8th Ed. anyone else wanting to stop playing lizards ?

[Pofadder]

Firstly let me state I will be playing LM and only LM and won't shelve my army. I love my Lizardmen!

That being said I think our saurus, temple guard, skinks, stegadons, terradons salamanders are fine. I can live with PF drawbacks though a FAQ in our favor would be awesome.

My gripes with the new book:

Carnosaur - more expensive (what?!!) still just as easy to kill from under the rider. I hoped GW would bring something fresh to the book not make this awesome model with meh statline and rules.

Ripperdactyls - the idea here is friggin awesome! honestly...But, why the hell do they give us the fighty MC that is only T3, I3, 2W, 4+Asv. IMO T4, 2+Asv and we could have had fighty MC that had a chance against elves too or WOC. Yes against very low Ini armies they get to unload, but against the others like elves you stand a good chance of losing them to bloody ASF archer attacks before they get to attack.

Trogladon - been mentioned by others its so bad not even going to bother...

Ark of sotek - not good enough even for its cheap cost ( seriously could they not make the autohits 6" range flat? why, oh why D6") You position it close between enemy units roll a 1,2 or 3 and wonder why did you even bother bringing that crap.

Plaque of dominion - crap ability but wait, its still too good lets make it a lvl3 bound spell.

Swifstride banner for 50 points - would have been semi-useful if we could take magical banners on anything but TG (seriously only on TG????)

Razordons - not convinced at all, if I take large units they can be good, but why should I saliies are still better.

I am cool with our current Slann, even with High Magic not because its awesome, but because its workable. I am cool with the fact that Cupped Hands removed etc etc.

Those things got nerfed as they should, a 7th ed book in 8th ed was too strong with our magic dominance. GW had a chance to shift the focus, they replied by nerfing all that shit and making our new units very mediocre.

Stegadons are frigging awesome when you do not face cannons.


End rant.

So we still have the same solid choices which we will play and can do well with, but its the same things we had. The new stuff just does not measure up. I can do better with my skinks, saurus, terradons, scar-vet cowboys than when I am using the new stuff.

So my lists look the same as they had ( because I never played skink cloud anyway) and that sucks after waiting so long for the "fresh" new book.

I have tried every new unit in our book, but when I want to build a stronger list none of our new units even crosses my mind...

 

[Sleboda]

On top of it all the LM book is, ppart from TK , realy the weakest 8th book so far.

=> Well, it's a step up for me then! I am coming to Lizardmen after a long time playing Tomb Kings. I find the Lizardmen army to be a huge breath of fresh air. I can march my stuff! I have skirmishers. I have charge reactions. My monsters can be taken in numbers are not be just wasted points (due to marching, saves, and High Magic help). Spells are a boost, not a requirement for victory. With only a few minor exceptions, things don't appear to be overcosted across the board like TK stuff is.

I think this is a fantastic book and am looking forward to playing it for years to come. Yes, I know some things got toned down (as they should!) but I opted to begin the army anyway. Should be fun!

I will agree with some here that the number of rules questions and the seeming mismatch of ideas/rules (Trog is a good example) is annoying, but that's GW and I've learned to accept it. I'm just going to paint my stuff in bright colors, make dino noises, and enjoy being able to actually move my troops after the years of suffering I spent with TK.

- Predfighter is a mess. With supporting attacks and all that. (And ofc skinks being able to hold back saurus but a slann cannot)

Its only a mess until it gets clarified.

=> To be fair, it's not a mess at all. In fact, rather surprisingly for GW, it's incredibly clear! People may wish it were written differently, but at the moment there is no wiggle room for misunderstanding what is presented in the rule.

 

[jayzerus]

Man, all this pessimism is exhausting. How can you guys just keep going and going and never get tired?

 

[chefsdad]

Not all of us are pessimistic, some of us love the book

At the risk of this becoming a predatory fighter thread:

Agree with sleboda: absolutely no contradictions present or clarifications needed - no extra supporting attacks.


Also, in the fluff, saurus are bred to fight, to be foot soldiers. They are not stupid, but they are simple. The saurus as a whole take direction from the skink characters. The skink characters often can barely understand the Slann, so the saurus have no chance.


Power-wise, the rule isn't great. But in terms of fluff and flavour, it's probably one of my favourite rules in the book (thog not first, that honour goes to TOAD RAGE). Perfectly embodies the single-mindedness of the saurus, and shows the hierarchy.


