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 started play Fantasy a couple months after 8th came out and I always heard that cavalry were nerfed in this edition and how powerful the Daemons were last edition. I'm just curious about what were those things that made cavalry good before this edition and what made the Daemons so powerful?

In 7th, the charge meant you fought first. And the lack of step up, meant that a cavalry charge could put a unit on a double one break test.

As for demons, old bloodletters were every possible definition of broken. They were cheap as feth, S5 and hatred. With a built in 5+ ward and UNBREAKABLE.

The other options weren't that bad either. Siren Song meant that most units would face backwards so they didn't have to charge and get flanked by bloodletters. And stuff like that. Plus they could manipulate Ld like nothing else.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
In 7th, the charge meant you fought first. And the lack of step up, meant that a cavalry charge could put a unit on a double one break test.

As for demons, old bloodletters were every possible definition of broken. They were cheap as feth, S5 and hatred. With a built in 5+ ward and UNBREAKABLE.

They were a couple pts undercosted as they used to be 12pts a pop, and you required a Herald to give them Hatred. (though he was also a little too good for his cost)

I don't get why the 5+ ward causes so much butthurt... It's really no better than a basic armour save, except vs. S5/6+ attacks. Overall though, Daemons are much squishier as that 5++ is pretty much all they get! ('Crushers & Khornate/Nurgle characters were the only things really capable of taking a 4+ or better armour save)
At least the old book gave the Greaters a 4++ to put them on par with every other Lord choice.

And their Unbreakable wasn't quite just that. Yes Daemonic Instability was a one-upmanship of Undead's crumble mechanic, but it's still a thing.

What actually made Bloodletters in the old book so obnoxious broken however were the Heralds of Tzeentch who had the ridiculously cheap 25pts Master of Sorcery gift that game them Loremaster for *any* BRB lore of choice.
Life boosted Bloodletters were the epitome of ripe cheddar. Beast boosted 'Letters were pretty awful too, as you could boost the unit to S6/T4 easily, and then power up the Herald with +3A or +3S or both! Or just say feth-it and take Light for WS/I10 + ASF super 'Letters.

THAT'S what truly broke the Bloodletters!

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The other options weren't that bad either. Siren Song meant that most units would face backwards so they didn't have to charge and get flanked by bloodletters. And stuff like that. Plus they could manipulate Ld like nothing else.

Yes, Slaanesh was stupidly OP with their Ld-bombing shenanigans. And they still are to a point...
However, those banners were soon FAQ'd to all become 0-1 options, so they at least lost the ability to put them on every freaking unit.

And 8th ed did at least drop a giant turd on Tzeentch's Flickering Fire gunlines. (hence why Horrors mostly disappeared, and instead you just saw Disk Tzheralds hiding behind things & boosting the crap out of everyone!)

normal Cavalry charging formed and ordered infantry was always pretty stupid.......they would just die.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
In 7th, the charge meant you fought first. And the lack of step up, meant that a cavalry charge could put a unit on a double one break test.

As for demons, old bloodletters were every possible definition of broken. They were cheap as feth, S5 and hatred. With a built in 5+ ward and UNBREAKABLE.

They were a couple pts undercosted as they used to be 12pts a pop, and you required a Herald to give them Hatred. (though he was also a little too good for his cost)

I don't get why the 5+ ward causes so much butthurt... It's really no better than a basic armour save, except vs. S5/6+ attacks. Overall though, Daemons are much squishier as that 5++ is pretty much all they get! ('Crushers & Khornate/Nurgle characters were the only things really capable of taking a 4+ or better armour save)
At least the old book gave the Greaters a 4++ to put them on par with every other Lord choice.

And their Unbreakable wasn't quite just that. Yes Daemonic Instability was a one-upmanship of Undead's crumble mechanic, but it's still a thing.

