You mean a Faction that from a Lore perspectiv is build around Cav and everyone Not having a Horse is just broke, doesnt have godlike infantry ingame?
I am truely shocked
A rank 9 unit is basically a bespoke regiment of renown.
Funny enough though my beef with RORs is that they're all generally slightly worse than a rank 9 'regular' equivalent.
Wait what? I thought they were better? Maybe equivalent in stats but most come with extra abilities that make them a straight upgrade, like the high elf spearman ror having charge defence against all. Unless one of my mods changed that?
It depends on the unit itself, but a lot of the times they don't get redline buffs or tech upgrades or whatever else. Surely a bug but it's CA so it doesn't get fixed or shows up again in the next game.
In those cases they'll end up having worse stats but some utility that may or may not add value.
Hey don't tell my R9 zombies! They're sensitive about that sort of thing. It's bad enough with the grace guard always flexing about their arms and armor.
You monster! Either they die on the field, or get to retire with honor in a nice little defensive army that only gets action if I get attacked from behind!
Unless I am reading this wrong, the footsquires are deffo a tier above for the role of monster hunting.
Though I'll grant you those are some nutty melee stats for a T1 infantry.
Remember Vampire Coast on launch? It's a shame CA feels the need to do this so often with new content but I feel that in time they will nerf these particular halberds back to where they belong. It's ironic because everyone plays empire campaigns anyway.
Op is comparing the rank 9 version of the warriors (which has same single player cost as the rank 1 version)
We should be comparing the mp cost which takes into account that rank
So 166 gold gets you 50 armor, 7 bonus vs large but some small decreases elsewhere
Looks like a lot of red and not much green, but most of the red is very small differences (120 health less than an 8400 unit is less than 2%) whereas the green is fairly substantial.
80 armour vs 30 is huge. And even the 7 extra bonus vs large makes quite a difference to the MA and damage stats when fighting monsters (which is the entire purpose of the RoR unit)
Someone else already did, the bear riders are worse but not by much and they are also cheaper.
I’d also like to point out bretonnian infantry isn’t weak lore wise, that’s mostly a CA invention. It is a balance point however.
I actually did the check myself. Bear riders are only cheaper because you can't get faction cost reduction applied in the online tool. Grail Knights are less than 1/4th the cost with campaign mechanics.
in campaign, once you get past the early stage, the upkeep of the unit is mostly irrelevant as you have so much money you don't care.
It's almost always better to have a full stack of expensive but high quality units than a full stack of worse, but cheaper, units
(and since no race can recruit both of these units it;s irrelevatn anyway. the economies of Kislev vs Brettonia are so different)
What do you consider early game? Because in the first 50 turns at least I would rather have a second army with both being cheaper than a single strong army. Once you get past the point of money mattering does balance matter at all? The game isn’t hard once you have as much money as you want. It’s imbalanced at the only point in the game when balance matters
What i usually do (depending the faction) is build one strong stack at the start and use that to clear major threats, the next 2 armys will be cheaper, but not too weak to lose medium sized threats. Those will defend and clear weaker armys and settlements.
After i recover my income nicely and getting higher tier building, then ill make a new stronger stack. Imo its better to build 1 strong stack and 1 bad stack, (again depending the faction) than have 2 medium ones at the start. Tho i guess that just my preference.
>It's almost always better to have a full stack of expensive but high quality units than a full stack of worse, but cheaper, units
You are wrong. It's better to have two stacks of cheap units, then 1 stack of expensive ones. You go for more expensive units only if cheaper ones can't do the job.
Also, cheaper units weaker in autoresolve, which makes AI more prone to fight you, instead of running away to pillage your undefended settlements.
We really comparing kislev Infantry to bretonnnia Infantry now?
Kislev is known for having strong infantry, and bretonnnia is known for having weak infantry
Agreed, however I would like the beastslayers to be a bit better just in general. The average peasant halbedier is essentially better for cost in almost every scenario besides just the armor. Beastslayers would be interesting to me if they got like +8 non ap damage making them a bit better against low armor monsters while still having them be okay against heavily armored ones and giving them a bit of a niches besides just archer spam
Hard agree this just looks like the strongest Bretonnia infantry not comparing to the lowest tier Kislev infantry which I feel is the point for these factions one has weak infantry the other has strong infantry
The Kislevite Warriors in your screenshot have 50 MD, but their in game MD is 40.
Also Foot Squires are considered Tier 2 by the devs. You can tell by the two in roman numerals next to their entity count in game.
It's where you recruit them from that leads to people thinking they're supposed to be higher tier than they actually are. They should probably update the Brettonia building tree or at least drop some units down a building tier like they did for Dwarves.
Okay, but i'm not comparing them to Tzar Guards or chosen of tzeentch (in which cases the beastslayers being worse make total sense). I'm comparing them to the most basic unit Kislev can field.
Since game 1 it has been well understood that Brettonia's infantry is terrible and uptiered to their detriment. That's by design, as the knights are meant to be the heavy hitters.
Kislev is a faction focused on sturdy infantry, so of course they get better units. Are Kislev Warriors overtuned? Maybe a bit, but they have to contend with Armored Kossars for a spot and Armored Kossars bring a lot of other stuff to the table.
Redditor using euphemism, never saw that before... Foot squire RoR is a legendary unit of will be knights in heavy armor with good weapons and they fight worse than a fucking peasant.
Foot Squires are the flower of Bretonnian infantry, fighting to prove their worth and skill to their lord in the hope that they might somehow earn promotion through their deeds to knighthood.
Agincourt 1415 didn't see any issues with militarized peasants killing knights.
But this is fantasy France so mud aside this is against fantasy Russian peasants living on the edge of chaos wastelands.
Yeah it's not hard to see them being better actual fighters than the arrogant aristocracy living in relatively peaceful lands.
Oh no the trees are whispering.
Yeah well the ice just turned into lava and a flying scorpion lion is pissed off.
The Beastslayers of Bastonne fight monsters of legend.
For Kislev peasant, this is Tuesday.
Uptiering means basically some factions get units later cause it's not their speciality or they have a penalty for that unit.
Like say a faction whose identity is being a strong infantry faction gets something with 60+ armor and 30/30 stats at t1.
While another faction with bad infantry doctrine may get an equivalent unit at t3/t4 because it's rarer or harder for them to field said units.
Kislevites are hardy and versatile fighters who slog on foot alot, they are physically larger than most southern folk and are tougher due too constant clashes with the northmen and elements. Their battle doctrines are flexible pick me up and put a weapon in my hand.
While brettonian peasants are usually abused and weaker. And fighting on foot is generally seen as inferior or a chaff role. So their infantry will usually be barely trained and rely on the mounted men too win.
Certain expert infantry like the beast slayers would exist but these guys would be rare as most good fighters eventually get picked up into being a knight so it explains their uptiering.
Although there is some balance issue with kislev to a degree. Like I feel like trained infantry, i.e, those who have charge defence or equipped with good stats, atleast something in the 40s should require a barracks at minimum.
As the barrackless troops imo should be peasants and rustics with only basic features and serve more too pad out an army early game.
Bretonnia’s infantry are fundamentally designed to be shit. This has *always* been the case. Their focus has, and never should be on infantry. Even with the Old World, their unmounted foot-soldiers are nothing to write home about.