IMO, most things in the book capture the fluff ruleswise. Yes, even the trololololodon and carnosaur. Only gripe I have is flying characters and units (an easy oversight) and bastilodons biting down trees with strength 4.


And the watermark, but that's a whole other thread.

 

[Pofadder]

Welcome to Lustria Sleboda and to LM. I thought I read on TWF the other day you were going to play Dark Elves. My bad if I got it wrong.

I can imagine that comparing to TK the playstyle must be refreshingly different. LM is still a very versatile army.
Yet people stating that the book is unplayable is not the way I feel about our book. The fact that some of the new units or changes to previously disadvantaged units were underwhelming is my gripe.

It is far from all doom and gloom. But its like Ushabti etc...missed oppertunities.

I am sure after release TK boards had some threads commenting on those could have beens and should have beens too...

Edited for typo

 

[Ondjage]

And the watermark, but that's a whole other thread.

Watermark? Yo quiero link to the watermark thread!

 

[Sleboda]

Just turn to page 21 of your army book...

 

[Ondjage]

For long ages of the world, the mysterious continent of Lustria has remained hidden to outsiders...

Just fluff, whats special about it?

 

[MarchoftheStegs]

To all of you pessimists.

I didn't start playing Lizardmen because of rules I did because of Stegadons (I own six and no chameleon skinks.... that is right I am a fool.).

The book is just fine I do quite well with it. Is it as powerful as WOC, Ogres, and Skaven. Nope. But is it a balanced and fun book with a lot of options that I want to try? Heck Yeah.

In short Don't be down just relax besides if the rumormongers are to be believed the rules will all change with 9th anyway.

 

[olderplayer]

I would stop whining about losing the old book. In non-comped or lightly comped, compeitive tournaments, the old book was the last truly OP 7th ed book and consistently outperformed the other armies. With extremely powerful magic in 8th edition, a Slann with becalming and focused riuminations and either loremaster (mystery) or plaque of tepok (+1 spell) was not fun to play against. Given that, one could have predicted some reduction in the Slann and Sallies and elsewhers. Yet, the army is still very competitive. [I just watched two top players, one playing a HE white lion hoard that went 3-0 at a one day event against a new LM army at 2500. The battle was closely fought with the LM army winning in the end. The LM army focused on saurus and skink cohorts with some skink skirmishers in core, TG with Slann, salamanders and chameleons a skink priest and a scar vet. The HE army ran a large White Lion unit with a Lvl 4,High Magic and Annointed and BSB, two eagles, blocks of archers to fill out core, and 3 repeater bolt throwers.]

The new LM book is kind of hit and miss relative to what one might have expected ion the new book, as some have pointed out. I would have expected better from the new models and better point costing of the carnosaur. Not very impressed with the new Basti (playable), Trog (not playable), or Ripperdactyls (ok but need FAQ to allow skink chief in unit). That being said, I think that the point costing and changes to the base of the army were generally very good and appropriate.

You had to expect that the Slann would be cut back some with the complaints about focused rumination and becalming in the old book. But it is still very good for the points and gained a very useful discipline in knowing all 8 sig spells and gained loremaster high magic. Soul of stone is more predictable and still a very good choice for a slann given the points cost (cuts risk of each of the two worst miscast effects in half).
They adjusted the points cost and took away the ability to march and shoot for sallies as expected.
The cut the LD of skinks, which hurts a bit and I did not expect.
They made it easier to attack Krox in skrox unit.

Here is what was gained:

-They cut the cost of TG. I'd take this unit all day. and even larger than before, making it even harder to beat with a slann. So many battles come down to whether the TG unit lasts to the end or the opposing unit lasts until the end (with stubborn and crown of command) and the extra models plus PF makes a lot of difference in such slugging matches. This unit can be a bit larger and/or, with lower points cost, allow for that extra skink cohort chaff/screening unit or the extra upgrade or option in the army.
-Complaints about the PF drawback of having to over-run seem more than offset by the extra attacks generated by PF esp. with the utility of having a skink priest in the army.
-They cut to cost of cold one riders and gave the mounts two attacks. Now they are worth taking.
-They cut the cost of Krox a bit and gave them S5 instead of S4 and PF. Now they are worth taking outside of a Skrox unit.
-They cut the cost and made Razordons more attrative to play.
-I like the stegs and the option for EOTG without having to take a skink priest.
-Spears are now free option on saurus.
-You have the Cube of Darkness, which is a lot better than most 8th ed books.
-You gained access to a good utilizy lore with a limited lore attribute.
-Skink priets are better with lore of beasts as well as heavens options and ability of the Slann.
Skinks gained a 6+ scaly skin save (not much but it really matters for skink cohorts in combat with common S3 and S4 models with the shield and wrt to HE archers shooting at them with S3 to clear out chaff).
-Skink chief is a lot cheaper and now much more worth taking, especially if, as expected, they FAQ the limiation on characters on mounts joining skirmisher units
-They cut the cost of the ancient steg a lot and regular steg some making both much more viable choices than before and gave some interesting upgrades to them. Just not sure about the EOTG option (like not having to expose a skink priest on top and kept arcane confir but burning alignment must now be cast and portent of warding is reduced to 6++ and 6" range but always on and useful even in combat).
-They gave the Slann a loremaster option with all signature spellls.