What actually made Bloodletters in the old book so obnoxious broken however were the Heralds of Tzeentch who had the ridiculously cheap 25pts Master of Sorcery gift that game them Loremaster for *any* BRB lore of choice.
Life boosted Bloodletters were the epitome of ripe cheddar. Beast boosted 'Letters were pretty awful too, as you could boost the unit to S6/T4 easily, and then power up the Herald with +3A or +3S or both! Or just say feth-it and take Light for WS/I10 + ASF super 'Letters.

THAT'S what truly broke the Bloodletters!

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The other options weren't that bad either. Siren Song meant that most units would face backwards so they didn't have to charge and get flanked by bloodletters. And stuff like that. Plus they could manipulate Ld like nothing else.

Yes, Slaanesh was stupidly OP with their Ld-bombing shenanigans. And they still are to a point...
However, those banners were soon FAQ'd to all become 0-1 options, so they at least lost the ability to put them on every freaking unit.

And 8th ed did at least drop a giant turd on Tzeentch's Flickering Fire gunlines. (hence why Horrors mostly disappeared, and instead you just saw Disk Tzheralds hiding behind things & boosting the crap out of everyone!)

And yet the most common 7th demons list was the bloodthirster, 90 letters with heralds, and flesh hounds. It was mostly the heralds that broke them.

Bloodletters were broken as they were. They didn't need magic to break them. As for the ward, you save 1/3 of all attacks. As it stands, I'd kill for my cold one knights to get that. And to have an army where you don't have to worry about breaking, that fought as well as that, means that they were actually broken.

5++ ward is very good. Especially since any combat unit worth mentioning is going to have at least Str4.

Thats why 5+ armor is pretty crap, but 5+ ward is amazing.

Cavalry got horribly nerfed(deservedly so) but I think it went a little too much the other way. It wasn't really a Cav problem, it was the stupid rules where charging first meant you attacked first and the fact there was no step up.

I think they should have given Cav impact hits at the very least so they weren't relegated to being mostly useless. The only Cav that are worth anything are those who have enough attacks to actually be able to win with damage alone. Things like Monstrous Cavalry, Chaos Knights, Brettonians(on the charge only), etc...

I seem to remember Bloodletters being just as unpopular as any other 7th edition infantry unit. Not because they were bad, but because Plaguebearers and Horrors were so much better. Remember this is 7th edition; back when the BRB Lores were all inferior to the Army book options and the world had not heard of Wildform, Timewarp or Earthblood. Back when you could combine 4+ Regen with 5+ Wards on your Plaguebearers, and Horrors were not constricted by the 12-dice maximum. Back when you took your 3 units of 10 Core and spend the rest on Flesh Hounds, Flamers and your 0-1 Lord choice.

7th Edition was the time of free Loci, obnoxious hitting power in a world before Steadfast and Step Up, and where a Bloodthirster could quite happily charge any unit in the game and expect to come out the other side, even from a frontal charge. The days of Bloodletter-hordes and Masters of Sorcery didn't come until the 7th Edition army book was crammed into 8th Edition rules and the core Lores became more desirable than the Daemon Lores.

I also think that the gutting of cavalry is a myth, and that for all the whining about it, cavalry still seems to be a major part of the factions that can take them. Silver Helms, Empire Knights and Black Knights all trot along happily behind the Dark Riders and Ellyrians of the world, and I doubt many people enjoy the prospect of an army that has spammed out Demigryphs or Mournfangs. Full-Cavalry is still a realistic army option for Empire and Elves as a full template.

EDIT: In an effort to prevent this thread from descending into 8 pages of back-and-forth screams of "Nuh-Uh!", I've dug out some dusty old relics of supporting evidence. It's hardly conclusive, but they are from the dark days of 7th Edition and provide a better idea of what went wrong than veterans trying to remember back 5 years in time.

A nice 7th Edition Tactica
2 Pages of complaints regarding Bloodletters

About Bloodletters; as someone who played them, and against them as mine and 50% of my opponents' armies, the other being dark elves, I can say that old bloodletters were the best unit in the game. The amount of times I rolled over someone with 3 units of 30 letters with a 3+, firestorm blade herald each. 2 crusher champs, Billy and his dogs is unbelievable. Striking first with rerolls and S5 was ridiculous.

