VC Blood Knights are terrible.........

[BlackPawl]

50 points each?... Dragon princes are "comparable" and they're only 30pts each.

What?
Dragon Princes are only S3, T3, minus one attack and they can't raised back (except for the life lore). There is a reason why dragon princes are cheaper ...

[Bloody Nunchucks]

50 points each?... Dragon princes are "comparable" and they're only 30pts each.

you must be unaware of BK's stats, they are T4 with a much higher strength (7), have more attacks, have better horses and can be brought back to life, plus have better banner options.

[warplock]

If a blood knight charged a dragon prince, the prince would have around a 25 percent chance of killing him before he struck, then the knight would kill an average of 1 dragon prince. If a dragon prince charged a blood knight, he would kill an average of 0.5 blood knights, then the knight would kill him approximately 60 percent of the time. So blood knights are way better.

[Caiphas Cain]

But is that taking point cost into consideration?

[Confessor_Atol]

you must be unaware of BK's stats, they are T4 with a much higher strength (7), have more attacks, have better horses and can be brought back to life, plus have better banner options.

Noone has mentioned that they also have S5 in subsequent Hth phases. That dragon prince would be toast. Blood knights are tough as nails, and you pay a premium for that (in $$ and in points). Granted they're not a "Malorion auto-include" like zombies, but they fill a role. If they stray from that role, they die.

[Von Wibble]

If a blood knight charged a dragon prince, the prince would have around a 25 percent chance of killing him before he struck, then the knight would kill an average of 1 dragon prince. If a dragon prince charged a blood knight, he would kill an average of 0.5 blood knights, then the knight would kill him approximately 60 percent of the time. So blood knights are way better.

Actually the dragon princes chances are even less than that I think that figure of 25% forgets that blood knights have a 2+ save! On charge is about right.

[vardek_4]

If you throw a rock against other rock, chances are any one will break, or none.
You must throw the rocks against scissors to compare how hard they break them, and you must throw the rocks against paper to compare how hard are they owned.

/kung fu master mode

[Kayosiv]

If a blood knight charged a dragon prince, the prince would have around a 25 percent chance of killing him before he struck, then the knight would kill an average of 1 dragon prince.

This is very fuzzy math. Assuming the dragon princes have 100% hit rate, the odds of his 3 attacks killing (including horse) him are STILL less than 25%. Dragon princes strength 3 has to roll a 5 or 6 to wound and the blood knight has to roll a 1 on armor saves in order to die. Each non-charging attack from a dragon prince has less than a 1/20 chance of killing a blood knight model.

Blood knights really should have a 1+ armor save. In 6th edition blood dragons were given automatic full plate mail armor for a 4+ save and it makes sense that blood dragon knights would be similarly armored. They are more offensive than any cavalry in the game save for perhaps Mournfangs but the only defensive difference between them and other knights is toughness 4 and you could also argue their high weaponskill. In fact, Grail Knights have a ward save and chaos knights have better armor so they are worse defensively than those cavalry units. When you cost 50 points for a 1 wound model, nobody should be better than you at anything. As is, they are exactly as difficult to kill as a Black Knight that is half the cost. While it makes sense that Blood Knights cost twice as much because they have triple the offensive potential it does seem weird that wights are just as difficult to destroy as a vampire.

[Askari]

It still sounds like people are underestimating the resurrection of a 50pt heavy cavalry model with a spell that's almost impossible to not cast (but easily dispelled, I guess).

May even be worth 200pts on 4 base Blood Knights. It's not a huge investment of points but it gets you something no flanking unit wants to face. Don't get me wrong, in strictly competitive circles I'd probably just take a second Varghulf or more Grave Guard. But Blood Knights certainly aren't bad.

If a blood knight charged a dragon prince, the prince would have around a 25 percent chance of killing him before he struck, then the knight would kill an average of 1 dragon prince. If a dragon prince charged a blood knight, he would kill an average of 0.5 blood knights, then the knight would kill him approximately 60 percent of the time. So blood knights are way better.

