Yes you could easily reduce their Initiative to 3 instead of raising their cost.
Toughness - This is highly unorthodox but if you really wanted to accentuate their 'glass-hammer' status you could make them T2. Not a serious suggestion as such, and they certainly wouldn't be Worth 12pts anymore, but still - in a World not bound by Convention it could be an option.
WeaponSkill - You could definately take this value down a notch. Again: With the 'usual' re-rolls in the First Round of combat it would accentuate their glass-hammer nature, and make them suck even more at protracted combat. If they had Ws4 then a cost-increase would be limited to 1pt maximum (and that's assuming the HoK remains costed as now).
LeaderShip: Something for all Daemons perhaps. Something to reign in Instability a Little bit. The rationale would be that Daemons don't lose a lot of combat, but when they do lose things can go South pretty quickly. So a softer version of the "auto-pop" that came with Instability prior to our current book.

The values of Movement and Strength, however, are simply no-go's for me I'm afraid. And for the umphteenth time it's really a cost-adjustment they need and nothing else imo.

Xerkics
15-11-2012, 12:45
To be honest im surprised that bloodletters arent faster having hooves and all id expect them to travel in great leaps and bounds impaling the enemies as they go eager to get into action

Scammel
15-11-2012, 12:50
To be honest im surprised that bloodletters arent faster having hooves

For starters, they don't have hooves. Beastmen do, and they're 'only' M5.

Waagh Rider
15-11-2012, 13:00
As long as they stay at 1 attack I don't think they're overcosted at all.

Xerkics
15-11-2012, 14:01
I always thought bloodletters should be m6 with m5 being average and 3-4 slow. Hm for some reason i thought they had hooves i must have confused that looking at thirster and juggernauts other khorne demons.

theunwantedbeing
15-11-2012, 14:13
I always thought bloodletters should be m6 with m5 being average and 3-4 slow. Hm for some reason i thought they had hooves i must have confused that looking at thirster and juggernauts other khorne demons.

Mv3 is slow, Mv4 is average, Mv5 is fast. For infantry anyway.