Mozzamanx wrote:
I seem to remember Bloodletters being just as unpopular as any other 7th edition infantry unit. Not because they were bad, but because Plaguebearers and Horrors were so much better. Remember this is 7th edition; back when the BRB Lores were all inferior to the Army book options and the world had not heard of Wildform, Timewarp or Earthblood. Back when you could combine 4+ Regen with 5+ Wards on your Plaguebearers, and Horrors were not constricted by the 12-dice maximum. Back when you took your 3 units of 10 Core and spend the rest on Flesh Hounds, Flamers and your 0-1 Lord choice.

7th Edition was the time of free Loci, obnoxious hitting power in a world before Steadfast and Step Up, and where a Bloodthirster could quite happily charge any unit in the game and expect to come out the other side, even from a frontal charge. The days of Bloodletter-hordes and Masters of Sorcery didn't come until the 7th Edition army book was crammed into 8th Edition rules and the core Lores became more desirable than the Daemon Lores.

I also think that the gutting of cavalry is a myth, and that for all the whining about it, cavalry still seems to be a major part of the factions that can take them. Silver Helms, Empire Knights and Black Knights all trot along happily behind the Dark Riders and Ellyrians of the world, and I doubt many people enjoy the prospect of an army that has spammed out Demigryphs or Mournfangs. Full-Cavalry is still a realistic army option for Empire and Elves as a full template.

EDIT: In an effort to prevent this thread from descending into 8 pages of back-and-forth screams of "Nuh-Uh!", I've dug out some dusty old relics of supporting evidence. It's hardly conclusive, but they are from the dark days of 7th Edition and provide a better idea of what went wrong than veterans trying to remember back 5 years in time.

A nice 7th Edition Tactica
2 Pages of complaints regarding Bloodletters

+1

I seem to recall that your typical standard "competitive" DoC list in 7th edition was typically centered around:
- 'Thirster w/Dark Insanity + Armour of Khorne and maybe a Firestorm Blade
OR
A coterie of Slaanesh characters for max Siren Song shenanigans.
- BSB w/Standard of Sundering or Banner of -2Ld
- 4-6 units of 10-15 Horrors to spam Flickering Fire (maybe one or two units also bringing their super Bound Spell banner of awesomesauce!)
- max Flamers because... zomg!brokenz!!1!!!1 (well, they really, really were broken in 7th - like best unit in the game and then some levels of broken! )
- a smattering of Seekers w/Siren Banner

Bloodletters never really entered into the discussions much during actual 7th edition, because 15-20+ dice magic phases with 'oodles of Flickering Fire was pure curbstomping back in the days of your opponent typically maxing out at 4-6 DD + 2 Dispel Scrolls. (only VC's, HE's & DE's could ever attempt to handle a DoC magic phase back then, and only DoC could compete vs. the DE's own magic phase in return!)

Flamers were near guaranteed to delete almost any unit you pointed them at, and hit like a tone of bricks in combat to boot without fear of Step-up/Steadfast to auto-crumble them into oblivion.
I remember my Tzeentch army ended up running only a token pair of 3-man units in actual 7th edition because they were simply too stupid-good and no fun to face.

Most Cavalry has been cost-adjusted or received favorable special rules at this point so it's not really much of a "nerf."

ComTrav wrote:
Most Cavalry has been cost-adjusted or received favorable special rules at this point so it's not really much of a "nerf."

Considering how a unit of 5 knights could actually break a unit of 40 slaves in 7th, yeah, they got nerfed.

They could break a unit of infinite slaves in 7th.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They could break a unit of infinite slaves in 7th.

I'd hate to get technical, but they couldn't. As that unit couldn't exist.


FNAR. FNAR. FNAR.

Skaven slaves have no cap, technically you could play an infinite point game with a unit of infinite slaves.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Skaven slaves have no cap, technically you could play an infinite point game with a unit of infinite slaves.

Infinity isn't a number. Can't field it.

Whether he means literally infinite or a very large quantity of slaves, regardless he's just pointing out how powerful the cavalry were, I think.

