What powerlevel should the books rally around? (and which should be powered up/down?)

[Snowflake]

I see Daemonic Instability getting changed, however I dont see it turning into the Unstable rule. One of the reasons VC/TK have the Unstable rule is the fact that their Lores have significant healing(VC way more then TK). I have faith that GW will adjust Daemonic Instability by lowering LD across the board, or they might keep DI the same as before.

Daemonic Gifts will probably get changed to one per army.

I agree about instability, but that argument for unstable is and always has been a stupid one, especially nowadays. Armies with Lore of Life raise back more and better things than Tomb Kings ever will be able to, the lore attribute is basically an unnoticeable little bonus (much like many lore attributes, really). Vampires are a bit better, but even then, which would you rather see:

1) Your opponent spend his magic phase healing back units decimated by crumble; or
2) Your opponent spend his magic phase buffing/hexing/nuking so that he wins combats

Healing used to work in a world without step-up and extra ranks of attacks. It allowed undead to weather the storm until either their support got there or they got that one lucky combat and autobroke the enemy. Now, it's a waste of dice compared to the difference you can make with even a basic buff spell, much less the really good ones.

[Snowflake]

The Brett Book is actually pretty solid without being overpowering in the current environment. I actually did better with Bretts for a year at GTs than I did with Daemons, in terms of win loss record including crushing every Daemon opponent I faced over an 18 month span. Wood elves deffinately need some help, though. Of all the elf armies, they are probably the easiest to fix and give the best options for new units and model opportunities. Some adjustments to the Forest Spirit rules, some point alterations, a new lore of Athel Loren, and a couple unit additions/force org swaps; thats all the Wood Elves would really need, which is not far from how the Empire and Ogre revamps were done. Personally, I would rather they keep doing what they are and taking care of the easy fixes.

Really, you guys trying to float the idea of unstable on DoC do not know what you are asking for. Right now break mechanics actually matter to DoC and the instability test is the most major element of risk in the army, especially for the Greater Daemon. Being Unstable basically would take all of the guesswork out of risk managing combats and further encourage people to deathstar up, two things you really do not want. It would make the army even more powerful when used by an expert player. Yeah it sucks when a lone flamer roles snake eyes for a break test and I guess its theoretically possible for a DoC unit to lose combat but be steadfast (against what, I am not exactly sure), but for the most part the risk of losing combat by one and blowing the instability is what keeps DoC players in check and in tight orbit around their BSBs. The DoC army needs to be a little more vulnerable to bad dice, not less.

I have a pretty good idea what I would do with the book and the Ogre and VC books are what I would use for a baseline. Mainly, the core units need to be reworked so that they are not so character dependant to get their worth. A few adjustments to the things that make people butthurt would be good too (eg, Flamers 3 shots each instead of rolling, Siren confined to Slaanesh Heralds only, Leadership Bomb stacking limited in certain ways, ect) which is what they did with VC. Its certainly going to be a lot easier to temper than the Dark Elves or Skaven....

The Bret book is in a good position, the remake needs to add more variety, but buffing their powerlevel isn't really needed. However, when you look at the costs of the Empire Knights/IC Knights, etc in the new book, it leads me to believe that Bret knights might actually get a bit cheaper. Empire Knights surprised me with how low they are costed now, even the S4 ones, and especially the Reiksguard. I think it will all come down to how much Brets have to pay for the Lance. Which is a huge buff for them, so it shouldn't be cheap.

[Maoriboy007]

I agree about instability, but that argument for unstable is and always has been a stupid one, especially nowadays. Armies with Lore of Life raise back more and better things than Tomb Kings ever will be able to, the lore attribute is basically an unnoticeable little bonus (much like many lore attributes, really). Vampires are a bit better, but even then, which would you rather see:

1) Your opponent spend his magic phase healing back units decimated by crumble; or
2) Your opponent spend his magic phase buffing/hexing/nuking so that he wins combats

Healing used to work in a world without step-up and extra ranks of attacks. It allowed undead to weather the storm until either their support got there or they got that one lucky combat and autobroke the enemy. Now, it's a waste of dice compared to the difference you can make with even a basic buff spell, much less the really good ones.

Yup pretty much right on, the argument I've heard for years is how frustrating it was to kill off half a dozen models only to have them come back in the magic phase, but I tended to have little sympathy for that argument when they probably burned off that half dozen in thier magic phase in the first place, or got them free of charge due to crumbling.

