Bruiser-Spam - viable?

It's a good point about Bruisers vs Maneaters, but +1T and +1W means a lot. If attacked by WS4, S4 troops, 6 maneaters take 108 attacks to kill. The bruisers (withough IF) take - oh, 108 attacks. They're twice as tough in practice. Even better against S3 opponents and each one need be allocated against individually.

Multiple bruisers is great because they're hard to kill and spread the wounds around. They're VP denial.

Multiple firebellies is also a great idea although they have much less killing power apart from their breath and they can't take armour.

Yes, as I said, they're good for damage mitigation, but kinda terrible for damage output. They have maybe half the attacks of Maneaters for the same cost and could be missing out on Poisoned Attacks as well. If I wanted to mitigate damage (deny VP), I would also not run a 4-wide unit. Just use a Butcher or SM that's probably going to be in your army already, and leave the Champion in the front rank.

4 tooled-up Bruisers is over 600 points(!) which is the cost of, say, 2 units of 4 Mournfang Cavalry. In terms of damage output and survivability/VP denial - assuming that's what you're going for field that many Bruisers - I think the Mournfangs win hands-down.

Love the idea of 4 Maneaters leading 4 or more maneaters.

Give them stubborn and well... anything

4 Maneaters at the front with probably AHW giving them 5A each and give the ME GWs...

a S buff to the unit and the Maneaters with a Champion will pump out 21 S6 A each round while the ME will be S7

could also give them the dragon hide banner to make sure you get the most out of them.

whadda ya think.

Fixed. Oh yea, and the unit costs about 400 points less than the one with 4 Bruisers.

The Maneater vs Bruiser damage output comparison unfortunately happens to be the worst case you can make for Bruisers, as Bruisers are already missing out on 1 A compared to other races' heroes, and Maneaters are +4 shock elites (old reference!), meaning they get an extra WS, S, I and A.

as stated though your opponent will have to allocate wounds to each bruiser... also even enemy elites bar chosen and swordmasters will need 4s to hit instead of 3s... needed 5s and 6s to wound from most CC oriented units... and the points difference should be 200 not 400... i think that is worth it. especially considering worst case senario you can charge 4 different units with it in the same turn.

mournfangs, even 2 units of them suffer from T4... lower WS, having only 3W, still costing 75+ points each and not having wound allocation.

Also with 4 bruisers in front of 4 ME you could refuse a challenge and your opponents moves one bruiser to the back of the unit where you get to attack from anyway... unless i am wrong.

sorry i just love the idea of a unit of heros... and while i usually play skaven... a unit of warlock engineers are not nearly as scary. lol.

Naked Bruisers feature 1 more WS, T and W over a Maneater that costs less than half the points, and don't have the two additional special rules that Maneaters get. They have the option of getting to a 4+ armor save, but if they do that, they actually have 1 LESS A than a Maneater with an AHW.

The only good reason to field Bruisers (apart from the BSB) is to mitigate damage. Their statlines may look quite impressive, but you have to always remember that they have a 40mm base, not 20 or 25mm. This increased frontage improves their unit damage mitigation because they force more models to attack them, but reduces their damage output, relative to other armies' characters.

I don't know whether fielding 4 bruisers in a unit is a good idea. But the bruiser is definitely a great choice.

It doesn't mater that maneaters are cheaper, bruisers have 4 wounds and toughness 5 which makes all the difference. They are also the most cost effective combat characters in the game, the larger base only means 25-33% more attacks and for this they get T5 and double the wounds of a normal hero, not to mention being immune to stomp, and killing blow (which is huge). Having double the wounds also increases the effectiveness of all the defensive magic items. In fact both offensive and defensive magic items are a bargain on bruisers. The problem with maneaters, I'm sure everyone on this forum would agree, is that they die just as easily as regular ogre (faster even, as they don't have a 6+ ward).

In 8th because of step up and initiative heroes are far better off being tough then having more damage output.

