deamonette's of slaanesh

griffithxi

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

Loupi_

griffithxi said:

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

wrong unit to compare with, compare to wardancers

Pocman

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

griffithxi

Loupi_ said:

griffithxi said:

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

wrong unit to compare with, compare to wardancers

I've compared them with wildwood rangers before. I think I would prefer the wildwood rangers if given the choice. (was trying to find AP units to compare with)

User_Clue

griffithxi said:

Loupi_ said:

griffithxi said:

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

wrong unit to compare with, compare to wardancers

I've compared them with wildwood rangers before. I think I would prefer the wildwood rangers if given the choice. (was trying to find AP units to compare with)

But even then, Daemonettes are over 40% faster, so are those units perfectly comparable? Daemonnetes are definitely comparable to similar units like death runners and Witch elves wardancers, and even Wraiths. In that context, they're probably best in class, or at least close (some of them have valuable support roles though).

But like Pocman said, is that class balanced well? And is a generalist AP unit worth having in that class?

One buff I think would be nice, would be more mass. You can really be punished by cav and monster if you aren't careful. If you're moving while you get charged, the unit might as well already be dead. 30 more mass would cut impact damage by around 25-30%

Loupi_

The whole class of "light fast infantry" is a bit underwhelming, but demonettes are probably the best ones. witch elves are only good cos of the rampage. wardancers are quite sucky, cairnwraiths are quite sucky.

definite no to making them more massive, as it goes completely against the glass cannon design. they should hit harder in general

GreenColoured

Loupi_ said:

The whole class of "light fast infantry" is a bit underwhelming, but demonettes are probably the best ones. witch elves are only good cos of the rampage. wardancers are quite sucky, cairnwraiths are quite sucky.

definite no to making them more massive, as it goes completely against the glass cannon design. they should hit harder in general

Cairn Wraiths suck, but that has way more to do with CAs obsession with making ethereal units suck as much as possible while arbitrarily introducing more and more sources of magic damage to the game

griffithxi

User_Clue said:

griffithxi said:

Loupi_ said:

griffithxi said:

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

wrong unit to compare with, compare to wardancers

I've compared them with wildwood rangers before. I think I would prefer the wildwood rangers if given the choice. (was trying to find AP units to compare with)

But even then, Daemonettes are over 40% faster, so are those units perfectly comparable? Daemonnetes are definitely comparable to similar units like death runners and Witch elves wardancers, and even Wraiths. In that context, they're probably best in class, or at least close (some of them have valuable support roles though).

But like Pocman said, is that class balanced well? And is a generalist AP unit worth having in that class?

One buff I think would be nice, would be more mass. You can really be punished by cav and monster if you aren't careful. If you're moving while you get charged, the unit might as well already be dead. 30 more mass would cut impact damage by around 25-30%

Just curious why do you think they are "best in class" is that just based on speed or something?

BloodyStream

The unit gets deleted by a single dragon's breath or similar wind spell. Definitely needs looser formation or price reduction (with equivalent stat decrease) or at least something cause right now they aren't worthwhile as a result.

Edit: it will be worse when wind blast comes back

Loupi_

BloodyStream said:

The unit gets deleted by a single dragon's breath or similar wind spell. Definitely needs looser formation or price reduction (with equivalent stat decrease) or at least something cause right now they aren't worthwhile as a result.

Edit: it will be worse when wind blast comes back

wind blast never left, cathay still has it

griffithxi

User_Clue said:

griffithxi said:

Loupi_ said:

griffithxi said:

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

wrong unit to compare with, compare to wardancers

I've compared them with wildwood rangers before. I think I would prefer the wildwood rangers if given the choice. (was trying to find AP units to compare with)

But even then, Daemonettes are over 40% faster, so are those units perfectly comparable? Daemonnetes are definitely comparable to similar units like death runners and Witch elves wardancers, and even Wraiths. In that context, they're probably best in class, or at least close (some of them have valuable support roles though).

But like Pocman said, is that class balanced well? And is a generalist AP unit worth having in that class?

One buff I think would be nice, would be more mass. You can really be punished by cav and monster if you aren't careful. If you're moving while you get charged, the unit might as well already be dead. 30 more mass would cut impact damage by around 25-30%

your earlier post wasn't showing up for me or something when I wrote my last post
I agree they are a fast infantry unit but on slaanesh roster for infantry I would argue the usefulness of their speed being that level if the tradeoff is they can't beat a unit like pleagurbearers that cost 100 less than them. On certain other rosters that speed would be much more valuable even on this infantry unit but when it comes to flanking and outmaneuvering seekers and even furies of slaanesh do it better. Was testing the difference between rear charging with furies and these mid tier infantry and they were performing the same for me. Maybe when more factions come there will be some matchup that makes them stand out but right now I do my best when I avoid taking mid tier deamonettes and replace them with a more effective cav, cheaper fury, or just pile on more chaff.

