8th Ed. No Love for Saurus Warriors?

[Pinktaco]

Yes - This is one of the main issues these new updates faces. I suppose it's about generating a since of fairness and validity, that it would take for people to start considering this in a larger scale. Like in tourneys or as a general good alternative. To be honest I don't see why not, it's a system that seems to be given a great deal of thoughts and play testing already set in motion; we can even keep updated as the rules changes and give our own response.

Personally I like watching what our own @Pinktaco and others suggest in the lizard thread on the official forum

I've toned down on the LM part. I think we've covered most and I'm not sure I'm quite up for the whole mark of spawning debate haha. I think it's a can of worms and I'm not sure it's worth opening.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

I can't recall who mentioned it, but there is something to the point, that every army needs to feel like the get something, at least, interesting out of these systems.
Look at how quickly we abandoned the openhammer, due to the fact, that it just didn't seemed like these guys knew what lizardmen players wanted and liked about their army.

Well I weren't trying to start a new system debate, though I feel like saurus warriors might increase they usefulness with updates as in 9th age

 

[Akholrak]

My next worry would be that units get too same-y in order to prevent anything being considered too powerful against something else. This is less likely to happen, but the worry is still. I play the armies that I do (Lizardmen, Daemons, Dark Elves), because I like their background, models and how they currently play - I don't want that to be scrapped. Maybe I just don't want change.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

While I still maintain hope that the game can evolve through a fan maintained rules system (9th age), the difficulty will be getting sufficient numbers of players to accept it. The Swedish Comp + ETC guys may very well produce a product that is superior to that of GW but doesn't mean that it will gain anywhere near the level of acceptance that GW wielded. GW was the authority figure. If GW released an overpowered or underpowered unit, players would complain and then learn to live with it and adapt to it. If the Swedish Comp + ETC guys do the same, many players will just say forget I'll stick with the "real" rules.

As an analogy: if your co-worker suggests a course of action, you may or may not accept it, however if your boss tells you to do something (even if the idea is poor) you'll probably go along with it.

As a result, "where" the rules are coming from is very a important factor. A fan-based rules set has to be magnitudes superior to anything that GW has released in order to win sufficient support. With an already dwindling player-base it will not be an easy task. Not impossible, but definitely difficult.

 

[Akholrak]

While I still maintain hope that the game can evolve through a fan maintained rules system (9th age), the difficulty will be getting sufficient numbers of players to accept it. The Swedish Comp + ETC guys may very well produce a product that is superior to that of GW but doesn't mean that it will gain anywhere near the level of acceptance that GW wielded. GW was the authority figure. If GW released an overpowered or underpowered unit, players would complain and then learn to live with it and adapt to it. If the Swedish Comp + ETC guys do the same, many players will just say forget I'll stick with the "real" rules.

As a result, "where" the rules are coming from is very a important factor. A fan-based rules set has to be magnitudes superior to anything that GW has released in order to win sufficient support. With an already dwindling player-base it will not be an easy task. Not impossible, but definitely difficult.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, but you put it so much better. I do hope that the 9th age is successful, I really do, because I love this game. However, in reality, I don't think it be, or it will be in steady decline.

 

[Agrem]

Back to the topic then...

I've tried the saurus also after the Protectors posts but I'm still not convinced as the obvious "flaws" of this unit are still there: M4, WS3 and I1.
Yes, most of the other infantry units are also M4 but how the meta has progressed through the 8th edition you don't see that much infantry on the table anymore. With big cavalry busses, monstrous cavalry, monsters and nasty characters roaming around and dictating the game the saurus are just sub par choice for me. Also the longer I've played this edition and especially lizardmen it's becoming more and more clear to me that the game is won or lost in the movement phase atleast with lizardmen M4 just won't be enough when you need to shoot your units across the battlefield and try to dictate the opponents movement. This is where the skinks shine.

Again, WS3. It might be there for the fluff reasons to represent that saurus are not so mobile but then why give them I1 also. Yes they hit most of the opponents on 4+ and would do so even with WS4 but the difference is huge when receiving attacks now that most things will hit on 3+ instead of 4+ if the WS would be 4.

