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.

Which army has the strongest/most cost effective monstrous cavalry in the game?

My empire book came last night, and i was reading the Demigryphs, which i quite enjoy the ruleset for, and the models. So i bought 2 boxes. Comparing them to the skullcrushers from my previous Chaos book, a friend and i (who also collects ogres) started comparing all the monstrous cavalry in the game, and tried to factor in point costs and effectiveness of said unit.

He thinks Mournfang are the best. Fairly cheap, with decent impact hits, and a special banner that gives ASL on the charge? 2+ armour save, and a bucket load of attacks. I have to agree with him if im honest. Demi gryphs are nice... but then i think you pay for the Armour piercing attacks, which, may not always be useful.

so... out of...

Mournfang
Demigryphs
Skullcrushers
Bloodcrushers
Plague Drones

Which do you guys think point for point is the most effective? I mean i liked skullcrushers... but i mean like 78pts each?! with upgrades ofc.... just opinions

Skullcrushers or Demis at a base cost.

Skullcrushers for me.

Probably Skullcrushers.

Mournfang, if we don't allow Rhinox Riders.

70 pts for 3 T4 2+ armor wounds, D3 Impact hits at Str5, 4 Str5 attacks, 3 Str4 attacks, and a Str5 stomp. Also spd7.

Rhinox Riders are the best cavalry in the game. 115 pts for 4 T5 1+ save wounds, D3+1 Str5 impact hits, 5 Str5 WS4 attacks, 5 WS3 Str5 attacks, Str5 stomp, spd7, stubborn, and Frenzy.

I definitely think Mournfang are better then skullcrushers.

Skullcrushers with no upgrades... so hand weapons... are 75 pts. They have one more ws then a demi gryph, 2 less initiative. One less movement, and don't have armour piercing. They do get plus one strength on the charge though, and the rider is better, although demi gryph riders. come with 1 higher strength on the charge(due to the rider being base str 4 and comes with a lance.) for almost 20 points less.

If you upgrade your skull crushers with ensorscelled weapons, you can get 4 demis for the same cost as 3 skullcrushers

The problem with Mournfang, which Skullcrushers don't have is Initiative and LD. They're very vulnerable to being panicked. Case in point: 1+ armour cav hero in the flank. He'll reliably break mournfang, which he can't do to skullcrushers. Also, Initiative based magic is a thing.

Mournfang are also susceptible to metal magic more than Skullcrushers(sounds crazy, I know), but Enchanted Blades, Transumation of Lead,and Plague of Rust neuter Mournfang in a major way. Drop them to WS2 and a 3+ armour, and suddenly they don't want to fight halberd warriors, Black Guard and the like.

Mournfang normally don't want to fight warriors with halberds and Black Guard. That just makes them worse against stuff they're already bad at. And how many people actually take metal?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Mournfang normally don't want to fight warriors with halberds and Black Guard. That just makes them worse against stuff they're already bad at. And how many people actually take metal?

It's one of the best lores for high and dark elves. Two relatively popular armies.

It buffs demons and warriors well.

It buffs Empire fairly well.

But anyway, the point I was making is, if you have several glaring weaknesses, that can be easily capitalised on, versus another contender who doesn't have any glaring weaknesses, you aren't actually better than them.

Keep in mind though that all units suffer from atleast 1 drawback.

Granted, this is a nice comparison (better than the constant "but a cannon will kill it" comments)

I would still take mournfang.
As said though, Rhinox riders if allowed as they truely are devastating to anything they hit.

Mcav are not for pushing through tarpits or large elite blocks, so you dont want them near black guard anyway.

They need to be running through small elite units and monsters (dependent on the monster ofc)

I just find that fangs are cheap, adaptable and as a whole, a solid unit.

Yes magic will hinder them, but just as much as magic will hinder anything in a game.
Just one of those things you need to be wary of.



Being a lizards player though i dont get the luxury of Mcav :(

Mournfangs are actually perfect at killing tarpits. They get tons of attacks and can delete them quite easily.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Mournfangs are actually perfect at killing tarpits. They get tons of attacks and can delete them quite easily.

Whilst this is true, arguing that a unit with multiple glaring weaknesses is better than a unit with less weaknesses of the same calibre isn't a very strong argument.

Skullcrushers vs Mournfang is a rock paper scissors matchup. Whoever charges wins, most of the time. Unless the Ogres fluff their impact hits, at which point the crushers win.

Against the same targets, the crushers outperform the mournfang almost all the time. The armour save, high initiative, S6 mounts on the charge and chaos knight riders all make them the strongest choice overall.