Spellbound55

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

Now on paper Daemonettes appear to be substantially better than other fast infantry. They trade 8 BvI and 4 CB for a primary AP split? It's a great deal. However one significant weakness the daemonettes pick up is banishing. A low HP unit is extremely easy to push into banishing which results in daemonettes being easier to remove than their stats indicate at first glance, substantially so in my experience. Beyond that while being a primary AP unit does allow them to deal damage to any target the loss of BvI and CB makes them worse damage dealers against chaff and many mid tier units unless they're procing devastating flankers, which is a substantial amount of effort when fighting chaff. Against an elite armored infantry the payoff is large (for quite a bit of effort) but Slaanesh also has a lot of ways to deal with elite armor.

Given that context I don't actually see the strengths daemonettes have over other "fast infantry" as being particularly impactful. I think you could comfortable apply the same changes (-50 cost and +5 hp per entity) without seeing any balance issues. I'd also suggest Slashing Exalted Daemonettes to 1200 from 1250. They seem to be taxed in a similar way to other fast infantry and while they're certainly usable at their price, compared to some of the 1200 cost competition I'm not sure why they're the more expensive unit.

Loupi_

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

GreenColoured

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

On the other hand, Daemonettes probably could use something to reflect their finesse and ability to dodge. All daemons have physical resist to start with, leaving Daemonettes nothing to represent their agility and ability to side step enemy attacks and arrows

User_Clue

griffithxi said:

User_Clue said:

griffithxi said:

Loupi_ said:

griffithxi said:

The mid tier 800 version of deamonette's seems a bit weak to me. Especially when compared to similar cost AP units.

For example compared to White Lions which many players didn't consider to be extremely strong.
White lion Vs Daemonette's
HP 7500 vs 6500
atk 36/38 vs 38
MD 28/40 vs 36

Weapon strength 34 vs 32
charge 18 vs 20

speed 33 vs 54

Now Daemonette's do have 20% physical resist to protect them from ranged and melee where the white lions have 30% missile resistance to protect from ranged and 90 armor for range/melee

It could be that the standard which I am viewing deamonettes is wrong as I was expecting them to be decently strong since they are the mid tier daemons of a melee faction with no ranged. Are they purposely designed to be a weak link to make slaanesh rely on their chariots to deal with infantry or something?

wrong unit to compare with, compare to wardancers

I've compared them with wildwood rangers before. I think I would prefer the wildwood rangers if given the choice. (was trying to find AP units to compare with)

But even then, Daemonettes are over 40% faster, so are those units perfectly comparable? Daemonnetes are definitely comparable to similar units like death runners and Witch elves wardancers, and even Wraiths. In that context, they're probably best in class, or at least close (some of them have valuable support roles though).

But like Pocman said, is that class balanced well? And is a generalist AP unit worth having in that class?

One buff I think would be nice, would be more mass. You can really be punished by cav and monster if you aren't careful. If you're moving while you get charged, the unit might as well already be dead. 30 more mass would cut impact damage by around 25-30%

Just curious why do you think they are "best in class" is that just based on speed or something?

Partly speed and damage. Most of the units I mentioned are slower and non AP, but are stronger against light infantry in a head to head and some come with some utility. Death Runners are the only other contender since they sunder armor, have AP and BvI so they do better against infantry (unless the Daemons flank), and are vanguard units with stalk. But Death runners are more expensive and even less durable since they have fewer models.

I think the unit has some issues, but they have relative value if that makes sense? They have good stats relative to other units, but they're a generalist unit in a niche category, which is somewhat questionable. There's also the issue that Slaanesh is stuffed with fast, flismsy AP units, so why do you need Daemonettes? If you need something fast with AP that can flank, then why not spend 200 more on seekers who are twice as fast, hit harder, and aren't much easier to kill?

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

This framing has to have its limits. Unlike a unit like witch elves who have a role outside of just doing damage, deamonettes need to be able to survive somewhat so they can actual do damage, since that is their one and only function.

Spellbound55

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

I'm sympathetic to this perspective as we don't want Wardancers to function like, say Graveguard who have comparable WS and BvI. That would be a poor outcome by all accounts. However I'm not sure just cranking the offense of these units will produce the results we want, and I know increases to their survivability focused around health will not make the units as defensively oriented as holding infantry of a similar price.