BR
Agrem

 

[Pinktaco]

So here's my view on the whole the off-topic debate:

Keeping strictly to 8th edition will be the end of the hobby (my opinion) sooner or later. No more updates, no FAQ, no new units no nothing. It's what you see is what you get and that's it. That can work for some time, but eventually it'll just die out. People in the local area will move to other systems or just quit all together. Personally one of the things that thrilled me was looking forward to AND discussing new units with my friends. That's completely gone from 8th edition because it won't ever be support by GW again.

So the alternative? You create your own houserules, but once again you find yourself in a situation were all have to agree and playing against other players than your closest friends will become increasingly harder and especially if you've made up your own rules.

Some people will be perfectly fine just playing various kinds of older editions and that's fine, most though I suspect are in a similar boat as me.

So what about 9th Age? It's everything we've been talking about and wanted. It's not perfect as is and some people will dislike certain changes - that's inevitable, but in a different universe where GW would've given a fvck we would've seen new changes anyway.

9th Age is a community driven system, obviously though Swedish Comp are the ones who're pulling the trigger, but if what they do happen to not give the wanted result they change it based on the feedback. So yeah there will be overpowered units, there will be underpowered units and people will complain, but if they can minimize this and bring more units into play from all armies it's still better than what GW did.

It still leave the obvious issue left: lack of authoity. This is where SC will have to show themself as worthy. It soudns dumb, but that's how it is. Either this first edition of 9th Age works or it'll likely never go anywhere.
However I think there's one very simple thing we as players can do and that's to be open minded about it. Going into with with the mindset of "it'll likely never fly" will only ensure that it won't. I mean I'm not here to force anyone at all, but one can do a lot to make this actually work and if the first thing that comes to your mind is that it'll be near impossible for this to work out you've already doomed it.

For me it's not about seeing the risks, but the potentials. The first thing I noticed for my good friend, who's a Wood Elf player and was heart broke when he heard about the forest spirit nerf of 8th edition, was that they're back in business (for the most part). Forest Spirits have certainly been made much more viable compared to what GW did so we both went from not really caring about 8th edition nor AoS to both be very happy about 9th Age.

Personally I hate to be that guy who's overly optimistic and try to encourage others, but I do it mostly because LO is tight knit community and 9th looks great as it is.

Besides.. it's all free anyway so nothing bad can come from just trying it out and accepting that it's currently in a state where things change from day to day.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

I really hope that 9th age and the other system will make infantry units an interesting choice. I don't play as much competitive, but even I can tell that the meta is about fast movement and huge blocks of MC.
There is in principle nothing wrong get with this, it's just how the game has developed.

Huge blocks of infantry are of course still useful, it would still be nice to have a new approach for fielding an army.

I feel like saurus warrior's Ws 3 is a great distinction from other infantrymen, I 1 too, I'll rather see other means of justifying their "elite" fell. Like something more savage, or vicious, like the PF rule, but better or more interesting.

Sacred spawnings would be great!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Sacred spawnings would be great!

That's just about every Lustrian's dream. I'd love to see them make a return.

To make infantry more useable I think they need to tone down a few of the monstrous cavalry choices that are a little overpowered.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

Try telling that to the guys playing those particular armies. It seems like the biggest issue is getting every one on board with the concept, and as far as I can see people really doesn't want to see any point increase for their army, most people are only focusing on the three units they have that should be reduced in price.
I'm reading the Elven, chaos and ogres as reference, here it's only the ogres that has suggested any rational changes

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Try telling that to the guys playing those particular armies.

I agree, many players will not want to see their beloved super powered monstrous cavalry unit toned down. I also play WoC, but I can see the need to balance the Skullcrushers. However, I believe that across the board it will be a tough sell.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

I agree, many players will not want to see their beloved super powered monstrous cavalry unit toned down. I also play WoC, but I can see the need to balance the Skullcrushers. However, I believe that across the board it will be a tough sell.

One way of going about this would of course be to only upgrade poor units, instead of down grading good ones. This way every army should get something out of it, but the better armies would get less. It's basically the same, but you don't see the change straight away just looking at one army, every body needs to feel as they get something from these new rules.