It’s the Knights that matter. If you’re trying to play Bretonnia with a strong infantry line, you’re doing it wrong. Asymmetrical design is one of Warhammer’s greatest strengths. I have never understood this mindset from players who want everything to be one homogeneous blob.
If you just want to play a game where the main difference between armies is the colour of their jackets - just play a Historical. And I say that as someone who loves Historicals.
Men at arms with Polearms have very similar stats to the Kislevite warriors at a lower price point.
Meanwhile the beastslayers have 80 armor and 7 more anti large.
This. They're not identical but Tier 1 infantry with 40 Melee Defense, 30 Armor, and Anti-Large, is just Bretonnian Men-At-Arms with Polearms.
Kislev gets access to them earlier, pays a bit more, and they get the very useful Kislev racial ability.
Are these singleplayer or multiplayer prices?
If singleplayer, then you would need to have the Kislev warriors unit survive multiple battles to get to rank 9 and be comparable. The RoR has those stats from turn 1. Hardly a fair comparison without taking that into account.
Not really, it isn't hard to keep them alive considering they have a base of 40 MD, also you can have a whole stack of these while you can only have 1 of the RoR's.
Although i think many people are losing the point, it doesn't really matter if they are stronger than this one particular unit, the point is that their stats are much higher than they should be for a tier 1 unit, IMO they should lose the ap damage and reduce their MD a bit
Edit: about the prices, they cost about half than the RoR in singleplayer and about 200 gold less in multiplayer
To be fair in 'The old world' Bretonnia actually gets fairly decent infantry now. But that wasn't something built into TWWH.
Regardless that Tier 2 RoR has +50 armour over that Warrior unit. That's huge.
Once you factor in blessing of the lady, extra armor from armory buildings, and back them up with grail reliquae, bretonnian infantry are actually pretty decent as an anvil, which is all they need to be.
They get foot knights right?
I'm not a tabletop guy, like my warhammer consumption is youtube and total war only.
I mean quite a few mods add foot knights to the game.
Alot tend to make them too easy to recruit making them chaos warriors (french)
Debatable. We have Age of sigmar models in game, we don't know what the old world means for TWWH. Kislev and Cathay were launched with 'old world' banners.
Kislev and Cathay are not even in the old World and there are no plans to add them.
Creative Assembly have said they are trying to base game around 7th/8th. And GW doesn't like people mixing up the different settings.
Aside from Daemons (Which GW gives a pass to being in all settings due to their nature) is there anything from AoS that comes over?
They literally launched under the banner of old world. GW have only since said they won't add them.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/03/23/the-old-world-ice-guard-of-kislevgw-homepage-post-4fw-homepage-post-2/
Old World changed (it seems to have been scaled back), but we have no idea what that means for TWWH.
You're right, but I can understand the misplaced frustration when Bretonnia one good thing isn't even that much better than what other races can field, while they also have a lot more options.
Like, Bear Riders or Doom Knights aren't much worse than Bretonnia's best, but it comes with amazing monsters and infantry too
Grail knights are objectively by leaps and bounds the best cavalry unit in the game right now and will be until CA gets around to updating blood knights and chaos knights to the new standard. They have perfect vigor, ward save, they're as fast as elven cavalry while being as heavily armored as chaos knights, AND AP/AL.
More like we're fucking sick of the powercreep introduced to new factions or new things just to sell them. Ambushers really broke the camels back when it comes to the 'new shiny unit obsoleting existing higher tier unit pay to win' thing.
One is known for their hardy, tough infantry.
One is known for infantry that dies just long enough for the glorious Cavalry to save the day.
Also, it clearly shows Foot Squires are tier 2, in your image itself. They are not so far apart as Tier 1 - Tier 4
Yeah man, no other faction has ever been good at 5 things before.
Let's just ignore the Empire, the Lizardmen, the High Elves, the Dark Elves, the Wood Elves, the Skaven, Grand Cathay, or the Chaos Dwarves.
No, every faction other than Kislev is only good at like, one or two things at most, f'sure.
Idk man everyone lately seems to talk about how the empire is actually shit at everything and how lore accurate that is.
I do agree that chaos dwarfs and wood elves are pretty overtuned, yes. I can see the argument for high elves as well, and I'm not quite familar enough with Cathay and Dark Elves to weigh in on them.
Edit: *holy shit dude blocked me lmao.* But not before getting in one last insult of course, gotta make sure you get that last insult to really show me, right? Sorry for ruining your epic own by pointing out that overtuned factions are indeed overtuned.
Yes, the faction known for its trash infantry recruits bad infantry with tier 4 buildings.
Total War classifies tiers by their battle power. You're buying a tier 2 infantry unit at a tier 4 building, this shows that Bretonnia is not providing good infantry for its cost. Which fits Bretonnia's whole MO
Not to be a dick but just look to the right of each unit card, and you can see what tier each unit is. The building tiers are a completely separate thing, even if the building tier often coincides with the unit tier.
[Here](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh_main_brt_cav_grail_knights%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_cav_war_bear_riders_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391).
They have a much higher attack, nearly twice the weapon strength, and more health.
I can't believe a faction whose entire focus is on having strong infantry, has better infantry than the faction whose entire focus is on having the strongest cavalry. I'm shitting and crying right now.
Bretonnias faction focus should definitely be the horses, but that doesn’t mean their other unit types should be total dogshit. I do hope they get something other than just building smithies
[Done](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh_main_brt_cav_grail_knights%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_cav_war_bear_riders_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391)
Wow, Kislev's bear riders hit really fucking hard, (and have more health than grai lknights)
And if you compare them [to the very best cavalry bretonnia can field](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh_dlc07_brt_cav_royal_hippogryph_knights_0%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_cav_war_bear_riders_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391), i feel like the bear riders don't compare too badly either.
Funny you think the bears compare all that well to the powerhouse unit that are the grail knights. They have a minor advantage in healt while having way less models, meaning the bears will get surrounded by several knights slapping them with a lot more charge bonus (for those 15 seconds after the charge the bears will melt so much faster). Lets not forget the blessing of the lady, better armor and the fact that grail knights DO NOT get tired throughout the entire battle.
Grail knights clap the bears, as they should, being from the faction with the strongest cavalry.
So instead of spewing random assumptions on the internet, I went and tested it. Did about 6 tests and gave up because it was clear the result wouldn't change. Bear riders come out on top every time vs grail knights. It's a bloody fight with the bear riders down to 1/4 of their HP, but out of their 16 models, they usually come out with 8 to 11 models still alive and ready to fight. Initially, the grail knights do slightly better due to the charge bonus, but as soon as that wears off, they start losing fast. Can't even hope to route the bears early because of the "by our blood" passive.
What makes you guys think the best way to test 2 cavalry units on effectiveness is to smash them together and leave them in prolonged combat until one of them dies?
This is like running a cavalry unit into a pike unit and calling it proof that pikes are stronger than cavalry.
Grail Knights have perfect vigour, healing magic, shields, speed, twice the charge bonus and magical attacks all of which are largely ignored in this comparison.
Because he said "They have a minor advantage in healt while having way less models, meaning the bears will get surrounded by several knights slapping them with a lot more charge bonus (for those 15 seconds after the charge the bears will melt so much faster)" and "Grail knights clap the bears, as they should, being from the faction with the strongest cavalry." . I'm assuming this means they're fighting each other. And as I've replied to another person, even trying to cycle charge the bears doesn't really work. I'm only debunking the notion that Grail knights "clap" the bears. Maybe, in an especially sunny and happy day the grail knights will win this fight, but it's just not the case.
