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.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I can point out the like 40 pages of you saying DoC were worthless. The worst army in the game. And then you actually played them and you have high praise for certain builds. You need to think before you type sometimes or people are going to (start/continue) to discount your posts.

We're tied with TK's for worst 8th ed book in the game.

Like the Dusty Ones, being competitive with Daemons leaves you with only 2 main builds to follow - Nurgle centric (with or without Eppi), or a mono-Slaanesh Caco-bomb which can viably win the game in just a single magic phase.
Looking at Daemons or TK competitive/tourney builds is simply like watching a copier machine at work since the bulk of the lists tend to be very similar.

Unlike the other 8th ed books, we're stuck with the worst internal balance.

DukeRustfield wrote:
They are
-M5, faster than nearly all infantry core
-WS5, better than most core, and while that won't give them defense, it's often a +16% to hit bonus
-S5 which is as good as a Troll, better than all Core and negates 2 armor and makes to wound that much easier
-T3 which is standard/sucky
-I4 which is better than most core

-KB-which is arguably the best special rule you could want on mass core that's likely to be fighting other infantry
-Ward 5 not even Ogres Ironguts can take that away.
-Scaly Skin 6 isn't great. But it's there for fodder and stuff like HE and other non-elites which will outnumber letters
-MR1 doesn't seem great, but there's a lot of solid magic DDs in the game nowadays, especially in HE/Liz books. A 4+ ward is nice.

- They're faster than Humans, Undead, Dwarfs, Plaguebearers, Pink Horrors and Saurus. Elves, Skaven, Beastmen, Ogres and anything mounted, (ie: Fast Cav, Knights & chariots) are either just as fast or faster.
- WS5 looks solid on paper, except 'Letters have only 1 attack and need a very expensive Herald who dies to a stiff breeze to make them into the hammer they're meant to be.
- S5 is only on the charge. One of the biggest reasons Khorne sucks this edition is because he's the God who has a situational bonus.
- T3 and nearly naked. 5++ is only marginally better vs the main infantry counters than a 5+ save.
- I4 is on par with Elves & Skaven. Most I3 units at least have other bonuses that off-set their lower Initiative such as a solid armour save or being dirt cheap or being re-raised.

- Killing Blow looks amazing on paper sure... until you realise this is the edition of monstrous units at which KB is useless. Plus it's not something you ever rely on for ensuring kills since it's only on a 6, combined with Bloodletters lacking weight of attacks to make it more worthwhile, AND, it's tied to their magic weapon which can be destroyed/removed by Vaul's Unmaking.
- 5++ is only better against S4+. The main problem with Bloodletters is that they rely 100% on combat to do damage and opponents know this. 5++/T3 makes them small arms bait.
- 6+ Scaly Skin might as well not exist. High Elf ranked core will demolish Bloodletters through Martial Prowess + ASF, while Helms & Reavers will just avoid them. Other non-elite core will simply out-grind Bloodletters since they can shrug off the kills while 'Letters can't due to being so badly over-costed.
- MR1 makes 'Letters pretty much on par with Plaguebearers vs magic missiles & DD spells. Plaguebearers however have an actual role to play that Bloodletter can't; being an anvil that works!

DukeRustfield wrote:
The only thing that doesn't make them gods is their cost. They come out pretty close with Saurus warriors. +16% to hit. Same to wound. Both armors negated. Letters hit first, move faster. 11% to auto kill with KB per letter. 32% ward. The big things Saurus have are +1 attack and cheaper cost. And predatory helps. If you gave them both a hero and Letters have Frenzy, they would come out ahead.

No, what makes Bloodletters crap is that whatever you want them to so, the other Daemonic core choices do better...

- Plaguebearers are a better anvil with T4, likely regen from their Herald and deal damage in subsequent rounds almost as well as Bloodletters do. (get Miasma off and Plaguebearers are just as good vs non-2+/3+ saves as 'Letters are!)
The only place Bloodletters beat out Plaguebearers is being less susceptible to Pit/Purple Sun.