The other thing is that Undead troops have generally been overpriced in the past with terrible to ordinary combat stats to compensate for the advantage of fear, instability and raising (with mixed results). With the changes to instability (including new combat results) , and its lack of any real advantage over steadfast it goes a long way to explaining why many of the units in the new book seem fairly reasonably priced.

If demons got to keep thier ward save but were made unstable, you would probably see mild price drops for just some of the underpowered units units (plaguebearers and slaneesh core maybe?), but thier better combat stats and ward saves would make them a bit more resiliant to crumbling and probably about level with VC.

[Phazael]

The other part of this, as it pertains to Daemons, is that there are a lot of wierd matchup issues with the core troops and there is a massive performance difference in how three of the units perform when a herald is present. Here is the breakdown, as I see it:

Bloodletters- These guys are good against a lot of units when in horde formation, but actually kind of weak otherwise. Even then, they kind of struggle to beat less expensive core options from other armies and are a dead heat against a lot of the more common knight units (which in theory should be their ideal foe) you run into. Their high statline makes them pretty much impervious to most of the major kill spells, but on the flipside magic tends to have less of a direct impact on their performance than other units. The character adds very little to the unit, in terms of performance, even when running them horde, making them kind of unique among DoC core. I think when compared to similar units from rescent books (Tomb Guard, Savage Orc Bigguns) that cost less, they are probably actually fairly priced. The banners should probably change, however, as the charge banner is overpowered in general and the march one is useless. If I were to change anything about them (aside from the Locus effect), it might be to make their base S3 and have the hellblades confer +2 STR and armor pierce (dump KB on the unit) to make them more vulnerable to dwellers and similar things. I would alter the Locus to make the hero confer KB on the unit and dump hatred.

Plaguebearers- They should be priced at about 10pts per model, really. Their abilities and statline fits them extremely well, but they are priced around the regen crutch, so I say dump it and price them down. At 10 points, they have slightly worse stats and durability to a Dwarf warrior, but with fear and instability for one point more. Make the locus be counting as being behind a defended obstacle when charged and you have a nice line holding unit without the regen dependancy and there is a good merrit for taking them without a character. The unit banners are probably balanced, but I would reword the Seeping Decay so that it does not affect characters in the unit.

Horrors- Price them down to 10pts and give them the 4+ ward save full time. Make them level 0 wizards so that they can channel and are harmed by effects that target enemy wizards, but do not actually cast spells. Give them a Mortis Engine style damage aura and a shooting attack, both of which scale with size and you can only use one per turn. Now you have a more interesting unit that is not just a "I want +4 to dispell and occasionally Bolt of Change" type unit. For a locus, I would keep it simple and weak as Tzeench heralds are good enough on their own and I want to avoid herald dependancy, so maybe MR1 or a reroll on their shooting ability.

Damonettes- Currently, these gals are overpriced, especially when compared to double choppa orks or witch elves, but they synergize with the magic phase better than any other core unit. I would either return them to S4 (and dump armor pierce as a Slaanesh thing) ir drop their cost to 10pts per model. I would make them ASF without needing a herald and raise their Initiative to 6, but I would lower their WS to 4 at the same time. This would cement their role as light infantry chewers without making them too good against things like Knights and other things that Bloodletters should be better at killing. I would make the herald locus be no inspiring presence or BSB rerolls to units in base (this would include getting rid of/toning down the Icon of Dispair in its current form) and limit Siren to Slaanesh heralds on foot only and reduce its range to 12", so that a skilled player using chaffe units can counter it and a ********* Daemon player cannot use it to force mathematically possible but statistically unlikely charges to deny shooting or break up an opponent's battle line. The overall effect here would be to contain the leadership bomb to slaanesh infantry and bring it in line with the similar LD manipulation abilties in other books, while keeping the Slaanesh theme of control and manipulation. Conversely, a balanced army with characters to provide LD boost in key units can contend with the army in a more reasonable manner. Really, Daemonettes need the most reworking of anything because they are too good in some ways and too weak in others.

Furies- These are fine as they stand, but they probably belong in Special.

[HalfBlood]

I love your ideas for Horrors and PB since thats pretty much what they need.

