• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

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

OMG A THREAD IN A FORUM ON THE INTERNET WITH PEOPLE DECRIED SOMETHING THAT CHANGED!!!!!

The new army book is really solid and does not have anything that is unplayable (arguably Troglodon but I think every chance to build a troglodon is a chance instead for me to build a Carnosaur, which I love).

Something you should all consider is look at GW pulling back from big tournaments over the years. Look at their design of some armies having an 'OP' ruleset. The focus on selling new/weird stuff. GW has chosen to focus on 'Beer and Pretzels' Warhammer. That is to say the casual game where three friends get together, bust out a castle table and play 2v1 Castle Siege.

This is not Privateer Press or other companies who focus on the competitive play aspect. As such quick rulings or tight rulesets will not ever be in our hands.
 
morgrendel said:
No. High Magic is weak and doesn't have a lot of synergy, lore attribute is weak. Spell Swapping is weak in both incarnations. Magic Items are expensive, and not especially useful (OK, the Egg is fun, it is essential a skink assassin - where is it)
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?
That lore attribute is probably the strongest in the game, not because it makes your slann stronger directly, but because it gives you the flexibility to get whatever you need to deal with any threat in a given game.

DP? Unforge it, if you are lucky, you will drop the dragon bane gem and put a wound on it. If not, you will probably at least put a wound on it.
Once you drop the dragon bane gem, swap for the Metal sig and nuke it the next turn. If it is in combat, then nuke something that isn't.

Lizard high magic is the most versatile lore in the entire game. You can actually swap for another lore entirely if you want to, or get lucky and roll dwellers/Final Transmutation on a life swap...

Magic items aren't great, but we do get an extra dispel scroll, which no other 8th edition army has gotten.
The only time I see the Slann with High magic not being worth the investment is if you put everything on it. Just run it cheap with Loremaster and Becalming or Soul of stone and the +1 leadership banner. It keeps it at or under 400 points, which leaves you room for a well kitted, but not mounted, old blood if you want it.
 
I checked out of this thread around the time that the straw men started getting built up, but I just want to clarify that its not a question of power level. I think the book is about as strong as most of the 8th edition armies, excluding Tomb Kings (who are the weakest by far) and Warriors of Chaos (who are up at the other end of the spectrum). That's a good thing.

For me, at least, the issue is that the book, list and style of play is largely unchanged since the previous edition, and in many ways actually feels more limiting than before. There's a number of reasons for this: lack of Core options, lack of Lord options, too much in Special, poor internal balance in Rare, and units getting hit unnecessarily with the nerf bat (Skink-Kroxigor) or still too flawed (Saurus Cav).
 
I find it somewhat amusing that people actually try to argue with each other weather a certain factor of the game is destrimental or argumentative to an army when both have played with it and come to different conclusions. In this case high magic and its lore attribute. Note that I used the term "argue" and not "discuss".

Arguing with someone who consistently places high in tournaments, or wins most of his games at all infact, and praises high magic for its utility and function is somewhat redundant really. If he is crushing opposition with it, and you're not, that does not mean the lore/lore attribute is bad. It means you are bad at using it, and he isn't. You cannot argue with tournament results, you just can't. If someone came and said "Dude, Troglodons are brilliant. Placed fifth in last weeks tournament with one", I would hardly reply "Bitch please, they suck, 'nuff said", but rather I would bow down to this master of Lizardmen and beg him to show me his ways.

So when one of the best players here in Sweden, and coincidently a friend of mine, tells me "Go for high magic, its quite brilliant really", I sure as hell will try that bad boy out, and if I can't make it work, I just wont say "It sucks", but rather "Im not quite on that level where my knowledge of the game can interact with my understanding of the game to make this work yet".

In short: There is a difference between saying "Its bad. period" to "I can't figure out how to use it". And people on the internet concistently mistake one for the other. If someone has success with it and you aren't, then he knows something you don't, regardless of how great a player you are otherwise.

If someone states: I don't like this because of factor X, Z or Y, then thats the correct method to use in a discussion, since it is based upon personal opinion and viewpoint, rather than proclaiming that something is just "Crap" and anyone reading it should let it stand as some kind of universal law, like so many tend to, and then it has a tendancy to really miff those who actually enjoy that aspect of whatever you are discussing.

