Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
Why Warriors beating non-MP Bleakswords is a thema now?
because lots of people are saying bleakswords are OP which they are clearly not based on their performance vs many units. their WS buff was a bit silly looking at first but it didnt change much and was probably even necessary for them with the move to ultra
that's an interesting argument. Can you help me follow - do all units with less hp (e.g. relative to empire swordsmen) inherently perform worse on ultra than they did on large?
ah no i wouldnt say that, for low hp units that are meant as real chaffy chaff, like peasants, zombies, skavenslaves, clanrats and some men at arms, id say the move to ultra was quite a buff, but for the glass cannon type unit (low hp, higher damage) such as bleakswords, witchelves, wardancers, wild rider, plaguemonks and so on, the move to ultra was a sizeable nerf (hence some of these units got buffs to WS and things, like witchelves and bleakswords).
Other terrible glass cannon units like wardancers somehow got looked over though, despite being worse than witchelves in wh2
But what is the mechanism underlying your theory here? Are you assuming greater vulnerability to ranged and flank attacks of glass cannon units means they are worse in ultra unrelated to how they trade in a 1v1?
the way im seeing this is that shock tactics and high dps (what glass cannon units do) is less valuable in ultra because there are far more models in a unit, and since the damage a unit can do is still limited by the width of the front ~1 rank, which didnt increase accordingly, so glass cannon unit are less "shocky" for the most part and units last longer, so chaff is stronger at their job.
So the mechanism is ultra size means lower % of unit is doing the shock damage, and higher % of the unit is not taking damage, hence glass cannons are worse at their job (and/or chaff is better at their job) , meaning they needed WS/MA buffs to compensate.
I think that's a reasonable assertion, thanks for clarifying.
I think where that doesn't apply really though is to bleakswords, which being a little bit lower hp than empire swordsmen still doesn't really make them a serious glass cannon unit. They were mostly a slightly killy standard chaff unit with big shields no less.
that said for the sake of dark elves being played i don't mind them having an overbuffed unit to make up for the stuff that wasn't buffed/touched.
This is mostly a curiosity question at this point, but what is the line for a true glass cannon? Bleakswords have the lowest HP of any generalist tier 1 infantry in the game (2 hp per model behind bretonnian peasants, which puts them behind witch elves on a per entity basis) while also having one of the highest prices for that unit type.
The unit is very squishy for it's role and even post WS increase we still see the unit losing to equal or more expensively priced units (I ran a quick test versus orc boyz and trading was fairly even without the waagh). Currently the bleakswords are fairly comparable to the marauders of Slaanesh before 2.0. A unit with higher than average offense that pays for it in poor defenses and a slight price premium. 15 armor and 1000 health for 12 MD is probably a losing trade for the bleakswords at such low values, while the upgraded shield and murderous prowess largely explain the 50 cost difference.
If the marauders were previously a well balanced glass cannon infantry I struggle to see how bleakswords wouldn't meet that standard, being a very strong unit but not an unbalanced one.
Why Warriors beating non-MP Bleakswords is a thema now?
because lots of people are saying bleakswords are OP which they are clearly not based on their performance vs many units. their WS buff was a bit silly looking at first but it didnt change much and was probably even necessary for them with the move to ultra
that's an interesting argument. Can you help me follow - do all units with less hp (e.g. relative to empire swordsmen) inherently perform worse on ultra than they did on large?
ah no i wouldnt say that, for low hp units that are meant as real chaffy chaff, like peasants, zombies, skavenslaves, clanrats and some men at arms, id say the move to ultra was quite a buff, but for the glass cannon type unit (low hp, higher damage) such as bleakswords, witchelves, wardancers, wild rider, plaguemonks and so on, the move to ultra was a sizeable nerf (hence some of these units got buffs to WS and things, like witchelves and bleakswords).
