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 do not know, but it seems to me that the blood knights for vampier counts would be the moast cost efficient cavalery, with moarnfangs on a second. The mornfangs are very good and hard to put down in an army that needs some of that speed and flexabilaty.

However, 50 points for 2 attacks + frency, lances, 1+ armour save and S5 to begin with also seems like a bargain. I do not know, what do you people think?

Blood Knights have two problems; only one wound apiece, and crumble. One bad turn off rolling or one inopportune flank charge (which, anyway, is far more likely given frenzy) and they're down to two guys and will shortly vanish. They are also *very* hard to bring back.

I'll put in my vote for Demigryphs. Should normally win any combat they're in due to their high toughness and excellent armor, and have at least decent output if not great.

Bretonnian Knights Errant; very cheap on pts and still very strong heavy cavalry.

Knights Errant are pretty damn amazing for 20pts a piece, even better with the Errantry Banner popping them up to S6 on the charge.

Malleus wrote:
I'll put in my vote for Demigryphs. Should normally win any combat they're in due to their high toughness and excellent armor, and have at least decent output if not great.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't demigryphs only T3?

My two cents would definately be for Mournfang cavalry. Or possibly now the new WoC Jugger Cav, but not really seen them used yet.

Demigryphs are T4, and most cost efficient cav, probably knight's errant.

I agree, knights errant are a bargain!

Black Knights are pretty high on my list. Cheap enough to be taken in good number, killing blow makes then dangerous in a grind, and they are easy to replace. I've been on the receiving side of black knights and it sucks to kill 7 out of 10 to only have them pop back to full strength in a single magic phase.

Hex Wraiths are another unit in a class of their own. Not just for the ethereal marching through units for hits, but for the 11 S5 no save attacks. If a unit doesn't have magic attacks, hex wraiths can be a huge problem for it.

Outside of vampire land, I like the empires new stubborn knights. It's tough to kill 1+ armor, and when it doesn't break, it's very reliable.

-Matt

Skullcrushers for sure.

a unit of 3 is 180 points.

For that you get 3 riders with 3 attacks each at Str5 I5, 3 mounts with 3 attacks each at Str5 I3(?), 2 wounds each, and a 1+ armor save.

Plus they can buy magic banners and normal command options.


These guys can rip anything up before it gets to hit them. Plus they can be used as a bunker for a Khorne hero/lord on a Jugger.

Hands down, Bretonnia Knights Errant. Though I like pegasus knights 3+/6++ flying (fast) cav. Good amount of attacks and any one using them is using lore of life so not hard to keep them alive.

I guess we'd have to figure out how many points your paying per attack/armour/etc.:

Knights Errant are 10pts/attack (1 lance and 1 horse), while Bloodcrushers are 11.7/attack. And then...I suppose you could average Strength to 4 and 5.5, respectively. The prior has one worse armour and a slightly better Ward, lower movement, higher Initiative, same wounds, Killing Blow, etc.

In that example, I think I'd have to say that you're getting more out of Bloodcrushers than Knights Errant, if you're comparing them in a vacuum (which is the only way to come close to an objective outcome). Banners and synergy with other units is something that quickly outstrips my willingness to attempt breaking it down into an equation.

Warpsolution: You're getting more ranks without sacrificing attacks out of a unit of KE thanks to the Lance formation, which I think you need to factor into your vacuum even if you factor in nothing else.

 Hautamaki wrote:
Warpsolution: You're getting more ranks without sacrificing attacks out of a unit of KE thanks to the Lance formation, which I think you need to factor into your vacuum even if you factor in nothing else.

Knights errant may strip steadfast on the charge.
Knights errant have a very narrow frontage, allowing for better application of force.
Knights errant can get bogged down if they don't break their opponent on the charge.

Khornejuggs, strip steadfast eventually by killing everything.
Khornejuggs can't maximize effectiveness by depth.
Khornejuggs don't lose hitting power after the charge, and take a charge as well as they deliver it.

-Matt

Exactly.

Khorne Juggs or Knights Errant are pretty dang close. I would say Knights Errant pulls ahead in the long run because of the points value.

Plus they are Core vs the Skullcrusher's Rare.

I'm not sure if that really changes how efficient they are, though.

