8th Ed. A Leader to Follow

[Serpentsire]

Hey guys,

It's been some time since I have posted (finished that steg, will post pics when I can). So recently, since eighth ed came out, I have been disappointed with the lizard's list. It makes no sense to my how there can be a handful of slann on the planet, yet one at every battle! Every lizardman list has a slann and though I realize it makes winning easier, it just seems sad. I have had quite a bit of luck with my Oldblood general, and all of my opponents really enjoy playing me because I don't just sit there tossing spells at them. So I am just opening up the debate: Is it really worth going to a tournament to see ten lizardmen players with the same build of slanns just to win, or would you rather have some variety or "fluff friendly lists" there as well?

 

[hellbreaker]

I haven't ever used a Slann. So that makes me special? I hope not.

My most common general is a tie between an oldblood on foot, and a Carnosaur. I do tend to have both in my lists though, but still.
Pity I can't pick 2 options. So I'll go with the footslogger, being the T6 idiot with a halberd.

Edit- As for it being worth going to a tournament in your scenario there I'd say that if they also feature as many Salamanders as possible, then no.
But really, a lot of people tend to have a thing for magic. So I can't blame Lizardmen players for choosing a Slann to satisfy their magical needs over a Saurus hero.

Cheers!

 

[Arli]

I always take the slann. I love the magic phase. The one time I took an oldblood on Carnosaur, the Carnosaur didn't see combat until turn 3 ( I ran him poorly). I will likely try him again at some point, just do not know when.

 

[n810]

Actualy all the Slann that are fielded now ouside of SC's are
5th generation Slann, there where qute a few of them,
posibly several hundred.

 

[Walgis]

Love the slann, hes so cool
the mighty leader!

 

[Bibamus]

i can't see an oldblood on carnosaur match a slann at support or killing power while they cost about the same ammount of points (3 disciplines). it only seems natural to use a slann i do consider we need them, i could hardly imagine an army without a slann (where you can get one ofcourse) and i do consider them a must have, even with only 1 discipline and no gear.

and oldblood is just too fragile. on foot/cold one he's just a batter scar vet, still nothing special about it and on a carnosaur he can be shot to death, magiced to death or just a lucky cannon... to death.

 

[Serpentsire]

I agree that a Slann is more powerful, far more. I assume that he will get comp slapped up the wazzu if you give him rumination, focus of mystery, becalming, and soul of stone. I just personally find it more fun to lose in a close game and do some combat, than to use magic from a distance and crush my opponent. I don't think anyone likes using things like purple sun or dwellers below, things that take all gameplay out and make the match determined by a single die roll (pass you live fail you die no rerolls), and those that do may not be playing in the spirit of the game, but are just out to win.
The Slann isn't necessary, he is just the easy route.

 

[Dreadgrass]

Slann is the best option, hands down, no arguments.

So for that reason, I'm toying with a list taking 2x Old Bloods on foot, a Scar vet BSB and 2x Skink Priests. The old bloods each have a 5+ ward, a 2+ save, and +3 attacks, and they're still cheaper than a single reasonably-tooled slann.

 

[vapor]

I agree that a Slann is more powerful, far more.

And the Old Blood + Carny took it in the teeth with all the changes, so the initial disparity got even greater.

I assume that he will get comp slapped up the wazzu if you give him rumination, focus of mystery, becalming, and soul of stone.

Better to be comp slapped and still have a chance to win, at least in a competitive setting. Friendly games it really shouldn't matter.

I just personally find it more fun to lose in a close game and do some combat, than to use magic from a distance and crush my opponent. I don't think anyone likes using things like purple sun or dwellers below, things that take all gameplay out and make the match determined by a single die roll (pass you live fail you die no rerolls), and those that do may not be playing in the spirit of the game, but are just out to win.

You're talking about two different environments, you mention comp scores than talk about not playing to win.

As far as the spirit of the game goes, that's up for debate. The spells are in the rulebook, shouldn't they automatically exist in the spirit of the game? In my mind, players that hold back and take sub-optimal choices are playing against the spirit of the game-- to create a challenging and fun game for both players. It's no fun to win against someone who purposefully took the worst possible legal choices.

The Slann isn't necessary, he is just the easy route.

You obviously haven't played many games of 8th in a competitive environment. The Slann has better leadership, better ability to dispel in what is now a very deadly magic phase, and a better synergy with our other troops via augment and hex spells. All the Oldblood brings is concentrated killing power, which we can get from our core troops and from offensive spells.

In a game that revolves around managing probability getting the most bang for your buck is necessary; with the dumbing down of the movement phase being a good tactician just isn't enough.