The only argument I'd make is a bad frenzy check on the Crushers could lose them for you. Chaff lead them away and mandatory overrun ensures you're out a unit of cav for at least a couple turns. When it comes to damage/resilience, though, I'd agree that Skullcrushers win.

it also depends on what the unit is backed up by - ogres have no way to get a mounted character into the unit, not sure if a khorne herald can take a skullcrusher. ogres can have a thundertusk on hand to dish out always strikes last, though, and that'll really swing it in their favour.

 some bloke wrote:
it also depends on what the unit is backed up by - ogres have no way to get a mounted character into the unit, not sure if a khorne herald can take a skullcrusher. ogres can have a thundertusk on hand to dish out always strikes last, though, and that'll really swing it in their favour.

Characters just invalidate the entire argument.

The strongest unit at the base cost is a tossup between Crushers and Mournfang(Admittedly, I really like Demigryphs). Assuming they're both 4 strong with the standard builds(enscrolled weapons, iron fists and heavy armour):

Assuming that it's a unit of 20 who are all in base to base contact:

Against WS3, S3, T3 troops with a 5+ save, Crushers do 6.7 wounds from the knights, take 0.26 wounds, then the crushers do 5.002 wounds. The stomps do 3.348 wounds. This is a total of 15.05 wounds.
Mournfangs do 4.002 from the riders, take 1.05 wounds, and the cats do 6.696 wounds. Stomps do 3.348 wounds. For a total of 14.046 wounds.



Against WS4, S4, T4 troops, Crushers do 5.34 wounds from the riders, They take 0.79 wounds in return. The crushers themselves do 4.002 wounds. Stomps do 2.68 wounds. For a total of 12.022 wounds dealt.

Mournfang do 3 wounds from the riders, they take 2.11 wounds, The cats do 5.34 wounds and stomps do 2.68 wounds. For a total of 11.02 wounds.



It continues to go downhill for the mournfang as armour or weapon skill increases.

The WS5 and 1+ armour on the crushers makes them far superior,

Mournfang do get impact hits in with their price though. And skullcrushers are the most expensive.

Like j said I could have 4 demis for 3 skullcrushers. Depending on what you're fighting obviously effects their effectiveness.

The question isn't who is strongest against each other, its who is strongest for their points. Of course Skullcrushers beat Mournfangs in melee, they're what mournfangs should avoid like the plague.

As for killing weak troops, you should factor in point cost.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The question isn't who is strongest against each other, its who is strongest for their points. Of course Skullcrushers beat Mournfangs in melee, they're what mournfangs should avoid like the plague.

As for killing weak troops, you should factor in point cost.

Mournfangs vs Crushers depends who charges. But, against x troops of generic stats, skullcrushers will generally outperform mournfang.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The question isn't who is strongest against each other, its who is strongest for their points. Of course Skullcrushers beat Mournfangs in melee, they're what mournfangs should avoid like the plague.

As for killing weak troops, you should factor in point cost.

Mournfangs vs Crushers depends who charges. But, against x troops of generic stats, skullcrushers will generally outperform mournfang.

Have you factored in the Crusher's greater point cost? If you do the Mournfang will pull ahead.

Your calculation also didn't factor in the Dragonhide Banner for the Mournfangs from what I can tell.

Yeah skill crushers come out to almost 80 pts a piece. That's what puts me off them..

 Andy140491 wrote:
Mournfang
Demigryphs
Skullcrushers
Bloodcrushers
Plague Drones

No Necropolis Knights?

I was curious how the MC stack up against each other, at least points-wise for now:

1 Skullcrusher - ensorcelled weapon = 78
1 Mournfang - ironfist, heavy armor = 70
1 Necropolis Knight = 65
1 Bloodcrusher = 65
1 Demigryph - full plate, shield, lance = 58
1 Plague Drone = 55/60*

All MC are presented in their meta builds, as there's no such thing as a 'naked' skullcrusher. On the Drones, I don't know enough to say whether plague proboscis is the meta build or not - most I fight have them, and the upgrade is cheap enough.

I may put these units through further tabulation once I have my armybooks handy (stats, special rules, etc).

- Salvage

So given TDA's crunch, this gives us:

21.3953 points per wound caused for Skullcrushers.
20.6464 points per wound caused for Mournfang.

Assuming both units 4 strong w/ musicians and the loadouts above. As combat drags on, of course, Crushers pull ahead. Mounts lose S6 (still wound T3 5+ just as well) but the Fangs lose impacts.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
So given TDA's crunch, this gives us:

21.3953 points per wound caused for Skullcrushers.
20.6464 points per wound caused for Mournfang.

Assuming both units 4 strong w/ musicians and the loadouts above. As combat drags on, of course, Crushers pull ahead. Mounts lose S6 (still wound T3 5+ just as well) but the Fangs lose impacts.

