Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'll say something for Cruddace, he's a company man alright.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, I think GW derped a bit when they put a T3 rider on a T4 mount. :/

Ohhhhhh you actually use the highest toughness of a combined profile type, so they're effectively T4 in every way. I didn't think GeeDub would screw up their MB moneymaker that badly

EDIT
I ... think I'm wrong?! You use the highest wounds, mount toughness is ignored! Toughness tests would however use the demigryph's T4.

- Salvage

Boss Salvage wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, I think GW derped a bit when they put a T3 rider on a T4 mount. :/

Ohhhhhh you actually use the highest toughness of a combined profile type, so they're effectively T4 in every way. I didn't think GeeDub would screw up their MB moneymaker that badly

Nope, the rules for cavalry are very clear. You use the rider's toughness. The rules for Monstrous Cav explicitly state that you use the higher wound profile, but otherwise follow all the rules for cavalry. So, yes... they are infact T3 monstrous cavalry.

^ As edited before you ninja'd me, Cat

Besides being pretty shockingly dumb, I guess this also means that halberds really aren't an option. I was thinking that hell, 2+ armor ain't bad vs always having +1S ... but with T3 you're gonna need all the defense they can get

- Salvage

Exactly...they have 3 wounds, granted, but still, a bit of a derp.

At least the mounts are S5 with armor piercing, however, so I guess that's alright.

Why would you give the riders halberds when they come with lances base?
I'd rather have the S5 on the charge + shield than a permanent S4 with no shield.

10 wounds is 3 cannon shots. IE two turns.

The T3 Demigryphs are just horrid for what they do. Mournfang wound them on 2's....

And Boss you can not make the Wizard Carts smaller unless you support modeling for advantage and in which case lets build some army crawling giants and 2" tall terrorghiests

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Why would you give the riders halberds when they come with lances base?
I'd rather have the S5 on the charge + shield than a permanent S4 with no shield.

Because 8th edition has strongly suggested that cavalry have to grind out enemy units, blowing through a serious unit on the charge is a rare event, barring LD hexes or insane killing power. Mournfang can liquify a unit on the charge (impacts ftw) and necro serpents with some magical support, not sure if demis can pull the same.

Johnny-Crass wrote:And Boss you can not make the Wizard Carts smaller unless you support modeling for advantage and in which case lets build some army crawling giants and 2" tall terrorghiests

I've supported modeling for coolness from Day One As far as TLOS goes, we know how tall the actual models are, so your tiny counts as terrorgheist - and it better be hella awesome to replace such a huge army centerpiece! - will be treated as 5+" tall or whatever the legit one is. (I'm also incredibly lax with TLOS, since all you have to do is see a shred of model through a gap in a dude's weapon to hit with your cannon or magic missile, so no reason to argue about anything so inconsequential.)

- Salvage

Honestly I think the Planetarium is one of the coolest models GW has made since those sex black knights... (mmmm love me some black knights)

The most amusing thing about the Chokobo cavalry, is the fact that by putting a knight on it's back, you actually make the Chokobo worse in a number of ways. It becomes T3, instead of T4, and can no longer make supporting attacks. (If it were just a monstrous beast, it can make all three support attacks). On the plus side, I guess you bring armour to give them a better save. But it's still rather amusing that the guy on the back degrades their combat capabilities rather than improving them.

Furycat wrote:The most amusing thing about the Chokobo cavalry, is the fact that by putting a knight on it's back, you actually make the Chokobo worse in a number of ways. It becomes T3, instead of T4, and can no longer make supporting attacks. (If it were just a monstrous beast, it can make all three support attacks). On the plus side, I guess you bring armour to give them a better save. But it's still rather amusing that the guy on the back degrades their combat capabilities rather than improving them.

Yep, as I said earlier on other threads, GW done goofed and went derp.

Comparing the Chicken knights to Mournfangs is a little unfair IMO. They are supposed to take out completely different targets.

Mournfangs are infantry blenders, Chicken knights are can-openers.


They will be absolute murder against things like Chaos Warriors and enemy knights. Their 1+ save slightly makes up for the lower toughness.

I think they are priced quite fairly.