Bloodletters should be base stronger then Daemonettes. Yes the hellblade would confer +2 S however its pretty silly that Daemonettes would be S4 base, while Bloodletters are S3. I would put Bloodletters at S4, Hellblades confer +1 S and Killing Blow. Herald gives unit Frenzy (all Khorne should be frenzy in some sort) Bump point cost 13-14 points per model. Icon of Endless War (3D6 charge Icon) should allow the Bloodletter unit to reroll first failed charge. Skull Totem (March Icon) be changed to give the unit Hatred.

Daemonettes need the most work like you said. However I dont know the right way to pursue it. I would drop them to 11 points per model and let them keep their stat line. Siren Song should force the enemy to take a LD test at -2 (cannot use generals LD) if failed they charge or flee.

[Athlan na Dyr]

The other part of this, as it pertains to Daemons, is that there are a lot of wierd matchup issues with the core troops and there is a massive performance difference in how three of the units perform when a herald is present. Here is the breakdown, as I see it:

Bloodletters- These guys are good against a lot of units when in horde formation, but actually kind of weak otherwise. Even then, they kind of struggle to beat less expensive core options from other armies and are a dead heat against a lot of the more common knight units (which in theory should be their ideal foe) you run into. Their high statline makes them pretty much impervious to most of the major kill spells, but on the flipside magic tends to have less of a direct impact on their performance than other units. The character adds very little to the unit, in terms of performance, even when running them horde, making them kind of unique among DoC core. I think when compared to similar units from rescent books (Tomb Guard, Savage Orc Bigguns) that cost less, they are probably actually fairly priced. The banners should probably change, however, as the charge banner is overpowered in general and the march one is useless. If I were to change anything about them (aside from the Locus effect), it might be to make their base S3 and have the hellblades confer +2 STR and armor pierce (dump KB on the unit) to make them more vulnerable to dwellers and similar things. I would alter the Locus to make the hero confer KB on the unit and dump hatred.

Plaguebearers- They should be priced at about 10pts per model, really. Their abilities and statline fits them extremely well, but they are priced around the regen crutch, so I say dump it and price them down. At 10 points, they have slightly worse stats and durability to a Dwarf warrior, but with fear and instability for one point more. Make the locus be counting as being behind a defended obstacle when charged and you have a nice line holding unit without the regen dependancy and there is a good merrit for taking them without a character. The unit banners are probably balanced, but I would reword the Seeping Decay so that it does not affect characters in the unit.

Horrors- Price them down to 10pts and give them the 4+ ward save full time. Make them level 0 wizards so that they can channel and are harmed by effects that target enemy wizards, but do not actually cast spells. Give them a Mortis Engine style damage aura and a shooting attack, both of which scale with size and you can only use one per turn. Now you have a more interesting unit that is not just a "I want +4 to dispell and occasionally Bolt of Change" type unit. For a locus, I would keep it simple and weak as Tzeench heralds are good enough on their own and I want to avoid herald dependancy, so maybe MR1 or a reroll on their shooting ability.

Damonettes- Currently, these gals are overpriced, especially when compared to double choppa orks or witch elves, but they synergize with the magic phase better than any other core unit. I would either return them to S4 (and dump armor pierce as a Slaanesh thing) ir drop their cost to 10pts per model. I would make them ASF without needing a herald and raise their Initiative to 6, but I would lower their WS to 4 at the same time. This would cement their role as light infantry chewers without making them too good against things like Knights and other things that Bloodletters should be better at killing. I would make the herald locus be no inspiring presence or BSB rerolls to units in base (this would include getting rid of/toning down the Icon of Dispair in its current form) and limit Siren to Slaanesh heralds on foot only and reduce its range to 12", so that a skilled player using chaffe units can counter it and a ********* Daemon player cannot use it to force mathematically possible but statistically unlikely charges to deny shooting or break up an opponent's battle line. The overall effect here would be to contain the leadership bomb to slaanesh infantry and bring it in line with the similar LD manipulation abilties in other books, while keeping the Slaanesh theme of control and manipulation. Conversely, a balanced army with characters to provide LD boost in key units can contend with the army in a more reasonable manner. Really, Daemonettes need the most reworking of anything because they are too good in some ways and too weak in others.

Furies- These are fine as they stand, but they probably belong in Special.