Respect others opinions, and understand that no matter how much you hate the book, lore or units, you can't argue with someone else's success with them. You can just humbly acknowledge that they made it work, and you did not.
 
Stormfrog said:
I find it somewhat amusing that people actually try to argue with each other weather a certain factor of the game is destrimental or argumentative to an army when both have played with it and come to different conclusions. In this case high magic and its lore attribute. Note that I used the term "argue" and not "discuss".

Arguing with someone who consistently places high in tournaments, or wins most of his games at all infact, and praises high magic for its utility and function is somewhat redundant really. If he is crushing opposition with it, and you're not, that does not mean the lore/lore attribute is bad. It means you are bad at using it, and he isn't. You cannot argue with tournament results, you just can't. If someone came and said "Dude, Troglodons are brilliant. Placed fifth in last weeks tournament with one", I would hardly reply "Bitch please, they suck, 'nuff said", but rather I would bow down to this master of Lizardmen and beg him to show me his ways.

So when one of the best players here in Sweden, and coincidently a friend of mine, tells me "Go for high magic, its quite brilliant really", I sure as hell will try that bad boy out, and if I can't make it work, I just wont say "It sucks", but rather "Im not quite on that level where my knowledge of the game can interact with my understanding of the game to make this work yet".

In short: There is a difference between saying "Its bad. period" to "I can't figure out how to use it". And people on the internet concistently mistake one for the other. If someone has success with it and you aren't, then he knows something you don't, regardless of how great a player you are otherwise.

If someone states: I don't like this because of factor X, Z or Y, then thats the correct method to use in a discussion, since it is based upon personal opinion and viewpoint, rather than proclaiming that something is just "Crap" and anyone reading it should let it stand as some kind of universal law, like so many tend to, and then it has a tendancy to really miff those who actually enjoy that aspect of whatever you are discussing.

Respect others opinions, and understand that no matter how much you hate the book, lore or units, you can't argue with someone else's success with them. You can just humbly acknowledge that they made it work, and you did not.
Click to expand...

this post should be stickied to the top of every thread - best thing I've read in ages
 
hardyworld said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said. Go back in history of Warhammer (40k too!) and try and find where people didn't complain about many things in their (or their opponents) new book. I picked out this to quote to give an example. Look at the Slaughterbeast in the latest WoC book. Who would take the freeking thing? Great model with crappy rules. There are others in that book too. As in all new books. GW just sucks at rules writing. They also suck at point-costing models correctly. It might even be deliberate, as I they do appear to enjoy this kind of controversy.

I can just imagine GW lurkers here reporting back to a table full of developers and them all snickering at some of the posts here. "Ooooh, boy we really got him, huh? Good job people!" (high fives around the room).
 
Stormfrog said:
I find it somewhat amusing that people actually try to argue with each other weather a certain factor of the game is destrimental or argumentative to an army when both have played with it and come to different conclusions. In this case high magic and its lore attribute. Note that I used the term "argue" and not "discuss".

Arguing with someone who consistently places high in tournaments, or wins most of his games at all infact, and praises high magic for its utility and function is somewhat redundant really. If he is crushing opposition with it, and you're not, that does not mean the lore/lore attribute is bad. It means you are bad at using it, and he isn't. You cannot argue with tournament results, you just can't. If someone came and said "Dude, Troglodons are brilliant. Placed fifth in last weeks tournament with one", I would hardly reply "Bitch please, they suck, 'nuff said", but rather I would bow down to this master of Lizardmen and beg him to show me his ways.

So when one of the best players here in Sweden, and coincidently a friend of mine, tells me "Go for high magic, its quite brilliant really", I sure as hell will try that bad boy out, and if I can't make it work, I just wont say "It sucks", but rather "Im not quite on that level where my knowledge of the game can interact with my understanding of the game to make this work yet".

In short: There is a difference between saying "Its bad. period" to "I can't figure out how to use it". And people on the internet concistently mistake one for the other. If someone has success with it and you aren't, then he knows something you don't, regardless of how great a player you are otherwise.