For one, we're limited in what we can increase before we start running into the higher tier infantry options like Bladesingers making offensive buffs difficult. On the high end of the spectrum non ap infantry are scratching at 50 WS, but that's seen on either much more expensive units or on units with significant defensive sacrifices like Savage Orc Big 'Uns. While their might be some room for buffs here we're looking at around 4 WS of range. CB and BvI are even more restricted in range based on similar units.

Secondly the value of further offensive buffs is questionable. Frankly speaking, the buffs needed to change the number of attacks to kill an entity are hard to call reasonable.

Using Empire Swordsmen as a target we see 69 hp per entity and 30 armor, so a 22.5% base damage reduction.

Wardancers hit for 49 base damage on the charge (26 WS, 17 CB, 6 BvI) and 19 ap (10 WS, 7 CB, 2 BvI) on the charge. After armor reduction the average is 57, so 12 under what is necessary to kill an entity in one attack consistently (the high end of the damage results in 61 on the charge). So we're looking at two attacks with the charge to kill a chaff unit, which is pretty good damage when compared to holding units like Chaos Warriors, who hit for 47 on the charge (which usually results in a two hit kill but based on RNG can require three).

Without the charge we see 32 base damage and 12 ap. After armor reduction the average is 37, so again we're in the two hit to kill on average territory which is pretty good compared to units like normal Chaos Warriors who hit for about 20 damage on average and as such require three to four hits depending on RNG.

Witch Elves have nearly identical offensive stats to Wardancers (with frenzy WS= 25 base, 10 ap, BvI= 6 base, 2 ap, CB= 19 base, 7 ap) se we'll see them hit the same breakpoints as Wardancers, performing notably better than arguably the best mid tier holding infantry for the price.

Daemonettes lack the BvI but the high ap ratio of 75 means they hit for 13 base, 39 ap on the charge without devastating flanker. After armor that 49 damage, enough to consistently kill in two hits. Without the charge we see an average damage of 30 which does make daemonettes inferior chaff clearers and is something CA could target if they felt so inclined. However, I don't think that's likely given the unit design seen on the Slaanesh roster (Marauders end up with 42 damage on the charge and 30 in sustained combat against swordsmen giving them nearly identical performance against chaff; Daemonettes are an anti-armor flanking tool and are designed to fill only that role).

Given this context any damage buff that would significantly change unit performance would only be attained through significant damage increases, likely through accuracy increases since the damage boosts necessary would be obscene. Currently Wardancers and Witchelves hit around 50% of their attacks (51% and 57% respectively). We can effectively see this as doubling the number of attacks necessary to kill a model in sustained combat (charge accuracy is significantly higher in addition to the higher damage so two attacks is still the most likely outcome). Giving that context for a significant difference to be seen, we'd need to lower the number of attacks from a statistical average of 4 to a statistical average of 3, which we see at around a 63% chance to hit. That's a buff of 12 MA for Wardancers (only 6 MA swing for witch elves) which is pretty large. In theory you could use BvI with a lesser increase, so something like a boost of 4-6 BvI. Which is still a very significant offensive buff, and one that could meaningfully alter combat with very low and very high health infantry in unanticipated ways.

At the end that's a lot of work to make a unit slightly better at a job it's already good at and fails to address issues like vulnerability to missile, chip damage easily undercutting cost value, vulnerability to magic, cavalry, etc. The primary issue is the job these units exist to fill isn't generally necessary and often when it is useful it's better filled by units like Black Ark Corsairs and High Elf Rangers who are substantially cheaper and more survivable.

TLDR I'm not convinced it's possible to make the role these units were designed currently attractive through offensive increases, especially at the 800 price point. They have plenty enough cannon to perform head and shoulders above their competition in killing power, so much that adding more cannon faces a serious diminishing returns until the unit stats are competing with things like Cavalry and Monstrous infantry. In spite of this they're still viewed as bad units which suggests the problem is the units have too much glass relative to their cannon given cheaper chaff clearing units see semi-regular play.

A gentle health buff combined with a slight price reduction maintains the units function and power while also making them more cost effective options in a roster, which makes them easier to invest in. I figure we can just take it at face value that higher health and armor outweighs magic resist and MD in most circumstances, but for an active example in game three Bloodletters are generally viewed as a solid unit and are notably more survivable than Daemonettes while still having a comparable amount of killing power. The difference? Health mostly, though the 25 armor does provide them with a greater effective health difference than the raw numbers suggest (and the difference at base is 1500).

Pocman

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

Imhp, it mitigates their weaknesses, but does not make it disappear. Even with +5 HP per model, witch elves, daemonettes and wardancers would still be the squishiest infantry in terms of HP in their price range (with the exception of ethereals)... and that is without taking into account armor, shields, etc, as these units only have 20% physical resistance.