And while Knights Errant cost less than 1/3 what Bloodcrushers do, the former provides an even smaller fraction of the latter's punch.
Point for point, Knights Errant are more durable, get more static combat resolution, and--most importantly--can put more attacks into a smaller frontage. Of course, they still have a bigger footprint, since one Bloodcrusher has 50% more attacks than two Knights Errant.

Malleus wrote:
Blood Knights have two problems; only one wound apiece, and crumble. One bad turn off rolling or one inopportune flank charge (which, anyway, is far more likely given frenzy) and they're down to two guys and will shortly vanish. They are also *very* hard to bring back.

I'll put in my vote for Demigryphs. Should normally win any combat they're in due to their high toughness and excellent armor, and have at least decent output if not great.

I always thought crumble only worked on non-vampiric units. Maybe i'm thinking of the previous army book.

I don't know point values and my store won't let me look but i think for vampire counts black knights are much, much better than they were whereas blood knights are probably less effective. Then again the vampire counts used to be able to have a grave guard with banner of the barrows, a regeneration banner and the helm of commandment for the vampire lord nastiness. Imagine WS 6, 7 or 10 grave guard coming at you with regeneration but i'm going off topic.

I think i'd go for demigryphs. I don't know about them though and i might also want to check out other monstrous cavalry. Something tells me mournfangs cost a whole lot but at least with mournfangs their effectiveness isn't much worse when they get charged i'm betting. Most cavalry except monstrous cavalry and the ogre cavalry have to charge or they just get stuck in melee or die.

@hawaii matt: I liked the idea of hex wraiths until i realized they can't be replenished easily (ethereal can't replace much if i remember correctly) and they have virtually no protection once you get past their ethereal special rule. With skaven having so many magic attacks on ranged units and even being able to take them on their hellpit i think you'd have a hard time handling that. I mean a hellpit very well could destroy that unit with impact hits alone. This isn't even bringing up magic missiles which have to be the bane of those things. It sounds fun until you realize they're a huge target once the enemy knows what they can do.

Anyway i'd prefer black knights with their extremely heavy armor to them any day and they can be brought back to life very, very easily. Fantastic looking models too and very affordable money-wise unlike some others....cough, blood knights, cough.

Also what's this about khorne juggs? I never knew he had juggs .

I think this is an impossible question, because 'cost effective' is just way too vague a term.

I mean, I think demigryphs are an excellent unit, not only for the durability/killing power they put out relative to their points cost, but also because they provide a mobile, elite unit that the Empire otherwise lacks. How does that factor into 'cost effective'?

Pretty much, all of that is hard to figure in. In fact, I would start out and differentiate between cavalry and MC. Ethereals should be in their own category; like light cavalry, they're different enough. Even then it's hard to tell because most factions with heavy cavalry have at least one useable unit that serves a purpose.

Cost efficient is not hard to figure out sebster. What you are talking about is synergi witch is harder to figure out.

But I think we can see that the clear winners are the knight errants and the skullcrushers.

But which of those is more cost effective?

If a unit has synergy with the rest of its army in a proportion to its cost greater than another unit's, I'd say that makes it more effective.
Saying something is "effective" literally means that it is "successful in producing a desired or intended result". The result, I would say, is how well it plays in the game.

My point: these are all very broad, hard-to-define terms. I gave it a go, since I assumed we all knew that the OP's question had no mathematically definite answer.

 Niiai wrote:
Cost efficient is not hard to figure out sebster. What you are talking about is synergi witch is harder to figure out.

But synergy is part of effectiveness, which is part of cost effectiveness.

But I think we can see that the clear winners are the knight errants and the skullcrushers.

The arguments for which have been largely meaningless. I mean, if you have a Bretonnian army then Knights Errant are a good choice, among several good choices. But if you've got a High Elf army, then the internet's opinion about the cost effectiveness of Knights Errant is meaningless, because you're choosing either Dragon Princes or Silver Helms.

You can't use the term cost-effective unless you know your target/opponent and maybe the situation.

If you have to cross large stretches of terrain and obstacles, having flight would make you more cost-effective as you might be able to get there 1-2 turns faster.

If you're fighting chaffe/fodder units, you don't need high Str to beat toughness or armor, you want more attacks. And stuff like KB. Likewise, you want a smaller footprint to get as many units in B2B as possible.

