• 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. Scalenex finally joins the Consensus, I'm done with Saurus Warriors

I really like saurus, I think they do their roll really well. They are no chaos warrior but they are also a damn site cheaper. I also play a unit of about 30 with gor-rok (or scar vet with crown) and I have never lost them. They do extremely well against most armies and one wild form on them and nothing can compete with them, and we have such cheap and easy access to lots of beasts wizards. I think they even hold their own against some special units and with a little support I've had them beating swordmasters and chaos warriors. They are a valid part of any army and I tend to split my core into saurus and skirmishers about 50:50 ish.
Also I think we have quite a good core options compared to some armies, VC basically have a choice of 2 really crappy units that basically do the same thing and one very mediocre units that doesn't do much better and the dogs, ogres have either ogres or gnoblers. That's just the other armies I play, I think lizardmen core is much more versatile. Saurus, skink cohort, skirmishers and scrox all do very different think and all do it reasonably well, although I'm not a massive fan of scrox.
Saying that though I would love to see cold one cab in core, I had my fingers crossed the whole time I was waiting for the latest book to come out and was very disappointed they weren't.
 
I mean no disrespect to Anyone. But when people defend regular sauruses, sometimes I wonder are we really playing the same game :p
They rarely get to choose their opponent and this meta doesnt favour a) infantry b) mediocre core. You need to be a good player imo to get the mileage from sauruses :)
I dont regard myself as good but nevertheless, ive started to use two 10-15 strong saurus blocks to combat chaff which disrupt my skinks too easily. And they can also be set for double flee as well.
 
I don't think arkadons in core would be OP, expecially with a slightly nerfed profile (think to the steg/ancient steg). Being able to field a solo monster army would be interesting and unique, even if not competitive. Solardons should stay in special of course. Sorry if i disagree with you @Scalenex , but IMO "unconventional" core monsters (and actually definetly-not-so-good-monsters like arkadons) wouldn't be as negative as "conventional" endless hordes of 2 points steadfast infantry, amazingly good core choices which can destroy enemy elites, 1+ armour saves core and even mono skirmishers. Still there's no reason to discuss about something that will never happen, haha :banghead:
 
SW have the problem of being medium infantry in a game where there is no point in fielding medium infantry. Steadfast has made it such that light infantry can tank combats as well as medium and put out as much offense thanks to horde. Plus most armies don't even need to take light infantry because they can go full heavy or cavalry.

Sure if you add characters they do well but that is because we have the best CC characters in the game. Even our chiefs are amazing.
 
I know this might step on someones toes, and im sorry about that, but this is my view on things:

If you are defending saurus as a viable unit, you are not in a high skilled competitive environment.
I can elaborate on this if anyone cares.

Know that I wish it was different.
I went into warhammer and lizardmen because of these guys.
 
KingCheops said:
SW have the problem of being medium infantry in a game where there is no point in fielding medium infantry. Steadfast has made it such that light infantry can tank combats as well as medium and put out as much offense thanks to horde. Plus most armies don't even need to take light infantry because they can go full heavy or cavalry.
Click to expand...

This. Their price tag per points is rather high or high medium if you like. Therefore their stats are as said a bit mediocre. Which is as mentioned quite a big issue in the current rules set. If they would have a higher price tag with better rules they would be taken quite often - but then they would be temple guard. Also if they would be worse stats wise and have lower price tag they would also be taken frequently - but then they would be skinks.

So the problem really isn't the saurus themselves but the environment they have been pushed in.

I also agree with Phatmotha-phucka as I would like them to be much more viable option. I have 50 something in my army case but they rarely see any action these days but I really would like to make a competitive saurus list.

BR
Agrem
 
May as well throw my hat in the ring.

I like Saurus, I use them almost all the time (but that's because I don't have that many skinks). The way I see them is that they're going to be the inevitable tide that comes in behind everything else. For the way I play, magic is usually the big threat out of my side, and with the Saurus acting as the cleanup or to pin some enemy units.

I'll agree, though, their cost and lack of options annoys and confounds me. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like there's not a core way to carry a BSB like many other armies, and there core units seem so... bland in comparison as well. No cavalry in the core, nothing fast, and initiative 1 continues to hack me off.
 
I think it would be fun to have a unit like the chaos hounds where there is higher movement and not an infantry unit but not as calvary (though our current cav could use a revamp). Maybe like crocodiles or somehing like that.
 
See, now I'm really wishing there was skink cavalry. I think I might take the leftover terradon rider from my latest set and put him on a Cold One and proclaim him the unit champion.
 
Pure wishlisting here: what about Snakemen? A quick mobile unit with poisoned close combat attacks, and maybe some other nifty little rule. Too much?
 
I remember that Snakemen were one of the false rumours that was floating around just before our current army book was released. I knew it was a long shot at that time, but still I was a bit disappointed to see that it did not come to pass.
 