Bloodletters without KB and S3 with a weapon that adds +2 S at 12 ppm sounds very reasonable. Agree with the Herald power and the banners. As an aside, I'd love to see a (very expensive) frenzy banner...
[EDIT] halfblood. Same wavelength!

Plaguebearers: Gain +1 M, +1 S, a 5++ as opposed to a 5+, poison and daemonic instability whilst losing a point of WS, I and 2 points of ld when compared to a dwarf warrior. I'd price that at 10.5 to 11 points at the very least. What I'd like done with plaguebearers is give them a 4+ regen as standard (ups survivability a bit), I3, keep them at around 12 ppm and have the Herald grant either poison on a 5+ or some 'infection' mechanic where the opposition takes a S4 hit per model in contact with a plaguebearer at the end of the combat phase (like stomps).

Horrors: You have way more ideas than I do, and these are very reasonable. I'd add that damage aura still affects units in combat (call it Aura of Mutation perhaps?). Even then I think your horrors may be a little overcosted unless that shooting attack is very nice.

Daemonettes: I'm liking the S3, asf I6 WS4 version at 10 ppm more than the S4. However, the Herald's ability is going to be rather expensive. Currently to get rid of BSB rerolls for fear tests alone is 20 points and to get rid of BSB rerolls and Inspiring Presence within 6" (and cause terror) is 60 points for an enchanted item. My personal (read: uninformed and opinionated) view is that the herald's power should either be something like Siren Song or 'units with Line of Sight to a herald must pass a Ld test on their own leadership before being able to attack the herald or her unit (this includes both shooting and combat). Makes Daemonettes an absolute nightmare for cheap and nasty units like slaves whilst keeping elites able to fight them on reasonably equal terms.

from the above, the core section would be:
> The quality, yet low volume attacks
> The high volume and high accuracy, yet poor quality attacks
> The tarpit that can also hit people
> The support unit

which leaves:
> The cheer squad. Now, it has always struck me as odd that furies are as comparable as they are to the God aligned demons in terms of stats. A stat reduciton (s3, t3, maybe some I and WS) and a heavy points reduction (8 or less?) whilst keeping them in core could make an interesting and useful chaff unit. Now again, my demonic fluff knowledge ain't all that great so if there is some reason as to why not, give me a heads up

Other things I can pull out of the top of my head that I think would be nice for demons to get when their book comes around is:
> Better wards for Greater Demons
> Cavalry mounts (seekers) give improved ward saves rather than armour
> Cavalry mounts for nurgle and tzeentch?
> Flesh Hounds get rerolls to wound/ hit against magic users and ethereal units. Units of 1+
> Good ol papa nurgle gets some decent rules for a change

[Petey]

I'd like to see all daemons move to a regen save rather than a ward save, and be able to break and rally as normal, with instability built in.

Basically, Daemon would come with stubborn, instability, 5+ regeneration, fear. I would make them pay a 1-2 point premium for this.
Add special rules for which god they serve.

Reasoning. Why stubborn instead of ItP? Daemons are manifestations of emotion. They are real the same way emotions are real. They can panic or feel fear, the fluff shows us as much.
Why regen instead of ward? Fire has always been the weapon of the righteous in warhammer and in our own myths, having it have an effect on daemons seems correct to me.
I think instability is characterful and should stay. Additionally, it helps counter the cost of the other abilities daemons get.

To answer the OP, VC are the army I think is most well thought out and balanced, and should be the measuring stick against which others are place (though I really really like empire as well)

[HalfBlood]

I dont like regen on Daemons. In any game when I think of regeneration I think of Trolls/Ogres. I think regen suits PB the most. Giving the entire army regen sounds like a push in the wrong direction.

After doing some rethinks of the army book,

I would rejust the horror unit to look like this:

Horrors, 11pts per model 4+ ward always. Keep them a level 1 wizard with a new revamped Lore of Tz. Based on the unit size will determine the wizard level. To keep the Locus idea, If a HoT is in the horror unit then the Horror unit channels on a 4+ rather then a 6+, and receives +1 to cast. So if you were to have a level 4 Pink Horror unit with an HoT, then the Horror unit receives +5 to cast, however the HoT only receives the normal +2. This makes their magical output for a Horror unit with an HoT more effective, but at the same time people can still run lone HoT without a horror bunker and still be effective.