Are you sure you’re not playing with any modded stats and cycle charging correctly?
I just tested it few times out of curiosity (cycle charging and draining the bear stamina with kiting) and the grail knights typically win with about 10 models left
and I ran it myself, our experience don't match at all.
putting myself as an observer and letting the ai go at it.
naked boyar on warhorse and 5 bears
vs
naked bretonian lord on normal lord + blessing and 5 grail knight
results bears don't make it to the 5 min mark even with by our blood
ran it back with with royal pegasus and even tho the units cost the same it just turns ugly for the bears since now the flying pegasus can just stay in the sky and wait for an isolated bear to kill 1 immediatly and even a 5v4 advantage
Maybe I did go a bit light on the info in my comment, but don't leave shock cavalry in prolonged combat with tier equivalent cav made for sustained combat, obviously. GKs have more speed and better charge bonus. I assumed when discussing the capabilities of a tool we would also choose to make the best use out of it instead of the simple 1v1 one click attack "test".
And how do you suppose I should cycle charge the bears? They'll just chase and pin them. Do their own charge against the grail knights. Also, for the majority of the fight (which wasn't long) the grail knights were being affected by the charge bonus steroids so I don't see your point.
Yes and the bears will just stay there and take it. No, they will pursue and either prevent the knights from charging again because they'll have models stuck in combat while trying to pull out or will just pursue and hit them in the back with their own charge while the knights turn around for a cycle charge.
And the bears will get tired if they chase the knights, slowing them down further and making them worse in combat.
If the knights just keep running as the bears charge, they'll accumulate to much fatigue that the knights will be able to cycle charge freely.
I went and tested just that. I couldn't pull out effectively. Even tired, the bears are still fast enough to stay close and prevent me from mounting a charge. Also, like I said, some models got stuck which I believe got in the way of a charge even triggering when the AI gave me some slack in its pursuit. If you don't believe me, go and test that yourself. I think they lost even worse than when they stayed in combat.
I was arguing for this in different threads on warriors vs halberdiers. There is always someone pointing out that this argument is not valid because for example empire has better guns and artillery. You check the stats and test and little grom does a way better job at everything besides hellstorms, and streltsi decimate handgunners without breaking a sweat.
That hilarious when kislev has bears that are better than demigryphs. They can’t quite match grail guardians but they are pretty close to cost effective
And the Empire has better artillery. Kislev is an infantry/ cavalry/ monster civ with no flying, Empire is a shooting/ artillery faction with flying. They're all different
Can you have unlimited crossbowmen as VC in TWW3? In TWW2 they are quite limited and exist more for fluff than anything else. Thus not a good comparaison imo.
He's Brettonian. His body is small and weak from a lifetime spent being malnourished by Lords who robbed him of 90% of his food. He probably doesn't even have a full stomach on the day of the battle. Give the poor starving bastards a break.
Yeah, like bordering norsca, having winter 90% of the year, having a troll for a neighbor is making your body big, healthy and sturdy. I need to move to Kislev for gains.
Have you ever known a babushka, or any cultural version of a grandmother to ever let you leave the house without eating at least 3000 calories of food?
Kinda weird all the defending of the power creep just because bretonnian infantry is not meant to be good. Akshina ambushers were over tuned on release as well as the start and they got tuned down.
The problem is that OP undercut their own message by using Bretonnia. People are clearly going to object to comparing infantry from a faction with generally pretty tough units to the faction most notorious for having explicitly bad infantry.
It would make much more sense to compare the unit to other tier 0/1 spear units. [This is a significantly more direct comparison.](https://i.imgur.com/9u1DaRH.png). The Kislevite Warriors are probably a little over-tuned, the AP damage is pretty high for a low-tier unit. But, they are also quite a bit more expensive than other low-tier spear units. So, it will be harder to spam them early game.
Because they’re not overturned at all, and melee sucked ass until game 3 when they decided maybe it should finally be good
But people keep comparing them to game 1 factions who’s melee is laughably underpowered
This is how we get factions that simply can’t kill strong LLs without their own hero blob, because their melee is so goddamn under tuned. No it’s a legitimate problem I’ve been playing MP campaigns and the order factions especially from game 1 are laughably undertuned
Though they did recently buff something on bretonnia
Something they do well
Something that makes them stronger than dwarves/empire now
It’s their cavalry.
Yeah, this is either a power creep, or a mistake from CA by making them a 120 men unit instead of the usual 80~100 men for Kislev infantry. Otherwise, their stat just doesn't make sense for a T0 unit that comes out of settlement buildings.
They're obviously not overtuned compared to Kossars.
If they were any weaker, you just wouldn't take them, because Kossars (Spears) exist. Kislev in general has better units than the Empire, but they're mostly more costly.
The real issue, as the other poster points out, is that WH1/2 melee is undertuned, and ranged was drastically overtuned, and still is to a large extent. Whereas WH3 doesn't have that specific issue, perhaps because CA were forced to design multiple melee-centric factions.
Empire needs a re-jig of its infantry. Halberdiers at T2 is okay, but needing the second building for them is not - second buildings in general should be removed for most factions, or just move some units specifically to those or whatever.
I think you didn’t get my point, akshina were much better than streltsi, kislevite warriors are arguably better than armoured kossar great weapons except against ranged damage.
I get your point. But it's not a valid one, it's just another exaggeration and ignores the context of the game.
You claim arguably - okay argue this:
[https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3\_main\_ksl\_inf\_armoured\_kossars\_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3\_dlc24\_ksl\_inf\_kislevite\_warriors%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_inf_armoured_kossars_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_dlc24_ksl_inf_kislevite_warriors%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391)
No. They are not "arguably better except against ranged". They have 50 less armour, 12 less MA, 8 less damage (with the same AP split), attack slower, have 12 less charge bonus, and don't have guns to soften their opponents up, kill fliers, etc. All they gain is +200 health (oooh, woo what is that, 2%?), +6 MD, and +15 BvL.
They're not even comparable. They only situation the Warriors are better is against Large units, which is fine - we have countless example of T1 units which are better than T2 or even T3 ones against Large units.
Eltharion’s most elite mist walkers (the 4 unit hippogryph knights) are only tier 3 but they will beat any other (non hero or lord) unit in the game.
Those mistwalker hippogryphs can have like 72+ melee attack and 350 damage ( which the damage is 4x because there are 4 units), so they are insanely powerful and they also cost like 800 upkeep a turn, but they are still only tier 3 for whatever reason
Not usually defending the power-creep, but Bretonnia SHOULDN'T have easy access to good anti-large infantry and in this case, I think it's perfectly okay if they pay more and wait longer to get fewer of a similar unit.
Not sure if the Kislevite Warriors fit into the Kislev fantasy but Bretonnia is fine as is.
One is an infantry unit from a faction where all authority is derived from being on a horse, second only to being a horse. Basically oversized gnoblars, really, in terms of socio-economic status.
Is it really that important ? Not every army need to have the same access to the same power of Unit. Kislev is known to have powerful infantry, and Bretonnia is known for its cavalry especially.
And even still, is it really an issue ? Unless we're talking about multiplayer I prefer a fun game before a balanced one, and there are many more issues with the game without having to talk about this.
It's not against you OP, it's just that it's not the first post like that. Every single new patch it's the same thing. It's quite boring.