- Daemonettes are a better hammer unit due to multiple attacks, M6, can make use of the Flaming Banner which Bloodletters can't use at all, have higher initiative and can gain ASF or auto-pass all LoS & characteristic tests making them immune to most of the auto-kill spells. (the Slaanesh Herald is only marginally squishier than the Khorne Herald)
Their S3 can be off-set nicely by Shadow or Death magic.

- Horrors provide ranged artillery support, plus can effectively be taken as 130pts Lv1 Wizards for spaming additional channeling rolls. Gateway, Firestorm & Treason are good spells for them, while Pink Fire isn't horrible.
And like Plaguebearers, you can use the +1M banner to make them M5 just like Bloodletters.



To make Bloodletters work as intended, you need to vastly overspend on them. If you're not taking 40+, then don't bother because you can use another core option instead. Then add on the cost of the Herald who's almost impossible to protect plus a Locus to provide Frenzy or Hatred...
Smaller units of 20-30 simply don't make it into combat with enough numbers to soak-up the damage they'll take in return, and if you don't break your opponent on the charge, you simply don't have what it takes to win the attrition game.

Bloodletters at their current cost & abilities simply aren't worth the time of day as their cost is about +2pts/model more than what they should be in an army where points are at a premium to begin with.
Overspending that 60-80+pts really adds up, especially once you factor in the overcosted Herald + Locus ability that will not survive against anything that picks him out.

You just put fluffy, descriptive responses and didn't counter the straight math.

Again, with a Herald and with a Hero of the same value +-, Bloodletters rip the crap out of Sarus. That's just the facts. They are better in nearly every conceivable way and will win for cost.

You can type "zomg they stinky" all you want, but they still win.

@Experiment:

I just want to point out that saying Plagubearers and Daemonettes can kill more than Bloodletters if combined with the right magic is a pretty bad argument. If you use the same magic with Bloodletters, the Bloodletters will kill more than their magic assisted brethren.

The only real problem with Bloodletters is that they're 1-2 points overcosted right now. Other Core choices are more cost effective.

However, speaking as someone who has been playing mono-Khorne since the book came out, I can guarantee you that they still kill the crap out of stuff. The only similar Core unit I've used 'Letters against where I had a really bad day was Savage Orks (at least, I think they're Core). Even that wouldn't have gone that badly if I had managed to kill the Shaman on the first turn.

Now, 'Letters aren't the bees knees or anything, but I promise you from actual practical experience that they're not as bad as people insist on making them out to be. They're just slightly too expensive.

Saldiven, that's using a Herald, though, right? Which Locus do you use with them?

I will say that IMHO(!) that without a Herald they aren't as good by a long shot. Their Khorne buff is rather lackluster.

But 7th DoC was OP because of Bloodletters and Loremasters. They went up in cost, lost 1S, gained 1 armor. The armor negates at least some of the cost. Maybe 2 points (1 too little, 3 likely too much). So you're left with a unit that is fundamentally the same except 1S less. Which is nothing to sneeze at. But it's coming from a unit that was clearly OP. I think everyone can admit that. Whether -1S was the solution I don't know, but they simply didn't change that much except being less effective against more elite units. Against rank-and-file they are almost exactly identical to what they were.

They're actually not terrible in performance even without a Herald, but not on points-even basis. Luckily, in practical application, you rarely go into a points-even basis combat. I mean, a full unit of 30 'Letters with full command is 450 points. I very rarely go up against opponent's regular infantry units that have that many points sunk into them. Of course, this is dependent on getting the charge; sitting back and being charged changes the math.

That being said, I don't think they're top-tier by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to laugh at people who deride Bloodletters like they're overpriced Zombies or something.

Yea Savage Orcs are core and their heroes have access to a magic item that improves their warpaint ward save from a 6++ to a 5++.