If you're fighting monsters or heroes or elite, you want high WS/Init/Str and stuff like Poison or AP.

If you're fighting stuff with Fear, you want at least Fear.

If you're fighting variable units, you want to be able to carry a magic standard to be able to buff yourself.

Depending on your army, you want these units Core or Special or Rare. If you got great rares, for instance, you don't want to "waste" them on this cavalry. Mournfangs are great, but you also have a lot of other really good Specials.

And in all cases, you want the above at the least point value possible. But really, you can't say what's most cost-effective in a vacuum. What's best vs. Skaven Slaves probably isn't what's best vs. an Orc Warlord on a Wyvern.

DukeRustfield wrote:
And in all cases, you want the above at the least point value possible. But really, you can't say what's most cost-effective in a vacuum. What's best vs. Skaven Slaves probably isn't what's best vs. an Orc Warlord on a Wyvern.

Absolutely. Certain units can look like great value for their points in some situations, and like free points for the enemy elsewhere.

Defining a target is easy. What did you see last game, and the game before? If you run out of ideas, ask on dakka.

Warpsolution wrote:
But which of those is more cost effective?

You would need to do all the math to find out. Take a relevant number of commonly seen units and pit them versus one, then the other cavalry. Winning gives a point, number of casualties caused and suffered gives or takes away points, and so on. Then you could come up with a quantifiable answer.

After that, you could devise a system for synergy: Access to each Lore gives a point, casting boosts give a point, Loremaster does and so on. +1 to wound from a magic buggy, or access to hatred or better weapons does, and then you at least have a formula. Of course it won't be perfect, life isn't, and math is part of that, but it gives us a good starting point.

The issue is that nobody's nerd enough to go ahead and actually do that. :-)

Is got to be Demigryphs?!

@Luke: It certainly does not have to be Demigryphs. It might be, but it is far from being set in stone.

@Sebster and Duke: I wholly agree with you. But I also think that the concept of "most cost-effective" is at least kind of possible to (extremely) vaguely estimate.
Like, High Elf cavalry isn't all that great in their army, so we can probably cross them off the list. And Glade Riders aren't going to be The Best unit in many situations either.
All I'm saying, though, is that the OP's question can be responded to in some fashion beyond "there isn't one". But also that, as you've said, any claim of this nature would have to be taken with a boulder of salt.

@Mike der Ritter: everything has the ability to be broken down into mathematical equations, but that's not something any of us are capable of doing.
The real equation would probably have to start with their stats, figuring out how many points you're paying for WS, S, T, and so on.
Then it would have to consider equipment and special rules.
Then it would have to go back and look for any relationships between the two that might influence the in-game effects (high armour/T + low I or great weapons).
Then it would have to consider their base size, formation options, and how it would interact with the table.
Then it would have to consider what all of the above offers to the army the unit appears in.
Then it would have to determine how many units it fairs well or poorly against, and it would have to do that in all of the different situations in which the comparison could occur (charge, being chraged, flank charged, assaulting a building, joining a larger combat, etc.), which would require the whole of this process to be repeated on every unit in Warhammer.

Even if we cut 80% of the corners in such a task--which would result in a more or less worthless answer--it would still be well and truly beyond our ability.

But, in an attempt to take this thread into a more productive line of thought, I will ask: people seem fond of Knights Errant, but I wonder: for 4 more points, you can get Knights of the Realm at WS4. How do you think these two compare? Does the Errantry Banner swing it in the favor of the cheaper unit, and if it does, what about multiple units? Would two units of Knights Errant (one with the Banner) fair better than two units of Knights of the Realm (with possibly 2 banners)?

Luke1234567890 wrote:
Is got to be Demigryphs?!

They're not cavalry?

Warpsolution wrote:

@Mike der Ritter: everything has the ability to be broken down into mathematical equations, but that's not something any of us are capable of doing.

I don't believe that first part. Not that it's relevant because we're not talking about everything but the cost-effectiveness of a unit in this game, which I think can be pragmatically approximated. Let's assume you have two units of a similar class in your book. Surely you can decide which one is better, given a vague, a specific or a range of situations?

Mike, we are not asking the best cavalery unit in the game. We are trying to figure out what unit that include the moast snacks for the point.