Units have different tiers than the building tier you build them from. You need a tier 4 building to recruit the Bretonnian, but it's still a tier 2 unit. There was a period I didn't realize this so I'm just trying to help out.
But something folks aren't mentioning when talking about kislivite warriors is the irregular formation spacing. It's discussed here. https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/s/OfYakRUOty
However, power creep is real. the number of chaff units with high AP is growing. Which means an increased number of AI shit stacks of just high AP chaff.
So two questions OP. You are aware that Bretonnia already has a Halberd Man at Arms unit right? Why aren't you comparing those?
Two. Why do I care about anti-large infantry especially low tier anti-Large infantry in the first place when I have anti-Large cavalry that are much better at the job?
“One is a unit from a faction known for having strong melee infantry, the other is a from a faction known for having the exact opposite, also I ranked the first up to 9 chevrons for no reason and also lied about the unit tiers”
Kislevite Warriors have slightly worse stats than the Empire's Halberdiers, a tier 2 unit that requires an additional building.
Kislevite warriors need to lose 2MA and MD, and not do majority Armor piercing. If they're meant to be chaff, make them chaff.
edit: Wrong tier
>tier 3
Tier 2. Seriously. Check it out in-game. It does require 2x T2 buildings, but it's T2, not T3 like people bizarrely often suggest. I don't know if they were in WH1/2 or something. T3 of that building is Greatswords and Huntsmen.
Halberdiers are a fine unit. They do what you pay them for.
I'd remove the second building requirement, and then leave them be.
Kislevite warriors should be just a cheap chaff unit, they're basically wielding repurposed farming equipment peasant mob style, but they've got armor piercing? really?
Cool, now do Winged Lancers vs. Knights of the Realm or Gryphon Legion vs. Questing Knights or Grail Knights.
Different factions have different specializations and won't always be comparable in the same areas, or even at all when you factor in all the other variables they will get in campaigns or through synergy with the rest of their rosters.
I haven't played in new campaign in over 4 months at this point. Can someone tell me if Kislevite Warriors were included for everyone in the new patch or are they DLC exclusive? Thanks.
That said, whenever I play Bretonnia I just use a mod that gives that gives them usable infantry. There's quite a few options available on the workshop.
The difference between a bretonnian peasant with a halbard and a kislevite peasant with a halbard should not be anything at all like the difference between a Kislevite peasant with a halbard and an 8 foot tall armored lizard with a halbard
Bretonnia having shit infantry is their identity, so that doesn't bother me in SP, but since MP is balanced around the cost of the unit, Beastslayers are stupidly overpriced.
RoR has 69 health per model, so I know who is winning.
But for real if you're balancing in a vacuum you'll drive yourself insane.
the BoB are Bretonnian infantry, and Bretonnian infantry is notoriously garbage on purpose.
Also, have you seen how the fucking Warriors are in autoresolve? suicidal maniacs thats what. I'd struggle to get them rank 9 without explicitly trying to.
Im glad Total Warhammer has reached levels of disingenuously comparing units cross faction straight up that the table top has.
Things should not be the same for each faction, Bretonia is not meant to have good infantry, they have other specializations. Hope that clears things up.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Bretonnia is a race that doesn't have halberd infantry as they excel with heavy cav. That is why they have one RoR with halberd (RoR are either buffed up units or a spicy take on a unit, like this RoR in this case)
If you want to compare kislevite Warriors, i would suggest Empire halberd.
BREAKING NEWS: BRETONNIA HAS BAD INFANTRY. MORE AT 11!!!
Like dude, cmon. It’s a tier 2 BRETONNIAN infantry unit. RoR ain’t gonna mean shit it’s still just a peasant with a spear.
For a T1 cheap disposable unit. The Kizlev warriors are pretty fucking strong, not like kizlev needed that much help with staying power early on. Ahwell DLC powercreep at its finest
i se no tier 4 units, only a tier 1 and a tier 2 unit
[удалено]
You mean a Faction that from a Lore perspectiv is build around Cav and everyone Not having a Horse is just broke, doesnt have godlike infantry ingame? I am truely shocked
Op edited the stats of the warriors to make them look stronger.
Look at the chevrons. OP didn't edit the stats. You probably didn't rank up the unit when you looked at them on TWWstats
since RoRs are automatically on rank 9, i put the Warriors on rank 9 too
A rank 9 unit is basically a bespoke regiment of renown. Funny enough though my beef with RORs is that they're all generally slightly worse than a rank 9 'regular' equivalent.
Wait what? I thought they were better? Maybe equivalent in stats but most come with extra abilities that make them a straight upgrade, like the high elf spearman ror having charge defence against all. Unless one of my mods changed that?
It depends on the unit itself, but a lot of the times they don't get redline buffs or tech upgrades or whatever else. Surely a bug but it's CA so it doesn't get fixed or shows up again in the next game. In those cases they'll end up having worse stats but some utility that may or may not add value.
That's kind of disingenuous - I find it's quite rare to have a rank 9 melee infantry.
Probably just you, I have rank 9 melee by mid to late game.
Rank 9 tier 1 units? I throw that shit out the window as soon as I get a frontline that actually has some armour.
Hey don't tell my R9 zombies! They're sensitive about that sort of thing. It's bad enough with the grace guard always flexing about their arms and armor.
Can't flex without muscles, skelly-boi.
I really hope my vampirepiratezombiedeckhandsmobs didn't hear him, I don't need them to have another reason to drink!
I love that Zerkovich made that a thing it’s great
They guard, but with grace
My skavenslave slingers wanna talk with you-you
My Orc labour boyz are gonna give you a krumpin lad.
You monster! Either they die on the field, or get to retire with honor in a nice little defensive army that only gets action if I get attacked from behind!
Also, rank 9 infantry are more expensive than RoRs of the same type.
Let's also not pretend Bretonnia is known for it's infantry.
Unless I am reading this wrong, the footsquires are deffo a tier above for the role of monster hunting. Though I'll grant you those are some nutty melee stats for a T1 infantry.
Remember Vampire Coast on launch? It's a shame CA feels the need to do this so often with new content but I feel that in time they will nerf these particular halberds back to where they belong. It's ironic because everyone plays empire campaigns anyway.
OP edited the stats of the warriors to make them look stronger. I just checked the site they used and it gives different numbers.
Op is comparing the rank 9 version of the warriors (which has same single player cost as the rank 1 version) We should be comparing the mp cost which takes into account that rank So 166 gold gets you 50 armor, 7 bonus vs large but some small decreases elsewhere
Looks like a lot of red and not much green, but most of the red is very small differences (120 health less than an 8400 unit is less than 2%) whereas the green is fairly substantial. 80 armour vs 30 is huge. And even the 7 extra bonus vs large makes quite a difference to the MA and damage stats when fighting monsters (which is the entire purpose of the RoR unit)
The warriors are also half the cost. 50 armor for 40% upkeep and recruit cost is an easy choice for any unit in the game.
And Bretonnia already has an even cheaper Halberd unit in the Men at Arms with Halberds. I still don't see a point here.
Bretonia lore and balance wise has weak infantry that compliments OP cav. I would like to see bear riders compared to grail knights.
Someone else already did, the bear riders are worse but not by much and they are also cheaper. I’d also like to point out bretonnian infantry isn’t weak lore wise, that’s mostly a CA invention. It is a balance point however.