While it's true you can destroy a hellblade using Vaul's unmaking, i'm not sure you are going to go through and do that to each bloodletter in the unit. Maybe the herald or unit champ but beyond that i don't really see that spell being as effective against DoC bc of the abundance of magic weapons.

The fact their hellblade is a magic item really doesn't come into play 99.9% of the time. It's just an annoyance.

Saldiven wrote:
They're actually not terrible in performance even without a Herald, but not on points-even basis. Luckily, in practical application, you rarely go into a points-even basis combat. I mean, a full unit of 30 'Letters with full command is 450 points. I very rarely go up against opponent's regular infantry units that have that many points sunk into them. Of course, this is dependent on getting the charge; sitting back and being charged changes the math.

That being said, I don't think they're top-tier by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to laugh at people who deride Bloodletters like they're overpriced Zombies or something.

I'm not saying they're over-priced zombies, but the point still stands: anything Bloodletters can do, our other core choices do better.
- Plaguebearers tank like champs and provide an anvil with ranks.
- Daemonettes provide a mass of WS5 attacks and can still do decently against 1+/2+ saves thanks to weight of attacks + armour piercing.
- Pink Horrors provide a critical role of ranged artillery with Firestorm & Gateway and Ld shenanigans with Treason. (Pink Fire in a pinch, but still an undesirable spell for them due to only M4)

And each of the other choices brings a better Locus option:
- Regen (better option), or Poison Attacks (better against high toughness)
- ASF or auto-pass LoS & all stat-based tests (godly if you're in an environment that loves Pit/Psun/Dwellers!)
- +1S to strength of magic spells

Having a special ability that is purely charge-dependant AND being forced to over spend is simply the final nail in the Bloodletters' coffin, especially if you're aiming at a competitive list.
Bloodletters need the rest of the list to help them along. Our other core doesn't.

At -1S and gaining one of the game's squishiest characters (and thus almost certainly losing any Locus benefit quite easily), 12pts would have been a decent cost for them.
14 is simply too much for too little.

Some maths then. 450 points of Hloodletters against the same points of the three main WoC builds.

MoK, AHW, FC get 23 warriors for 444 points.
Assuming they are deployed 7 wide, they get 36 attacks, 18 hit, 12 wound, no AS, 8 die.
22 attacks come back, 11 hit, 1 5/6 kill, 5 1/2 wound (assuming letters charged), 4 7/12 die.

Letters lose combat by half a wound if hey charged.

MoN, Halberd, FC get 22 warriors for 448.

22 attacks, 11 hit, 9 1/6 wound, 6 1/18 die
24 attacks com back, 8 hit, 1 1/3 kill, 4 wound, 3 1/3 die
Warriors win combat by 7/18 of a wound

MoT, Shield, FC get 24 for 438 points.
Again assunibg 7 wide,
22 attacks, 11 hit, 7 1/3 wound, 4 8/9 die
25 attacks come back, 12 1/2 hit. 2 1/12 get KB of which 1 7/18 kill. 6 1/4 wound, 4 1/6 get past armour, 2 7/9 past ward, so 4 1/6 total die.

Letters win CR by 5/18 of a wound.

So with the charge, letters beat 1 build of WoC. Without the charge they get pummelled.

You're cherry picking buffed CW vs. non-buffed Letters. CW are meant to be stand-alone with gifts and gear. Bloodletters are basically naked without a Herald.

Naked Bloodletters vs. naked CW is a totally different fight. As is Bloodletters + Herald and CW + Hero.

You have to look at the context of the army. Empire core is absolute garbage, but it's not meant to be run solo, it's meant to have it's 50 buff bots around it.

I have to agree with many units already suggested. Corsairs, Slaves, Night Goblins, Empire Halberders, pretty much any Daemon Core. I would also say Ironguts and Saurus Warriors. I also would add Dwarf Warriors, and Dwarf Quarrellers. They are both solid Core for a decent price. And are very effective, high leadership, armour, and can hit back hard.