As for cost, you could say the same for any army that can field elite infantry, for example:

Empire Greatswords vs Empire Captain:
-Greatsword, stubborn, plate armour, and a great weapon - 10pts
-Captain get, +1WS, +1S, +1T, +1W, +1I, +2A, full plate and GW - 62pts
6.2 times more expensive

Chaos chosen vs Exalted Champion:
-Chosen, rolls on eye of the gods - 18pts
-Exalted Hero, +1WS, +1S, +1W, +1I, +2A - 110pts
6.1 times more expensive

Noble vs White Lion:
White lion, heavy armour, GW, lion cloak, stubborn -15pts
Noble, +1WS, +1W, +1A, +1I, GW, heavy armour - 97pts
6.46 times more expensive

Minotaur vs Gorebull:
-Minotaur, light armour - 55pts
-Gorebull, light armour, +1WS, +1T, +1W, +1I, +1A and 2 more impact hits, starts with frenzy -164pts
2.98 times more expensive

Maneater vs Bruiser:
-Maneater, light armour, bean there done that - 50pts
-Bruiser, light armour, +1WS, +1T, +1W, +1A - 105pts
2.1 times more expensive

This is why your argument doesn't hold water. Does that "fix it" for you?

Measuring the comparative effectiveness by noting how much more times the hero costs over the base troop is completely irrelevant and demonstrates already that you aren't clear on how costing should work. This kind of comparison is being made in a vacuum, so to speak, and does not take into account how things actually work out when points are being paid to create a new army. It's being used solely to try and win an argument by using irrelevant mathematics.

It's easiest if I illustrate with a negative example.

Let's start with your calculations that a Bruiser only costs 2.1 times more than a Maneater, for basically an improvement in damage mitigation and almost no improvement in damage output.

Let's then take a Saurus, who has very similar WS, S, T and I, weighing in at 12 points, coming on a 25mm base.

By your measurements, for a Saurus hero to 'match' a Bruiser in terms of efficiency, he'd have to cost around 26 points (12 x 2.1) and get, let's say, the exact same improvements over a Saurus that a Bruiser gets over an Ogre: 2 WS, 1 S, 1 T and 1 I - making him WS5, S5, T5, I2.

Does that really look like a reasonable statline for a 26 point model? For 104 points (almost the same as a naked Bruiser), I could field 4 of these guys taking up the front rank, filling it with 8 T5 wounds, 16 S5 attacks. That's double the wounds and 4 times the attacks of a Bruiser, at the same S and T.

Do you see why your comparison is utterly ridiculous now? In no way has your entire post shown that Bruisers are the most cost effective combat characters in the game.

You can get an idea of cost-effectiveness by comparing what you gain from paying the cost differential over the base troop.

Take again the example of the Saurus, because it's the closest in terms of many stats. For 85 points you get a Saurus hero, which is a 73 points upgrade - very close to the cost of a Bruiser upgrade over an Ogre (75 points.) For that amount of points, you get very similar gains: 2 WS, 1 S, 1 T, 1W. It's close, but suddenly, looking closer, you realise you got shortchanged 1 I and 1 A.

Even that, however, is insufficient. You have to also look at what you actually get for your points, ie: what the final cost (not relative) and statlines are. Being that WS, S, T, I and Ld are the same in the case of Bruiser vs Scar-Veteran, the remaining relevant stats are M, W and A. The Bruiser has a clear advantage in M, obviously, and some advantage in W, getting 4 for 105 points against 2 for 85 (keep in mind the Scar-Veteran has 1 better 'pip' of armor however, which makes it more even than it looks.) However, in terms of attacks, where the number of attacks per unit 'frontage' is relevant, the Bruiser is terribly behind. You get 4 A over 40mm, while the Scar-Veteran is making the same 4A over 25mm.

Looking at it in practical terms, fielding 3 Bruisers in the front rank costs 315 points before equipment, and yields 12 W and 12 A. Fielding 5 Scar-Veterans costs significantly more, 425 points, but you get 10 W and 20 A. It's close - but certainly not far apart as if you were to make the random comparison of cost relative to base troop cost. Bruisers are more cost-efficient with defensive Magic Items (armor and ward saves), having more W, and more survivable individually, which makes them marginally more cost-efficient with other Magic Items as well. Scar-Veterans are definitely more efficient when it comes to Magic 'buffs', however, with their greater number of A for the same cost and frontage. Whatever the case, it's far from clear which is the more cost-effective overall. If anything, it seems to demonstrate that the points balancing seems reasonably good between the two.