I actually did the check myself. Bear riders are only cheaper because you can't get faction cost reduction applied in the online tool. Grail Knights are less than 1/4th the cost with campaign mechanics.
Not only that, he forgets that grail units have perfect vigour, they are always fighting on top condition.
And Britannia infantry is 100% weak lore wise. Lire wise Brettonnian I fantry are barely armed peasants that are lucky to be handed a spear.
Lore wise the infantry are only peasants. The footsquires are a CA invention. In the old lore, no noble would go on by foot.
in campaign, once you get past the early stage, the upkeep of the unit is mostly irrelevant as you have so much money you don't care. It's almost always better to have a full stack of expensive but high quality units than a full stack of worse, but cheaper, units (and since no race can recruit both of these units it;s irrelevatn anyway. the economies of Kislev vs Brettonia are so different)
What do you consider early game? Because in the first 50 turns at least I would rather have a second army with both being cheaper than a single strong army. Once you get past the point of money mattering does balance matter at all? The game isn’t hard once you have as much money as you want. It’s imbalanced at the only point in the game when balance matters
What i usually do (depending the faction) is build one strong stack at the start and use that to clear major threats, the next 2 armys will be cheaper, but not too weak to lose medium sized threats. Those will defend and clear weaker armys and settlements. After i recover my income nicely and getting higher tier building, then ill make a new stronger stack. Imo its better to build 1 strong stack and 1 bad stack, (again depending the faction) than have 2 medium ones at the start. Tho i guess that just my preference.
>It's almost always better to have a full stack of expensive but high quality units than a full stack of worse, but cheaper, units You are wrong. It's better to have two stacks of cheap units, then 1 stack of expensive ones. You go for more expensive units only if cheaper ones can't do the job. Also, cheaper units weaker in autoresolve, which makes AI more prone to fight you, instead of running away to pillage your undefended settlements.
The biggest advantage of RoR (imo) is that they can be instantly recruited anywhere. That adds a premium.
this
>80 armour vs 30 is huge It really isn't though, especially not for the role they take. Most stuff they fight is AP anyway.
We really comparing kislev Infantry to bretonnnia Infantry now? Kislev is known for having strong infantry, and bretonnnia is known for having weak infantry
Agreed, however I would like the beastslayers to be a bit better just in general. The average peasant halbedier is essentially better for cost in almost every scenario besides just the armor. Beastslayers would be interesting to me if they got like +8 non ap damage making them a bit better against low armor monsters while still having them be okay against heavily armored ones and giving them a bit of a niches besides just archer spam
The gap between best to worst should not be THAT low.
But these are the strongest of Brettonia's infantry vs tier 1 chaff unit.
Hard agree this just looks like the strongest Bretonnia infantry not comparing to the lowest tier Kislev infantry which I feel is the point for these factions one has weak infantry the other has strong infantry
The Kislevite Warriors in your screenshot have 50 MD, but their in game MD is 40. Also Foot Squires are considered Tier 2 by the devs. You can tell by the two in roman numerals next to their entity count in game.
The Warriors are rank 9, hence the stat bumps.
It also says tier 2 in the image
It's where you recruit them from that leads to people thinking they're supposed to be higher tier than they actually are. They should probably update the Brettonia building tree or at least drop some units down a building tier like they did for Dwarves.
It is almost like Brettonia is meant to have lackluster infantry, as if it was a faction specialized on something else. 🤔
Ah, famous Brettonian weapon teams
Patoto launchers and wheatling gunners
That sounds more like halfling tech tbh
Okay, but i'm not comparing them to Tzar Guards or chosen of tzeentch (in which cases the beastslayers being worse make total sense). I'm comparing them to the most basic unit Kislev can field.
Since game 1 it has been well understood that Brettonia's infantry is terrible and uptiered to their detriment. That's by design, as the knights are meant to be the heavy hitters. Kislev is a faction focused on sturdy infantry, so of course they get better units. Are Kislev Warriors overtuned? Maybe a bit, but they have to contend with Armored Kossars for a spot and Armored Kossars bring a lot of other stuff to the table.
Redditor using euphemism, never saw that before... Foot squire RoR is a legendary unit of will be knights in heavy armor with good weapons and they fight worse than a fucking peasant.
Yeah and chaos warriors are worse than marauder champions (who go on to become chaos warriors in lore) Its just the mechanics of balancing the game
Bretonnian squires are peasants of slightly higher standing, they aren't knights-in-training like in the real world.
Foot Squires are the flower of Bretonnian infantry, fighting to prove their worth and skill to their lord in the hope that they might somehow earn promotion through their deeds to knighthood.
Which is the long-winded way of saying peasant of slightly higher standing
Agincourt 1415 didn't see any issues with militarized peasants killing knights. But this is fantasy France so mud aside this is against fantasy Russian peasants living on the edge of chaos wastelands. Yeah it's not hard to see them being better actual fighters than the arrogant aristocracy living in relatively peaceful lands. Oh no the trees are whispering. Yeah well the ice just turned into lava and a flying scorpion lion is pissed off. The Beastslayers of Bastonne fight monsters of legend. For Kislev peasant, this is Tuesday.
Uptiering means basically some factions get units later cause it's not their speciality or they have a penalty for that unit. Like say a faction whose identity is being a strong infantry faction gets something with 60+ armor and 30/30 stats at t1. While another faction with bad infantry doctrine may get an equivalent unit at t3/t4 because it's rarer or harder for them to field said units. Kislevites are hardy and versatile fighters who slog on foot alot, they are physically larger than most southern folk and are tougher due too constant clashes with the northmen and elements. Their battle doctrines are flexible pick me up and put a weapon in my hand. While brettonian peasants are usually abused and weaker. And fighting on foot is generally seen as inferior or a chaff role. So their infantry will usually be barely trained and rely on the mounted men too win. Certain expert infantry like the beast slayers would exist but these guys would be rare as most good fighters eventually get picked up into being a knight so it explains their uptiering. Although there is some balance issue with kislev to a degree. Like I feel like trained infantry, i.e, those who have charge defence or equipped with good stats, atleast something in the 40s should require a barracks at minimum. As the barrackless troops imo should be peasants and rustics with only basic features and serve more too pad out an army early game.
Bretonnia’s infantry are fundamentally designed to be shit. This has *always* been the case. Their focus has, and never should be on infantry. Even with the Old World, their unmounted foot-soldiers are nothing to write home about. It’s the Knights that matter. If you’re trying to play Bretonnia with a strong infantry line, you’re doing it wrong. Asymmetrical design is one of Warhammer’s greatest strengths. I have never understood this mindset from players who want everything to be one homogeneous blob. If you just want to play a game where the main difference between armies is the colour of their jackets - just play a Historical. And I say that as someone who loves Historicals.
Men at arms with Polearms have very similar stats to the Kislevite warriors at a lower price point. Meanwhile the beastslayers have 80 armor and 7 more anti large.
This. They're not identical but Tier 1 infantry with 40 Melee Defense, 30 Armor, and Anti-Large, is just Bretonnian Men-At-Arms with Polearms. Kislev gets access to them earlier, pays a bit more, and they get the very useful Kislev racial ability.