I love Athlans Ideas about PB. I would make them 11 pts per model. Make them I2 with built in 4+ regen (I tests still counter the unit). Herald improves Posion to 5+ or Noxious Plague (enemy models in base contact with the PB unit must take a T test or suffer a wound.

Screamers/Beasts of Nurgle need help badly, I will let someone else shoot some ideas for these guys

[DaemonReign]

It was a great read these last 20 posts or so.
I think if we are to leave strict wishlisting aside, that things are going to change much more moderately.

Bloodletters - I'd put them at 13pts. Somebody with a trauma would put them at 14. If we look at the Army Books so far in 8th Ed, the changes they make arn't that radical when it comes down to it. Sure lowering their base strength and letting the Hellblade 'represent' added Strength would work fine - for example - but I don't find it very plausible. It seems like a mortalesque way of rendering it, they are Daemons after all. That's not really a sword and not really a hand holding it..

Horrors - I agree they're hardly even worth 10pts these days. Why? Because they don't generate their own dice and the spells they get are not what they used to be (all things concidered). Fixes? Well, a revamped Tzeentch Lore (where there's a neat Augment for them instead of 'Gift of Chaos' and where Tzeentch Firestorm has an 8th Ed mechanic, for example) would come a long long way in making them worth 12pts again.

Daemonettes - Overcosted by a point. And again someone with trauma would leave them at 12pts just for being Daemons.

PBs - Don't think they're that bad. They are grossely undercosted when they could stack the saves, that's all.

Furies - Special Choice *duh* perhaps drop them to 11pts.

Halfblood:
Screamers - expand min/max unit size perhaps? Another wound or attack would make them pretty good I reckon.
Beasts - At least 10pts cheaper, questionable if the belong in the Rare Section (depends on what big gribblies we get...)

Unstable - A horrible idea ripe with malice to the point where I'd almost call its advocates 'trolls'. But sure, with a 20-30% decrease in cost across the board.. fine.. be that way. Let's see how much fun that'd be.

[Enigmatik1]

Unstable - A horrible idea ripe with malice to the point where I'd almost call its advocates 'trolls'. But sure, with a 20-30% decrease in cost across the board.. fine.. be that way. Let's see how much fun that'd be.

I wouldn't wish Unstable in today's environment on my worst enemy. Awesome ideas though, this thread almost makes me want to pick up a Daemon army now...even though I'm not quite sure how this thread got to be so much about Daemons when there are more egregious offenders still lurking about with 7E books (*cough Skaven and Dark Elves *cough*).

[Phazael]

Bloodletters are not worth 14 points per model. They are barely worth 12. Right now, they work well against a lot of units when in horde formation (which they should), but a lot of other core infantry completely outclasses them, some of it less expensive (Savage Ork Bigguns, Khorne Marauders, Dark Elf Spearmen, Tomb Guard w Halberds, ect) than they are. Their unique statline leads to a lot of odd matchup quirks that happen to work well in todays metagame. They are actually worse than Daemonettes at taking on many of the knight units out there (Chaos Knights in equal points with frenzy will destroy them, equal points of Brettonian KotR can fight them to a standstill, Mournfang just bowl them over), relying on the odd KB attack to scare characters away. Among single attack high S infantry models, they die the worst to light infantry chewing units the worst. They are good at taking on Ogre infantry and have an edge against Saurus (until the Frog gets involved), plus their statline makes them pretty impervious to the majority of the I win spells, so people really dislike them. But honestly, they cannot break steadfast on equal points of Night Gobs before being attritioned down and multi attack infantry in 5 wide just obliterates them. Putting them in the neighborhood of Swordmasters and Chaos Warriors for cost and they are just not even remotely in the same league as those guys.

[The bearded one]

They are actually worse than Daemonettes at taking on many of the knight units out there (Chaos Knights in equal points with frenzy will destroy them,

I haven't done the math (yet) of comparing them to daemonettes against KotR and mournfangs, but bloodletters perform better against chaosknights than daemonettes.