I do think it really demands that we accept that overpowered units aren't fun in the long run. They'll give an unfair advantage and they neglected other units in the army book any time to shine, which is two great points for perhaps accepting a change in points for the most overpowered of units, mainly cannons, some monsters and MC.

 

[Pinktaco]

Actually a lot of units don't need much of a change. Magic have changed enough that it's not such a pain as it used to be and 1+ armour have been looked into - e.g. spears -> cavalry and parry on 5+ mean that we most can shrug off the charge and stay alive. Also Dark Elf 1+ hero spam have been taken care of.

It's not perfect, obviously, but before we go about and claim people not being reasonable concerning nerfs to their own units we also have to remember that all these "small" changes are about to make the game play completely different and maybe some of these units aren't actually that powerful.

Then there's the fact that most people are fully aware that some of their units should be toned down (MC, chariot cannons etc). On top of that people are not good at making a fair point. For instance I tried hard to tell the HE thread that White Lions need some looking into. My mistake was that they took it as a nerf flat out. All I want is a +1pts increase and maybe a -1pts decrease on swordmasters. So a lot of the issues also come from how people propose changes because things can easily be misunderstood. I don't think most people have an issue with a mere price change because that's easy to make reasonable, however most people have an issue with actual stat changes. E.g. I'd frekking hate for our OBs to be pulled down to scaly skin 5+, but I don't mind a point increase. I'm going to go ahead and claim that most people know when they have a unit that overperforms and are willing to take a price increase becaues they'll still have the same unit just more expensive and thus more reasonable.

And yeah there are weird people on all sides. I've seen a suggestion that Ironguts should be WS4 and others claiming that the normal ogres should just be 2W/2A which is hilarious. We have to accept that we're the only community to come up with a list together. Most people just ramble on about weird things and you have to seek out the good suggestions. It's kinda like navigating the App Store.

Obviously we'll see how it goes, but so far I've seen no rage quitters, but then again we haven't seen the full extend of what SC have in store for each armies so everything can still happen When the time come, remember to bring popcorn!

**EDIT**

I just had a look at the WoC forum (someone linked to it from 9th Age) and.. well.. Let's just all agree it's good certain people aren't in charge. You know sh1t is messed up when someone questions if the core chaos chariot should be better, deamon princes at 200pts and dragon ogres with 5-6 wounds.

 

[Yrtomin]

haha, sounds like my WoC friends reaction to the new marks.

 

[Akholrak]

I played a game against Warriors of Chaos the other day, I definitely agree that Saurus can't take on Chaos Warriors. 3+ armour, 5+ parry (Shield+Tzeentch) is way too much for them. Plus when one of Enchanted Blades of Aiban or Glittering Robe went off, the Warriors cut through them. The Saurus held their own for a few rounds of combat, but it wasn't a particularly impressive grind.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I played a game against Warriors of Chaos the other day, I definitely agree that Saurus can't take on Chaos Warriors. 3+ armour, 5+ parry (Shield+Tzeentch) is way too much for them. Plus when one of Enchanted Blades of Aiban or Glittering Robe went off, the Warriors cut through them. The Saurus held their own for a few rounds of combat, but it wasn't a particularly impressive grind.

Still, that's not a bad showing for our Saurus warriors. Chaos warriors are amongst the best of the best infantry units in the game.

 

[BluPeeps4Life]

In my experience, I thought they were good. They are relatively tough aren't they? I'm more of a Tau person form 40k though.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

In my experience, I thought they were good. They are relatively tough aren't they? I'm more of a Tau person form 40k though.

They are descent, but like all infantry they suffer from poor mobility. With our low initiative it is important to have unit sizes that can withstand casualties. In addition, skinks are extremely useful, so saurus warriors often get overlooked.

 

[BluPeeps4Life]

They are descent, but like all infantry they suffer from poor mobility. With our low initiative it is important to have unit sizes that can withstand casualties. In addition, skinks are extremely useful, so saurus warriors often get overlooked.

Chameleon skinks steal the spotlight again

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Chameleon skinks steal the spotlight again

Chameleon skinks are special so they are not directly competing with saurus warriors. It's the regular core skink skirmishers that are the big competition.