To be fair to the cavalry, it wasn't just them. Any unit which had better offensive capability would route a unit of slaves.

And thats not even considering the sillyness that causing Fear/Terror did when a unit with that rule won combat.

Did Fear and Terror do different things then what they are now in the current edition?

If a unit lost combat against a Fear causer and they were not immune to it, they auto failed the morale check and fled.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If a unit lost combat against a Fear causer and they were not immune to it, they auto failed the morale check and fled.

*If they were outnumbered by the Fear causer* IIRC

Don't believe so. Thats why it was such a problem. YOu could have 5 Chaos Knights just wipe out whatever they pleased simply because they'd never lose a combat and they'd auto route the enemy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Don't believe so. Thats why it was such a problem. YOu could have 5 Chaos Knights just wipe out whatever they pleased simply because they'd never lose a combat and they'd auto route the enemy.

I felt compelled to pull out the old mini rulebook because I wasn't sure

7th Defeated by Fear-Causing Enemy:
Units in close combat automatically fail their Break test if they are defeated by an enemy that they Fear and the combined unit strength of the units on the losing side is lower than the combined unit strength of all Fear-causing enemy units on the winning side.

If the Fear-causing units do not have a higher unit strength, Break tests are taken as normal.

Because unit strength was determined after combat powerhouse fear-causers like those knights were still really devastating but not quite to the level of always autobreaking fearful foes.

Would I be correct to assume that "unit strength" means the number of models in the unit?

 gnoise wrote:
Would I be correct to assume that "unit strength" means the number of models in the unit?

Number of ranks, if memory serves.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 gnoise wrote:
Would I be correct to assume that "unit strength" means the number of models in the unit?

Number of ranks, if memory serves.

It was the number of models on each side with one difference I wish they kept.
Each infantry is worth one.
Each Cavalry is worth two.
Each Monstrous Infantry was worth three
Chariots were worth four plus one if ridden.
Monsters were worth their starting wounds plus one if ridden.
War Machines were worth their number of crew.

I feel like this system would be a much better way of maintaining and breaking Steadfast than the Ranks mechanic.

The issue is streamlining. Counting up ranks is easy, unit strength less so. Now I have to count my models, multiply it by what type & if I have a mixed unit it's more extra steps.

While I think unit strength is more realistic, it was a bit clunky compared to straight up ranks.

The problem with Steadfast is that it lacks verisimilitude.

Historically speaking (and yes, I'm fully aware of the inconsistency of presenting historical arguments for rules in a game involving magic and dragons... but since the rules I'm referring to are strictly pertaining to combat between big units of troops, I feel it is fully viable to present historical facts for this particular debate), a unit hit in the flank or rear by a strong attacking unit broke or died in place. It happens time and time again through out history, in all eras and across all combat theaters.

Now in Warhammer the definition of a strong combat force varies significantly (100 skaven are not, 5 Chaos Knights or a dragon most definitely ARE), but the point remains: Steadfast means a flanked unit yawns, takes some casualties... and holds their position; totally negating their whole point of flanking them in the first place. It removes a good chunk of the strategy of maneuver from the game.

Now there's a quite simple fix. Make disruption of ranks remove steadfast. A large flanking unit disrupts ranks, meaning it's no longer steadfast. Yes, the five chaos knights and the dragon still kinda get boned, but you have to leave something or infantry becomes totally useless.

I also think monsters should count as having a set number of ranks. Like two.

That way a monster equals the rank bonus of a smaller unit so they don't remain steadfast til they drop below five models.

Historically speaking (and yes, I'm fully aware of the inconsistency of presenting historical arguments for rules in a game involving magic and dragons... but since the rules I'm referring to are strictly pertaining to combat between big units of troops, I feel it is fully viable to present historical facts for this particular debate), a unit hit in the flank or rear by a strong attacking unit broke or died in place. It happens time and time again through out history, in all eras and across all combat theaters.

True but you also have a rule about Cavalry not being able to chrage formed and ranked units in the front arc for the same reasons