I did some quik, conservative math which favoured the daemonettes fairly heavily on many counts and the letters kills more knights than the daemonettes. This math assumed the daemonettes had a herald, and the basic premise of the math was calculating how 2 daemonette attacks would fair against 1 bloodletter attack (but it generally does not work out that way of course, because daemonettes still only get 1 supporting attack from the second rank, so would only have twice as many attacks if the unit consisted of only frontranks). With the letters I left killing blow and a herald out of the math as well. 2 daemonetteattacks killed 1/12th of a chaos knight (1/2 + (1/2x1/2) = 3/4 hits (meaning 1.5 out of 2 hit). 1.5 x 1/3 means 0.5 attacks wound. 1/2 x 1/6 means 1/12th. 1 letterattack killed 2/18th (1/2 hit x 2/3 wound x 1/3 save), so by comparison the daemonettes'2 attacks killed 3/36th and the letter 4/36th. If I factor hatred into the bloodletter, it will be 3/4 x 2/3 x 1/3 = 6/36, twice as many as the daemonettes.

Now if we translate this (and I am still leaving killing blow out of the calculation) into a unit, let's say... a unit 6 wide, it becomes this (leaving herald attacks out to make it easier, let's just assume for a moment he doesn't take up a spot in the front rank) every letter attack in the first round causes 1/6 wounds. The 6-wide letters have 12 attacks, meaning 12/6, or 2 kills. The daemonettes kill 1.5/36 per attack. With 18 attacks they kill 27/36, 3/4th of a model.


In any case, I think daemonettes and letters are the best of the daemoncore. Horrors lost their niche a bit with the different way in which dice are generated and are stuck with spells that are not all that impressive. If they got the 'boon of tzeentch' spell in one of their 4 spells, they might've still been pretty nasty, as they could generate a little pool of their own some time during the magic phase by casting a spell that would require them to roll 3+ to cast.

Plaguebearers appear specifically targetted by 8th edition rules, by forcing them to take either regeneration, or a wardsave, but not both. They could do with a bit of a pointsdrop, though that reroll to wound banner is fairly sick. I think that banner actually makes them better at wounding enemies than bloodletters.

[Phazael]

I take PB to soften my list and because they are the one core that can hold the line against Ogres, so they have a place. They just suffer from the same issue as Daemonettes, namely needing the character to be descent. Since I am not taking Khorne in my list, they do plug a couple other gaps, thanks to being T4 and having poisoned attacks. Where they kind of jump the shark is when you use the reroll to wound banner in combination with a Herald who has pestilent breath, which lets him essentially tack on an additional 7 wounds in the round he uses it against T3 enemies.

Also, mathhammer of daemonettes vs Horde of Bloodletters, the Chaos Knights will beat both and the Daemonettes worse, but against a Brett Lance the Daemonettes come out on top, especially with the herald. If it were not for the KB on the Bloodletters, it would not even be a close contest. The volume of attacks and lesser ward save on the knights are the differences. Daemonettes are also way better at killing T3 infantry, too. If it were not for the relative prevalence of T4 infantry in the current metagame, Bloodletters would not seem as valuable as they do right now.

[Enigmatik1]

Bloodletters are not worth 14 points per model. They are barely worth 12. Right now, they work well against a lot of units when in horde formation (which they should), but a lot of other core infantry completely outclasses them, some of it less expensive (Savage Ork Bigguns, Khorne Marauders, Dark Elf Spearmen, Tomb Guard w Halberds, ect) than they are. Their unique statline leads to a lot of odd matchup quirks that happen to work well in todays metagame. They are actually worse than Daemonettes at taking on many of the knight units out there (Chaos Knights in equal points with frenzy will destroy them, equal points of Brettonian KotR can fight them to a standstill, Mournfang just bowl them over), relying on the odd KB attack to scare characters away. Among single attack high S infantry models, they die the worst to light infantry chewing units the worst. They are good at taking on Ogre infantry and have an edge against Saurus (until the Frog gets involved), plus their statline makes them pretty impervious to the majority of the I win spells, so people really dislike them. But honestly, they cannot break steadfast on equal points of Night Gobs before being attritioned down and multi attack infantry in 5 wide just obliterates them. Putting them in the neighborhood of Swordmasters and Chaos Warriors for cost and they are just not even remotely in the same league as those guys.

Just a note, Tomb Guard with or without Halberds, are most certainly not core. Additionally, Tomb Guard with Halberds are currently more expensive than Bloodletters by a point while having both inferior rules and stats. Sorry...just had to point that out.

[HalfBlood]

I have been a die hard Khorne fan, but after listening about Phazael. I am slowly converting to daemonettes just because of Siren Song, and they work better with magic. Bloodletters are immune to most of the I win spells so thats the main reason I have been taking them, but nowwdays I am switching to Slannesh for Core.