Plus, immersion wise, wardancers, which are some of the most elite infantry in the setting, having less HP than empire swordmen makes little sense.

Loupi_

Spellbound55 said:

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

I'm sympathetic to this perspective as we don't want Wardancers to function like, say Graveguard who have comparable WS and BvI. That would be a poor outcome by all accounts. However I'm not sure just cranking the offense of these units will produce the results we want, and I know increases to their survivability focused around health will not make the units as defensively oriented as holding infantry of a similar price.

For one, we're limited in what we can increase before we start running into the higher tier infantry options like Bladesingers making offensive buffs difficult. On the high end of the spectrum non ap infantry are scratching at 50 WS, but that's seen on either much more expensive units or on units with significant defensive sacrifices like Savage Orc Big 'Uns. While their might be some room for buffs here we're looking at around 4 WS of range. CB and BvI are even more restricted in range based on similar units.

Secondly the value of further offensive buffs is questionable. Frankly speaking, the buffs needed to change the number of attacks to kill an entity are hard to call reasonable.

Using Empire Swordsmen as a target we see 69 hp per entity and 30 armor, so a 22.5% base damage reduction.

Wardancers hit for 49 base damage on the charge (26 WS, 17 CB, 6 BvI) and 19 ap (10 WS, 7 CB, 2 BvI) on the charge. After armor reduction the average is 57, so 12 under what is necessary to kill an entity in one attack consistently (the high end of the damage results in 61 on the charge). So we're looking at two attacks with the charge to kill a chaff unit, which is pretty good damage when compared to holding units like Chaos Warriors, who hit for 47 on the charge (which usually results in a two hit kill but based on RNG can require three).

Without the charge we see 32 base damage and 12 ap. After armor reduction the average is 37, so again we're in the two hit to kill on average territory which is pretty good compared to units like normal Chaos Warriors who hit for about 20 damage on average and as such require three to four hits depending on RNG.

Witch Elves have nearly identical offensive stats to Wardancers (with frenzy WS= 25 base, 10 ap, BvI= 6 base, 2 ap, CB= 19 base, 7 ap) se we'll see them hit the same breakpoints as Wardancers, performing notably better than arguably the best mid tier holding infantry for the price.

Daemonettes lack the BvI but the high ap ratio of 75 means they hit for 13 base, 39 ap on the charge without devastating flanker. After armor that 49 damage, enough to consistently kill in two hits. Without the charge we see an average damage of 30 which does make daemonettes inferior chaff clearers and is something CA could target if they felt so inclined. However, I don't think that's likely given the unit design seen on the Slaanesh roster (Marauders end up with 42 damage on the charge and 30 in sustained combat against swordsmen giving them nearly identical performance against chaff; Daemonettes are an anti-armor flanking tool and are designed to fill only that role).

Given this context any damage buff that would significantly change unit performance would only be attained through significant damage increases, likely through accuracy increases since the damage boosts necessary would be obscene. Currently Wardancers and Witchelves hit around 50% of their attacks (51% and 57% respectively). We can effectively see this as doubling the number of attacks necessary to kill a model in sustained combat (charge accuracy is significantly higher in addition to the higher damage so two attacks is still the most likely outcome). Giving that context for a significant difference to be seen, we'd need to lower the number of attacks from a statistical average of 4 to a statistical average of 3, which we see at around a 63% chance to hit. That's a buff of 12 MA for Wardancers (only 6 MA swing for witch elves) which is pretty large. In theory you could use BvI with a lesser increase, so something like a boost of 4-6 BvI. Which is still a very significant offensive buff, and one that could meaningfully alter combat with very low and very high health infantry in unanticipated ways.

At the end that's a lot of work to make a unit slightly better at a job it's already good at and fails to address issues like vulnerability to missile, chip damage easily undercutting cost value, vulnerability to magic, cavalry, etc. The primary issue is the job these units exist to fill isn't generally necessary and often when it is useful it's better filled by units like Black Ark Corsairs and High Elf Rangers who are substantially cheaper and more survivable.

TLDR I'm not convinced it's possible to make the role these units were designed currently attractive through offensive increases, especially at the 800 price point. They have plenty enough cannon to perform head and shoulders above their competition in killing power, so much that adding more cannon faces a serious diminishing returns until the unit stats are competing with things like Cavalry and Monstrous infantry. In spite of this they're still viewed as bad units which suggests the problem is the units have too much glass relative to their cannon given cheaper chaff clearing units see semi-regular play.