Overall, the Empire book turned out quite nicely IMO. On par for power with all the other 8th edition books.

Grey Templar wrote:Comparing the Chicken knights to Mournfangs is a little unfair IMO. They are supposed to take out completely different targets.

Mournfangs are infantry blenders, Chicken knights are can-openers.


They will be absolute murder against things like Chaos Warriors and enemy knights. Their 1+ save slightly makes up for the lower toughness.

I think they are priced quite fairly.


Overall, the Empire book turned out quite nicely IMO. On par for power with all the other 8th edition books.

That makes sense. It would certainly explain the S5 ap attacks.
Aren't Mournfangs can openers as well? I thought they have tons of S5 attacks, which are combines with the S4 attacks of the rider.

Mournfangs can certaintly open cans but they can't take the damage in return very well.

Against Str5+ attacks Mournfangs die pretty quickly.

Grey Templar wrote:Mournfangs can certaintly open cans but they can't take the damage in return very well.

Against Str5+ attacks Mournfangs die pretty quickly.

What's their armor? Isn't it like 2+? That's the average for heavy cav isn't it?

considering that they cost 70 points each they don't like taking casualities.

every 3 wounds lost is the loss of 4 Str5 attacks and 3 str4.

Grey Templar wrote:considering that they cost 70 points each they don't like taking casualities.

every 3 wounds lost is the loss of 4 Str5 attacks and 3 str4.

But...aren't Demigryphs 60+ points as well? I'm confused.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Comparing the Chicken knights to Mournfangs is a little unfair IMO. They are supposed to take out completely different targets.

Mournfangs are infantry blenders, Chicken knights are can-openers.


They will be absolute murder against things like Chaos Warriors and enemy knights. Their 1+ save slightly makes up for the lower toughness.

I think they are priced quite fairly.


Overall, the Empire book turned out quite nicely IMO. On par for power with all the other 8th edition books.

That makes sense. It would certainly explain the S5 ap attacks.
Aren't Mournfangs can openers as well? I thought they have tons of S5 attacks, which are combines with the S4 attacks of the rider.

Sort of, except because of the low ini if they don't get the charge they can be vulnerable.

The Demigriffins don't have that issue, plus they have more WS.

Except according to its rules its own rules can make it lose said wounds. It used to have ten wounds as the most of its rules revolved around how many wounds it had. Another thing about it was as soon as it lost around4 wounds it was mostly useless as its abilitys and even darngoshing moving wouldnt happen or then would always get over rolled and lose yet another wound. Appropriately named stank.

So in an even points set up, you'd have 7 Demigryphs vs 6 Mournfang (assuming Mournfang have heavy armour and ironfists.)

Now I know no one takes the above units in the described numbers, but consider the following.

Mounrfang charge and do 12 impact hits on average, causing 3.33 wounds.

Demigryphs strike back. and deal 4.44 wounds. Riders strike back and deal .55 wounds, so on average fair to say 5 wounds total.

Ogres strike back and real 0.83 wounds.

Mournfang strike back and deal 2.77 wounds, so fair to say about 3 more total.

So if the Mournfang charge, they deal a total of 6.91 wounds, and the Demigryphs deal 4.99 back. So you can see that it's pretty close.

Without the charge, Mournfang get slaughtered by Demigryphs.

If you consider Mournfang with Great Weapons charging the Demigryphs, you still deal 3.33 wounds with the impact hits, but with less armour and no parry, the demigryphs drag down 6.66 Mournfang, and the Knights deal another wound (7.66 total.)

The Great weapon Ogres swing back and deal 2.5 wounds. The Mournfang deal 2.22 wounds, for a grand total of 8.02.

Again, very close, and considering the Mournfang get the charge (to rob the Knights of the Lance bonus, and to gain those crucial impact hits.)

Mournfang are 1 movement faster, but with the difference is negligible at that level when it comes down to the charge.

Except that isn't a proper comparison. Just because 2 units are equal when fighting each other doesn't mean they are equal on the battlefield.

Compare Demigryphs vs Chaos Warriors with Mournfangs vs Chaos warriors.

Demigryphs vs 18 MoT Warriors with Shields and Mournfangs vs Halberdier Horde.