If someone states: I don't like this because of factor X, Z or Y, then thats the correct method to use in a discussion, since it is based upon personal opinion and viewpoint, rather than proclaiming that something is just "Crap" and anyone reading it should let it stand as some kind of universal law, like so many tend to, and then it has a tendancy to really miff those who actually enjoy that aspect of whatever you are discussing.

Respect others opinions, and understand that no matter how much you hate the book, lore or units, you can't argue with someone else's success with them. You can just humbly acknowledge that they made it work, and you did not.
Click to expand...

Good players can win with mediocre units because the players themselves are good (good players have finished quite well with wood elves), not because they have reached some higher state of being were suddenly the troglodon is the best unit in our book. Sure a lot of people are too quick to dismiss some units, and sometimes a unit just fits a persons particular playstyle. But just because some guy gets a good finish at a tournament with say a Troglodon, that doesnt mean that the rest of us are clueless or suck just because we think its a bad choice :)
 
I honestly like this post because it lets everyone vent. Like i hate that the slann got hit with a nerfing bat and for 300points base and my general and major wizard i just wish he was a little more defensive i mean the shield of the old ones is awesome but theres still a chance that all that goes down the tube with one miscast
 
Dreyer said:
Stormfrog said:
I find it somewhat amusing that people actually try to argue with each other weather a certain factor of the game is destrimental or argumentative to an army when both have played with it and come to different conclusions. In this case high magic and its lore attribute. Note that I used the term "argue" and not "discuss".

Arguing with someone who consistently places high in tournaments, or wins most of his games at all infact, and praises high magic for its utility and function is somewhat redundant really. If he is crushing opposition with it, and you're not, that does not mean the lore/lore attribute is bad. It means you are bad at using it, and he isn't. You cannot argue with tournament results, you just can't. If someone came and said "Dude, Troglodons are brilliant. Placed fifth in last weeks tournament with one", I would hardly reply "Bitch please, they suck, 'nuff said", but rather I would bow down to this master of Lizardmen and beg him to show me his ways.

So when one of the best players here in Sweden, and coincidently a friend of mine, tells me "Go for high magic, its quite brilliant really", I sure as hell will try that bad boy out, and if I can't make it work, I just wont say "It sucks", but rather "Im not quite on that level where my knowledge of the game can interact with my understanding of the game to make this work yet".

In short: There is a difference between saying "Its bad. period" to "I can't figure out how to use it". And people on the internet concistently mistake one for the other. If someone has success with it and you aren't, then he knows something you don't, regardless of how great a player you are otherwise.

If someone states: I don't like this because of factor X, Z or Y, then thats the correct method to use in a discussion, since it is based upon personal opinion and viewpoint, rather than proclaiming that something is just "Crap" and anyone reading it should let it stand as some kind of universal law, like so many tend to, and then it has a tendancy to really miff those who actually enjoy that aspect of whatever you are discussing.

Respect others opinions, and understand that no matter how much you hate the book, lore or units, you can't argue with someone else's success with them. You can just humbly acknowledge that they made it work, and you did not.
Click to expand...

Good players can win with mediocre units because the players themselves are good (good players have finished quite well with wood elves), not because they have reached some higher state of being were suddenly the troglodon is the best unit in our book. Sure a lot of people are too quick to dismiss some units, and sometimes a unit just fits a persons particular playstyle. But just because some guy gets a good finish at a tournament with say a Troglodon, that doesnt mean that the rest of us are clueless or suck just because we think its a bad choice :)
Click to expand...

You missunderstand me.

There is a difference between a good player winning with something that the good player acknowledges as a sub-par choice, but enjoys playing with for the sake of the challange or whatever reason, to winning with something that the good player acknowledges as good because he found it to be good. Being a good player is of course imporant when it comes to using a tricky unit. What I am refering to is the difference between taking a bad unit and using your skill to compensate, to taking a unit others perhaps find bad and understanding its synergy and place within an army so well that it becomes very good indeed.

And I never made the point that they somehow trancend the material plane and find Troglodons to be dividable by zero or some such, it was just an overstated example to my reaction if someone would bring me a unit I find bad and say "This is really good", rather than "this is really bad, but I can make it work".