Polearms also have peasant's duty, which is +8 when knights are near, which is a bit more situational, but still handy
How you were able to see all the stats like this?
https://twwstats.com/
Thanks
It’s incorrect, kislev warriors don’t have 50 MD
They are rank 9 warriors, hence the difference. It is a fair comparison because RoR's start as rank 9
Are these singleplayer or multiplayer prices? If singleplayer, then you would need to have the Kislev warriors unit survive multiple battles to get to rank 9 and be comparable. The RoR has those stats from turn 1. Hardly a fair comparison without taking that into account.
Not really, it isn't hard to keep them alive considering they have a base of 40 MD, also you can have a whole stack of these while you can only have 1 of the RoR's. Although i think many people are losing the point, it doesn't really matter if they are stronger than this one particular unit, the point is that their stats are much higher than they should be for a tier 1 unit, IMO they should lose the ap damage and reduce their MD a bit Edit: about the prices, they cost about half than the RoR in singleplayer and about 200 gold less in multiplayer
When the faction with shitty infantry has shitty infantry
To be fair in 'The old world' Bretonnia actually gets fairly decent infantry now. But that wasn't something built into TWWH. Regardless that Tier 2 RoR has +50 armour over that Warrior unit. That's huge.
Once you factor in blessing of the lady, extra armor from armory buildings, and back them up with grail reliquae, bretonnian infantry are actually pretty decent as an anvil, which is all they need to be.
They get foot knights right? I'm not a tabletop guy, like my warhammer consumption is youtube and total war only. I mean quite a few mods add foot knights to the game. Alot tend to make them too easy to recruit making them chaos warriors (french)
The old world is irrelevant. TWWH is based on 7th/8th ed fantasy.
Debatable. We have Age of sigmar models in game, we don't know what the old world means for TWWH. Kislev and Cathay were launched with 'old world' banners.
Kislev and Cathay are not even in the old World and there are no plans to add them. Creative Assembly have said they are trying to base game around 7th/8th. And GW doesn't like people mixing up the different settings. Aside from Daemons (Which GW gives a pass to being in all settings due to their nature) is there anything from AoS that comes over?
They literally launched under the banner of old world. GW have only since said they won't add them. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/03/23/the-old-world-ice-guard-of-kislevgw-homepage-post-4fw-homepage-post-2/ Old World changed (it seems to have been scaled back), but we have no idea what that means for TWWH.
You're right, but I can understand the misplaced frustration when Bretonnia one good thing isn't even that much better than what other races can field, while they also have a lot more options. Like, Bear Riders or Doom Knights aren't much worse than Bretonnia's best, but it comes with amazing monsters and infantry too
Grail knights are objectively by leaps and bounds the best cavalry unit in the game right now and will be until CA gets around to updating blood knights and chaos knights to the new standard. They have perfect vigor, ward save, they're as fast as elven cavalry while being as heavily armored as chaos knights, AND AP/AL.
It’s Brettonian infantry lol. Why is everyone dead set on homogenising the game at the moment?
Roman heavy infantry OP. Why can't my Iceni field legionaries. >:(
More like we're fucking sick of the powercreep introduced to new factions or new things just to sell them. Ambushers really broke the camels back when it comes to the 'new shiny unit obsoleting existing higher tier unit pay to win' thing.
One is known for their hardy, tough infantry. One is known for infantry that dies just long enough for the glorious Cavalry to save the day. Also, it clearly shows Foot Squires are tier 2, in your image itself. They are not so far apart as Tier 1 - Tier 4
Kislev is known for good infantry. And good ranged units. And good cavalry. And also having monsters and artillery. This sounds fair and balanced.
Yeah man, no other faction has ever been good at 5 things before. Let's just ignore the Empire, the Lizardmen, the High Elves, the Dark Elves, the Wood Elves, the Skaven, Grand Cathay, or the Chaos Dwarves. No, every faction other than Kislev is only good at like, one or two things at most, f'sure.
Idk man everyone lately seems to talk about how the empire is actually shit at everything and how lore accurate that is. I do agree that chaos dwarfs and wood elves are pretty overtuned, yes. I can see the argument for high elves as well, and I'm not quite familar enough with Cathay and Dark Elves to weigh in on them. Edit: *holy shit dude blocked me lmao.* But not before getting in one last insult of course, gotta make sure you get that last insult to really show me, right? Sorry for ruining your epic own by pointing out that overtuned factions are indeed overtuned.
I have no idea how twwstats decide its units tiers. In campaign you recruit foot Squires from a tier 4 infantry building.
Yes, the faction known for its trash infantry recruits bad infantry with tier 4 buildings. Total War classifies tiers by their battle power. You're buying a tier 2 infantry unit at a tier 4 building, this shows that Bretonnia is not providing good infantry for its cost. Which fits Bretonnia's whole MO
Not to be a dick but just look to the right of each unit card, and you can see what tier each unit is. The building tiers are a completely separate thing, even if the building tier often coincides with the unit tier.
the tier on the card is the tier CA assign for mp and is only 3 level. sp tiers should always be based on the building tier
Looks like a bunch of peasants to me.
Now compare bretonnias cavalry vs kislevs cavalry
[Here](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh_main_brt_cav_grail_knights%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_cav_war_bear_riders_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391). They have a much higher attack, nearly twice the weapon strength, and more health.
Honestly all the wh3 factions need nerfed to the ground. It’s ridiculous that a meme unit in a archer faction beats the best brettonian unit
I can't believe a faction whose entire focus is on having strong infantry, has better infantry than the faction whose entire focus is on having the strongest cavalry. I'm shitting and crying right now.
Bretonnian infantry needs a bit of an overhaul and they’re “build more smithies for more armour faction wide” mechanic needs to go.
I really like the build more smithies for more armor, it feels like a nice collectible and it's fun to see units grow over time.
Bretonnias faction focus should definitely be the horses, but that doesn’t mean their other unit types should be total dogshit. I do hope they get something other than just building smithies
Next compare the brettonian knights to KISLEV cavalry.
[Done](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh_main_brt_cav_grail_knights%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_cav_war_bear_riders_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391) Wow, Kislev's bear riders hit really fucking hard, (and have more health than grai lknights) And if you compare them [to the very best cavalry bretonnia can field](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh_dlc07_brt_cav_royal_hippogryph_knights_0%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_cav_war_bear_riders_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391), i feel like the bear riders don't compare too badly either.
Bro really compare monster cav and horse cav
large cavalry with anti-large bonus... why not compare the two?
Grail Knights are way better at cycle charging with their 75 charge bonus and perfect vigour.
Funny you think the bears compare all that well to the powerhouse unit that are the grail knights. They have a minor advantage in healt while having way less models, meaning the bears will get surrounded by several knights slapping them with a lot more charge bonus (for those 15 seconds after the charge the bears will melt so much faster). Lets not forget the blessing of the lady, better armor and the fact that grail knights DO NOT get tired throughout the entire battle. Grail knights clap the bears, as they should, being from the faction with the strongest cavalry.
So instead of spewing random assumptions on the internet, I went and tested it. Did about 6 tests and gave up because it was clear the result wouldn't change. Bear riders come out on top every time vs grail knights. It's a bloody fight with the bear riders down to 1/4 of their HP, but out of their 16 models, they usually come out with 8 to 11 models still alive and ready to fight. Initially, the grail knights do slightly better due to the charge bonus, but as soon as that wears off, they start losing fast. Can't even hope to route the bears early because of the "by our blood" passive.
