# Daemonettes vs Bloodletters



## Silens (Dec 26, 2010)

Which are better, Daemonettes or Bloodletters? Looking at it, it seems to be Bloodletters but Daemonettes always seem to be talked about as better.

Bloodletters - vs - Daemonettes

Movement 5 vs 6 
WS 5 vs 5
BS 0 vs 0
Strength 5 vs 3
Toughness 3 vs 3
Wounds 1 vs 1
Initiative 3 vs 5 (Always strike First rule)
Attacks 1 vs 2 
Leadership 7 vs 7

Okay, it seems pretty even until Initiative and attacks. Both of the following presume that the unit is at full strength when they get to attack.

Bloodletters, in the first round of combat, get to re-roll all their misses so against Daemonettes would get 2/3 hits - We'll use a squad size of 30 (all in a single rank, even though that wouldn't happen)) as an example. 

Bloodletters hit 20 attacks and then wound on about 17 of these.
Daemonettes save 1/3 so they lose 12 models.

Daemonettes always strike first and have double the attacks. So they get 60 attacks. They miss 2/3 of these so hit 20 attacks, just like the Bloodletters, however they need 4+ to hit, so wound 10 models. Blood letters save 3 of these and lose 7.


In the first round of combat, Bloodletters have a clear win and often combat is over and done with in the first round, but if it needs to go onto a second round then Bloodletters only just fall short at killing 6 models, instead of 12, which is only 1 less than the Daemonettes' 7. 

Bloodletters have Strength 5, so that's -2 to any armour save and Daemonettes have armour piercing, so that's -1 to any armour saves. 

The only time I see Daemonettes being useful is when you're up against high initiative units.

So why does everybody keep saying that Daemonettes are amazing and incredible, but I've not heard anybody putting forward Bloodletters?


----------



## Ratvan (Jun 20, 2011)

I take this is fantasy? 

Bloodletters are more a viable choice in a horde formation as you are not losing any attacks from the rear ranks.

Daemonettes function best as a smaller unit and excell in wiping out, dicing up lightly armoured troops (empire state troops, skaven, goblins etc) plus always strike first you re roll your misses in combat (not just first turn like the 'letters)

Also the fact they are faster means you have more chance at getting you ladythings into a flank/rear charge where they will take less wounds from the unit you're fighting as no support attacks.

Thats what I can see at first glance


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

You messed up. Why are Bloodletters hitting 2/3 of the time and the daemonettes missing 2/3 of the time WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAME WS and are both re-rolling misses? Plus in your scenario every bloodletter killed by a daemonette does not get to attack, due to the higher initiative of the daemonette. Besides, ASF and hatred are the effects of having a herald attached, are they not?

That being said, which daemon is better depends on your play style and what opponents you normally face. MathHammer can only do so much.


----------



## ChaosDefilerofUlthuan (Jan 25, 2011)

Ratvan said:


> I take this is fantasy?
> 
> Bloodletters are more a viable choice in a horde formation as you are not losing any attacks from the rear ranks.
> 
> ...


 My stance exaxtly


----------



## ChaosDefilerofUlthuan (Jan 25, 2011)

Using same scenario bloodletters lose around 15 men then take out about 7 meaning a definate daemonette win but against warriors of both chaos & the dwarves because instead of saving 1/3 in the case of the daemonettes they kill 5/6's of the enemy


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I much prefer daemonettes... but thats mostly because of their banners and character upgrades, which I think give you much greater versatility on the tabletop.

Damage:

4*10 hoard vs Elves (T3 5+ WS4)
- Bloodletters kill ~22 (17 after first turn)
- Daemonettes kill ~15

4*5 unit vs Elves
- Bloodletters kill ~7 (6)
- Daemonettes kill ~6

4*10 hoard vs WoC (T4 3+/6++ WS5)
- Bloodletters kill ~8 (6)
- Daemonettes kill ~4

4*5 unit vs WoC
- Bloodletters kill ~4 (3)
- Daemonettes kill ~2

So on the surface bloodletters are far far better at actually killing stuff... which isn't that surprising, but why I think daemonettes are far better is for things like siren song and siren standard, both of which are utterly fantastic. Siren standard must be one of the most powerful banners in the game.
Daemonettes close with the enemy more quickly, can give the choice of flee from the table or charging a superior unit (if you use Siren Song well) and can charge into large missile weapon units without getting wiped out by stand and shoot...

Additionally to that we have magic. Get a lore of beasts mage near daemonettes and you are laughing: S4 T4 daemonettes with S5 T4 heralds (or potentially S7-8 T6-7 heralds) turns a daemonette unit into a devastating unit. Additionally combining the masque, the great icon of despair and acquiescence is almost gamebreaking: you can make an enemy -5Ld and stupid and then when you do get into combat most enemies will fear you and be unable to strike your characters.

On the other hand bloodletters kill stuff when they get there... but they are slower, and will almost never hear any charge reaction other then "flee" because who is going to stick around and face a unit this killy. Its not even like they are hard to kill... last time I played a mono-khorne daemon army with my WE 3 units of glade guard and some jammy tree singing (he thought a 3++ would save him...)saw me rape 1 unit of 40 bloodletters and start on the 2nd (which got destroyed by a treeman ancient stranglerooting and rear charging along with some dryads in a front charge).
- Bloodletters kill stuff... but they can't do anything else and can't really pull any tricks to help them get into combat (+D6" once per game is pretty ignorable). End result is that if route 1 doesn't work then they're buggered...


----------



## effigy22 (Jun 29, 2008)

You have failed to note that bloodletters also have killing blow. They are also I4 not 3.

All the different daemons have different roles, I still firmly believe the daemon book is one of the most versatile armies pit there in WFB. It lacks shooting but it does all other aspects of the game superbly.


----------



## KarnalBloodfist (Jan 30, 2010)

I think both are great. But both have completely different rolls.

Bloodletters are meant to take on high T4+, heavily armored foes. Their S5 and _Killing Blow_ makes short work of heavily armored cav and infantry.

Daemonettes on the other had will have a harder time w/ the above mentioned units but really shine when it comes to T3 and lower, lightly armored troops (as mentioned previously in the thread).

I think where the ladies really shine, though, is at controlling the movement phase of the game. Use your herald of Slaanesh in the daemonette unit to Siren Song in the opposition. Hopefully you it will cause one unit to cut off another and expose a flank all at the same time. Use that exposed flank to run in your bloodletters and you're all set for some bloody dismemberment!


----------

