8th Ed. is Toughness devalued?

[Mr Phat]

I entered Warhammer at the late end of our 7th
Book, and far too late recognized the sick power that was the Slann.

I think he did the job as a beating heart for the LM army well, too well though.
While he was vastly OP I have come to think that Verock adressed the problem wrong:

When people say that the slann is the most powerful caster in the game I simply cant agree.
To me he is the most VERSATILE or DEFENSIVE, but for casting power he dosnt get more spells through than any other lvl4 wizards.

Vetock simply cut the offensive part out, and it is felt!
Our troops rely so heavily on magic support, and now that the slanns diciplins mostly benefit him, the heart doesnt pump blood that well anymore

I dont get how he failed to see the "no buffs, no glory" syndrome we live with, why not change
Focused rumination to "+something when casting augments" indtead of removing it?

Toughness wont do alone, and now that saurus have a harder time getting buffed
They are even more situational.

 

[dustandpolos]

From what I can tell, toughness isn't devalued particularly; rather all stats have crept up, making T4 less effective.

As earlier posts have pointed out there are a lot of great weapons out there now, but more than that, most blocks of infantry I see are cheap tarpits or elite - normally special choices aside from Dwarves / WoC which have expensive, elite core.

People complain about Saurus' longevity, but they are normally comparing to elite/special infantry from other books; White Lions, Executioners, Witch Elves w/CoB, Hammerers. In general, things that a salamander will decimate given a fair wind and a turned flank. The other problem they struggle with is armour, but no-one argues heavy cav is overpowered in this edition and monsterous cav is designed to kill infantry in decent numbers. We can all count the number of multi-wound weapons we have available in our book to deal with that.

Against most core, Saurus look much stronger. Trying to get roughly even points, and ignoring PF entirely out of laziness:

High Elf Spears: 30 elves 6x5 vs 24 Saurus w/spears 6x4, no charge works out at 4.5 kills to the elves (roughly) and 6.66 kills in return, no steadfast on break

Empire halberd horde 10x4: 3.25 kills to the men, 8 kills back, no steadfast on break

Orc horde 10x4, 2HW: 3.5 kills to the orcs, 6 kills back, no steadfast on break

And so on; I don't know points values for other obvious matchups, but my Saurus did fine last game against an equal number of bloodletters who got the charge, as anecdotal evidence.



I don't see a lot of High Elf spearmen in lists, though, I see White Lions and Phoenix Guard. I don't see Orcs, I see Savage Orc Big'uns. The problem Saurus have that their preferred matchups are being dropped in favour of big or multiple elite units of specials to carry melee. Which we do as well with Temple Guard. It would be nice to see more Saurus units in the same way as it would be nice to see more HE armies with multiple units of spearelves, if you care for the fluff that comes with the race, but Saurus don't really seem overpriced to me - they're just designed to maul blocks of core infantry that aren't coming out to play in the same way as early 8th

 

[Mr Phat]

From what I can tell, toughness isn't devalued particularly; rather all stats have crept up, making T4 less effective.

...isnt that the definition of "devalued" ?

 

[Screamer]

I agree that mainly it's an issue that the saurus go up against the wrong foes, mainly because there aren't that many right foes out there.

Compare these calculations:
vs an enemy with: S 6, better WS, T3, heavy armour.
Saurus w handweapon shield
Both units have 5 files.

Opponent (1A each): 10 A, 6,66 hits, 4,63 dead
Opponent (2A each or strike in 3 ranks): 15 A, 10 hits, 6,94 dead

Saurus:
15A, 7,5 hits, 5 wounds, 4,17 dead

If the opponent costs >13 points, the saurus comes out on top vs 1A troops, and at >18 pts vs the 2A troops.

This is about the worst match-up, since the saurus are just as resiliant as Skinks w shields vs S6 attacks...

Versus S5 troops they are a little more resiliant, since they get a 6+As as well as the parry.
1A opponent: 3,86 dead saurus
2A opponent: 5,78 dead saurus

The enemys point value should than be >10 pts and >15 pts respectively. Of course, this doesn't take re-rolls or buffs into the equation, and both sides are considered to be at least 10 models left after the exchange.

If you compare them versus Chaos Warriors the calculation looks like this: It's obviously better to shoot/engage the CW with something else.

vs halbards, no mark:
CW kills 50,82 points worth of saurus
Saurus kills 42,5 points worth of warriors
vs hw/s, no mark:
CW kills 30,58 points worth of saurus
Saurus kills 23,4 points worth of warriors.


