8th Ed. Competative Saurus Warriors

[Kor-Lot-Ko]

So, Saurus warriors seem to get a bad rap on this site. And, compared to skinks, that is understandable. But it seems to me that saurus are very close to being a usefull unit choice. Plus, their fluff is way to badass to waste. As such, I give you this thread.

My opinion is that all that saurus warriors need is a boost to their WS, bringing it up to 4. In the games that I have played, my saurus struggled most when fighting things with a higher WS than them (Which is most elite & some core infantry), and I think that this would fix that gap. And come on, these are creatures literally bred for the sole purpose of killing things in CQC, but they are of the same skill as an imperial swordsman?

Although, If this were to happen, I would insist on boosting Temple guard ws to 5, in order to preserve their elite status. What do you guys think?

 

[Pinktaco]

You've seen the big thread in the tactica section?

 

[Agrem]

Yes, this has been discussed before but my vote goes to WS4. GW, as mentioned many times, doesn't make any sense. Lower point cost would still not remove their weakness(es).

BR
Agrem

 

[protector]

I am entirely camped in the "Nothing, they're awesome enough already!" opinion, but I would still love to see them with better WS or weapon options, I'm not above wishing that they were the undisputed best infantry in the game

But on a more serious note I think something that would be great for saurus warriors is to bring back the spawnings, pay for it like WoC do and it would not only bring the level of fluff up but also painting and model sales would increase due to wanting to be able to field multiple spawnings. This would provide a way to add variety to our army and maintain the balance aspect, honestly it is the one item I really mourned the absence of when the new book came out.

Also provide the same options to characters.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

I would appreciate both heighten Ws or lower price. I voted Ws, but I feel like lower price is equally valid and properly more likely

 

[Herr Pete]

Weapon Skill would be nice. See how that goes before I want more haha baby steps

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Are you aware that you made two of this post?

 

[Kugelfang]

Other-
Spawnings
+1 WS
+1 AS
+1 to PF (5+)

 

[Qupakoco]

I agree, saurus having the same weaponskill as a horse, come on! who got that idea

If you are interested take a look at this and be free to comment:

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-my-additional-rules-and-changes.16118/#post-126145

 

[borkbork]

I actually think there is not too much wrong with Saurus.

I see why people want +1 WS, but that should lso mean a price increase.
The only thing I would change is perhaps more equipment options (add hw for example), but not GW.

but T4, S4, A2. 4+ AS...is pretty decent.

The only real issue is that their price and stats is between the avarage core and the real elites.
Meaning they are too expensive for really big units......and not good enough for really smaller ones.

Like we say in the Netherlands....they are neither Fish or Meat.

 

[Mr Phat]

I said other.
That other is spawnings.

While WS4 would help a lot, that would also mean that TG would have to be WS5
Scar vets WS6 and Oldbloods WS7.
Not that I wouldnt like that, its just seems like the wrong way to go.

I would call "Spawnings", or some other combat special rule ,,,you know....like dwarfs shield wall, resolute...maybe even relentless.

 

[pendrake]

While WS4 would help a lot, that would also mean that TG would have to be WS5
Scar vets WS6 and Oldbloods WS7.
Not that I wouldnt like that, its just seems like the wrong way to go.

This is what results when the game uses six-sided dice, only six-sided dice, and no dice that has not got six sides. There are only six levels. There are only six steps.

But the range of creatures that seem like they ought to differentiated by different Weapon Skills is much greater than six.

Inherent problem.
No solution.

 

[Pinktaco]

I said other.
That other is spawnings.

While WS4 would help a lot, that would also mean that TG would have to be WS5
Scar vets WS6 and Oldbloods WS7.
Not that I wouldnt like that, its just seems like the wrong way to go.

I would call "Spawnings", or some other combat special rule ,,,you know....like dwarfs shield wall, resolute...maybe even relentless.

Why? The beastmen army have WS4 in both core and special and characters have WS5/6.