 

[RipperDerek]

Someone clearly hasn't read the thread...

 

[Spiney Norman]

Nice. I would avoid telling people to grow up just because they have an opinion other then your own. Its verry childish. And your basicly telling folks to l2p. You have no clue how i play. What makes you the all knowing god here? please....get off your throne wise guy.

Way to msunderstand me, because clearly your opinion is the correct one, I suppose now that you have decreed that the book is a useless pile of dross that is an indisputable fact of the universe.

Perhaps my other reply was a little hyperbolic, but I'm really getting sick of all the whining 'wahhhh my OP army book got nerfed *RAGEQUIT*' when the current list is perfectly playable if you put the effort into getting the best out of your units.

I never said i expected the slann to stay as it was. And i think no1 here was. But the book is poorly thought out

No it really isn't, there is perhaps ONE unit that is 'poorly thought out' (the troglodon) the rest of it works very well. I can't recall any army book in the game that doesn't have at least one 'joke unit', heck some books have entire swathes of their list which almost never get used.

and full of errors

Is this another watermark comment, because I'm getting really, really bored of that one? Compared to most Gw publications there are relatively few errors (in terms of spelling mistakes, typos etc).

and rules that are poorly worded.

There is one rule that I suspect there is a mistake on, Tiktaq'to should obviously be able to join units of terradons, I can't find any other rules that are poorly worded unless you have a list to share with us.

Where as other books got more choises for core we got more limited in core.

Because we were all fielding core jungle swarms last edition right? Seriously did this actually affect anyone? We have three useful and competitive core choices in our book, that is actually more than some armies have.

PF is unclear on the extra ranks.

No it isn't, there is actually nothing remotely unclear about the way predatory fighter works, it just doesn't work how you (or a lot of other LM) players think it should work. Whether they FAQ it to allow subsequent ranks to make use of their extra attacks or not is largely irrelevent, the rules as they stand are not 'unclear' in any way.

 

[hardyworld]

and rules that are poorly worded.

There is one rule that I suspect there is a mistake on, Tiktaq'to should obviously be able to join units of terradons, I can't find any other rules that are poorly worded unless you have a list to share with us.

Generally, I agree with Spiney Norman in the above post (I know, that's typical of me).

There are 2 other poorly worded parts though:

The rules on designating attacks onto Kroxigors in Skink Cohort units containing Kroxigors is poorly worded. As it is worded now, enemy units that can attack Kroxigors, must attack Kroxigors (which provides unprecedented protection to skink characters). I doubt this was intentional. Furthermore, it's unclear if enemy supporting attacks are allowed to attack Kroxigors in these units (meaning they would have to attack the skinks). All this strange wording and rules on who can attack who is very convoluted.

Drain Magic and how it affects spells (and spell effects) that are not a Hex or Augment. This has been a been unclear ever since the HE book and have still not been clarified. It is unclear whether Drain Magic affects things such as: HE High Magic lore attribute, WoC Lore of Nurgle lore attribute, WoC Lore of Slaanesh lore attribute, Plague of Rust, LM High Magic lore attribute, Dreaded 13th Spell turning models into rats, WoC rolls on the EotG chart as a result of a spell, Magic Missiles, and Direct Damage Spells.


While not currently unclear, these rules seem like they may be changed in an FAQ:

Burning Alignment & Deliverance of Itza limited targets to units in front arc and not in close combat. Especially the latter part seems counter intuitive.


I believe RipperDerek on the first page of the thread summed up all the complaints and missed opportunities of the 8th Ed. LM book pretty well. While I acknowledge all of these, I really agree with Spiney Norman, the book is fair and playable. And I wish the Troglodon had better rules so I would be motivated buy and paint the model.