Finally, even looking at what you actually get for your points does not complete the cost-effectiveness picture. You still have to compare what you got against what you could've got (opportunity cost), and this is, I think, where the Bruisers really fall short. Our army is so packed full of superior RnF troops now that it's difficult to justify the cost of Bruisers. M6, Ogre-Charge, Stomp, immunity to Stomp, Thunderstomp and Killing Blow sound fantastic, but almost every other unit in our army also has these things. Is the concentration of force gained by fielding a bunch of Bruisers in a unit necessary or effective? In a typical 2000-2500 point game, I'd hazard a 'no.' As this is a long enough post as it is, I won't get into that here - maybe later on

Measuring the comparative effectiveness by noting how much more times the hero costs over the base troop is completely irrelevant and demonstrates already that you aren't clear on how costing should work.

But I didn't say that. I said "As for cost, you could say the same for any army that can field elite infantry"
I just pointed out that your argument said that the bruiser were not worth their points when compared to a maneater. My example pointed out the flaw in that argument. An exalted champion may cost 6 times more then a chosen warrior but he is still a great investment in terms of combat character. Just like the bruiser.

Take again the example of the Saurus, because it's the closest in terms of many stats. For 85 points you get a Saurus hero, which is a 73 points upgrade - very close to the cost of a Bruiser upgrade over an Ogre (75 points.) For that amount of points, you get very similar gains: 2 WS, 1 S, 1 T, 1W. It's close, but suddenly, looking closer, you realise you got shortchanged 1 I and 1 A.

Do you get short changed? It's not linear - T4 to T5 is not the same as T3 to T4 same goes with attacks and strength, 4 S5 attacks are worth more on a 4 wound model then on a 2 wound model. That's why magic items like sword of striking are such good value on ogres.

However, in terms of attacks, where the number of attacks per unit 'frontage' is relevant, the Bruiser is terribly behind. You get 4 A over 40mm, while the Scar-Veteran is making the same 4A over 25mm.

Does a Scar veteran get an auto-hit stomp attack (equivalent to 2 extra attacks when hitting on 4+)? Does he cause fear? Or impact hits? - Those are offensive advantages you didn't mention. You can't ignore that the defensive bonuses of the bruiser either as they will keep his offensive abilities around for longer.

Finally, even looking at what you actually get for your points does not complete the cost-effectiveness picture. You still have to compare what you got against what you could've got (opportunity cost), and this is, I think, where the Bruisers really fall short. Our army is so packed full of superior RnF troops now that it's difficult to justify the cost of Bruisers.

I said the bruiser is great value for a combat character - I think you will find most armies are better off spending points on rank and file then on combat characters especially if they don't fill a utilitarian role (pegasus captain, pendant pegasus etc).

Is the concentration of force gained by fielding a bunch of Bruisers in a unit necessary or effective? In a typical 2000-2500 point game, I'd hazard a 'no.' As this is a long enough post as it is, I won't get into that here - maybe later on

I never said fielding a bunch of bruisers was effective - I merely explained why the bruiser is a very cost effective combat hero and a bargain for his points. I think the main problem with bruisers is like you said opportunity cost, Firebellies are an even better deal, and more importantly bring to the field what bruisers and rank and file infantry can't, flaming attacks, breath weapons, arcane items, and magic.

On a side note:  It's great that this community can generate such topics to really explore the depths of the new army book. You brought up really good points about the concepts of concentration of force. As much as these discussions can get intense I really enjoy them and I appreciate the amount of detail you went into in your post, thank you.

Earlier you said concentration of force was an advantage in your example with saurus. But you argue the concentration of force the bruiser brings is not an advantage. When would you say concentration of force is worth its point investment?

I'll throw something back concerning concentration of force. As I'm curious what your opinion is. Ogres are very unique with their 40mm bases which obviously affects this and I wonder how this balances out with staying power (having to remove X wounds before loosing attacks) if it does at all.