A gentle health buff combined with a slight price reduction maintains the units function and power while also making them more cost effective options in a roster, which makes them easier to invest in. I figure we can just take it at face value that higher health and armor outweighs magic resist and MD in most circumstances, but for an active example in game three Bloodletters are generally viewed as a solid unit and are notably more survivable than Daemonettes while still having a comparable amount of killing power. The difference? Health mostly, though the 25 armor does provide them with a greater effective health difference than the raw numbers suggest (and the difference at base is 1500).

sure i can get behinf very gentle HP buffs ~+5-6hp, but cost reductions are not the way at all for wardancers/witchelves/demonettes i think. they are not meant as a cheap infantry unit and cost reduction would make make them overlap with other units in their rosters (dryads, corsairs, marauders, light cav). wardancers and witch elves are supposed to be an elite unit and i think they should retain their price range, or ideally, get upgraded into the 900g range.

griffithxi

I feel like maybe part of the disconnect is that people may be lumping them in with other units they view as similar and going by their view of those other units value? (witch elves, blade dancers, death runners etc etc)
Instead of going by how this particular unit performs they maybe assume it should be decent?

I literally can't find an infantry unit in the Khorne roster that these things could trade cost effectively with head to head for example.

Spellbound55

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Loupi_ said:

Spellbound55 said:

Pocman said:

If you compare them with other similar units (wardancers, witch elves, forsaken, etc.) they are not that underpowered.


A different question is, imho, if the "fast infantry" as a whole is underpowered. Which imho, could well be.

This is definitely at the heart of the issue.

At base fast infantry have stats which encourage them to punch down. High base damage, good combat stats to minimize return hits, and good mobility make it easy to run down chaff. Which to be fair the units do quite well.

Problem is that's both a bad strategy for paying for a unit and generalist mid tier infantry can often beat chaff anyway (albeit less efficiently). In land battles this makes "fast infantry" pretty terrible but also makes them hard to buff without changing the unit identity. In theory capture points and domination will improve their usability since chaff clearing becomes more valuable even if a value inefficient trade but that remains to be seen.

It's a weird problem to address since units like Wardancers and Witch Elves do genuinely succeed at their job of slaughtering unarmored infantry and as such just buffing their offense isn't a useful fix. The issue is that their job isn't particularly useful in most rosters and that the units sacrifice a lot of survivability for the ability to slaughter chaff. I think a hp boost and a price cut would be useful for units like Witch Elves and Wardancers. The units are naturally quite squishy due to limited damage mitigation so the tiny health pools seem overkill. Probably around -50 cost and +5 hp per entity. This does push them towards a more generalist statline but I think the trade off of shields and armor for speed and chaff clearing keeps them unique in function.

I dont like this since it just mititgates their weakness and makes them more generic. it basically makes them less of a glass cannon and i think changes to this kind of unit should rather emphasise their intended strengths, which is obliterating things quickly and efficiently

I'm sympathetic to this perspective as we don't want Wardancers to function like, say Graveguard who have comparable WS and BvI. That would be a poor outcome by all accounts. However I'm not sure just cranking the offense of these units will produce the results we want, and I know increases to their survivability focused around health will not make the units as defensively oriented as holding infantry of a similar price.

For one, we're limited in what we can increase before we start running into the higher tier infantry options like Bladesingers making offensive buffs difficult. On the high end of the spectrum non ap infantry are scratching at 50 WS, but that's seen on either much more expensive units or on units with significant defensive sacrifices like Savage Orc Big 'Uns. While their might be some room for buffs here we're looking at around 4 WS of range. CB and BvI are even more restricted in range based on similar units.

Secondly the value of further offensive buffs is questionable. Frankly speaking, the buffs needed to change the number of attacks to kill an entity are hard to call reasonable.

Using Empire Swordsmen as a target we see 69 hp per entity and 30 armor, so a 22.5% base damage reduction.

Wardancers hit for 49 base damage on the charge (26 WS, 17 CB, 6 BvI) and 19 ap (10 WS, 7 CB, 2 BvI) on the charge. After armor reduction the average is 57, so 12 under what is necessary to kill an entity in one attack consistently (the high end of the damage results in 61 on the charge). So we're looking at two attacks with the charge to kill a chaff unit, which is pretty good damage when compared to holding units like Chaos Warriors, who hit for 47 on the charge (which usually results in a two hit kill but based on RNG can require three).

Without the charge we see 32 base damage and 12 ap. After armor reduction the average is 37, so again we're in the two hit to kill on average territory which is pretty good compared to units like normal Chaos Warriors who hit for about 20 damage on average and as such require three to four hits depending on RNG.