[The bearded one]

I'd never do that, because I can't roll 4+'s for life. I can roll 3+'s and 5+'s, but whenever I am required to roll 4+ to hit, or wound, or whatever, it's epic flufftime.

[Wesser]

The Bret book is in a good position, the remake needs to add more variety, but buffing their powerlevel isn't really needed. However, when you look at the costs of the Empire Knights/IC Knights, etc in the new book, it leads me to believe that Bret knights might actually get a bit cheaper. Empire Knights surprised me with how low they are costed now, even the S4 ones, and especially the Reiksguard. I think it will all come down to how much Brets have to pay for the Lance. Which is a huge buff for them, so it shouldn't be cheap.

Dont you ever get tired of being wrong in every post you make about armies you don't play?

Powerlevels is something we can argue about forever, but fact of the matter is that the book is all backwards. It's the wrong part of the book thats powerful. The lance formation is often a liability when faced with units where you have no hope of negating steadfast (or facing daemons).

Bretonnia is a book whose internal balance and fluff no longer match and it's more or less a coincidence thats its still playable.

[The bearded one]

Dont you ever get tired of being wrong in every post you make about armies you don't play?

Powerlevels is something we can argue about forever, but fact of the matter is that the book is all backwards. It's the wrong part of the book thats powerful. The lance formation is often a liability when faced with units where you have no hope of negating steadfast (or facing daemons).

From what I gather, bretonnian cavalry is best adapted to the 8th edition environment of all cavalry in the game due to the lanceformation, as it allows for cheap 3-man ranks (and less enemies striking back). It's still not a gamebreaker or anything, but A 15-man lance could punch through any horde of 50 or less if they win the first round well enough.

The lanceformation isn't even obligatory, you can put your model 5 wide if you want to, or 10.

I found the units surprisingly well costed for 8th edition, for a book 2 editions old. Some stuff may be a bit overcosted, but prices on the core knights seem pretty decent and with the lance rule they can get ranks to negate steadfast.

[Phazael]

I would not go that far Wesser. I took a combined arms (2 Lances, 2 Trebs, 2 Peasent Blocks, some pegs, peg lord) list to about 4-5 events last year and consistantly went 4-1 with them. If the army wins and you are using units of diverse types from all over the book, I would say that its doing pretty well. The fluff also matches the combined arms approach, its the 4-6 lance steamroller list that old school brett players cannot let go from 6th that did not match the fluff of the army. The lance is actually still quite good, for cheap static, and great at screwing over Hordes out of attacks. If the book has any failings it is the pricing of the Questing and Grail Knights rendering them useless, outside of deathstar "tactics".

Enigmatik, yeah Tomb Guard are a little more expensive, but they are also way more resilient to damage and benefit from characters far more than the bloodletters do. You can have a prince and hatred dude for far less than what your typical khorne herald runs. Being 20mm lets them concentrate their attacks over a narrower frontage, as well, which makes a big difference when the enemy does not want to play the horde game with you (which most smart players will not). Tomb Guard, in the manner in which they are typically run compare very favorably to Bloodletters, for what amounts to one point more a model when fielded with Halberds. The sword and board guys are not exactly shabby, either, in the mirror match.

[Snowflake]

Dont you ever get tired of being wrong in every post you make about armies you don't play?

Powerlevels is something we can argue about forever, but fact of the matter is that the book is all backwards. It's the wrong part of the book thats powerful. The lance formation is often a liability when faced with units where you have no hope of negating steadfast (or facing daemons).

Bretonnia is a book whose internal balance and fluff no longer match and it's more or less a coincidence thats its still playable.

As TBO said in a nicer way, what are you smoking? Bretonnians have moved VERY well into 8th edition, and it's because of lance formation. Even in a base lance of 12 knights, that's 4 ranks, which is enough to bust steadfast of a 20 man 5 wide, or 40 man horde. Crank it up to 15 rather than 12, and you're looking at enough to negate steadfast from most common units other than goblins or slaves. Throw in their supreme durability and the hitting power of a lance charge and you're looking at solid performance against infantry blocks. There is a reason that the few Bretonnian players that still play do well, and it's called lance formation. Well, that and the Treb, which is solid (underpriced really), and Paladins, which are also arguably too cheap.