If my math is right, the Dragon Prince - if he was charged by the Blood Knight, would only manage a kill 6% of the time. (A2, 1.5 hits, 0.5 wounds, 2+ AS).

[Ghremdal]

Actually each Dragon prince attack has about 4.16 % chance of killing a Blood knight, 25% if the dragon prince charged that turn. So blood knights are significantly better.

Sure they won't do well if you slam them into a horde of black orcs, but they are:

- great against monsters (4 with the flaming banner will on average, on a charge kill a hellpit in one turn).
- great at assasinating characters
- dealing with anything that is not a horde of strong infantry

[Maoriboy007]

It still sounds like people are underestimating the resurrection of a 50pt heavy cavalry model with a spell that's almost impossible to not cast (but easily dispelled, I guess).

Or overestimating what is basically a spell effect with a fairly short range. Your opponant takes off a model with a couple magic dice , you put one on for a couple magic dice, as long as your fast moving cavalry unit stays in range of 6-12" or is being babysat by a vampire that doesent get his IoN dispelled.
Bloodknightswere way overated in 7th and still have the stigma. Thay are a little bit better in the new book wit better Initiative and a slight points drop. But for all that they are are impressive cavalry that comes at a high cost in rare allotment, in a gaming environment that doesn't particularly favour cavalry. They are merely o.k. in my book. Not optimal, but fairly close to reasonable.

[Frankly]

Or overestimating what is basically a spell effect with a fairly short range. Your opponant takes off a model with a couple magic dice , you put one on for a couple magic dice, as long as your fast moving cavalry unit stays in range of 6-12" or is being babysat by a vampire that doesent get his IoN dispelled.

Honestly? Are you honestly saying that you couldn't construct a reasonable list from the VC armybook that couldn't get a magic phase up and running to support the key unit in the armylist? i.e. Necros on steeds.

At the end of the day, Blood knights aren't a unit that your going to just throw into any list and they'll work out fine; and thats what people are thinking, unsupported blood knights are going to win games. Your going to have to create lists around this unit to bring out the best from it. Either by supporting it with wolves and black knights + really heavy hitting character support. Or playing a magic support phase with necros on steeds + wolves and maybe Verghiests.

Saying 'oh they didn't work for me, because I hammered them into the front arch of a horde unit' is a narrow way of looking at a unit thats comes out of an armybook with such a large scope for support play.

Bloodknightswere way overated in 7th and still have the stigma.

Yeah ... Blood knights were actually awesome in 7th Ed. They could swing from points denial to hammer unit on a dime. You could spam Vanhels to get them into combats you wanted, they'd wreck front ranks and walk through units. Around here they were seen in alot of tournment winning lists.

[Maoriboy007]

Honestly? Are you honestly saying that you couldn't construct a reasonable list from the VC armybook that couldn't get a magic phase up and running to support the key unit in the armylist? i.e. Necros on steeds. .

Generally you are piling more points on top of the already pricey knights just to make them work , if your opponant lets you get away with it, and are those necromancers on steeds supposed to be in the Bloodknght unit? Or wandering around by themselves in order to keep up? You might put them in dog units I suppose but they can be picked out, either way you are looking at free points for your opponant really...just saying......
Like I said , generally you're talking a babysitting vampire , who gets one chance at raising a single knight (under debate) if your opponant lets you cast the spell and thats pretty much balanced by the fact that they get to use thier own power dice to converseley remove models from the unit.
The only other way could be a knight deathstar, who's success would be mightily debatable in 8th, and they are unstable so losses are compounded. Really invocation is alright , but its not really any kind of justification for an argument of the awesomeness of Bloodknights, more of a balancing act against general instability.

At the end of the day, Blood knights aren't a unit that your going to just throw into any list and they'll work out fine; and thats what people are thinking, unsupported blood knights are going to win games. Your going to have to create lists around this unit to bring out the best from it. Either by supporting it with wolves and black knights + really heavy hitting character support. Or playing a magic support phase with necros on steeds + wolves and maybe Verghiests..