I guess I agree that the saurus use have been devalved mostly because most armies have easy access to S6 attacks. If most opponents would be S4-5, the saurus would be a lot better.

 

[Lizardmatt]

Orc horde 10x4, 2HW: 3.5 kills to the orcs, 6 kills back, no steadfast on break

I don't see a lot of High Elf spearmen in lists, though, I see White Lions and Phoenix Guard. I don't see Orcs, I see Savage Orc Big'uns.

Except that orcs are +1 strength in the first round of combat, and you get 37 orcs with full command for the cost of 24 saurus.

The 6x6 block of orcs (w/handweapon and shield) gets 2 WS4 S5 attacks, and 11 WS3 S4 attacks. That's good for 2.26 kills vs hand weapon saurus, while taking downing 3.6 orcs in return (light armor, shield, parry). With 2 ranks vs 3 ranks, the win goes to whoever charged. If the orcs lose, they will be steadfast for a very long time. Long enough that combat for the orcs will be decided by other factors. The only orcs that should horde, are savage big uns with extra hand weapons.
If the saurus go with spears, they take 2.57 losses while killing 4.6. While they gain a kill, they only gain that kill by giving up the charge.

-Matt

 

[Pinktaco]

Well here's the issue: 3 elven armies all with reroll to hit, some vs to wound. Against white lions it means that pretty much all attacks are also wounds. Dwarfs can potentially have hatred so more rerolls. Chaos? Let's not go there.ogres I'm not too sure with tbh but with great weapons and stomps I'm guessing it'll be rough for us.

Obviously most or these are elite in some way, but it just goes to show what we're usually up against and how odd our Saurus warriors are. The middle of the road isn't currently ideal. I personally much prefer to have 50 skink cohort with better movement, same survivability and some shooting.

 

[Andy06r]

Does the math change if a future FAQ rules that PF applies to all attacks?

6x5 spears against white lions. I don't know what size they normally are, but let's just go with 6x5.

White Lions kill 12 * 2/3 * 5/6 = 6.67

Saurus kill 24 * 7/6 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 5/6 = 7.77

If the white lions horde and the saurus go 5x6...

White lions (8 files) do 13.34 and saurus do 6.48 but are steadfast.

I mean, its core vs. special. This doesn't seem terrible to me....

Khorne Halberds (6 wide) drop 24 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 5/6 = 8.89
Saurus Spears do 24 * 7/6 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 4.66

That's essentially a tie points wise and is core vs the hardest core.

 

[Putzfrau]

at the end of the day saurus' biggest problem is that they aren't as good as skinks.

saurus are not an awful choice, they are simply a sub optimal one.

 

[Andy06r]

But why wasn't this true with the old book?

Cohorts were the same price with the parry save and had better ld. I suppose it probably was - skink cloud was a thing after all.

 

[Putzfrau]

But why wasn't this true with the old book?

Cohorts were the same price with the parry save and had better ld. I suppose it probably was - skink cloud was a thing after all.

Yep. It was true. Saurus blocks (that's plural) haven't been an optimal choice in a very very long time.

 

[Mr Phat]

Does the math change if a future FAQ rules that PF applies to all attacks?

6x5 spears against white lions. I don't know what size they normally are, but let's just go with 6x5.

White Lions kill 12 * 2/3 * 5/6 = 6.67

Saurus kill 24 * 7/6 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 5/6 = 7.77

If the white lions horde and the saurus go 5x6...

White lions (8 files) do 13.34 and saurus do 6.48 but are steadfast.

I mean, its core vs. special. This doesn't seem terrible to me....

Khorne Halberds (6 wide) drop 24 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 5/6 = 8.89
Saurus Spears do 24 * 7/6 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 4.66

That's essentially a tie points wise and is core vs the hardest core.

white lions a special yes, but they are merely 2pts more than saurus.
Whatever its core or special, the points dont add up.
Lions can hurt EVERYTHING, and be stubborn meanwhile.
What makes their army selection better is that they take their cav in core and infantry in special where we do it the other way around.

And to spoil your khorne set up: did you take account for marks? Of nurgle to be precise?

 

[Screamer]

White lions are 4 pts extra.

Against CW of nurgle the saurus gets beaten pretty badly, both point-by-point and by models. But I don't think any infantry unit does very well vs nurgle warriors ...

The entire game is a game of rock-paper-scissors, and every unit belongs to either category.

The goal is to get the rocks against their scissors, paper against their rocks and scissors against their paper.