 

[Pinktaco]

@ The kroxigor issue: Uhm no.. It's not badly worded. It reminds me of how some have discussed whether or not the Piranha blade would work on the slanns magic (lol?!) due to the way it is worded. I mean come the fuck on ...

The way it is worded with the kroxigors is the following: "Unless otherwise states, close combat attacks can only target kroxigor within a mixed unit if an enemy model is either in base contact with a kroxigor, or if an enemy model is in base contact with a skink who is in turn in base contact with a kroxigor".

There is nothing to misunderstand here and anybody who does are doing anything they can to look for small loopholes to gain an advantage. It specifically mentions HOW you can attacks the krox and not as if you can only do it. Otherwise it should've been worded sometihng like: "unless otherwise stated, close combat attakcs can only target kroxigors." And nothing more.

And just to be sure, while I realize my post sounds hostile I'm not out to offend you. I have no idea whether or not this is something you play with.

Anyway, about supporting attacks against kroxigors I actually have no idea - is there no mentioning in the BRB of this? It's a bit of an unusual situation.

 

[Sleboda]

Actaully, Pinktaco and hardyworld, you're both right/wrong.

The problem with the Krox wording is that it is equally valid to read the paragraph each way.

A - It could be telling the reader that attackers can only attack Kroxigor, and not skinks, if the situation presented is what is going on.

B - It could be telling the reader that attackers cannot attack Kroxigor, and must attack skinks, unless the situation presented is what is going on.

To make it clear, it would require a rewording.

To make it so that B (above) is the case, it should say "It is not possible to direct close combat attacks at Kroxigor within a mixed unit unless the attacker is either in base contact with a Kroxigor or a Skink who is in turn in base contact with a Kroxigore."

To make it so that A (above) is the case, it should say "If an attacker is in contact with a Kroxigor in a mixed unit or in contact with a Skink who is in turn in contact with a Kroxigor, then that attacker must always direct his attacks at Kroxigor."


Rather impressively, in a way, GW has managed to craft a sentence that in no way directs us to a definitive solution one way or the other. Either reading is 100% acceptable.


EDIT: Fixed my phrasing per hardyworld's comments.

 

[hardyworld]

Pinktaco, your post contradicts itself. You state that the wording is already clear, and then point out how it is unclear.

Sleboda, you're right on (EDIT: removed comments, Sleboda addressed all of them).

I think the original wording of the rule works by removing "can only" in the rule and replace it with "may" would clear that bit up nicely.

 

[Dissus]

Im talking opinions. My personal one that is. And i dont think the book is rubish. I do think the book is the worsed after TK. This is my opinion. Some rules leave rule to interpetation. And yeah..the tiktaq to one is a thorn in my eye.

And no i am not quiting. Going for Tetto'eko tho

 

[Pinktaco]

Pinktaco, your post contradicts itself. You state that the wording is already clear, and then point out how it is unclear.

Sleboda, you're right on (EDIT: removed comments, Sleboda addressed all of them).

I think the original wording of the rule works by removing "can only" in the rule and replace it with "may" would clear that bit up nicely.

No what I meant what that the sentence should've been completely different in order for it to mean that you can only hit the kroxigors.

The way it is currenlty worded I cannot see why anyone would bother to question the wording, unless they're deliberately out to find loopholes. Just because the word "only" is mentioned it doesn't give you the right to disregard what follows: "within a mixed unit if an enemy model is either in base contact with a kroxigor, or if an enemy model is in base contact with a skink who is in turn in base contact with a kroxigor".

I just don't see it.

It is IMO as clear just like how Predatory Fighter doesn't grant extra attacks from supportive attacks.

Also while I was a bit stressed out earlier the poster questioned support attacks against Kroxigors. If you read the sentence again it is clear as day. You either have to be in B2B contact with the krox itself to hit it OR in B2B with a skink who is then in B2B with a kroxigor.

 

[Jabroniville]

My Lizardmen are the only one of my three armies (O & G, previous version of Dark Elves) that have defeated my friend's ludicrously-tough High Elves.

We still have MOST of the advantages we used to have- high Leadership, high toughness, inability to be broken easily (Cold-Blooded is probably the most underrated ability in the game), and the best non-Special Wizard in the game; but several unfair advantages were nerfed. Possibly TOO many, but not THAT badly.