 

[Serpentsire]

The spirit of the game is more than taking the nastiest lists against eachother, that is what 'ard boyz is for. I have friends that play Skaven and demons and they go at each other with the "best" items and strategies and take lists that both of them hate in an attempt to win. I just don't see the point of going to a tournament with a doomwheel, two plague mortars, two lightning cannons, two warp engineers, and a bell when your opponent is just going to sigh when he sees your army. It seems to show a lack of competitiveness to me, min maxing isn't for people who want to compete, it is for people who want to win; like taking steroids.
I have played many competitive games in eighth ed, one was against that lovely skaven list aforementioned; and I won. The fact is that with good tactics you can win a game even if it is an inferior list. Beyond that your opponent will acknowledge you as a good general and a worthy opponent, and that, I think, is the spirit of the game.

 

[ericb]

The fact is that with good tactics you can win a game even if it is an inferior list. Beyond that your opponent will acknowledge you as a good general and a worthy opponent, and that, I think, is the spirit of the game.

Serpentsire, I really agree with you on this point. I can't stress enough how enjoyable it is to play a well balanced game that really takes advantage of all the game phases. The thrill of victory is always a goal in any game played, but a challenging win is really what brings it home for me. Defeat is bittersweet in my opinion. Bitter in the taste of dirt in your mouth, and sweet in the enjoyment of just getting to play a game with a fellow enthusiast.

Having said that.. Perhaps that same feeling is acquired for other players by pitting ultimate lists against each other, and so I really can't say that they shouldn't enjoy doing so...

But, to each his own - Let the games continue

 

[vapor]

The spirit of the game is more than taking the nastiest lists against eachother, that is what 'ard boyz is for.

And it's more than taking soft fluffy lists, that's for beer and pretzel nights. We obviously play for different reasons and as long as we are both having fun that's all that matters.

I have friends that play Skaven and demons and they go at each other with the "best" items and strategies and take lists that both of them hate in an attempt to win.

Then obviously they need to do something different if they hate it.

I just don't see the point of going to a tournament with a doomwheel, two plague mortars, two lightning cannons, two warp engineers, and a bell when your opponent is just going to sigh when he sees your army. It seems to show a lack of competitiveness to me, min maxing isn't for people who want to compete, it is for people who want to win; like taking steroids.

And I don't see the point of wasting a tourny slot on someone who isn't going to bring their A game. When I see a list like that my first thought is "Awesome, now what can I do to beat it?" (That list isn't even that bad, wait till you face off against 2 HPA's... ouch!) It's not even about min-maxing (thanks for the broad, and false, generalization BTW.) it's about having the skill to make a list that can take on all comers-- Do I have an option for dealing with hordes, big monsters, magic heavy, gunlines, etc.

I have played many competitive games in eighth ed, one was against that lovely skaven list aforementioned; and I won. The fact is that with good tactics you can win a game even if it is an inferior list. Beyond that your opponent will acknowledge you as a good general and a worthy opponent, and that, I think, is the spirit of the game.

Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless. "One time I beat up Chuck Norris and then hooked up with Natalie Portman." Can't prove or disprove it usually.

Sadly, 8th ed isn't about tactics, it's about rolling dice. Anyone can get good dice. A good general in 8th is marked by the ability to consistently overcome bad dice and still win, and that starts with list building.

 

[Serpentsire]

I apologize, I see that I have offended you and your min maxing. Anecdotal evidence can be proved, it is called Rankings HQ.com. And it isn't wasting a tourney slot, someone can bring their A game without bringing a list with a comp of .02. You can be a great player by being a great player; I would pit an excellent Ogre general against a terrible Skaven player any day (but again, if I told the story it would be anecdotal and you would just dismiss it, a good story though).

The point is this, there are those players who want to have fun and try their hardest to win by skill, and those players who want to have fun and try to win by taking as many guns to a knife fight that they can. Two different outlooks, two different kinds of players.

Again, I am sorry I made you so defensive, good luck, and perhaps we will face off at a tournament some day; Adepticon? Northstar?

 

[Bibamus]

the skaven list you posted is rather friendly. no HPA or PF means you still stand a resonable chance against it and don't have to sweat to beat it. you do have a right to complain when you got 1 HPA on each flank and the 7th ed. PCB's supported by a PF. that was deadly. doom wheels are ok, much weaker than the abomination

also, why should slann be the easy way? there was allready one person who posted they never use a slann, but it looks like most of us preffer to have magic arround. the magic phase is even more random than before and harder to keep up with the new broken concentration rules. i'm pretty sure that with an oldblood list you add a lot more saurus to the army to make up for the missing killing power/augment the slann gives. an oldblood list nad a slann list are probably balanced if faced against each other or against the same opponent.