Instead of comparing the Saurus (paper) vs good/elite infantry (scissors) they should be compared against missile troops and basic core infantry like halbardiers, spearmen, regular orcs, goblins, rats, skeletons (rocks)

Against 200 pts of high elvs archers, how many rounds does it take to kill them with 200 pts saurus in cc compared to 200 pts skink skirmisher shooting? I assume the elves wear light armour.

I think you get 22 archers, 28 skinks and 18 saurus for 200 points

Thats 28 skinks, if they move and shoot at long range they kill 3,89/turn, if they get to short range that increases to 5,83. They need 3-6 rounds of shooting to wipe them out. The elves moves, shoot at short range and kills 3,26 skinks/turn.

The saurus (6 wide) kill 6,66 elves/round of combat. Thats 3-4 rounds, or 1,5-2 game turns to wipe them out, but the elves will probably break before that.
At full strenght, assuming all elves can strike, they kill 2,66 saurus/turn. With shooting at short range (assuming all of them can shoot) while standing still they kill 2,44, at long range 1,83. 2 rounds of long range, and 1 round of short range gives them 6,1 kills before melee + 1 extra from stand and shoot.

Don't send saurus against dedicated, good cc-units without the support of a scar-vet or something else, but don't hesitate to send them against everything else.

Guess the bottom line is that we don't have one overpowered unit in the saurus that wins the game by itself, if you want that, go for a cold-one delivery-system with 4-5 characters. They run through everything that doesn't have killing blow.

 

[dustandpolos]

From what I can tell, toughness isn't devalued particularly; rather all stats have crept up, making T4 less effective.

...isnt that the definition of "devalued" ?

I could probably have phrased that better . All stats have crept up a bit, not just toughness. Look at the number of 2 Attack infantry out there now - even Saurus used to just get the 1+bite (makes a difference for Temple Guard). Monstrous cavalry throw out a silly number of attacks per model. 1+ Armour saves seem reasonably common these days, and practically mandatory for characters. Does 3+ save cavalry even exist now? At one point that was standard on Silver Helms to keep them moving 9"/turn. At least 2 armies have WS6 rank and file troops... that's Lord level stats for many armies, when WS 5 used to be standard for elite infantry.

None of that is a complaint, I'm not calling any of those developments a mistake or any unit unbalanced as a result. But stat inflation doesn't just apply to S/T. So T is devalued, but not relative to other stats.


@Lizardmatt - yeh, I was ignoring command groups etc for the sake of simplicity, and while first round bonuses are useful most core infantry fights end up taking a bit longer. Horde was just to maximise damage. But fair points.


White Lions are a third more expensive. They take up special points. They don't count towards core. They are designed to kill high toughness models. If Andy06r's stats are right, we do very well when you factor those differences in. Incidentally, Saurus are more reliable point for point; they can steadfast up and benefit from stubborn and cold blood unsupported, while the Lions are just stubborn. Saurus are also more resilient against any attack with armour piercing (up to a max of S.6) - that's model for model, not point for point. I'm not trying to argue they are the greatest unit of all time, but their Toughness does give them advantages in some scenarios.

To pull this away from Saurus and back to Toughness in general, the final point that hasn't been raised is that an enemy army is not made up entirely of White Lions. If that High Elf player is sending his S6 after your core, they aren't hacking down stegadons for a round or two. I don't know about the Phoenices, but I don't recall any other HE units hitting at S6 unless he brought a med-large dragon, which means everyone else is facing S5, making a big difference for your monsters. T4 troops means we force them to make decisions about where to send their axes, and help a bit towards high Toughness target saturation. And as we have easy access to cheap/fast/fragile as well, there is nothing to stop you from tarpitting his Lions/hammerers/Nurgle Halberds with skink cohorts - we can force mismatches just as easily.

 

[Mr Phat]

White lions are 4 pts extra.

As I write this I sit with both books in front of me. Lions are 2 pts extra per model.

To pull this away from Saurus and back to Toughness in general, the final point that hasn't been raised is that an enemy army is not made up entirely of White Lions. If that High Elf player is sending his S6 after your core, they aren't hacking down stegadons for a round or two. I don't know about the Phoenices, but I don't recall any other HE units hitting at S6 unless he brought a med-large dragon, which means everyone else is facing S5, making a big difference for your monsters. T4 troops means we force them to make decisions about where to send their axes, and help a bit towards high Toughness target saturation. And as we have easy access to cheap/fast/fragile as well, there is nothing to stop you from tarpitting his Lions/hammerers/Nurgle Halberds with skink cohorts - we can force mismatches just as easily.

Point well received. It is true that its easy to forget that it isnt lions all over the table, but the mind falls on other core that are supperior to ours ..and also sadly superior to our elite infantry.