Its the points really, 5 knights cost as much as a horde and by then yo are going to be struggling to find points to support them with those optional exras, those knights cost a lot after all. And they're frenzied, and nstable. Its also difficult to lure your opponant into compromising charges with limited ranges attacks, the numbers will generally pull them down.

Saying 'oh they didn't work for me, because I hammered them into the front arch of a horde unit' is a narrow way of looking at a unit thats comes out of an armybook with such a large scope for support play..

Meh, I use them as elite hunters myself, or in desperation, a hammer to support units or as a last resort a throwaway. From experience they go down against hordes from sheer instability , usually giving away more points than they gain, you really do want them alive at the end of the game unless thier death directly acomplishes something fr a win.

Yeah ... Blood knights were actually awesome in 7th Ed. They could swing from points denial to hammer unit on a dime. You could spam Vanhels to get them into combats you wanted, they'd wreck front ranks and walk through units. Around here they were seen in alot of tournment winning lists.

Hmmm...generally they were seen chasing dogs birds and harpies into the nearest available forest. They were really too expensive and frenzy was too big a handicap for them to be optimal in anything but an eggs in one basket deathstar list. As for hammering units, that was pretty much all heavy cav in 7th. Bloodknights just did it generally more impressivly at an equally impressive cost.

[New Cult King]

Unsure if OP is being sarcastic

[BlackPawl]

Unsure if OP is being sarcastic

I also think so ...

Blood knights were so terrible in 7th no one used them ... *fnord*

[Reiko321]

Also, if you put a non-vampire in the unit (read: Necros or Wight Kings) the Blood Knights suddenly forget how to march. So, the unit needs vampires in it or be within range of the General. Not the biggest obstacle to overcome, but one you have to plan for.

[lisaundead]

Its been interesting reading the "fors" and the "againsts" of fielding Blood Knights in a Vampire Counts armies and there are sound arguments on both sides...........

However........I WILL be fielding Blood Knights in one of the incarnations of my VC army, purely and simply, because the models are so chuffin' beautiful and absolutely MUST be the focalpoint of an army that has been built around them!

Competeitive or not, it will be a themed army based on the Blood Knights that I will enjoy playing and that is my argument for them...nuff said

[Daniel36]

Don't use them if you don't like them.

[Asuryan's Spear]

i see alot of people claiming that Chaos knights are better.i humbly beg to disagree. for the extra 5 or so points you get an extra strength, meaning they hit as hard as most charging cavalry do when standing still.better WS, an extra attack. the capability of some speed in an otherwise snail paced army and most importantly the ability to come back from the dead! and people are saying they not as good because they havent got +1 AS.....

[warplock]

i see alot of people claiming that Chaos knights are better.i humbly beg to disagree. for the extra 5 or so points you get an extra strength, meaning they hit as hard as most charging cavalry do when standing still.better WS, an extra attack. the capability of some speed in an otherwise snail paced army and most importantly the ability to come back from the dead! and people are saying they not as good because they havent got +1 AS.....

It's a bit more than that - there's 10 points between them and Chaos Knights have the same WS as Blood Knights, and the same Initiative, and with the extra points you can buy Frenzy for them giving them the same number of attacks (and have points to spare), except Chaos Knights have better Ld so frenzy isn't a bad for them. They can also get a frenzy banner which frees up the mark slot for them (Nurgle for example would allow them to hit the Blood Knights on a 3+). They both cause Fear. Chaos Knights can reroll failed panic tests so whilst they're not completely immune to it like Blood Knights, they're pretty resistant. True, they can't be brought back from the dead, but they can be buffed with Warshrine potentially giving them such horrendous things as T5, 4 attacks each, a 4+ ward, or a 0+ armour save, and they're cheaper anyway so you can get more of them - even with upgrades. You could get a unit of 8 with full command and a 4+ ward vs shooting for not a whole lot more than a unit of 5 Blood Knights with the Flag of Blood Keep.
Blood Knights have S7 on the charge whereas Chaos are S5 all the time, making BKs much better at monster-hunting, but in any other role I think Chaos Knights may edge out a win.