Witch Elves have nearly identical offensive stats to Wardancers (with frenzy WS= 25 base, 10 ap, BvI= 6 base, 2 ap, CB= 19 base, 7 ap) se we'll see them hit the same breakpoints as Wardancers, performing notably better than arguably the best mid tier holding infantry for the price.

Daemonettes lack the BvI but the high ap ratio of 75 means they hit for 13 base, 39 ap on the charge without devastating flanker. After armor that 49 damage, enough to consistently kill in two hits. Without the charge we see an average damage of 30 which does make daemonettes inferior chaff clearers and is something CA could target if they felt so inclined. However, I don't think that's likely given the unit design seen on the Slaanesh roster (Marauders end up with 42 damage on the charge and 30 in sustained combat against swordsmen giving them nearly identical performance against chaff; Daemonettes are an anti-armor flanking tool and are designed to fill only that role).

Given this context any damage buff that would significantly change unit performance would only be attained through significant damage increases, likely through accuracy increases since the damage boosts necessary would be obscene. Currently Wardancers and Witchelves hit around 50% of their attacks (51% and 57% respectively). We can effectively see this as doubling the number of attacks necessary to kill a model in sustained combat (charge accuracy is significantly higher in addition to the higher damage so two attacks is still the most likely outcome). Giving that context for a significant difference to be seen, we'd need to lower the number of attacks from a statistical average of 4 to a statistical average of 3, which we see at around a 63% chance to hit. That's a buff of 12 MA for Wardancers (only 6 MA swing for witch elves) which is pretty large. In theory you could use BvI with a lesser increase, so something like a boost of 4-6 BvI. Which is still a very significant offensive buff, and one that could meaningfully alter combat with very low and very high health infantry in unanticipated ways.

At the end that's a lot of work to make a unit slightly better at a job it's already good at and fails to address issues like vulnerability to missile, chip damage easily undercutting cost value, vulnerability to magic, cavalry, etc. The primary issue is the job these units exist to fill isn't generally necessary and often when it is useful it's better filled by units like Black Ark Corsairs and High Elf Rangers who are substantially cheaper and more survivable.

TLDR I'm not convinced it's possible to make the role these units were designed currently attractive through offensive increases, especially at the 800 price point. They have plenty enough cannon to perform head and shoulders above their competition in killing power, so much that adding more cannon faces a serious diminishing returns until the unit stats are competing with things like Cavalry and Monstrous infantry. In spite of this they're still viewed as bad units which suggests the problem is the units have too much glass relative to their cannon given cheaper chaff clearing units see semi-regular play.

A gentle health buff combined with a slight price reduction maintains the units function and power while also making them more cost effective options in a roster, which makes them easier to invest in. I figure we can just take it at face value that higher health and armor outweighs magic resist and MD in most circumstances, but for an active example in game three Bloodletters are generally viewed as a solid unit and are notably more survivable than Daemonettes while still having a comparable amount of killing power. The difference? Health mostly, though the 25 armor does provide them with a greater effective health difference than the raw numbers suggest (and the difference at base is 1500).

sure i can get behinf very gentle HP buffs ~+5-6hp, but cost reductions are not the way at all for wardancers/witchelves/demonettes i think. they are not meant as a cheap infantry unit and cost reduction would make make them overlap with other units in their rosters (dryads, corsairs, marauders, light cav). wardancers and witch elves are supposed to be an elite unit and i think they should retain their price range, or ideally, get upgraded into the 900g range.

I see your point on the price. For Witch Elves in particular it would put at only a 100 gold difference which feels bad for what should be a distinct upgrade. It's reasonable to start with the hp buff, see the impact that has and then if further changes are needed reevaluate.

The unit class is a bit awkward price wise given it's directly competing with strong ap options. Pushing them up to 900 cost with meaningful buffs strikes me as difficult without changing the units role. Maybe you could buff combat stats and hp more to give the unit a real edge is sustained combat but I'm not sure that would be adequate to make them worthwhile, but I'm skeptical of that methods efficacy.

The other direction I can think of is the Berserker/Khorne Warrior dual weapon approach where you actually crank their offensive output high enough to hit 1 shot range against a lot of chaff (with good armor RNG) but that's both a change in function, gives them much greater anti-armor capacity (extra damage is extra damage) and would warrant some massive offensive buffs, beyond what you'd expect for 100 gold. I think 800 is the high end of where the unit class could even be conceptualized as useful (chaff prices often mean it's a 2 or 3 to one ratio already for fast infantry).