4 Demigryphs charge the Chaos Warriors. Warriors go first.

19 attacks hitting on 3s and wounding on 3s. 8 wounds at -1 to saves. Knights take 1 wound.

Knights attack back. 4 Str6 attacks and 12 Str5 AP attacks. Hitting on 4s. 2 Str6 hits and 6 Str5 hits. total of 6 wounds with -3 to saves. Chaos warriors take 3 casualities.

4 stomps claim another Chaos warrior.

Knights 4, Warriors 1


Mournfangs vs Chaos Warriors

4D3 impact hits. 3.7 warriors die on average.

Warriors strike first and cause roughly 1.75 wounds(without the DHB on the Fangs)

Mournfangs attack. 12 Str4 attacks and 16 str5 attacks. 6 str4 hits, 8 str5 hits. 3 Str4 wounds, 5 str5 wounds. 3 warriors die.

4 str5 stomps kill another warior.

Mournfangs win combat 7 to 2.



In comparason, the Mournfangs do almost twice as much damage but take twice as much damage in return.

Sorry Grey Templar, I was replying to this.

Johnny-Crass wrote:

The T3 Demigryphs are just horrid for what they do. Mournfang wound them on 2's....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Except that isn't a proper comparison. Just because 2 units are equal when fighting each other doesn't mean they are equal on the battlefield...Demigryphs vs 18 MoT Warriors with Shields and Mournfangs vs Halberdier Horde...

In comparason, the Mournfangs do almost twice as much damage but take twice as much damage in return.

I don't quite understand this comparison. Are you comparing Demigryphs and Mournfang to differently equipped units of Chaos Warriors?

I was saying that comparing 2 things is best done against a 3rd type of enemy unit and not against each other. Because just having the 2 units in question slam head to head just prooves which is better against the other, it doesn't show a realistic battlefield scenerio.

I meant in your example vs the Chaos Warriors.

You wrote:

"Demigryphs vs 18 MoT Warriors with Shields and Mournfangs vs Halberdier Horde"

So aren't you comparing unit A to unit Z and unit B to unit Y?

That was a typo from a rough draft.

The math is all against Chaos Warriors.

Pitting MF against halberds is helping the Demi-G in the numbers crunching thanks to S5

Okay, let me check your math here. Assuming 18 Warriors of Chaos with MoT and Full Command.

4 Demigryphs charge the Chaos Warriors. Warriors go first.

19 attacks = 1.055 wounds.

4 Knights = 0.92 wounds.
Demigryphs = 2.22 wounds.
Stomps = 1.77 wounds.

4.91 wounds (about 5.)

Mournfangs vs Chaos Warriors

8 impact hits should cause 3.55 wounds (you got 3.7 - 4D3 averages 8, 2/3 chance to wound, 2/3 chance to get by the armour save = 8 x 4/9 = 32/9 = 3.55)

Warriors strike first.

19 attacks = 1.76 wounds.

Ogres = 1 wound.
Mournfang = 2.37 wounds.
Stomps = 1.77

8.69 (about 9) wounds total.

Again, Mournfang do better on the charge (due to impact hits) but they also cost significantly (20%) more.

After the charge, the kills even up huge.

Man, this is really going on? lol

Furycat wrote:The most amusing thing about the Chokobo cavalry, is the fact that by putting a knight on it's back, you actually make the Chokobo worse in a number of ways. It becomes T3, instead of T4, and can no longer make supporting attacks. (If it were just a monstrous beast, it can make all three support attacks).

Psst:

BRB FAQ wrote:Page 83 – Monstrous Cavalry
Add “MONSTROUS SUPPORT
Furthermore, the rider of a monstrous cavalry model can make
as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a
maximum of three.” to the end of the paragraph.

EDIT
GUH, ignore me! Reading fail, wrong again Sorry Cat!

- Salvage

My cursory look through the book, makes it look like it's as balanced as the other 8th ed books so far, which are relatively close in power to each other, with maybe Ogres being a tad better than the others.

Sasori wrote:My cursory look through the book, makes it look like it's as balanced as the other 8th ed books so far, which are relatively close in power to each other, with maybe Ogres being a tad better than the others.

What Sasori said!