With all the complaining that goes on with Ogre core, I am surprised as to how little play they are getting in the discussion. They get complained about almost as much as skaven slaves in my Gaming groups, and on allot of forums, I would say it is Slaves and Ogres that are the Core choices, Slaves eat attacks and just stick around, while Ogres dish out a ton of hurt. They are the two that get complained about the most, So I would say they are both at the top of the list. That being said, It is all situational; Before applying any buffs: does anyone really want to charge a unit of 50 HE spearman? In horde? with thier 50 reroll able attacks coming your way, Do you want to get charged by a unit of 18 Bulls/Ironguts, Do you ever want to be in CC with 100+ slaves? Any of the DE Killer horde units? Large Units of Zombies fall in the the same catagiey as Slaves. Warrior of Caous are with Ogres. Depending on how Lizard PF ends up on Saurus, They could be a really nasty unit to fight. Bret Knight charging you (well before steadfast rulls.). I can go on and on. So it is not that there is a best unit. It is all about how they affect each army.

So as far As Best goes, personally IMHO, I would have to give the nod to the Ogres, because their Core is the closest to being as good as the Special and rare. and in some cases the Core is better than the Heroes/special/Rare. (looks at you Mr. Hunter, Gorger, Yetties).

Ogres get grief because they look like specials and hit like them and absorb like them. But they also cost like them. 30pts naked. At small point values they are incredibly hard to beat. But in big big units, they actually put out less efficient # of attacks then some other core. And they run into LD problems. But in big units they also benefit from having a high concentration of augments in one area. 3 attack frontage + stomp + 3 supporting. Whatever augments that is a lot.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Ogres get grief because they look like specials and hit like them and absorb like them. But they also cost like them. 30pts naked. At small point values they are incredibly hard to beat. But in big big units, they actually put out less efficient # of attacks then some other core. And they run into LD problems. But in big units they also benefit from having a high concentration of augments in one area. 3 attack frontage + stomp + 3 supporting. Whatever augments that is a lot.

Not many core can throw out 54 attacks, along with impacts and stomps for against an enemy 160mm wide.
Very Few armies can Deathstar a core choice.

-Matt

Where you getting 54?

But other armies can go wider or even horde. And it's cost-per-attack, not just how many you can cram into a small footprint. Though that's definitely a benefit of ogres as well.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Where you getting 54?

But other armies can go wider or even horde. And it's cost-per-attack, not just how many you can cram into a small footprint. Though that's definitely a benefit of ogres as well.

Of course this is horde vs Horde, but 18 models x 3 attacks, not including Impact or Stomp is 54 attacks. So realty it is is anywhere from 54 - 78 attacks (if you get d3 impact and stomp) not many armies can put out that much damage from a core block. So yes that unit cost a ton, but it can put out 6 S6+ impact hits, then 54 s4(S6) normal attacks. then 6 more S4 stomps. That is enough to watch anyones unit including slaves, who might do one or 2 wounds in return, disappear. Of course that is in a perfect world.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Well in a vacuum yes, handgunners can't stand alone, but like most core in Empire they aren't really meant to. They also make armor disappear except on very heavy units.

It's not only that they can't kill anything on their own, they don't contribute all that much to a list either, and neither does other stuff help them much. Sure you can run them with double archer detachments, divert and double flee and gain some time but I've only ever seen such a build once in all of 8th, and that was in my own list at 1k where 2-3 kills matter a lot more. What other combination do you suggest that makes them a contender for best core? I just don't see it.

Someone did a poll on all army-specific fora the other week. Go to Warhammer-Empire and look at where Handgunners ended up. Players who wish to take some BS-based missile units go for Crossbows because one more shot and a larger S&S range more than make up for AP but most people chose a Puckle Gun or Outriders. Static missile units have so many drawbacks. They can be outmaneouvered with ease, suffer from terrain and positioning, can't scratch hordes, can't scratch Knights and are frail. You're much better off to spend those points on a combat detachment, a cannon, a backup mage, a support wagon, or a freaking unit of Demigriffs.

