So I wanted to figure out if it was worth splitting up a unit of 30x Saurus Warriors into 3x10 units and deplying them in a Sunclaw Starhost. First of all, the perks for fielding 30x Saurus Warriors as one unit are as of the following: +1 to hit rolls for having atleast 20 models. +1 attack with Celstite weapon for having atleast 30 models. Harder to battleshock, +3 Bravery for bringing 30 models. More durable, can buff all 30 models with one mystic shield. Fielding these 30 models in a Sunclaw Formation has other perks: Warriors gain +1 attacks with Jaws. Celestite Clubs/Spears become Rend -1. (When attacking Chaos Daemons these weapons also have a damage characteristic of 2 rather than 1) More units mean more maneuverability. Some drawbacks that I can think of when fielding them as a Sunclaw formation (other then the obvious perks of having them as one unit.). Costs more. If they die and just decide to summon in more warriors they won't be a part of this formation and won't get the perks that the units deployed has. First of all, I know a unit of 30x Saurus warriors will lose the extra attack almost immediatly so it's probably for the better to deploy them as a unit of 40. I still think it's an interesting comparison. Here are the calculations made: To sumarize it, I made a graph to better show the results: To clarify: - the calculations were done assuming spears on all of the units, to make it simpler. - By "buffed by starpriest", I mean his ability to use the Serpent staff, which effectively causes bite and jaws to do twice the normal amount of damage. I think it's fair to say that unless you are deploying, say, 3x40 models of Saurus Warriors, I don't think the Sunfire Starhost is worth it. New to this and didn't really put to much time into looking over the numbers, hopefully I didn't do any stupid mistakes and did the math correctly, but please let me know if something is wrong. So for smaller games, like the ones I'll be playing myself, I think I'll end up not going for a formation to buff my Saurus Warrior, but instead deploy one unit of probably 40 warriors!
Taking a Sunclaw Starhost may be worth it under the right circumstances, a gigantic game of when you're up against daemons for example, but for the majority of games I think it's weak compared to just having hordes. I mean for starters, Warriors tend to lend themselves towards Skaven-esque horde tactics rather nicely, dying en-masse but with a Slann bringing them back to life en-masse in addition. But when the Warriors get brought back, they'll lose their Sunclaw perks. Because of that, and the bonuses of fighting with a horde, I think it's usually worth not taking the Battalion.
Exactly HOW new are you? *skeptical eye* you seem to have figured it all out. I really wish we could merge units like undead, and keep the horde bonus going for the whole game.
Just started with warhammer again after a 10 year old break, like 2-3 weeks ago, never played much before though, mostly painted, and almost exclusively warhammer 40k. I just like reading and thinking about units
I think you missed one perk about the Sunclaw's 3 units vs 1 big unit. Moveability. With 3 units you have more control of the movement phase and controlling / influence your opponent to take certain routes (or not)
Dunno how I missed that! I even saw the misspelling "More units mean more manoverability" Must be work overload and not enough sleep..
Can you exolain this to me @Bainbow? If I understand correctly you are saying that the Slann can "heal units" is this true?... I thought you could only summon new units, but from what you are saying, can you add models to an existing unit?
Oh no no, I mean if 20 warriors die, you can just have your Slann summon a new unit of 20 Saurus 9" away from the fight. It's basically summoning new units to replace the dead.
Neither the saurus divided in different units: if they are involved in combat at the same time, you will attack only with a unit of them, then it will be the turn of your enemy, and he can decimate one of the other saurus' units
When having a few smaller units it is better to be more careful to pick your fights carefully. A friend told me that you do not want to charge everything at once unless you are aiming to pin the enemy down. It is interesting seeing the change of the 'meta' after the launch of the General's Handbook and the ability for matched play. Before when points were not an issue you could easily have your blobs of warriors but now I see more often than not of people having units of 10.
Giant units are still great, but those either make for a really long game, or a really short game if that's all you took! Sunclaw is far more popular now though!
That's one of the things I like in AoS! with the evolution of the game system, metas are evolving the way of playing the game, and lists change. In 8th, after a while there were just variations of the same lists (especially for armies with limited competitive options)
I have to say 3 units of 10. Mobility is far more important, IMHO, than a block of troops . Example: Assume a 30 Saurus unit in the center of the board. The enemy places 3 units across from you of 10 each. One approaching the center, one the left, one the right. They charge you with the unit in the middle and move the units around left and right to get behind you, ignoring your massive block. You can begin to pile around 3" at a time to encircle that 10 man unit, and will eventually kill it, but they have held you in place for a turn or more. And only a percent of you Saurus will be able to attack at a time. The other two units now can threaten a Skink Priest or Slann if you have one. I know that example is kind of in a vacuum, as there will be other units you have and terrain features that could reduce them getting behind you. But they'll have other things too, more troops and terrain that could stop you from retreating out of that combat. It does free up a large portion of their force as they only need maybe 100 points to stop that block for a turn or two. Let's them deal with other threats and turn on the block when they want, not when you want. They get to pick the engagement they want then and that's bad anytime if you aren't making the fights you want. Now depending on the scenario, the table setup, your opponents army and skill level as well as their tactics, a block can be used to advantage, and those extra attacks become a better choice. But it the year of AOS I've played (in my Meta at least) I could have used a block of troops to advantage a handful of times. Every other game they'd have been a hindrance to me. Mathematically you are right, the block seems more combat effective. But in practice, it'll will do less over the course of many games against someone that can chaff you up. And there is lots of chaff out there and it's cheap.
I absolutely agree with you regarding the mobility. It's just that saurus don't give it. Saurus work better in horde, Skinks work better in small and fast units for screening, battlefield control and so on. Then yes, You can play small saurus units and big skinks unit in an effective way, but it doen't negate the fact that they are better built for those scopes.
It's interesting. With a big horde if I can get my pile in correctly I can stomp multiple units, but it's unwieldy to move big blocks like that, and they are easily held up by cheap units. I would use that for a battle line or if there is only one objective. But for multiple objectives smaller units of 10 works so much better. I can get more done with 3- 4 small units than with 1 big one.
With the smaller units you can always manoeuvre them so one charges and the other hangs 3 inches away so they get to pile in and not get attacked (in theory)