However on the point of daemonettes specifically I think they're in a far worse spot than the other two units we're discussing. They're worse in sustained combat than other fast infantry, and on the charge they're mediocre compared to GW infantry, which is a unit class I think their damage output is more comparable too. While I do think the hp increase will help them I don't think it will lead to them being comparable in offensive performance to other 800 cost GW units (Bloodletters, White Lions, Longbeards, Chaos Warrior GW, Greatswords, heck even Foot Squires).

This leaves them awkwardly between two unit classes but inferior to both for the reasons you'd select them. I see a couple ways to address this. First we could boost their offensive stats so that they're hitting the two hit kill range. For that the Daemonettes need to a 6 WS boost (4 ap, 2 base), or a BvI of a similar value. I'd prefer WS just to keep the differentiation from Bloodletters who would still be offensively ahead even with this change (CWGW have 38 WS with the same ap split for comparison). That gives them comparable sustained damage output for fast infantry and should help the unit be more than a very slow and weird cav unit. This also has the bonus of not messing with devastating flanker.

Downsides are this raises questions about Exalted Daemonettes. Should they get a similar change for consistency? They'd need it since 38 WS with the 10/28 split is what they have now, though this would address the pricing disparity with Exalted Bloodletters I suppose. But ironically I don't think CA envisioned Daemonettes as a sustained combat unit. After all Bloodletters got the BvI and with Devastating Flanker Daemonettes do more damage (by 1 in total which doesn't actually feel all that worthwhile for the cost in other circumstances).

So if we don't want to rework all Daemonettes what other options do with have? Price cuts. If Daemonettes were closer to 700 (750 is where I'd put them with the hp bump) they'd be more in line with unit performance of the GW class, and they have significant upside in speed to make up for the lack of survivability. This also has the benefit of reflecting 8th edition where daemonettes were the cheapest daemon and it aligns with Slaanesh's swarmy playstyle by increasing army sizes. It also lets us slice the price on Exalted Daemonettes who are functioning well but do not need to pay a premium compared to Exalted Bloodletters.

Daemonettes are kind of a weird example since they show one of the issues with intuitive balancing, namely that when a unit feels between two categories if you aren't careful you can undershoot what makes both potentially appealing. Daemonettes have the worst of Fast Infantry and the worst of GW infantry in the same unit. It's not great.

Pocman

Imho, Blizzard alanced these units assuming that they should be inferior to similarly priced "standard" infantry ebcause they have to pay for their speed. And, imho, that is not the case. Speed is an advantage, yeah, but they more than pay for it with their fragility against ranged, spells, lack of mass, etc.

Wardancers, which are probably the best of the bunch, can barely beat big uns (in fact, they can only do it if their ability is active) while being antiinfantry, while big uns are a generalist with a minor buff against large.

yst

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

saweendra

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Spellbound55

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

It just adds 20 damage to the first attack, and somewhere between 19 and 1 to every subsequent attack while CB is active. On the high end this means Daemonettes deal 72 damage on the high end when charging into anything in the Flank or Rear (before armor). On the frontal charge it's 52.

Bloodletters deal 73 damage on any charge to infantry (before armor), White Lions Deal 52 on a frontal charge but have far better defenses. Longbeards GW deal 52 with better defenses. Armored Kossars deal 52 damage with better defenses and have a ranged attack. The list goes on. Unless we're arguing that 20 damage on the flank, the speed, and physical resistance are the equivalent of ~1500 hp, 80ish armor, and a 50 to 100 gold hike I can't in good faith say Daemonettes are perfectly balanced, much less "too good". The units performance is pretty dismal in most of the games I see for the price. If they were cheaper I could see a case for them, but as is it seems either going wide with marauders or paying for the upgrade is the better option, which is quite unusual given the over prevalence of mid tier and low tier infantry in land battles.

Also claiming Daemonettes have unbreakable is a stretch. Daemonic Instability and Banish! deal a significant amount of damage to a unit with such a small health pool and so Daemonettes aren't truly able to fight to the bitter end as an unbreakable unit would. For units like Graveguard GWs, who take less damage and have access to healing the comparison may be warranted, but Daemonettes just don't have the staying power for that comparison to feel fair.

For context, it's a flat value for every daemon, 66 damage to 4 entities per second and 133 to 12 entities per second. Crumbling is 21 damage to 1 entity per second, and Disintegrating is 133 to 25 entities every 1 seconds (hits 5 per .2 seconds).

66 damage is more HP than a Daemonette has at full life meaning as soon as Daemonic Instability triggers you're losing 4 entities per second, something no undead, nor any other daemon suffers from. Honestly this is probably the biggest issue Daemonettes have, they easily spiral from a leadership shock to completely melting whereas other Daemons hold on better against leadership shocks.

yst

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

griffithxi

yst said:

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

What is that role in practical terms? For example in a land battle when would you take them over seeker cav or slaanesh furies?

saweendra

griffithxi said:

yst said:

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

What is that role in practical terms? For example in a land battle when would you take them over seeker cav or slaanesh furies?

