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.

CupOfBuckets wrote:
Thanks for the deepstrike nerf GW!
Thanks for the cover save strategem GW!
Thanks for fixing the OP lord of change GW!
Thanks for the "only one attempt to cast a spell" GW!
Thanks for the fly nerf GW!
Thanks for the brimestone nerf GW!
Thanks for the changeling nerf GW!
And thank you very much for the unreliable mono tzeentch melee strategem

Best regards
Former tzeentch player and warhammer miniatures buyer

Maybe all true but armies strengths come and go between editions. Through 5-7th Tzeentch was among the strongest gods to play and even at the beginning of 8th. Wait for the pendulum to swing back as it always does.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Bloodletters are more durable against every weapon in the game. They're twice as durable vs plasma and 5 times as durable against OC plasma and 7 times as durable against anti-tank.
They are also troops with obsec and give CP because of battalions.
You also get more models to cover more board space and surround people better. You also get smaller bases that can fit through gaps.
You also get a buff for having 20+ models in the unit.
You do 2x more damage against targets without big invul saves and you do just more damage in general against everything in the game.

Turns out GW sucks at balancing. Who knew. There is no reason why these units, that do basically the same thing, should be THIS far apart in terms of viability.

Wow that's quite a list. Thank you for this!

Hasn't stopped me from browsing eBay for bloodcrushers but you have definitely helped give me a better idea of what to expect when I field them in place of bloodletters.

 buddha wrote:

CupOfBuckets wrote:
r

Maybe all true but armies strengths come and go between editions. Through 5-7th Tzeentch was among the strongest gods to play and even at the beginning of 8th. Wait for the pendulum to swing back as it always does.

I definitely had a handful of fairly disgusting games when I got back into the hobby at the beginning of 8th and fielded those sweet, sweet 4++ brimstones. Even running just 40 of them was enough make my lists threateningly points efficient in casual games. Maybe now is the time to stock up on underpowered daemon models while they're in low demand? Some day bloodcrushers will have their time in the sun, like flyrants, and shining spears, and dark eldar.

 buddha wrote:

CupOfBuckets wrote:
Thanks for the deepstrike nerf GW!
Thanks for the cover save strategem GW!
Thanks for fixing the OP lord of change GW!
Thanks for the "only one attempt to cast a spell" GW!
Thanks for the fly nerf GW!
Thanks for the brimestone nerf GW!
Thanks for the changeling nerf GW!
And thank you very much for the unreliable mono tzeentch melee strategem

Best regards
Former tzeentch player and warhammer miniatures buyer

Maybe all true but armies strengths come and go between editions. Through 5-7th Tzeentch was among the strongest gods to play and even at the beginning of 8th. Wait for the pendulum to swing back as it always does.

Slaanesh would like to have a word with you about when it's time was/is coming. ;-)

It's ok, the new slaanesh model in the Khorne vs slaanesh box will be -2 to hit within 9''. :pppp
I CAN DREAM!

A max unit of 12 bloodcrushers is 564 points holy crap. Yeah 60 bloodletters is better and cheaper but with a bloodmaster nearby 12 bloodcrushers does output 36 S8 attacks and 48 S7 attacks on the charge. It also reaches a 36 wounds of T4 4++ when you warp surge it. Fragile still, but that is a ridiculously large number of high strength attacks out of one unit there.

With Banner of Blood and Locus of Rage you have a 93% chance of making that 9" charge so it could definitely be a formidable threat on T2.

First, it's 589 since you have to take the banner and instrument.
For that you'd get 70 bloodletters.
So that's (with bloodmaster) 140 S6 AP3 vs 48 S7 AP3 + 36 S8 AP1
Bloodletters also hit on a 2+, bloodcrushers don't....
I don't think I need to ask which is better, haha.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
First, it's 589 since you have to take the banner and instrument.
For that you'd get 70 bloodletters.
So that's (with bloodmaster) 140 S6 AP3 vs 48 S7 AP3 + 36 S8 AP1
Bloodletters also hit on a 2+, bloodcrushers don't....
I don't think I need to ask which is better, haha.

Math:
'letters vs Marines = 64 damage
'letters vs Guardsmen = 97 damage
'letters vs Custodes bike = 29 damage
'letters vs vehicle = 32 damage
'letters vs Knight = 32 damage

'crushers vs Marines = 28 damge
'crushers vs Guardsmen = 44 damage
'crushers vs Custodes bike = 16 damage
'crushers vs vehicle = 21 damage
'crushers vs Knight = 15 damage

So...yeah, the Bloodletters are better.
However, it's unlikely that you'll get to attack with ALL the Bloodletters, whereas it would be easier to get a larger percentage of the crushers engaged.

barboggo wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
So has anyone found literally any use for Bloodcrushers besides mandatory brigade slots? I've tried mathhammering them against bloodletters in pretty much every toughness/wounds/save ratio, and the Letters are always either comparable or better, and the Bloodletters have the benefit of being troops and being harder to kill.