No, if Empire can contribute a contender its either ICK due to a combination of cost, damage output, grinding potential, armour and mobility or small 5 men vanilla Knights as relatively cheap heavy chaff (removers).

Niteware wrote:
Some maths then. 450 points of Hloodletters against the same points of the three main WoC builds.

1. It's kind of disengenuous to select a comparison between Bloodletters (an admittedly middle of the road Core choice) and WoC Warriors (probably one of the 2-3 strongest Core choices in the game).

2. It's also intellectually misleading to do the comparison between naked Bloodletters and marked Warriors. The ability to take marks is what elevates Warriors to be as good as they are.

If you re-run the numbers without marks, how does it go? If you re-run the numbers assuming the 'Letters are in range of a Frenzy or Hatred Blood Throne, how do the numbers go? (I'll let you know, the 'Letters win).

Pretty sure it would then depend upon the charge. I also disagree that it is disingenuous - the discussion was straight core against core. I compared typical builds, without characters. Comparing naked would be disingenuous, because it wouldn't happen.

For the sake of arguement:
30 warriors with FC is 450 points. Assumint they are deployed as horde,
41 attacks, 20 1/2 hit, 13 2/3 wound, no as, 9 1/9 die.
22 atacks come back, 11 hit, 1 5/6 kill, 5 1/2 wound, 4 7/12 die, so 6 5/12 in total.
Warriors win combat by around 1.5 wounds if the bloodletters charged.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Where you getting 54?

But other armies can go wider or even horde. And it's cost-per-attack, not just how many you can cram into a small footprint. Though that's definitely a benefit of ogres as well.

But cramming them into a small foot print is what wins combat. Take a look at corsairs. A horde of corsairs is throwing out 80% of their attacks against a 125mm wide opponent. A narrow opponent is still taking ~40 attacks.
Facing off against 4 hordes of dark elf infantry, but temple guard reformed from 6 wide to 10 wide. The elf infantry went from 40 attacks to 50. My temple guard went from 16 attacks to 28.
I out killed the corsairs 2:1 as a result. I'll take 13 to 6.5 over 7.7 to 5.

Formation really matters.

Ogres in horde get 1 stomp, 1 impact, and 9 attacks per 40mm. They also get Stomp, Impact and 9 attacks per corner.
Chaos Warriors of khorne are getting 5 per 25mm, and 5 per corner (5 with horde formation).

Ogres need 160mm for full horde attacks, 120mm for 80% effectiveness.
Chaos warriors need 200mm for full horde attacks, and 150mm for 80% effectiveness.

This is one of the things that makes ogres so deadly. They are better able to apply attacks on an enemy that isn't in horde formation.

Iron Guts vs Warriors (nurgle or khorne) both result in very close fights, with a lot of carnage.

-Matt

I also disagree that it is disingenuous - the discussion was straight core against core.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't said "straight core" and it wasn't proposed to be against only other core. It's not the OP or title of the thread or anything. So you added all that yourself for strangely unknown reasons. In fact your first post was "NG because of Fanatics," which violates at least half of what you just said above. My first post I said:

It's hard to look at units independently. Because many aren't meant to be run independently.


As for small footprints

If this was solely the case then every unit would be a conga line. 1 ogre wide 20 deep. Which is what I was saying. You still need enough to win combat and/or destroy the enemy or it's just wasted--unless you're chaffing/redirecting. There's going to be some enemies where a tiny footprint is great and other times if you don't get enough hits in, you have wasted your unit.

DukeRustfield wrote:

As for small footprints
If this was solely the case then every unit would be a conga line. 1 ogre wide 20 deep. Which is what I was saying. You still need enough to win combat and/or destroy the enemy or it's just wasted--unless you're chaffing/redirecting. There's going to be some enemies where a tiny footprint is great and other times if you don't get enough hits in, you have wasted your unit.