Other terrible glass cannon units like wardancers somehow got looked over though, despite being worse than witchelves in wh2
But what is the mechanism underlying your theory here? Are you assuming greater vulnerability to ranged and flank attacks of glass cannon units means they are worse in ultra unrelated to how they trade in a 1v1?
the way im seeing this is that shock tactics and high dps (what glass cannon units do) is less valuable in ultra because there are far more models in a unit, and since the damage a unit can do is still limited by the width of the front ~1 rank, which didnt increase accordingly, so glass cannon unit are less "shocky" for the most part and units last longer, so chaff is stronger at their job.
So the mechanism is ultra size means lower % of unit is doing the shock damage, and higher % of the unit is not taking damage, hence glass cannons are worse at their job (and/or chaff is better at their job) , meaning they needed WS/MA buffs to compensate.
I think that's a reasonable assertion, thanks for clarifying.
I think where that doesn't apply really though is to bleakswords, which being a little bit lower hp than empire swordsmen still doesn't really make them a serious glass cannon unit. They were mostly a slightly killy standard chaff unit with big shields no less.
that said for the sake of dark elves being played i don't mind them having an overbuffed unit to make up for the stuff that wasn't buffed/touched.
This is mostly a curiosity question at this point, but what is the line for a true glass cannon? Bleakswords have the lowest HP of any generalist tier 1 infantry in the game (2 hp per model behind bretonnian peasants, which puts them behind witch elves on a per entity basis) while also having one of the highest prices for that unit type.
The unit is very squishy for it's role and even post WS increase we still see the unit losing to equal or more expensively priced units (I ran a quick test versus orc boyz and trading was fairly even without the waagh). Currently the bleakswords are fairly comparable to the marauders of Slaanesh before 2.0. A unit with higher than average offense that pays for it in poor defenses and a slight price premium. 15 armor and 1000 health for 12 MD is probably a losing trade for the bleakswords at such low values, while the upgraded shield and murderous prowess largely explain the 50 cost difference.
If the marauders were previously a well balanced glass cannon infantry I struggle to see how bleakswords wouldn't meet that standard, being a very strong unit but not an unbalanced one.
So first, I've not got a particular beef with bleak swords, but as you say if they trade evenly with (i find they beat) orc boys minus waagh that's an amazing package given their advantages in speed and leadership and reduced vulnerability to ranged fire (in spite of lower hp). In practice, that shield and that leadership in fact would make the orc boys more "glass cannon" in practice, in terms of how much damage they can effectively absorb before being useless.
Second, i don't think you actually ever need to set a threshold for a glass cannon - such things exist on a continuum.
Third, for me, glass cannon implies something of value (like precious glass!) so for example a squig herd hits like a truck for 350 but is not a glass cannon in my book - more of a fire and forget unit. Units at these price points are more paying for their ability to be a front line and their numbers than in terms of their particular bent towards slightly more damage dealing or enduring than the standard empire swordsman. So I don't think of any chaff unit as really glass cannon.
@eumaies I appreciate the clarification on both your position on this individual unit and your broader balance considerations. I might quibble on the shield and leadership versus raw health trade off but I'm actually not sure where breakpoints on leadership penalties for wounded kick in.
I think the point about glass cannons being more expensive is interesting since CA really seems to be moving away from that somewhat with units like Marauders of Slaanesh (pre-buffs) and the Dual Axe Khorne marauders. Combined with the buffs to some of the underperforming units in this class (Black Ark Corsairs, Nehekaran warriors, Dryads, Crypt Ghouls and Bleakswords) and it seems like CA is trying to add some greater differentiation to roles within unit tiers.
We've seen a bunch of high damage/low defense tier one units added and a lot of buffs to units that existed already in a similar niche (which ranged from okay to pretty bad). Seems like a general power adjustment then. I will say it's weird which units got absolutely nothing in the change. Gor herd (both variants) in particular seem a bit left behind.
Well I don’t know that you have to define all chaff units that are high damage out low melee defense as glass cannon units worthy of special treatment. In other words when I look at the slaanesh mauraders I feel the trade off between ma/attacking stats is balanced by the low md. They are worse in some circumstances better in others. That’s different from just “orc boys but with free extras because “glass cannon”
We've seen a bunch of high damage/low defense tier one units added and a lot of buffs to units that existed already in a similar niche (which ranged from okay to pretty bad). Seems like a general power adjustment then. I will say it's weird which units got absolutely nothing in the change. Gor herd (both variants) in particular seem a bit left behind.