Take a look at Mournfangs with a dragonhide banner and Great Weapons.

A unit of 4 (372 points) does 31.13 kills against TDA's ws3 s3 t3 5+ save target (a stunning 11.9467 points per wound).
Against a WS4 T4 S4 target, it drops to 23.9652 wounds, or 15.6893 points per wound.
Yeah, this does drop off greatly when not charging (losing impact hits, and the re-rolls of 1's to hit, to wound, and to save), but after landing a charge and doing ~30 wounds, what does that matter?
Oh, and that's without using the banners breathe attack.
IMO, looking at mournfangs without the Dragon Hide banner makes as much sense as looking at skull crushers without enscrolled weapons.
I do like mournfangs with great weapons. They are more specialized, but hit quite a bit harder.

-Matt

Per point is the inretesting part about this argument I think a unit of 4 of each of these with there meta equipment there are obvious winners... however you wouldnt get them all for the same points so including that means you can work out per point how much damage is delt...

Against WS3, S3, T3 troops with a 5+ save, Crushers do 6.7 wounds from the knights, take 0.26 wounds, then the crushers do 5.002 wounds. The stomps do 3.348 wounds. This is a total of 15.05 wounds.
Mournfangs do 4.002 from the riders, take 1.05 wounds, and the cats do 6.696 wounds. Stomps do 3.348 wounds. For a total of 14.046 wounds.

15.05 wounds from a unit costing 312 (4 ensorcelled, no command) is 0.0482
14.04 wounds from a unit costing 280 (4 Ironfist, Heavy Armour, no command) is 0.0502

Per point the mournfang are better, at least in this scenario

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
So given TDA's crunch, this gives us:

21.3953 points per wound caused for Skullcrushers.
20.6464 points per wound caused for Mournfang.

Assuming both units 4 strong w/ musicians and the loadouts above. As combat drags on, of course, Crushers pull ahead. Mounts lose S6 (still wound T3 5+ just as well) but the Fangs lose impacts.

Take a look at Mournfangs with a dragonhide banner and Great Weapons.

A unit of 4 (372 points) does 31.13 kills against TDA's ws3 s3 t3 5+ save target (a stunning 11.9467 points per wound).
Against a WS4 T4 S4 target, it drops to 23.9652 wounds, or 15.6893 points per wound.
Yeah, this does drop off greatly when not charging (losing impact hits, and the re-rolls of 1's to hit, to wound, and to save), but after landing a charge and doing ~30 wounds, what does that matter?
Oh, and that's without using the banners breathe attack.
IMO, looking at mournfangs without the Dragon Hide banner makes as much sense as looking at skull crushers without enscrolled weapons.
I do like mournfangs with great weapons. They are more specialized, but hit quite a bit harder.
-Matt

Yeah, but they lose an armor save and a parry save. The gain in offensive output is completely negated by the loss in durability.

The best layout is IF and DHB.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but they lose an armor save and a parry save. The gain in offensive output is completely negated by the loss in durability.

The best layout is IF and DHB.

Bearing this loadout in mind, and the aforementioned target, I got them dealing 25.2745 unsaved wounds (no breath attack) and a points-per-wound value of 13.84 on the charge. These hit hard - but the banner does nothing for them without the charge, which tanks them to being worse than Crushers in pure offensive output. Assuming my numbers are right.

Yes, but they're faster than Bloodcrushers as I recall. We're M8 with no penalties. So getting the charge is no problem.

Anecdotally I have never had a problem with Mournfang but have NEVER killed an entire crusher unit. That is why I went crusher. I find that the save of the crushers is harder to deal with than the brute power of Mournfang.

 riverhawks32 wrote:
Anecdotally I have never had a problem with Mournfang but have NEVER killed an entire crusher unit. That is why I went crusher. I find that the save of the crushers is harder to deal with than the brute power of Mournfang.

Odd. I have a much easier time taking on crushers due to frenzy. You can force crushers to go out of position. Mournfangs can choose to flee if caught in a bad spot.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 riverhawks32 wrote:
Anecdotally I have never had a problem with Mournfang but have NEVER killed an entire crusher unit. That is why I went crusher. I find that the save of the crushers is harder to deal with than the brute power of Mournfang.

Odd. I have a much easier time taking on crushers due to frenzy. You can force crushers to go out of position. Mournfangs can choose to flee if caught in a bad spot.

Crushers all the way, point for point they are effective against way more. Survive impact hits and Ogres lose more time than not and are more susceptible to being shot off the board magically or otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
so far everyone has looked at the issue in a vacuum. I think thats the issue here, you cant look at it like that. Most people look at Ogre mournfang and say, geez those are going to be hard to handle. Those same people see Skullcrushers and say well $*&# my life.