One advantage of course, is that you can paint and play with 3 cool bloodcrusher models, instead of 20 samey bloodletter models. Not a competitive viewpoint (in which case, again, you should be playing 90 bloodletters and 120 cultists) but for us filthy casuals it's a pretty important point

This hits me so hard. There is so much Khorne stuff that I'd buy if only I could imagine them seeing some time on the table.

So ok. Bloodcrushers are worse than Bloodletters. But... how much worse exactly? Surely I wouldn't be crippling myself too badly if I ran a unit of Bloodcrushers?

I DIDZ DA MAFFS

Without typing a spreadsheet on my phone, they can take SLIGHTLY more punishment than Bloodletters, but only like...1-2 more wounds

Offensively, Bloodletters always edge them out. Sometimes by 3-4 wounds, sometimes by huge margins like 10-12. It depends on the target, but its actually kind of a big gap in general. Unless your targets are mid-tier armor save and high toughness (Nids for example) then the mass attacks of Letters will always edge out Crushers.

Also bare in mind the diminishing returns. If you lose on Crusher, thats a large chunk of your offense gone. If you lose 3 Letters (the wounds equivelent), youre still laughing.

Imperial Knight Armiger Helverins love seeing Bloodcrushers on the table...

 vaklor4 wrote:

barboggo wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
So has anyone found literally any use for Bloodcrushers besides mandatory brigade slots? I've tried mathhammering them against bloodletters in pretty much every toughness/wounds/save ratio, and the Letters are always either comparable or better, and the Bloodletters have the benefit of being troops and being harder to kill.

One advantage of course, is that you can paint and play with 3 cool bloodcrusher models, instead of 20 samey bloodletter models. Not a competitive viewpoint (in which case, again, you should be playing 90 bloodletters and 120 cultists) but for us filthy casuals it's a pretty important point

This hits me so hard. There is so much Khorne stuff that I'd buy if only I could imagine them seeing some time on the table.

So ok. Bloodcrushers are worse than Bloodletters. But... how much worse exactly? Surely I wouldn't be crippling myself too badly if I ran a unit of Bloodcrushers?

I DIDZ DA MAFFS

Without typing a spreadsheet on my phone, they can take SLIGHTLY more punishment than Bloodletters, but only like...1-2 more wounds

Offensively, Bloodletters always edge them out. Sometimes by 3-4 wounds, sometimes by huge margins like 10-12. It depends on the target, but its actually kind of a big gap in general. Unless your targets are mid-tier armor save and high toughness (Nids for example) then the mass attacks of Letters will always edge out Crushers.

Also bare in mind the diminishing returns. If you lose on Crusher, thats a large chunk of your offense gone. If you lose 3 Letters (the wounds equivelent), youre still laughing.

No, bloodletters crap on bloodcrushers in terms of durability. The most effective weapon and killing bloodletters is still more effective at killing bloodcrushers.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

barboggo wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
So has anyone found literally any use for Bloodcrushers besides mandatory brigade slots? I've tried mathhammering them against bloodletters in pretty much every toughness/wounds/save ratio, and the Letters are always either comparable or better, and the Bloodletters have the benefit of being troops and being harder to kill.

One advantage of course, is that you can paint and play with 3 cool bloodcrusher models, instead of 20 samey bloodletter models. Not a competitive viewpoint (in which case, again, you should be playing 90 bloodletters and 120 cultists) but for us filthy casuals it's a pretty important point

This hits me so hard. There is so much Khorne stuff that I'd buy if only I could imagine them seeing some time on the table.

So ok. Bloodcrushers are worse than Bloodletters. But... how much worse exactly? Surely I wouldn't be crippling myself too badly if I ran a unit of Bloodcrushers?

I DIDZ DA MAFFS

Without typing a spreadsheet on my phone, they can take SLIGHTLY more punishment than Bloodletters, but only like...1-2 more wounds

Offensively, Bloodletters always edge them out. Sometimes by 3-4 wounds, sometimes by huge margins like 10-12. It depends on the target, but its actually kind of a big gap in general. Unless your targets are mid-tier armor save and high toughness (Nids for example) then the mass attacks of Letters will always edge out Crushers.