Plenty others, pilgrims, flaggelants, nehek war, and frikking useless red skinks
Its not just bleak, corsairs got 25% dmg boost as well, so much so u cant even tell if $750 plaguemonks would win against them
@eumaies I see your point on how subdividing categories is potentially questionable but I'm not seeing where you're getting special treatment from. Bleakswords are arguably the weakest base swordsmen unit defensively.
The previous marauders of Slaanesh (a good example of this offensive/defensive trade off) had 1200 health on the bleakswords and didn't just get a higher WS but a BvI which put them ahead in terms of MA at 39. For this the unit was down 12 MD, 20% missile block chance, and 15 armor.
In spite of being down 12 MD in comparison they had a high enough health to survive an extra hit against most infantry in melee combat after accounting for armor reduction. Having bronze shields reduces incoming missile damage by 20% less than the bleakswords but in return they have about 16% more hp total which applies to all damage sources, including spells. In practice the marauders were both offensively more effective, dealing more damage on the charge from higher accuracy and were defensively at best even, though I'd argue the raw HP more than outweighs the minor armor and shield comparisons. You could argue the MD would put bleakswords ahead in sustained combat, but for a 50 gold more expensive unit they're performance would have been poor.
This is why I find the statement "Orc Boyz with free extras" misleading. Bleakswords are down more than 2000, nearly 30% less. A silver shield and 6 LD is nowhere near enough to defensively narrow that gap, armor is identical and while Bleakswords have superior sustained combat stats post buff they're behind on the charge and notably vulnerable to sources of shock damage. It's a notable loss of defensive for the Bleakswords and for a unit of the same price adding power to their offense feels appropriate. I suppose you could quibble about the AP ratio a bit if you so desired but given how meh Bleaksword stats are there aren't many targets they can reasonably tangle with where armor is high enough to make a difference.
@yst Frenzy got a (minor) buff this patch and Nehek got a BvI I believe (not much of a tomb kings player I'm afraid). I'd also argue that Pilgrims and Flaggelants were pretty decent as they were for the damage dealer role. One just has better combat stats with frenzy active (1 less WS and a slightly lower AP split isn't sinking the unit) and the other is unbreakable. It'd be interesting to run a test but my money would be on the humans for winning that fight (how cost effectively is another issue).
Red Crests I wouldn't say are useless, but they're a cheap mostly AP unit. Those have traditionally been balance issue since they ride a thin line between "cost efficient only when hitting the ideal target" and "trading up into things they shouldn't". The last change (a price cut I believe?) seemed to have put them into a mediocre state, though armored infantry is a unit category that lizardmen have an abundance of tools to deal with. Put the unit on another roster and I suspect you'd see them picked up more.
Why Warriors beating non-MP Bleakswords is a thema now?
because lots of people are saying bleakswords are OP which they are clearly not based on their performance vs many units. their WS buff was a bit silly looking at first but it didnt change much and was probably even necessary for them with the move to ultra
that's an interesting argument. Can you help me follow - do all units with less hp (e.g. relative to empire swordsmen) inherently perform worse on ultra than they did on large?
ah no i wouldnt say that, for low hp units that are meant as real chaffy chaff, like peasants, zombies, skavenslaves, clanrats and some men at arms, id say the move to ultra was quite a buff, but for the glass cannon type unit (low hp, higher damage) such as bleakswords, witchelves, wardancers, wild rider, plaguemonks and so on, the move to ultra was a sizeable nerf (hence some of these units got buffs to WS and things, like witchelves and bleakswords).
Other terrible glass cannon units like wardancers somehow got looked over though, despite being worse than witchelves in wh2
But what is the mechanism underlying your theory here? Are you assuming greater vulnerability to ranged and flank attacks of glass cannon units means they are worse in ultra unrelated to how they trade in a 1v1?
the way im seeing this is that shock tactics and high dps (what glass cannon units do) is less valuable in ultra because there are far more models in a unit, and since the damage a unit can do is still limited by the width of the front ~1 rank, which didnt increase accordingly, so glass cannon unit are less "shocky" for the most part and units last longer, so chaff is stronger at their job.