And you use the keyword: "WE think its a bad choice". Yes, we do indeed. I do as well. But as you pointed out, this "we think", means what you are saying is a matter of personal opinion rather than just saying "It is a bad choice". And im afraid that if someone does manage to succesfully use a Troglodon (For example) to such an extent that he belives it to be a good unit, rather than a bad one which he could compensate with through sheer skill, then yes, compared to him, we are clueless about how to use a Troglodon. He succeeded, we failed. Easy as that.
 
Eladimir said:
Nope, love the lizards
Click to expand...
Agreed. You guys can give Eladimir and I all your lizards if you don't like them anymore.
 
Oi! I want some as well. Got a real hankering for Kroxigors...
 
I stopped.

Just swooping in to get an update to see if the FAQ was up and did a difference of any kind.

Its not that I dont like aspects of the book, its just that it clearly suffered under the space marine release.
Dont wanna support a company that lets me down after such a long wait because their mainline needs twice the attention.
(thats how I feel, argue what you like).
A good company would rather put the time needed into each product, and its my impression that they didn't and I paid for it.

Dont like the other armies, so will stop playing for now...
Keeping my lizzies
unless 9th ed does something I couldnt foresee:

see you all in 4 years.
 
Regarding the Troglodon I dare say it might even have a place on my list if they FAQ predatory fighter as most of us are hoping they will.

If they add a workaround to circumvent the rules for supporting attacks then the primal roar becomes quite a potent tool. I've already found the additional attacks from Pred fighter to be more useful than I expected just looking at the units on paper, I'm now at the point where I will probably just buy myself a trog just to paint it and try it out a few times. If it follows the standard GW pattern of releases the trog will be god in our 9th edition army book, and it will probably have doubled in price by then.
 
My Revered Guardian has downed his fair share of Heroes thanks to Predatory Fighter. I love it, even if it only works in the first rank and I have to pursue.
 
Ugh.. I might get something like 1 extra attack by PF from my saurus, which half the time will fail to hit. Over the course of a game I might get 1-2 extra wounds through which is.. Rather useless. I certainly haven't had any luck with it so far :/
 
1. anyone wnating to give away their lizards please include me in your thoughts.

2. I don't disagree with Phats our book does seem to suffer from not getting the love at the same time as SM or maybe its because they have so many books coming out quickly. Whatever it is i don't care I love my Lizards and will continue playing.
 
MarchoftheStegs said:
I don't disagree with Phats our book does seem to suffer from not getting the love at the same time as SM or maybe its because they have so many books coming out quickly
Click to expand...

After looking through this forum again it has gotten me to think:
we dont know what 9ed will be like, our book could be written for that.

Monsters could change / get better, making the Trog something it isnt now.
Supporting attacks might change to make PF become better than expected
Magic might change in a way that gives us an upperhand, perhaps with HM attribute.
perhaps *something completly game changing no one could see coming*

perhaps perhaps perhaps

perhaps the talk that 9ed will bring 1 all new book to come with full new rulesets and stats for all armies is true, and this book is just introducing the models (gigantic, my doubts are)

perhaps we got royally vetock'ed over.

my point is that our book is more likely written for 9ed than 8th, since its coming next year (or so they say)...so lets see...

And in all fairness: the book aint bad as it is, it just seems as the least interesting and renewing of the 8ed books, as well as it seems as the least "complete" one.
 
oh, and about the "rushed book" thing..

fell over this at dakkadakka.com

"Went to Gamesday and spoke to him about the book (this was back in late July). He told me his intention in writing the book was not to nerf the lizards but to balance them by removing some of the broken stuff (example he gave me was Cupped Hands) and adjusting some of their pt costs for units.

I think he did a wonderful job IMO and the more i look at the book the more I like it. He also said he had written it a year and a half ago after which he just played tested and adjusted it."

dated 2013/08/13 21:12:38

If this is true then it is in no way rushed.
 
I suppose if something markedly changes for ridden monsters next edition (as it needs to) that might make the cost of the Carnosaur seem more reasonable, but its sort of hard to see how when the Kharibdyss is objectively better in just about every sense but costs 60pts less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top