You wouldn't be in a conga line, you'd be in a bus. The whole reason to go narrow is to gain/strip steadfast.

I'm confident that I've won games because I'll optimize my formation on the table.
The corsair vs temple guard combat was a great example of this. Going wide made the difference. At the cost of losing 1-2 more temple guard, I killed 6 more corsairs; stripped frenzy and took away steadfast.
Frequently temple guard want to be narrow to simple limit the losses they take; but Corsairs don't effectively have that option.
A unit that has this formation flexibility won't have as many "paper" units to it's "Rock".

Take Empire Cav for example. 10 wide, 3 deep with great weapons and warrior priest is pretty awesome. Being on cav bases, they can't even deploy 5 wide, as they wouldn't legally fit on the table.
Going from 18 to 30 attacks with 2 ranks, is much better than 10-12 attacks with 5 ranks.
Against a stupidly deep opponent, having ~twice as many attacks will strip steadfast quicker than having 2-3 more ranks.
Empire Cav in huge units simple does best in combat when horded out.

That said, the bane of any horde is having an enemy in the front not quite die/run. It sucks to get hit in the front and flank, only to have all by 1 or 2 models to the front die. Now you're locked in a formation with the bulk of your bonus attacks lost due to lack of enemies.
I had a game where my vampire lord was nearly wiped out. Crumble wiped his unit and put a wound on him. He was left alone facing down a horde. On my turn, I saved the lord by rolling into the flank. Had my opponent rolled worse on the previous combat it would have left enough bodies to pick up combat res on the next phase.

-Matt

We aren't disagreeing with each other you realize...

Maybe our definitions are different. But a conga line is 1 wide. A bus is several-ish wide.

Judging from those shots, I'm going to say that only elite units can successfully pull off a Conga Line.

Duh. Those are Rares.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda like a clean bus.

Saldiven wrote:

1. It's kind of disengenuous to select a comparison between Bloodletters (an admittedly middle of the road Core choice) and WoC Warriors (probably one of the 2-3 strongest Core choices in the game).

Weird. If you don't want to compare these two, how do you know that one is much better? Is there some a priori criterion?

When unsupported BL come out nearly exactly the same as fully loaded Warriors, they can hardly be a worse choice. In fact, the comparison is very valid and informative.

As others have said, the other thing "wrong" with bloodletters is the price tag.
Being too expensive is only really an issue if:
1) You are spending more than 25% in core.
2) The unit gets wiped out.

If you're just taking minimum core, and you don't lose the unit, being a little bit over-costed isn't a big deal.

-Matt

DukeRustfield wrote:
Duh. Those are Rares.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda like a clean bus.

Come visit Edinburgh Duke, our buses are usually pretty clean. We also have the biggest arts festival in the world. The buses are what you should come see though.

I personally love the Chaos Warriors, tho i often use the Shields + Tzeencht mark on them, its mostly for ranged defense than Close combat, i tend to go against a meta with rapid fire bolt throwers, archers and a lot of high elves.

But i would love to test out chariots, damage on charge plus 2 warriors with halberds on that thing ? easy worth being a core.
Too bad marauders are so expensive to bring from "meh" to "okay" when you rather fill up your core with the chaos warriors instead.

/derail

Niteware wrote:
Come visit Edinburgh Duke, our buses are usually pretty clean. We also have the biggest arts festival in the world. The buses are what you should come see though.

I was just up in Silicon Valley (I live in Los Angeles by the beach) and their tram looked very clean. And the few trains in LA are very clean--they just have a lot of stops and when you get off you have to get on a bus which is going to be absolutely horrid. When I moved to LA when I was 19, I figured I could take the bus everywhere and the myth of needing a car in LA was because people were spoiled. Like two bus rides later I was looking to buy a used car.