Also bare in mind the diminishing returns. If you lose on Crusher, thats a large chunk of your offense gone. If you lose 3 Letters (the wounds equivelent), youre still laughing.

No, bloodletters crap on bloodcrushers in terms of durability. The most effective weapon and killing bloodletters is still more effective at killing bloodcrushers.

No, there are corner cases. The +1 toughness and 4+ armor save make them more durable against massed shots from things like guardsmen and termagaunts. But the moment you introduce AP or multi damage weapons, their edge goes right out the window.

Hmm. Well, there *might* well be niche use for crushers as escorts in an armoured list. If everything else in the army is a tank or walker or plane, and they’re the only T4 target, then fire that sweeps them away isn’t cracking your bigger nuts, and small arms fire at them isn’t going to be massively efficient.

They’ll also benefit from concealed positions, if you lose first turn. That’s a pip in their favour, endurance-wise.

None of this is convincing me to take the plunge, though, and I love the models & like to field mechanised armies :/

 lindsay40k wrote:
Hmm. Well, there *might* well be niche use for crushers as escorts in an armoured list. If everything else in the army is a tank or walker or plane, and they’re the only T4 target, then fire that sweeps them away isn’t cracking your bigger nuts, and small arms fire at them isn’t going to be massively efficient.

They’ll also benefit from concealed positions, if you lose first turn. That’s a pip in their favour, endurance-wise.

None of this is convincing me to take the plunge, though, and I love the models & like to field mechanised armies :/

Good news is they aren't actually nearly as bad in Age of Sigmar, so if you ever pick that game up, you can still use 'em there! I know I love Crushers in that format.

sadly there is no comparison between letters and crushers, they fill exactly same role,but letters are more point wise and infantry with objsec, not a thing to underestimate, right now the meta is heavily shifted towards big guns for the big guys (at least here in italy) and mono infantry lists have an edge over mechanized or multiwounds models. Btw crushers models are really cool i own 6 painted.

 blackmage wrote:
sadly there is no comparison between letters and crushers, they fill exactly same role,but letters are more point wise and infantry with objsec, not a thing to underestimate, right now the meta is heavily shifted towards big guns for the big guys (at least here in italy) and mono infantry lists have an edge over mechanized or multiwounds models. Btw crushers models are really cool i own 6 painted.

Pretty much this. But even in a casual perspective, it's almost dumb to ever go Crushers. You almost only bring Crushers as an intentional handicap, it's that bad.

Well those numbers are certainly pretty damning. Thanks for indulging me guys. Looks like it would be a fun unit for playing casual games or as a demo army for teaching people how to play. "How competitive?" is a question that comes up a lot between people scheduling pick up games at my LGS so I suppose if I ever picked up a dozen bloodcrushers I can always swap them in against more casual lists.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
sadly there is no comparison between letters and crushers, they fill exactly same role,but letters are more point wise and infantry with objsec, not a thing to underestimate, right now the meta is heavily shifted towards big guns for the big guys (at least here in italy) and mono infantry lists have an edge over mechanized or multiwounds models. Btw crushers models are really cool i own 6 painted.

Pretty much this. But even in a casual perspective, it's almost dumb to ever go Crushers. You almost only bring Crushers as an intentional handicap, it's that bad.

Are there any worthwhile choices in the Daemons codex, other than the boring bloodletter bomb?

And Daemon princes of course, but taking more than 2 or 3 of those is not very sportsmanlike.

I'm already taking 30 cultists and 3x3 nurglings, and that's all the chaff models I want. Rather fill my list up with interesting elites than dozens of interchangeable gribblies.

Plague Drones are one of the best hammer units? Easy to put into a Nurgling based battalion.

Niiru wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
sadly there is no comparison between letters and crushers, they fill exactly same role,but letters are more point wise and infantry with objsec, not a thing to underestimate, right now the meta is heavily shifted towards big guns for the big guys (at least here in italy) and mono infantry lists have an edge over mechanized or multiwounds models. Btw crushers models are really cool i own 6 painted.

Pretty much this. But even in a casual perspective, it's almost dumb to ever go Crushers. You almost only bring Crushers as an intentional handicap, it's that bad.

Are there any worthwhile choices in the Daemons codex, other than the boring bloodletter bomb?

And Daemon princes of course, but taking more than 2 or 3 of those is not very sportsmanlike.

I'm already taking 30 cultists and 3x3 nurglings, and that's all the chaff models I want. Rather fill my list up with interesting elites than dozens of interchangeable gribblies.