 

[Tecuani]

I also voted other, that other being a complete rebalancing of the game, since the problem is in the over all balance rather than in one specific unit.
Saurus are a good infantry unit, but even a good infantry unit just isn't viable any more. Saurus in particular suffer since a lot of their value is in being supposedly resilient, and T4 4+ save isn't resilient in the current environment. There are too many high strength template weapons and spells, and plenty of combat units that can easily make a mess of them. So you have to take large units, which get very expensive, and still not all that tough.

Even if your opponent lacks one of the many ways of easily destroying a large infantry block, they are absurdly easy to stall or redirect with cheap flyers or fast cavalry, a problem made worse for saurus due to predatory fighter, so the one saurus specific rule needed would be to take this rule, and throw it away. Except for watchtower, no scenarios award any points for holding territory, so you're expensive horde scores nothing unless it's killing things.
There's simply no tactical niche for expensive, resilient infantry in 8th ed, and therefore even a unit which would, like saurus, be good at filling that role isn't worth taking.

 

[Pinktaco]

The thread in the tactica section served as an eye opener for many, but fair enough if people don't accept what was proposed or don't want to/can't play that way. And maybe even then it's still not enough to play highly competitive with saurus warriors, but then again when we're speaking highly competitive most armies are reduced to the best of the best. We just so happen to have some of the best chaff in the game. Poison, good price, good movement, good defence, close to zero penalties for shooting, skirmish - skinks are very very good and versatile. One could argue that yes some of the other armies have a bit more flexibility, but what exactly are people claiming that these flexible armies do in highly competitive environments? DE and WE both use avoidance lists backed with magic.

That's just how the game is. Every game in existence played in a highly competitive will always, always, always reduce the content to the best.

Could we in a complete warhammer fantasy utopia want for a completely balanced game where every unit ever released are equally good - where saurus warriors are equally as good for as skinks and skrox units no matter the size equally competitive? Sure, but that's an almost impossible task.

Hell I've played 400 hours of Company of Heroes 2 and the game only feature 4 factions and even those are incredible hard for the developers to balance - and they actually do semi-frequent updates unlike GW. WHF have like 15 armies or so and wanting everything and every army to be equal is futile.
We could go for a complete revamp of the entire game and it wouldn't cut it. It's basically day dreaming to even claim that because there are so many armies.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

I also voted other, that other being a complete rebalancing of the game, since the problem is in the over all balance rather than in one specific unit.
Saurus are a good infantry unit, but even a good infantry unit just isn't viable any more. Saurus in particular suffer since a lot of their value is in being supposedly resilient, and T4 4+ save isn't resilient in the current environment. There are too many high strength template weapons and spells, and plenty of combat units that can easily make a mess of them. So you have to take large units, which get very expensive, and still not all that tough.

Even if your opponent lacks one of the many ways of easily destroying a large infantry block, they are absurdly easy to stall or redirect with cheap flyers or fast cavalry, a problem made worse for saurus due to predatory fighter, so the one saurus specific rule needed would be to take this rule, and throw it away. Except for watchtower, no scenarios award any points for holding territory, so you're expensive horde scores nothing unless it's killing things.
There's simply no tactical niche for expensive, resilient infantry in 8th ed, and therefore even a unit which would, like saurus, be good at filling that role isn't worth taking.

That is actually a very good point, sir. One of the main issue with warhammer is that certain tactics is neglected due to the system, e.i. victory conditions and lack of options.
I recon it's not just our infantry that has this issue, not even just a tough infantry issue. It's generally about game balance, niches in the game and whatnot

 

[Mr Phat]

Why? The beastmen army have WS4 in both core and special and characters have WS5/6.

The Beastmen book is also +5years old

and wait...they are ws4?!
So...these randomly mutated goatmen, who are low on intellect and always drunk or under the influence fights better than genetically bred warriors.
.....kick to the crutch again for the saurus! no wonder chaos won

 

[Pinktaco]

Yup. Gores and bestigores are all WS4 w/ hatred (very likely) for every round of combat. basically almost every attack from the bestigors = wounds taken.

 

[Sleboda]

Yeah, I'll never understand why people say Beastmen are a low end army. I think they are just fine.

 

[Pinktaco]

They are absolutely beastly I'm close comba, but somewhat limited in play style and ALL their rare monsters are horrible. They can, however, make s sick doombull or have incredible offensive magic power.