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.

So, you're playing Khorne and you think you might take a Bloodthirster (whatever variant), because you think he's quick, pretty tough and meaty and can do a lot of damage. He'll also help to draw the fire from the rest of your army. But, the problem is, there's a guy that does everything that a Bloodthirster does - and he does it better. Hello, Magnus:

Movement: Magnus moves 4 inches further, and can warptime himself very easily.
Psychic: The Bloodthirster does absolutely nothing in this phase (thanks, Khorne). Whereas Magnus just dominates it. You can smite for d6 or 2d6 mortal wounds, you can prescience left, right and center, and you can warptime your best melee unit right into the enemies face. And you deny easier than anyone else.
Aura: Magnus gives rerolls of 1 to hit and for invulns, whilst the thirster gives a smaller bubble of leadership 10 (which can be useful, but is nonetheless inferior to Magnus').
Close Combat: The most amusing part, given Khornes hard on for melee. Magnus has a 1/36 chance to miss with his 6 attacks, whereas the thirster has a 1/6 chance. Additionally, Magnus is S16, giving you the all-important 2's to wound T8 (which is the highest toughness you're likely to see in most games), whilst the strongest thirster is only S14 (S15 on the charge - which is effectively useless). Both are ap-4. The only thing going for the thirster is it's d6 damage (but, given that less hit and less may wound, you could end up with pretty similar results (also, factor in the damage from smite to see who's doing more work)).
Durability: Magnus has 2 more wounds and a 4+ invulnv, rerolling ones. Whilst the thirster has a 5+ invuln.
Shooting: The hardest hitting thirster doesn't have any shooting, like Magnus. Whilst the other two do have some ranged potential, it's a dire trade-off compared to Magnus' psychic phase.
Cost: Magnus is 75 pts more - which is a bargain for how much more he brings to the table. Additionally, if you're gonna fork out 340 pts for a thirster, then you're not gunna bat an eye at 415 pts.

Overrall, Magnus is a much better force multiplier that adds far more versatility to your list than a Bloodthirster, and can do exactly the same thing with turn one charges from warptime etc (although you may not want to suicide him into the enemy line until he's supported by others).

There's only one Magnus.

So, the advantage is that you can take multiple Bloodthirsters? That would get far too expensive for any normal or competitive game.

Does he do that for ALL Daemons, or just Tzeentch Daemons?

For Thousand Sons. He has less synergy with Daemons (but can still be buffed by changeling etc), than the thirster does (although I don't consider the thirsters aura to be too great).

I agree! This is a joke. But hey, GW allways hated their own bloodthirsters ruleswise. Only time the damn bloodthirsters worked was in Fantasy endtimes when they released it.

Maybe not out perform a primarch completely, but atleast at a competetive price tag for what it does.

You pick a bloodthister because you play khorne.
But probably magnus needs a price hike, like guilliman

 Galas wrote:
You pick a bloodthister because you play khorne.
But probably magnus needs a price hike, like guilliman

Unless you're going for fluffy, you'll still get better results for running Magnus in your khorne list (not ideal, but still better than the thirster).

Lancelot185 wrote:
So, the advantage is that you can take multiple Bloodthirsters? That would get far too expensive for any normal or competitive game.

Not necessarily, I've not looked too closely at daemons yet, but multiple big gribblies is definitely a list archetype daemons have employed in the past, and it seems 2k may be the standard for 8th.

Plus it can be Mags + BT.

Anyway, you asked why, I offered a reason, if you wish to further narrow the criteria, I reserve the right to refine my answer.

If you take Magnus as a Khorne player you aren't really a Khorne player, you're a WAAC player.

Loopstah wrote:
If you take Magnus as a Khorne player you aren't really a Khorne player, you're a WAAC player.

^This. I run a Bloodthirster and Magnus isn't really that much better to excuse the clear fluff problems with your Khorne army.

So, aside from larger games (where you can afford to run two), there's no practical reason to run the thirster over Magnus. It'd only be to cater to the fluff, and not because it would improve your chances of winning. Which is perfectly fine - my question was purely on a rules and performance basis.

If you consider Magnus as an option, then you really aren't playing a Khorne army.

I'm purely talking about which is objectively better as per their rules (hence why I compare their rules). There are, obviously, issues with the fluff.

Lancelot185 wrote:
I'm purely talking about which is objectively better as per their rules (hence why I compare their rules). There are, obviously, issues with the fluff.