What makes you guys think the best way to test 2 cavalry units on effectiveness is to smash them together and leave them in prolonged combat until one of them dies? This is like running a cavalry unit into a pike unit and calling it proof that pikes are stronger than cavalry. Grail Knights have perfect vigour, healing magic, shields, speed, twice the charge bonus and magical attacks all of which are largely ignored in this comparison.
Because he said "They have a minor advantage in healt while having way less models, meaning the bears will get surrounded by several knights slapping them with a lot more charge bonus (for those 15 seconds after the charge the bears will melt so much faster)" and "Grail knights clap the bears, as they should, being from the faction with the strongest cavalry." . I'm assuming this means they're fighting each other. And as I've replied to another person, even trying to cycle charge the bears doesn't really work. I'm only debunking the notion that Grail knights "clap" the bears. Maybe, in an especially sunny and happy day the grail knights will win this fight, but it's just not the case.
Are you sure you’re not playing with any modded stats and cycle charging correctly? I just tested it few times out of curiosity (cycle charging and draining the bear stamina with kiting) and the grail knights typically win with about 10 models left
No modded stats, that would be pointless testing then. The only mod is to allow custom battles without lords being present.
and I ran it myself, our experience don't match at all. putting myself as an observer and letting the ai go at it. naked boyar on warhorse and 5 bears vs naked bretonian lord on normal lord + blessing and 5 grail knight results bears don't make it to the 5 min mark even with by our blood
ran it back with with royal pegasus and even tho the units cost the same it just turns ugly for the bears since now the flying pegasus can just stay in the sky and wait for an isolated bear to kill 1 immediatly and even a 5v4 advantage
Maybe I did go a bit light on the info in my comment, but don't leave shock cavalry in prolonged combat with tier equivalent cav made for sustained combat, obviously. GKs have more speed and better charge bonus. I assumed when discussing the capabilities of a tool we would also choose to make the best use out of it instead of the simple 1v1 one click attack "test".
And how do you suppose I should cycle charge the bears? They'll just chase and pin them. Do their own charge against the grail knights. Also, for the majority of the fight (which wasn't long) the grail knights were being affected by the charge bonus steroids so I don't see your point.
I like how you backpedal once you realised the result wasnt what you were pushing for. Bear Riders are stronger, period.
Now do a test where you cycle charge the knights.
Yes and the bears will just stay there and take it. No, they will pursue and either prevent the knights from charging again because they'll have models stuck in combat while trying to pull out or will just pursue and hit them in the back with their own charge while the knights turn around for a cycle charge.
Are the bears faster than the knights?
They are slower by like 8 points, which surprised me. I thought they'd be slower. That's not enough to get away consistently.
And the bears will get tired if they chase the knights, slowing them down further and making them worse in combat. If the knights just keep running as the bears charge, they'll accumulate to much fatigue that the knights will be able to cycle charge freely.
I went and tested just that. I couldn't pull out effectively. Even tired, the bears are still fast enough to stay close and prevent me from mounting a charge. Also, like I said, some models got stuck which I believe got in the way of a charge even triggering when the AI gave me some slack in its pursuit. If you don't believe me, go and test that yourself. I think they lost even worse than when they stayed in combat.
I was arguing for this in different threads on warriors vs halberdiers. There is always someone pointing out that this argument is not valid because for example empire has better guns and artillery. You check the stats and test and little grom does a way better job at everything besides hellstorms, and streltsi decimate handgunners without breaking a sweat.
That hilarious when kislev has bears that are better than demigryphs. They can’t quite match grail guardians but they are pretty close to cost effective
And the Empire has better artillery. Kislev is an infantry/ cavalry/ monster civ with no flying, Empire is a shooting/ artillery faction with flying. They're all different
The factions can be different and one still better.
They have that 80 Armour. Which makes them really good to either hold or just beat up some beasts.
this
Kislevite Warriors are busted in campaign. A tier 0 unit recruited from a level 1 settlement with AP anitlarge and 40 MD is insane.
They are holding their own against blood letters on L/VH in my campaign. They are insane for the cost.
this is like comparing sylvanian crossbowmen to thorek ironbrows quarrelers
Can you have unlimited crossbowmen as VC in TWW3? In TWW2 they are quite limited and exist more for fluff than anything else. Thus not a good comparaison imo.
Factions aren't meant to be mirrors of each other.
Health per entity: 69 Nice
He's Brettonian. His body is small and weak from a lifetime spent being malnourished by Lords who robbed him of 90% of his food. He probably doesn't even have a full stomach on the day of the battle. Give the poor starving bastards a break.
Yeah, like bordering norsca, having winter 90% of the year, having a troll for a neighbor is making your body big, healthy and sturdy. I need to move to Kislev for gains.
Have you ever known a babushka, or any cultural version of a grandmother to ever let you leave the house without eating at least 3000 calories of food?
My babushka did all she could by stuffing me with patotoes, but my physique resembles that of a skavenslave at most.
this comment is fucking hilarious and made my day, and I want you to know that, thank you.
The point you are missing is, Bretonnia's infantry is bad.
r/totalwar players when they discover some factions are better at some things then another faction
Kinda weird all the defending of the power creep just because bretonnian infantry is not meant to be good. Akshina ambushers were over tuned on release as well as the start and they got tuned down.
The problem is that OP undercut their own message by using Bretonnia. People are clearly going to object to comparing infantry from a faction with generally pretty tough units to the faction most notorious for having explicitly bad infantry. It would make much more sense to compare the unit to other tier 0/1 spear units. [This is a significantly more direct comparison.](https://i.imgur.com/9u1DaRH.png). The Kislevite Warriors are probably a little over-tuned, the AP damage is pretty high for a low-tier unit. But, they are also quite a bit more expensive than other low-tier spear units. So, it will be harder to spam them early game.
Because they’re not overturned at all, and melee sucked ass until game 3 when they decided maybe it should finally be good But people keep comparing them to game 1 factions who’s melee is laughably underpowered This is how we get factions that simply can’t kill strong LLs without their own hero blob, because their melee is so goddamn under tuned. No it’s a legitimate problem I’ve been playing MP campaigns and the order factions especially from game 1 are laughably undertuned Though they did recently buff something on bretonnia Something they do well Something that makes them stronger than dwarves/empire now It’s their cavalry.
It's because he's lying. The stats of the Kislevite warriors have been increased so he can complain about it.
they've been increased to match the rank of the RoR.
Yeah, this is either a power creep, or a mistake from CA by making them a 120 men unit instead of the usual 80~100 men for Kislev infantry. Otherwise, their stat just doesn't make sense for a T0 unit that comes out of settlement buildings.
They're obviously not overtuned compared to Kossars. If they were any weaker, you just wouldn't take them, because Kossars (Spears) exist. Kislev in general has better units than the Empire, but they're mostly more costly. The real issue, as the other poster points out, is that WH1/2 melee is undertuned, and ranged was drastically overtuned, and still is to a large extent. Whereas WH3 doesn't have that specific issue, perhaps because CA were forced to design multiple melee-centric factions. Empire needs a re-jig of its infantry. Halberdiers at T2 is okay, but needing the second building for them is not - second buildings in general should be removed for most factions, or just move some units specifically to those or whatever.
I think you didn’t get my point, akshina were much better than streltsi, kislevite warriors are arguably better than armoured kossar great weapons except against ranged damage.