I switched my Saurus out for Skink-Kroxigor about six months ago. 20 Skink/2Krox, full command. Have not looked back since. The flexibility that this unit offers is unparalleled. They shoot, they fight, they run up the flanks to apply pressure, they sit in the main combat line, they can go 10 wide for 16 shots or 4 ranks deep to tarpit.

Just back from the SCGT and their notable achievements of the weekend:

  • Pushed up a flank against Wood Elves, keeping nine Wild Riders honest and out of the game to give me a win. Got into range turn 5 and shot off 3. Shot another 2 off on the stand and shoot. Lost a Krox but killed a sixth and held. They left one surivor merely because my Kroxigor rolled three ones twice to hit, which would have given me a bigger victory.
  • Game 2 distracted a unit of 18 Nurgle Warriors, keeping them out of the game. Ran up 6" on turn 6 to capture a table quarter, and with two other units of Skinks nearly Zulu Dawn'd them off the table in one round of shooting (I think he rolled a 7 on his break test, with Iceshard. So close!).
  • Game 5 Made a unit of Plague Drones wary by offering them only long charges, then chased them into a corner after the centre was broken, and then helped box in a unit of Warriors of Chaos to get a 20-0.
  • Game 6 Bravely held the flank alone after the rest of my chaff panicked and fled off the board, pushing hard to capture a building in my opponent's deployment zone and threatening his flanks and back line.
In all of these situations they outperformed anything that Saurus could ever do. I think that they only died once all weekend, against Swagvald the Swagnificient, and even then their deaths would not have been in vain if I could have killed one damned Marauder horseman to capture a hill. Still, that was one of only two times that they actually saw combat: in all other occasions it was the threat of 12" poison, Stand and Shoot, S7 and counter-charging a failed long charge that were enough to make opponents hesitate.

In fact, I like them so much that I'm actively looking for the 40 points it would take to upgrade them to melee poison (and that's something that I never thought I'd say!).
 
I've always taken Saurus and reading this, I think I might try the skrox unit. I've always thought Saurus to be stable but now I really think about it, the amount of times I've lost the unit is huge. I use them as a support unit which is a bit of a shame, mostly to hold a flank.

What I do find is that 30 Saurus in the face on turn 2 is unnerving. You can only do that by taking Tetto and the tournaments I play allow special characters. But they never carry the game. It's been said that if you get a half-decent spell off on them they are solid and I agree with that, because having a unit of S5 T5 infantry from Wyssan's (for example) is awesome. But then you have to 6-dice that because your opponents knows that too.

I often hear it said that our army really needs the magic support. Isn't that the case with most armies? I also play dark elves and know that they don't as is the case with most elves with all the rerolls, but in general?

I really want to try the skrox unit now!

EDIT: @GCPD do you take one or 2 units of them? And do you go 5 or 6 wide when compressed?
 
Last edited:
I was wishing for another variety of Saurus.
Like Savage Saurus from the dragon isles,
they would have like 2 hand weapons and frenzy.
(they where from a temple where there are only Saurus left)
 
thegraymist said:
It's been said that if you get a half-decent spell off on them they are solid and I agree with that, because having a unit of S5 T5 infantry from Wyssan's (for example) is awesome. But then you have to 6-dice that because your opponents knows that too.

I often hear it said that our army really needs the magic support. Isn't that the case with most armies? I also play dark elves and know that they don't as is the case with most elves with all the rerolls, but in general?
Click to expand...

The thing is that the spells are even more useful on Skinks. With Wissans I can be S5/T5 or I can be S4/T3 with 12" range. Even if you use 2 dice your opponent is likely to use 3 dice which opens up your other spells to succeed. Also 2 skink chiefs are the same as 1 scar vet and those juicy character boosts are in Beasts.

When everything is S5/6+ and strikes before you the better play is the cheap T2 infantry that gets to hit first.
 
Would they be better if they were WS4 or does that not matter? My only wish for saurus warriors is WS4 and WS5 for TG
 
Personally I love the Saurus, can't have enough. Maybe it's because I like to take very unorthodox tactics and run with them in a way that leaves most opponents unprepared, but I run an extremely saurus heavy army to the point where the only skinks I have are one priest, Tetto'Ekko, some handlers for the salamanders, Chameleons, and the guys on the back of my ancient stegadon. Everything else is built for close combat and it really works, even versus ranged opponents.
 
Eyeless1 said:
Would they be better if they were WS4 or does that not matter? My only wish for saurus warriors is WS4 and WS5 for TG
Click to expand...

Yes they would. For some reason the difference between a stat of 3 and 4 in this game is much more significant than for example 4 and 5. Atleast that's my opinion. Now you hit even the skaven and every human in the game with 4+. There is very little that saurus can hit on 3+ when there is rather plenty of things that will hit saurus on 3+. That's a huge difference. Yes it could be explained by agility and such but then again isn't initiative for that...?

Anyway, I feel that TG with WS5 would be a bit too much.

BR
Agrem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top