Strangely enough, the unique Daemon Primarch is better than the generic Greater Daemon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lancelot185 wrote:
So, aside from larger games (where you can afford to run two), there's no practical reason to run the thirster over Magnus. It'd only be to cater to the fluff, and not because it would improve your chances of winning. Which is perfectly fine - my question was purely on a rules and performance basis.

Although I would say the Bloodthirsters d6 damage can make it a lot better since it's damage cap is much higher: Magnus has a max damage output (in melee) of 18W whilst the Bloodthirster has a max of 36W.

So in cc vs T8 3+:
Magnus: Avg. 9.7W Max 18W
Bloodthirster: Avg. 11.7W Max 36W

The math doesn't lie, the Bloodthirster has greater cc potential but then Magnus' psychic abilities bring them back on pare.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Lancelot185 wrote:
I'm purely talking about which is objectively better as per their rules (hence why I compare their rules). There are, obviously, issues with the fluff.

Strangely enough, the unique Daemon Primarch is better than the generic Greater Daemon.

And so, given how similarly they're priced, there's no reason to take the generic Greater Daemon, other than for the fluff. Therefore, the Bloodthirster isn't a competitive pick (given my original emphasis on their rules, it's clear that I'm comparing their in-game viability and checking if I'm missing something that would make the thirster a better choice).

I should've been clearer initially: I'm not asking whether this contradicts any of the fluff (the answer to which is very obvious) or whether it would make you less of a true Khorne player (which sounds incredibly cheesy), no, I'm asking why, on an objective level, you would ever take the Bloodthirster over Magnus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Lancelot185 wrote:
I'm purely talking about which is objectively better as per their rules (hence why I compare their rules). There are, obviously, issues with the fluff.

Strangely enough, the unique Daemon Primarch is better than the generic Greater Daemon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lancelot185 wrote:
So, aside from larger games (where you can afford to run two), there's no practical reason to run the thirster over Magnus. It'd only be to cater to the fluff, and not because it would improve your chances of winning. Which is perfectly fine - my question was purely on a rules and performance basis.

Although I would say the Bloodthirsters d6 damage can make it a lot better since it's damage cap is much higher: Magnus has a max damage output (in melee) of 18W whilst the Bloodthirster has a max of 36W.

So in cc vs T8 3+:
Magnus: Avg. 9.7W Max 18W
Bloodthirster: Avg. 11.7W Max 36W

The math doesn't lie, the Bloodthirster has greater cc potential but then Magnus' psychic abilities bring them back on pare.

Okay, thank you. So, the thirster can do more damage in melee.

Here's a tip, have the Bloodthirster tag team with a Khorne Daemon Prince: the DP gives the BT re-rolls of a 1 and can't be targeted whilst the BT is out front, once the BT is badly wounded throw the DP out in front and give your opponant another target to worry about. Together, vs T8 3+, they do 13.6 + 5.8W for a total of 19.4 wounds. I've used this tag team to smash through Ork killkans and Morkanaughts.

Then there is also An'ggrath <3

 mrhappyface wrote:
Here's a tip, have the Bloodthirster tag team with a Khorne Daemon Prince: the DP gives the BT re-rolls of a 1 and can't be targeted whilst the BT is out front, once the BT is badly wounded throw the DP out in front and give your opponant another target to worry about. Together, vs T8 3+, they do 13.6 + 5.8W for a total of 19.4 wounds. I've used this tag team to smash through Ork killkans and Morkanaughts.

That sounds like a pretty fun combo I've just realised that Magnus has 7 attacks, not 6...not sure how I got that wrong. That does bring him very close to the BT's damage output. 11.31 wounds avg, assuming I did the maths correctly.

At the end of the day your original question was based on a false premise. Magnus does not have the Khorne Keyword so you can't take him if you are playing Khorne.

If you are playing Daemons of Chaos with 90% Khorne units then Magnus is clearly the better pick, but then you aren't playing Khorne (which was your original question).

Playing Khorne= You only use MoK units.
Playing Daemons= Use whatever you want.

It's like saying "You're playing Dark Angels, why not take Thunderwolf Cavalry or Death Company?"

My post was going on the premise that if you want to have a Bloodthirster in your list, why not take Magnus instead (ergo, the list was originally going to be mono-Khorne). Feel free to refer to it simply as 'Chaos', or whatever you like - it really makes no difference to my point or to the focus of this thread and your comment was utterly useless.

Which bloodthirster?

The one with a Heavy Flamer, who re-rolls misses against Characters, and gets an 8" attack that can't be denied by tarpitting, and will usually hit harder than expected when crippled?