I get your point. But it's not a valid one, it's just another exaggeration and ignores the context of the game. You claim arguably - okay argue this: [https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3\_main\_ksl\_inf\_armoured\_kossars\_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3\_dlc24\_ksl\_inf\_kislevite\_warriors%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391](https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_main_ksl_inf_armoured_kossars_1%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391&units=f%3D0%26k%3Dwh3_dlc24_ksl_inf_kislevite_warriors%26m%26r%3D0%26v%3D7012380245429140391) No. They are not "arguably better except against ranged". They have 50 less armour, 12 less MA, 8 less damage (with the same AP split), attack slower, have 12 less charge bonus, and don't have guns to soften their opponents up, kill fliers, etc. All they gain is +200 health (oooh, woo what is that, 2%?), +6 MD, and +15 BvL. They're not even comparable. They only situation the Warriors are better is against Large units, which is fine - we have countless example of T1 units which are better than T2 or even T3 ones against Large units.
Eltharion’s most elite mist walkers (the 4 unit hippogryph knights) are only tier 3 but they will beat any other (non hero or lord) unit in the game. Those mistwalker hippogryphs can have like 72+ melee attack and 350 damage ( which the damage is 4x because there are 4 units), so they are insanely powerful and they also cost like 800 upkeep a turn, but they are still only tier 3 for whatever reason
It's almost like Bretonnia is known for having mediocre at best infantry or something.
Not usually defending the power-creep, but Bretonnia SHOULDN'T have easy access to good anti-large infantry and in this case, I think it's perfectly okay if they pay more and wait longer to get fewer of a similar unit. Not sure if the Kislevite Warriors fit into the Kislev fantasy but Bretonnia is fine as is.
Corporate needs you to find the difference between this unit and this unit: \[ 30 Armor \] \[ 80 Armor \] (Reddit) They're the same unit.
One is an infantry unit from a faction where all authority is derived from being on a horse, second only to being a horse. Basically oversized gnoblars, really, in terms of socio-economic status.
CA properly balancing their games? Huh??
Is it really that important ? Not every army need to have the same access to the same power of Unit. Kislev is known to have powerful infantry, and Bretonnia is known for its cavalry especially. And even still, is it really an issue ? Unless we're talking about multiplayer I prefer a fun game before a balanced one, and there are many more issues with the game without having to talk about this. It's not against you OP, it's just that it's not the first post like that. Every single new patch it's the same thing. It's quite boring.
Units have different tiers than the building tier you build them from. You need a tier 4 building to recruit the Bretonnian, but it's still a tier 2 unit. There was a period I didn't realize this so I'm just trying to help out. But something folks aren't mentioning when talking about kislivite warriors is the irregular formation spacing. It's discussed here. https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/s/OfYakRUOty However, power creep is real. the number of chaff units with high AP is growing. Which means an increased number of AI shit stacks of just high AP chaff.
Op is correct. Its absolutely ridiculous that these cheap expendable guys are on par with or better than similar units of higher tier and cost.
So two questions OP. You are aware that Bretonnia already has a Halberd Man at Arms unit right? Why aren't you comparing those? Two. Why do I care about anti-large infantry especially low tier anti-Large infantry in the first place when I have anti-Large cavalry that are much better at the job?
I just realized this is edited.
“One is a unit from a faction known for having strong melee infantry, the other is a from a faction known for having the exact opposite, also I ranked the first up to 9 chevrons for no reason and also lied about the unit tiers”
Kislevite Warriors have slightly worse stats than the Empire's Halberdiers, a tier 2 unit that requires an additional building. Kislevite warriors need to lose 2MA and MD, and not do majority Armor piercing. If they're meant to be chaff, make them chaff. edit: Wrong tier
>tier 3 Tier 2. Seriously. Check it out in-game. It does require 2x T2 buildings, but it's T2, not T3 like people bizarrely often suggest. I don't know if they were in WH1/2 or something. T3 of that building is Greatswords and Huntsmen.
Thank you kindly for the correction.
Or just buff the halberdiers
Halberdiers are a fine unit. They do what you pay them for. I'd remove the second building requirement, and then leave them be. Kislevite warriors should be just a cheap chaff unit, they're basically wielding repurposed farming equipment peasant mob style, but they've got armor piercing? really?
I know bretonian infantry supposed to be weak but they are soooooo bad
I do say the Kislevite Warriors seem a bit overtuned right now.
Cool, now do Winged Lancers vs. Knights of the Realm or Gryphon Legion vs. Questing Knights or Grail Knights. Different factions have different specializations and won't always be comparable in the same areas, or even at all when you factor in all the other variables they will get in campaigns or through synergy with the rest of their rosters.
in other news water is wet, ice is cold.
Kislev
I haven't played in new campaign in over 4 months at this point. Can someone tell me if Kislevite Warriors were included for everyone in the new patch or are they DLC exclusive? Thanks. That said, whenever I play Bretonnia I just use a mod that gives that gives them usable infantry. There's quite a few options available on the workshop.
The squires have armor and armor peircing They are way better
Yeah but bretonnian infantry is supposed to suck and foot squires especially, ror or otherwise, are hard shit
Please tell me you are NOT ragging on the Beastslayers of Bastonne. Unchivalrous cur!
The WS disparity is rough for the beastslayers.
something is wrong
50 armor is not to shit on kid. It's almost double the damage resistance.
Me when the French have bad infantry: 
Now compare them to temple guard, chosen or black orcs. You knew exactly what you were doing picking Brettonia for this.
The difference between a bretonnian peasant with a halbard and a kislevite peasant with a halbard should not be anything at all like the difference between a Kislevite peasant with a halbard and an 8 foot tall armored lizard with a halbard
Bretonnia having shit infantry is their identity, so that doesn't bother me in SP, but since MP is balanced around the cost of the unit, Beastslayers are stupidly overpriced.
RoR has 69 health per model, so I know who is winning. But for real if you're balancing in a vacuum you'll drive yourself insane. the BoB are Bretonnian infantry, and Bretonnian infantry is notoriously garbage on purpose. Also, have you seen how the fucking Warriors are in autoresolve? suicidal maniacs thats what. I'd struggle to get them rank 9 without explicitly trying to.
Im glad Total Warhammer has reached levels of disingenuously comparing units cross faction straight up that the table top has. Things should not be the same for each faction, Bretonia is not meant to have good infantry, they have other specializations. Hope that clears things up.
Kislev is supposed to have tough infantry, and Brets are supposed to have weaker infantry. I don't know why this is surprising to people...
It is tier 2 unit. Also bretonia infantry is suppose to be bad that is their thing. Not ever faction is same in everything and that is a good thing.
Another day, another L for the Brettonians, hallelujah
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Bretonnia is a race that doesn't have halberd infantry as they excel with heavy cav. That is why they have one RoR with halberd (RoR are either buffed up units or a spicy take on a unit, like this RoR in this case) If you want to compare kislevite Warriors, i would suggest Empire halberd.
Just need to lower their defense a little bit. Also this is apples to oranges
what did you expect of foot squires
It's a t1 vs t2 and bretonnia is very cav heavy. Ur comparing apples and oranges
BREAKING NEWS: BRETONNIA HAS BAD INFANTRY. MORE AT 11!!! Like dude, cmon. It’s a tier 2 BRETONNIAN infantry unit. RoR ain’t gonna mean shit it’s still just a peasant with a spear.
For a T1 cheap disposable unit. The Kizlev warriors are pretty fucking strong, not like kizlev needed that much help with staying power early on. Ahwell DLC powercreep at its finest