So the mechanism is ultra size means lower % of unit is doing the shock damage, and higher % of the unit is not taking damage, hence glass cannons are worse at their job (and/or chaff is better at their job) , meaning they needed WS/MA buffs to compensate.
I think that's a reasonable assertion, thanks for clarifying.
I think where that doesn't apply really though is to bleakswords, which being a little bit lower hp than empire swordsmen still doesn't really make them a serious glass cannon unit. They were mostly a slightly killy standard chaff unit with big shields no less.
that said for the sake of dark elves being played i don't mind them having an overbuffed unit to make up for the stuff that wasn't buffed/touched.
This is mostly a curiosity question at this point, but what is the line for a true glass cannon? Bleakswords have the lowest HP of any generalist tier 1 infantry in the game (2 hp per model behind bretonnian peasants, which puts them behind witch elves on a per entity basis) while also having one of the highest prices for that unit type.
The unit is very squishy for it's role and even post WS increase we still see the unit losing to equal or more expensively priced units (I ran a quick test versus orc boyz and trading was fairly even without the waagh). Currently the bleakswords are fairly comparable to the marauders of Slaanesh before 2.0. A unit with higher than average offense that pays for it in poor defenses and a slight price premium. 15 armor and 1000 health for 12 MD is probably a losing trade for the bleakswords at such low values, while the upgraded shield and murderous prowess largely explain the 50 cost difference.
If the marauders were previously a well balanced glass cannon infantry I struggle to see how bleakswords wouldn't meet that standard, being a very strong unit but not an unbalanced one.
So first, I've not got a particular beef with bleak swords, but as you say if they trade evenly with (i find they beat) orc boys minus waagh that's an amazing package given their advantages in speed and leadership and reduced vulnerability to ranged fire (in spite of lower hp). In practice, that shield and that leadership in fact would make the orc boys more "glass cannon" in practice, in terms of how much damage they can effectively absorb before being useless.
Second, i don't think you actually ever need to set a threshold for a glass cannon - such things exist on a continuum.
Third, for me, glass cannon implies something of value (like precious glass!) so for example a squig herd hits like a truck for 350 but is not a glass cannon in my book - more of a fire and forget unit. Units at these price points are more paying for their ability to be a front line and their numbers than in terms of their particular bent towards slightly more damage dealing or enduring than the standard empire swordsman. So I don't think of any chaff unit as really glass cannon.
To be fair DE vs greenskin at end of warhammer 2 was an extremely bad matchup for DE
They had a really hard time dealing with GS cheap high hp fighters once waagh triggered.
So DE needed help in that matchup. It would be interesting to revisit it in game 3
Yeah fair points spellbound when I look closer I’d have to say bleakswords are still more or less “in bounds”. Slightly overtuned but it’s pretty subtle and I have also previously agreed they were UP and needed most of what they got.
Comments
Bleakswords are a steal at current. I have certainly noticed the WS buff which is huge.
450 for them is a very generous price 475 is probably much fairer.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeThey got 25% dmg buff and hitting at 10 ap
They even have 5 more wep str than $550 gors, better stats better ld. Its basically a $550 gor herd with silvershield at $450
The one and only chaff in the $400s doing 10 ap with 35 wep str
They even have more wep str than a frenzied pilgrim lol
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
2 · 3Disagree 2Agree- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeThe unit is very squishy for it's role and even post WS increase we still see the unit losing to equal or more expensively priced units (I ran a quick test versus orc boyz and trading was fairly even without the waagh). Currently the bleakswords are fairly comparable to the marauders of Slaanesh before 2.0. A unit with higher than average offense that pays for it in poor defenses and a slight price premium. 15 armor and 1000 health for 12 MD is probably a losing trade for the bleakswords at such low values, while the upgraded shield and murderous prowess largely explain the 50 cost difference.