The one who has D3 such ranged attacks?

The one who rolls twice for his melee damage and picks the best?

All of whom cost nearly 20% less than Magnus?

(Don't get me wrong, that 20% difference doesn't seem wide enough)

If I want a Bloodthirster in my list there is no point taking Magnus because he isn't a Bloodthirster?

If I want a large beatstick able to soak up lots of damage and deal out the same then Magnus is better at that than a Bloodthirster, but a Bloodthirster is better at being a Bloodthirster, so if I want a Bloodthirster I'd take a Bloodthirster over Magnus.

This entire thread is useless.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Which bloodthirster?

The one with a Heavy Flamer, who re-rolls misses against Characters, and gets an 8" attack that can't be denied by tarpitting, and will usually hit harder than expected when crippled?

The one who has D3 such ranged attacks?

The one who rolls twice for his melee damage and picks the best?

All of whom cost nearly 20% less than Magnus?

(Don't get me wrong, that 20% difference doesn't seem wide enough)

My concern with the ranged thirsters is that they have inferior melee damage to Magnus (the only one that surpasses him is the insensate - isn't ranged, obviously). And, admittedly, I haven't done all the maths, Magnus' smite will average 3 mortal wounds, 6 if you get 2d6. The unfettered fury will average 2 shots (although you may miss a turn of shooting compared to smite as he's slower and has less range), which must then wound and have saves taken against them. So, I don't see that doing as much as a juiced-up smite. Then, with the wrath of khorne, it's a similar thing, his hellfire gets 3 shots avg (it's range is an issue for turn one) and you then have to wound and save (and, you'll struggle to target characters with it). Then, when he charges in, you'll only get rerolls in combat against a character, whereas Magnus has them against anyone. The bloodfail could be good to take out an elite or knock off some wounds from a nearby unit, but it doesn't seem effective enough at one shot (especially as he goes to bs4+ once he's down to 8 wounds whereas smite is still auto-hit).

Maybe I'm missing something, but none of them seem to be able to compete right now.

Lancelot185 wrote:
My concern with the ranged thirsters is that they have inferior melee damage to Magnus

All three Thirsters do better cc damage than Magnus.

Loopstah wrote:
If I want a Bloodthirster in my list there is no point taking Magnus because he isn't a Bloodthirster?

If I want a large beatstick able to soak up lots of damage and deal out the same then Magnus is better at that than a Bloodthirster, but a Bloodthirster is better at being a Bloodthirster, so if I want a Bloodthirster I'd take a Bloodthirster over Magnus.

This entire thread is useless.

What's a Bloodthirster's job, if not to soak up damage and deal it out? "A Bloodthirster is better at being a Bloodthirster"? Well, yes. That doesn't mean that he's the best pick for the job he's meant to do. As I've said several times now, this post is comparing their effectiveness as they seem to fill a similar role. A Laser Destroyer is better than a Lascannon, and if they were priced similarly and had similar availability you'd find people wondering why they'd ever take a Lascannon - because the Destroyer does the Lascannons job better. Magnus seems to do the Bloodthirsters job better, hence this post. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Lancelot185 wrote:
My concern with the ranged thirsters is that they have inferior melee damage to Magnus

All three Thirsters do better cc damage than Magnus.

True, I meant to say inferior damage. It's late.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
If you take Magnus as a Khorne player you aren't really a Khorne player, you're a WAAC player.

^This. I run a Bloodthirster and Magnus isn't really that much better to excuse the clear fluff problems with your Khorne army.

I think OP is writing from the stance of a tournament player, so yeah WAAC play is to be expected in tournament play.

 auticus wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
If you take Magnus as a Khorne player you aren't really a Khorne player, you're a WAAC player.

^This. I run a Bloodthirster and Magnus isn't really that much better to excuse the clear fluff problems with your Khorne army.

I think OP is writing from the stance of a tournament player, so yeah WAAC play is to be expected in tournament play.

I am. I thought that would be apparent from the emphasis on comparing their rules. But, it seems I may have to be more explicit for future threads

Obviously Magnus should be more powerful. That is all in line with the lore.

But points do not exist in the lore. There is no lore justification for Magnus being more points efficient.

I'd take one for the same reason I've been taking Possessed for the past year - it's an awesome model and I enjoy the spectacle of it on the tabletop, under a rules framework that is close enough to balanced for it not to be an automatic 'lose button', and at any rate you bought two boxes of Bloodcrushers and you quite like the idea of them being essentially immune to Morale as opposed to getting buffs on your non-existent Rubricae