I mean, the Salamanders were just broken- any unit that you basically MUST take if you want to win is over-the-top, and they needed to cost more. The Slann getting the ability to roll an extra dice for EVERY SPELL was insane- even with the nerfing, they're top-tier Wizards still. I also like that Skink Clouds were nerfed, though I never cared for that play-style so I was mostly unaffected.

I find Predatory fighter to be VERY useful (roll a bunch of sixes at once and you're looking VERY good in combat- and Saurus are among the very best Core Infantry in the game- watch them go up against mediocre troops and it's a MASSACRE), and since I generally find myself needing to pursue, I'm unaffected by the rules. The flaw in PF means that you HAVE to pursue, but they sneakily threw in the option that basically REQUIRES some people to take Skink Chiefs & Priests, "fixing" the old issue of people never bringing Chiefs to the battle. At 40 points, they're not BAD fighters for what you're charged. Also most Lizard players should know about that, and throw the Omni-present Skink Skirmishers at small units sent out to bait you instead.

There ARE a bunch of flaws, which people have gone into- Cold Ones should get a Magic Banner (especially because a Slann General BSB is usually a better option than a Saurus), are too pricey, and the Troglodon is a mess. Some rules need to be clarified, but that happens with every Army Book. They needed a better proof-reader or play-tester.

 

[olderplayer]

One needs to have a bit of perspective and see the books from playing most of the armies and having to play against them. My feeling after a deep dive with my son was that the LM book could have been a lot worse and the new book really gave LM generals a lot to work with while taking away some crutches they had been relying on. It is reallly a pretty balanced book by GW standards (other than the special characters). Since my son plays LM as his primary tournament army and has won and placed in major GTs, I can tell you he is quite happy with the new book in that he'll face less Slann hate but still be quite competitive.

The rules issues have already been debated on other threads. I really think they are quite minor and easily worked around until a FAQ shows up. It is kind of irritating that GW did not spot that a skink chief on monstrous flying mount can't join a unit of flying monstrous cav in the BRB; hopefyully, GW will FAQ/errata that issue. The PF issue is the only potenital dice-off issue where there is an ambiguity between the army book and supporting attacks rule in the BRB. The Krox in skrox rules just doesn't seem that unclear to me once you think it through (you can now target the Krox in combat if in base contact with a skink that is in base contact with a Krox). If those are the " major" issues, by GW standards, that is not bad. Try writing rules and scenarios and see how hard it is soem time.

I would suggest that Daemons is the worst written book in terms of lack of internal ballance, number of "what was GW thinking" rules and units and point costing, and potential for confusion and misreading of the rules. I put my DoC army on the shelf for competitive play after trying the army at a tourney and running into at TK army focused on light magic (ouch?) , a high elf army built around BOTWD (nothing like having only magical attacks against a unit that has a 2+ ward to magical attacks). and an empire army with light wizards (ouch!) with no dispel scroll or other arcane options. Yet, I still see DoC armies doing okay with the new book.

The TK book is pretty clearly written but just did not quite get the points right for some of the units and over-valuedc the lore attribute such that TK armies, with the exception of a couple of army buiilds, tend to be weaker than the other army book written in 8th ed. Yet, I know of very competitive tournament players with winning records playing TK armies.

The new WoC book (another of my old favorites) has some signifiicant issues as well, wtih some OP units and characters (including the unbreakable Daemon Prince and 3+ ward with re-rollable 1's lord of tzaentch) and mispointed units (new monsters not worth playing, chosen and forsaken and marauders not worth playing, nurgle too cheap, charots too cheap, skullcrushers too OP and cheap) but I didn't find it to be so good that I could not beat the army I was playing.

I'm not pleased that they changed up dark elves such that my spreamen can't go without shields and be a cheap bunker unit for a sac dagger and will likely go back in the box. I'll have to dust off my corsairs and paint some more corsairs. Probably will have to put my BG unit away as well and start painting the executioner models that were gathering dust. The old cauldron of blood goes away as well and I have to figure out a converstion model for the new cauldron since I don't want to pay for the new cauldron and think it was overdone. Other than warlocks, the new units seem pretty lame and not great in a competitive army. Finally, my hydras are no longer OP for their points cost and only just worth playing. OK, so my DE army will play differently and represent a refreshing change from the army I played for some 5+ years now. I no longer have a pendant lord and stubborn witches, two hydras, and a cheap sac dagger in a unit of spearmen and power of darkness spam as crutches any more.

I could go on and on and complain about every army book in fantay and some rules in the BRB as well, seems like a lot of waste of time to me over a game after all.