The true point of my dislike for saurus is not what they are, its what they arent and cant be.
We CANT make an elite block of infantry. TG are good but they are not top tier even though they are darn expensive for what they do.

If I had been on the project of making our 8th book ive would seriously have considered the option of making Templeguard a core option (hear me out)

Templeguard arent good for special, and they arent much better than regular saurus.
They only truly shine when they are accompanied by a slann, which is the main reason people take them.
(correct me if you dont agree)
even then it feels awkward to spend 1/3 of your special allowance on something that expensive that in all likeliness will take miscast punishment.
This is after you already bought a very expensive caster, and filled up your core.
There isnt much points left for other roles after this, and since TG's cant go toe-to-toe with anything seriously threatening then you really need to put points into other solutions.

My proposal:

Allow 1 unit of Templeguards as Core per Slann in the army.

Fluffwise a Slann is ALWAYS accompanied by his TempleGuard. They exist for his sake, and when a Slann goes to war, he is the center / the CORE of the army
Gamewise it wouldnt be groundbreaking in any way. They STILL wouldn't be the best core in the game.

It would remove tons of awkwardness from filling points into that unit. At least thats how I feel, and I really think that it would be a fairer way to justify that we don't have more core units, that we dont have better infantry options and that all other options that COULD fit core is in special.

Just thinking of paying my TG's with Core points gives me a sense of relief. It feels SO right to me.

 

[Screamer]

White lions are 4 pts extra.

As I write this I sit with both books in front of me. Lions are 2 pts extra per model.

Well... I might have looked in the 7th ed book... oops

And I agree that the temple-guards should be core if you have a Slann in the army.
And they should be cheaper, it just gets hilarious (or makes you want to cry) when you compare them to White Lions.

 

[n810]

"temple-guards should be core if you have a Slann in the army. "

I believe we had this in 6th edition.

 

[Mr Phat]

I actually wouldnt complain about their pts if they could be transfered to core that way. I think that would be a very reasonable trade-off, as said unit would be Stubborn and ITP as it is now. Very fair cost for a core unit that does that.

and yes.. -.- comparing WL and TG WILL make you fail your 10LD re-rollable Cold blood test... its just offending that we have to pay more for less..especially when its our best guys.

 

[Putzfrau]

1 unit of core temple guard would honestly change nothing.

 

[SilverFaith]

I think a lot of you are seeing this from the "wrong side of the table".

T4 is good. Sure, the amount of S4/5 has increased, but look at it from the perspective of, say, empire.

They have a baseline of T3. S5 wounds on 2+, instead of 3+ on our Saurus. Unless we are talking S6+, we are STILL better at taking punishment than T3 guys.

If anything, you should just make sure to have tarpits around to mess up those S6+ annoyances. Throw a salamander fire at them, engage with a block of cohorts, and they will be locked in combat for a few turns. They are so inefficient against the small skinks that it is almost hillarious.

I remember a mount ago, 3k point battle. Took a 250points skink cohort unit, 5 models wide, 10 ranks deep. He came at me with 6 wide White Lions, 4 ranks deep. Pointwise, he had spend more points than I had. He planned on engaging my Troglodon, and then cut through to my Slann bunker. He got charged by my cohorts turn 1, and was stuck there till the end of his turn 3, when my unit finally ran. He didn't catch it, and he had lost 10 of his white lions. I had lost 37 skinks, sure... but the cohorts are disposable, meant as a tarpit, and most importantly, they are core. He had wasted almost 350 points on absolutely nothing. He would have killed Saurus just as fast, and instead he had to deal with this.

T4 IS good. It is simply not overpowering good, which it shouldn't be. The only reason S5 seems like bullshit, is because of elves and the fact that they ignore the always strike last rule.

 

[Mr Phat]

Empire? what Empire? the Empire who has Inner Circle Knights in core and Special monstrous cavalry with 1+ armour save at just 8pts more than our ASL T4 AS 4+ monsterous infantry ? .............that Empire? you know, that Empire also has Steamtanks...
I have NO symphathy concerning survivability towards THAT Empire. That Empire should be ashamed to be ashamed of T3.

Its not about how easy you wound, its about the amount of wounds that gets through.

also:
I like how you argue that Saurus are okay and then continues talk of "that time my skink-cohort did a better job than saurus would have" ^^

T4 IS good. It is simply not overpowering good, which it shouldn't be. The only reason S5 seems like bullshit, is because of elves and the fact that they ignore the always strike last rule.

I completly agree.