AoS Saurus Warriors, to Spear or not to spear?

with the new Tome out, what is the concensus on the saurus warriors loadout?

i see spears as being very strong with the right buffs, but the rend on the clubs can be godsend.

i see alot of people talking about the clubs on 10 man units, but why even take saurus in 10 man units with their 1+ attack at 15 models.

can clubs at 30-40 man units work or is it spears all the way?

what are your thoughts?

 

Agreed. With the new rules, a 40 man with spears is pretty tasty in any configuration.
Though if You're going starborne, grab the sunclaw battalion, and run 3x20 warriors.
Rend -2 on our battleline? Yes please!

 

By the numbers, it's really just up to preference, even in units of 20, since saurus take up a lot of space. If you're arranging them to maximize models in 1", the output is pretty close vs 4+ saves, and even vs 3+ saves, but clubs do better vs 5+ or better when the saves can be re-rolled; the difference is particularly notable against Petrifex OBR.

I like clubs more because their worst case isn't as bad, and the damage is close enough against 4+ and 5+ saves that it's not a huge deal to lose the extra attacks, especially with how high the output of saurus is. When each model in 1" is doing ~2-3 damage before saves, you don't really need the extra damage from spears where the spears would be giving extra damage.

If you're optimizing contact for 1", you'll always get 2 ranks in, or 3 ranks for 2", so it's a ~50% increase in attacking models with spears.
Of course, you don't have to be as careful with model placement for spears as with clubs, which isn't something easily accounted for in the math. If you aren't trying to maximize models in 1" so spears are doubling the number of models attacking, spears will be better against anything that's not a 2+ save or 3+ re-rollable save.

 

It’s so weird thinking of our battleline as anything other than MSU disposable chaff... the fact that we can have discussions like these is still a shock to me.

I think I echo most of the sentiments above; I feel they both have different uses. I currently have only 2 built with spears, but the next batch will probably be clubs for variety (and if I run an EOTG).

To be honest more saurus are low on my priority (I am just finishing painting up my original collection of 2K-ish models and have a lot of other armies sadly in need of some paint)

 

A 10 man unit with clubs is sufficiently strong to go and claim an objective. Nothing super exciting, but it's at least capable of holding its own. Add in some minor support and they'l trade favourably against most opponents. Basicly they're excellent support troops to cover your flanks, grab an objective or chase after an out of position support hero while your main force does the properly important stuff.

Remember, death stars aren't the only things that are usefull

 

Basically this. I ran 40 blobs for a long time in the last book and the 1 inch range is kind of a pain with so many models.

In the new book I just personally feel 40 is overkill for just about anything. I'd rather take 2 blocks of 20 clubs than one block of 40 spears.

You save a decent amount of points but with no rend you're basically relying in mortal wounds from the starpriest to really put a dent in anything tough. And with a wholly within 12" buff that takes place in the hero phase is really restricts what you can do with the 40 blob.

 

This is how I see it also. The main difference between Coalesced and Starborne is that:

A) Coalesced have a larger array of glass hammers with the right faction selection (I.e. thunder lizard command trait on a carnasaur or skink priest, thunderquake with stegadons, koatl’s claw firelance/sun host with buffed knights/Saurus) in addition to the salamanders, terradons/ripper bombs, but are much harder to get into glass hammering position (albeit much more survivable overall, making them tempered-glass hammers perhaps...), verses
B) Starborne cannot rely on monster damage output as much (or survivability for that matter), so are more limited in their options (I.e. salamanders/terradons/massed skinks with FoS), but once per turn you can teleport a glass hammer right within striking range, and with the right buffs, can almost guarantee a charge every turn as well.

Although summoning has become an afterthought, and I think mainly useful for last game objective shenanigans, I do like how both subfactions play very distinctly, and both can be quite brutal.

The problem that I face is that the models I currently own fall pretty much right in between the two play styles. In light of current world events however, I will not complain about my first world problem...

 

This actually makes sense. But I am a bunch of saurus away from a sunclaw (and the few I have are spear saurus). I still feel that Shadowstrike is the best Starborne batallion overall, from a usefulness point of view.

 

I tried the Starborne Shadowstrike over the weekend and was super unimpressed. Your deep striking unit needs to make their long bomb charge and even if they do make it into combat they really need their hero or other buffs to really do anything effectively. I would gladly trade the battalion bonus for the Coalesced version...

 

The lack of tax (aside from the cost of the batallion itself) is the key. My basic analysis is that the only other benefit, limiting drops, is probably unhelpful vs upper-tier armies since we seem to be reliant on lots of support characters and one batallion probably won’t make a big difference. It’s still possible to benefit if you are bringing 2x40 skinks and a full unit of 9-12 terradons/rippers anyway, but even then you are probably looking at another 5 drops minimum.

 

I haven’t paid attention to the order of operations I guess, if there is no way to buff the units until your next turn then the only thing you can do is drop on the bottom of a turn and hope for the double.. which is not something to build a list around.