The fact is that with good tactics you can win a game even if it is an inferior list.

while i can not argue that all armies are balanced and its rather obvoius thatt if every player brings the best list in their book some don't stand a chance and some don't break a sweat to win a victory is that much sweater beating one of the "better" armies. i recall reading battle reports on this site a few months ago and when it was against [insert tier 2 or bellow army here] the replyes were congrats. when they were agsinst DOC, VC, DE there were real discussions about the tactics used and everybody seemed happyer that one of those armies lost.

also,.... wining against an inferior list would be no fun to me. i mean whats the point really, when all i need to do is march forward and roll dice? i guess thats why i didn't play demons in 7th

 

[vapor]

I apologize, I see that I have offended you and your min maxing.

I was too busy laughing at your straw man arguments and poor logic to be offended.

Anecdotal evidence can be proved, it is called Rankings HQ.com.

You realize that information taken from documented tournaments is not anecdotal, right?

And it isn't wasting a tourney slot, someone can bring their A game without bringing a list with a comp of .02.

If their list can be better it can't be their A game. As it stands it's way too early in 8th for comp to really be in, I'd give it a year before we get a good handle on what the proper amount of comp should be.

You can be a great player by being a great player; I would pit an excellent Ogre general against a terrible Skaven player any day (but again, if I told the story it would be anecdotal and you would just dismiss it, a good story though).

The point is this, there are those players who want to have fun and try their hardest to win by skill, and those players who want to have fun and try to win by taking as many guns to a knife fight that they can. Two different outlooks, two different kinds of players.

8th did a pretty good job of balancing out the current army books, but it also removed a lot of the actual skill involved in playing. Instead of the movement phase deciding games (which required skill and proper use of tactics) it put all the pressure on managing probabilities.

Again, I am sorry I made you so defensive, good luck, and perhaps we will face off at a tournament some day; Adepticon? Northstar?

Bit far north for me, but I've heard good things about both.

 

[1Legion]

I don't see why we can't agree to disagree, both of these arguments have valid points, and both can be supported to death, it's just a simple matter of views. I saw no one getting defensive, just giving a simple rebuttal. It just comes down to personal preference and opinion, which is fine. The two sides are understandable, the A-game take no prisoners can be a lot of fun, but so can the relaxed, who-gives games are, too.

I've not been able to play long enough in Fantasy to say which I prefer or see as worse/better, but so far based on reading and watching other games, the Slann is the the stronger for support and the needed magical defense that comes with 8th Edition now; however, I'm going to try the Old-blood first, a) the model is cheaper, b) I just like the idea of him more. Though, in the future I totally plan on getting a mage priest for a long list of reasons, but still.

My two cents.

 

[Walgis]

vapor +94514654
you are realy thinking like me
cant add anything, i agree with everything you said and thats my option too.

 

[Gor-rok]

I play in as many tournaments as I can, and I like winning as much as the next guy. At the same time, I try to keep things in perspective. I'm a grown man playing with toy soldiers, and at the end of the day the only way I justify it is that I'm having lots of fun.

Blowing the other guy completely off the table with a nasty, super optimized list is not fun for me, or the opponent. Neither is spending the entire game removing my defeated models and listening to the other guy gloat. I try to tailor my lists towards who I'm playing, the level of competitiveness that's expected, and, more than anything, the kind of tactics I want to use to win.

I may not be an ace player, but once they come up with a quantifiable measurement for 'units of fun had in a given time frame', I'll be able to prove I'm at the top of the hill.

 

[Dreadgrass]

I'm with you Gor-rok,

Theres an edge to the tournament scene that makes each game just that little bit more tense/ exciting. That being said, I hate obliterating opponents (unless they ask for it), and I hate taking the same "competitive" build as 2 or 3 other guys in the tourney. I always try and build my list a bit "out of the box" compared to the ultimate cookie-cutter builds that make the rounds.

Theres few things in warhammer I like more than having an opponents "not another Lizardmen/ daemons/ whtever army" statements and looks turn to comments of pleasant suprise when they discover I'm not fielding that Slann/ Thirster/ whatever and I've got a different game plan to the other opponents.

Also, taking different lists to the optimum build everyone uses can be a useful tactic in itself. A lot of people tend to build strategies and deploy based on their presumptions of how an army is usually fielded. For example, throwing down a combat-dwarf army when your opponents expecting a gun-line and has deployed 3-4 units with the express intent of combating a gunline can put you in good stead!

 

[Caneghem]

I like to make as competitive a list as I can that falls outside the realm of what everyone is taking. So I'll make a rule for myself like, "No Life Slann", then build my list around a different lore. For tournaments I'll always take a list that has the potential to win the tourney, should I play it just right. In friendly games I prefer to play stranger lists in order to play test new combos and units I haven't been using too much.