From a non-tournament perspective, Pink Horrors, Brims, Lords of Change, Flesh Hounds, Skull Cannons, Seekers, and Daemonettes are all relatively good.

plaguebeares, pink horrors, plague drones, bloodletters, Dp, Nurgle characters, nurglings, changecaster, those are all nice choice, then anything depend what kind of play you enjoy more, competitive or more narrative/semi competitive.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Plague Drones are one of the best hammer units? Easy to put into a Nurgling based battalion.

Not really sure how I'm organising my detachments yet. The only unit I'm fixed on (other than the cultists and nurglings) is a Khorne Prince with Skullreaver.

Considering some death guard terminators, which would seem to prompt a DG daemon prince as well.

 vaklor4 wrote:

No, there are corner cases. The +1 toughness and 4+ armor save make them more durable against massed shots from things like guardsmen and termagaunts. But the moment you introduce AP or multi damage weapons, their edge goes right out the window.

The most efficient gun against bloodletters is the bolter. S4 vs T3, no AP as they have 5++ anyway.
Even with that gun it takes 3.38 shots to kill it.
To kill a bloodcrusher it takes 18 shots.

So then we take points into account because without points stats and abilities are meaningless:
Bloodletters are about 7.833 - 8.25 points in game. So let's say 8. 3.38/8=0.4225
Bloodcrushers are about 49.09 - 55.3 points in game. So let's say for fun it's 49. 18/49=0.367

And there you have it. Even when shooting the most efficient weapon to kill bloodletters - they are STILL better in durability.

By the way S6AP0 still is 0.33 to 0.24.

So basically, Bloodcrushers should have a 3+ armor save if GW ever wants to see someone buy them/pull them off their shelf.

That would barelly edge them out over letters.
They'd need to be T5, 3+ and 6 wounds to be any good.

Sokhar wrote:
So basically, Bloodcrushers should have a 3+ armor save if GW ever wants to see someone buy them/pull them off their shelf.

It's not the stats that are the issue, they're ultimately just cavalry after all in a guns and tanks setting. No, the issue is the price point. From the moment the Daemons codex was previewed I thought for sure that they'd get a price reduction, but as it stands it is just about the ONLY unit in the Khorne side of the codex that didnt get a direct buff in some way (aside from Bloodletters, who didnt need it.). At 47 points per model, they are ridiculously overcosted.

 vaklor4 wrote:

Sokhar wrote:
So basically, Bloodcrushers should have a 3+ armor save if GW ever wants to see someone buy them/pull them off their shelf.

It's not the stats that are the issue, they're ultimately just cavalry after all in a guns and tanks setting. No, the issue is the price point. From the moment the Daemons codex was previewed I thought for sure that they'd get a price reduction, but as it stands it is just about the ONLY unit in the Khorne side of the codex that didnt get a direct buff in some way (aside from Bloodletters, who didnt need it.). At 47 points per model, they are ridiculously overcosted.

Well there's 2 ways to fix that. Drop the price or up the stats. Issue with constant price dropping is that armies get bigger and bigger and scale at the bottom end starts to go haywire. 1 pts difference between 3 and 4 is lot more important than even 3 pts from 44 to 47! This makes it hard to balance stuff at <10 pts and ups the amount of models you need to buy...

Eventually you can run into situation where bottom end of scale is too cheap and you can't even fix balance by making stuff cheaper! You also can run into situation where you literally can't increase amount of models(funny note. I learned some time ago how much orks I can actually in practice fit into board. It's not even maxed out for 2k...So for example I wouldn't really be benefitted by ork boy becoming cheaper as I couldn't USE those points for more boyz...).

It also leads into present situation where greater daemons and daemon princes have gone from terror to "spam them". Makes me sad when I see 3 of them. I dont' care if that's broken or not. I just would want them to be scary enough that 1 would be typical and would be terror to face.

Don't see why it would be that bad to have crushers be scary not because there's more of them but because they are so scary that you don't need to spam them. Cheaper € wise as well as you don't need to spam the boxes

GW showed many times the absolute ineptitude they have about models points,crushers are just one of many clear examples.

WRT the Skull Cannon, worth noting that it’s going to fire at full effect on Concealed Positions. I think medium plus guns that ignore cover are worth a little more now?

I wish they would have worded that FAQ stratagem better. It says the units receive the benefits of cover not that they are in cover.

so you could argue that iron warriors/imperiall fist and units that ignore cover doesnt get a benefit against that stratagem.

Any TO will sort that out right quick... Also I think there's an FAQ about that somewhere too