Thats the thing the whole faction ks designed around flanking with limited anvils.

I would take them against races that can do arty spam.
On top of having good enough ways to face tank slaanesh cav

So basically against dwarfs.cathay And coast.

griffithxi

saweendra said:

griffithxi said:

yst said:

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

What is that role in practical terms? For example in a land battle when would you take them over seeker cav or slaanesh furies?

Thats the thing the whole faction ks designed around flanking with limited anvils.

I would take them against races that can do arty spam.
On top of having good enough ways to face tank slaanesh cav

So basically against dwarfs.cathay And coast.

I don't see how they would be better at attacking artillery than the faster units furies and seekers tho.

saweendra

griffithxi said:

saweendra said:

griffithxi said:

yst said:

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

What is that role in practical terms? For example in a land battle when would you take them over seeker cav or slaanesh furies?

Thats the thing the whole faction ks designed around flanking with limited anvils.

I would take them against races that can do arty spam.
On top of having good enough ways to face tank slaanesh cav

So basically against dwarfs.cathay And coast.

I don't see how they would be better at attacking artillery than the faster units furies and seekers tho.

Not attacking arty but surviving arty .

Basically you can take cav vs these races and it will be a coin flip you either get in on the squishy stuff or just die trying

This is more safer option as a flanker unit.

griffithxi

saweendra said:

griffithxi said:

saweendra said:

griffithxi said:

yst said:

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

What is that role in practical terms? For example in a land battle when would you take them over seeker cav or slaanesh furies?

Thats the thing the whole faction ks designed around flanking with limited anvils.

I would take them against races that can do arty spam.
On top of having good enough ways to face tank slaanesh cav

So basically against dwarfs.cathay And coast.

I don't see how they would be better at attacking artillery than the faster units furies and seekers tho.

Not attacking arty but surviving arty .

Basically you can take cav vs these races and it will be a coin flip you either get in on the squishy stuff or just die trying

This is more safer option as a flanker unit.

But the 800 cost unit is going to be a better target for the arty than the 550 unit.......generally its smarter to give them a cheaper unit to shoot at not a more expensive unit to shoot at. Not to mention the 550 unit would be better at dodging the shots too.

User_Clue

saweendra said:

griffithxi said:

saweendra said:

griffithxi said:

yst said:

saweendra said:

yst said:

I think they r perfectly balance.

If not actually bit too good. Unnbreakable, fear and most importantly magic.

Flanking must be addressed, what is the exact stats on what flanking does.

Double cb i belive while flanking

Thats pretty significant, u get what xtra 20 and 20 dmg plus they do fear.

Not saying they r some kind of super soldiers but at that speed with ap magic, they certainly has a role. Pretty balance vs wardancers tbh, ap and magic + speed has always been on premium.

On flanking they r definitely vastly superior than any unit of the same class. Other than that, ordinary 800

What is that role in practical terms? For example in a land battle when would you take them over seeker cav or slaanesh furies?

Thats the thing the whole faction ks designed around flanking with limited anvils.

I would take them against races that can do arty spam.
On top of having good enough ways to face tank slaanesh cav

So basically against dwarfs.cathay And coast.

I don't see how they would be better at attacking artillery than the faster units furies and seekers tho.

Not attacking arty but surviving arty .

Basically you can take cav vs these races and it will be a coin flip you either get in on the squishy stuff or just die trying

This is more safer option as a flanker unit.

They only have 800 more HP than seekers.... Speed would make them much safer from artillery. Cannons are the only thing that is slightly more dangerous for them, but they can close the distance in less than half the time and dodge better. They also have the same MD so they don't really survive better in melee unless it's spears. Spears are the only thing that deamonettes are realistically better against (though they are cheaper). If seekers are only good for "squishy" targets, then where does that leave the Daemonettes?

If you think about it, Seekers do 42% more damage on the charge, plus impact damage, so they can just about match a full unit of deamonettes in damage, and they only have 12% less HP, but have poison. They're also better at flanking, better at surviving cavalry, and harder to lock in a bad situation. Plus they have vanguard.

I can understand them being ok for dwarfs since they have a lot of charge defense, but that's debatable. They don't stand a chance against coast. I would rather have seekers, I don't care about the halberds, I would rather throw marauders into that situation. You need seekers though to fight crabs, and the hellstriders are better for everything else. There are also much better units to use against cathay, like the marauders and furriers