If the marauders were previously a well balanced glass cannon infantry I struggle to see how bleakswords wouldn't meet that standard, being a very strong unit but not an unbalanced one.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeSecond, i don't think you actually ever need to set a threshold for a glass cannon - such things exist on a continuum.
Third, for me, glass cannon implies something of value (like precious glass!) so for example a squig herd hits like a truck for 350 but is not a glass cannon in my book - more of a fire and forget unit. Units at these price points are more paying for their ability to be a front line and their numbers than in terms of their particular bent towards slightly more damage dealing or enduring than the standard empire swordsman. So I don't think of any chaff unit as really glass cannon.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeGo hog wild for science.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeI think the point about glass cannons being more expensive is interesting since CA really seems to be moving away from that somewhat with units like Marauders of Slaanesh (pre-buffs) and the Dual Axe Khorne marauders. Combined with the buffs to some of the underperforming units in this class (Black Ark Corsairs, Nehekaran warriors, Dryads, Crypt Ghouls and Bleakswords) and it seems like CA is trying to add some greater differentiation to roles within unit tiers.
We've seen a bunch of high damage/low defense tier one units added and a lot of buffs to units that existed already in a similar niche (which ranged from okay to pretty bad). Seems like a general power adjustment then. I will say it's weird which units got absolutely nothing in the change. Gor herd (both variants) in particular seem a bit left behind.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIts not just bleak, corsairs got 25% dmg boost as well, so much so u cant even tell if $750 plaguemonks would win against them
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe previous marauders of Slaanesh (a good example of this offensive/defensive trade off) had 1200 health on the bleakswords and didn't just get a higher WS but a BvI which put them ahead in terms of MA at 39. For this the unit was down 12 MD, 20% missile block chance, and 15 armor.
In spite of being down 12 MD in comparison they had a high enough health to survive an extra hit against most infantry in melee combat after accounting for armor reduction. Having bronze shields reduces incoming missile damage by 20% less than the bleakswords but in return they have about 16% more hp total which applies to all damage sources, including spells. In practice the marauders were both offensively more effective, dealing more damage on the charge from higher accuracy and were defensively at best even, though I'd argue the raw HP more than outweighs the minor armor and shield comparisons. You could argue the MD would put bleakswords ahead in sustained combat, but for a 50 gold more expensive unit they're performance would have been poor.
This is why I find the statement "Orc Boyz with free extras" misleading. Bleakswords are down more than 2000, nearly 30% less. A silver shield and 6 LD is nowhere near enough to defensively narrow that gap, armor is identical and while Bleakswords have superior sustained combat stats post buff they're behind on the charge and notably vulnerable to sources of shock damage. It's a notable loss of defensive for the Bleakswords and for a unit of the same price adding power to their offense feels appropriate. I suppose you could quibble about the AP ratio a bit if you so desired but given how meh Bleaksword stats are there aren't many targets they can reasonably tangle with where armor is high enough to make a difference.
@yst Frenzy got a (minor) buff this patch and Nehek got a BvI I believe (not much of a tomb kings player I'm afraid). I'd also argue that Pilgrims and Flaggelants were pretty decent as they were for the damage dealer role. One just has better combat stats with frenzy active (1 less WS and a slightly lower AP split isn't sinking the unit) and the other is unbreakable. It'd be interesting to run a test but my money would be on the humans for winning that fight (how cost effectively is another issue).
Red Crests I wouldn't say are useless, but they're a cheap mostly AP unit. Those have traditionally been balance issue since they ride a thin line between "cost efficient only when hitting the ideal target" and "trading up into things they shouldn't". The last change (a price cut I believe?) seemed to have put them into a mediocre state, though armored infantry is a unit category that lizardmen have an abundance of tools to deal with. Put the unit on another roster and I suspect you'd see them picked up more.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agreewas an extremely bad matchup for DE
They had a really hard time dealing with GS cheap high hp fighters once waagh triggered.
So DE needed help in that matchup. It would be interesting to revisit it in game 3
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2Agree