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 would be a better option for a Blades of Khorne army to use, a Slaughterbrute or a Chaos War Mammoth? The Mammoth has nearly twice the wounds and the option for ranged attacks, but the Slaughterbrute has more attacks to dish out in melee and is nearly one-third the points of the mammoth.

Any opinions?

You already answered yourself, actually; the mammoth has less than double the wounds and the Slaughterbrute has more attacks. Take two slaugherbrutes, save yourself 1/3 the points, get more wounds separated out (opponents split fire or risk one hitting at full strength), and from the sound of it, double the attacks. Two brutes over a mammoth is an easy decision. If it’s literally only one or one, still the brute because it sounds like it allows for more room in your list for buff auras or units.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You already answered yourself, actually; the mammoth has less than double the wounds and the Slaughterbrute has more attacks. Take two slaugherbrutes, save yourself 1/3 the points, get more wounds separated out (opponents split fire or risk one hitting at full strength), and from the sound of it, double the attacks. Two brutes over a mammoth is an easy decision. If it’s literally only one or one, still the brute because it sounds like it allows for more room in your list for buff auras or units.

I figured as much, just thought I'd get other opinions. Thanks!

Ok, finally got around to running the numbers:

So we have the slaughterbrute at 180 points verses war mammoth at 320 points, so the mammoth costs 1.77 times as much.

It is safe to assume he has a hero around to be the master to make him hit on a 3+ so that puts his average damage at:
-5.33 damage rend -1 from claws
-3.33 damage rend - from jaws
-0.88 damage rend - from miniclaws
-8.37 total damage against a 5+ save
-5.66 total damage against a 4+ save

For the mammoth I will also assume the opponent has positioned such that the goring tusks are not targeting a monster. This puts average damage at:
-6.66 damage rend -2 from feet
-5 mortal wounds from tusks
-11.66 total damage against a 5+ save
-10.55 total damage against a 4+ save

Averaging those damages out and comparing we have the Mammoth doing 1.57 times the damage of a 'Brute. It also has 1.833 times the wounds count with the same save. The mammoth degradation as it takes wounds is worse than the slaughterbrute's, but then the slaughterbrute drops noticeably in output should it's master be slain.

On basic stats the slaughterbrute edges out, but the mammoth also has a bit extra from its ranged attack, bravery debuff, higher damage against monsters, and the simple reality that mortal wounds are better in practice than they are in these numbers; a hero with a 3+ save can tank a slaughterbrute easily but cannot do the same to a mammoth, not to mention units in cover.

Interestingly I think it all comes down to the question of how much rend the rest of your army has. If you are low on rend go mammoth, otherwise slaughterbrute.