there are two flaws with your stance. first you are treating sallies and razors as if they are MEANT to be used the same. they aren't. Sallies are ranged units that can deal damage up close if they have to. Razors are melee units that can deal some ranged damage on the way in. these are different roles and since the point comparison is with those guys using the buff to get it close... they truly are comparable without much argument. secondly you state base this comparison with a babysitter for the razors (that they need for damage concerns) and naked sallies... but then turn around and admit that sallies DO need a babysitter for bravery concerns. even the cheapest hero for this purpose is another 70 points to the comparison. which is now 400 to 360... except imo you don't Need a starpriest for the razors either. the Priest gives them +1 to hit, bravery protection and he allows the razors a 66.6% chance to run charge shoot which is WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ANYWAY (super emphasis on purpose lol) .... I do not have a damage calculation tool that I can use at work, but it would seem to me that the comparison should be 310 (razors + priest) to 400 (sallies + priest). which, if the +1 to hit is close to the 1 mortal on on a 6, would mean the razors are not just a cheaper option... they are more efficient. they just have a different playstyle that most don't look at them as.... you cant see them as bad sallies.... they aren't. they are bad genestealers lol
If you want to remove Salamanders in your army and substitute with Razordons, surely you are looking for them to fill in a similar roll? Else the question isnt if you want to replace Salamanders for Razordons. You probably want a hero nearby each of them to use Inspiring Presence due go low Bravery in Coalesced, this isnt unique to Salamanders. If you want the unit into melee, Salamanders are just as much melee units as Razordons? Salamanders get +1 attack to jaws, so their ranged output is exactly as strong as their melee output. Anyways, my point is that Razordons are MAYBE decent in a very niche situation, but in literally every other case they are terrible. Not only is their damage bad, their damage is super dicey. Obviously this is a dice game, but Razordons introduce another layer of risk by having D6 attacks. Overshooting/overkilling something has very little value to me, but rolling terrible amount of attacks can be very fatal if you are relying on averages to kill your target. For me such a dicey unit needs to have significantly higher average damage than Salamanders when their output is rather consistent.
I disagree with that assessment. Salamanders have the same damage output in melee if they are coalesced, and slightly less if they are starborne. In both cases they out-damage razordons in melee. 3 Razordons deal 6.67 wounds on avarage to 4+ save in melee, which is abhorrent for a 240 pts unit. Compare that to 10 knights in Koatls Claw that does 17.64 unbuffed for 200pts (and over 36 dmg fully buffed but thats with 3 different heroes buffing them so thats another story). Even if they shoot and charge and shoot again and then fight they deal 10.94 wounds on avarage, which is still very bad. 3 Salamanders do more than that by just shooting and Knights as mentioned are far more efficient as a melee unit. Even with buffs the razordon's fall short. With Serpent staff on them they do 14.67 wounds from double shooting and charging, less than 3 unbuffed salamanders do with shoot + charge, less than the unbuffed knights. They can get up to 21.39 damage on avarage with +1 hit, serpent staff and the generic reroll 1s for both melee and ranged but that's a lot of resources for a very modest benefit. I do agree with you that razordons and salamanders don't have the same role. If you play razordons the same way you play salamanders you will be very displeased with their performance. Problem is just that razordons have no role. They aren't tanky enough to be anvils, they don't deal enough damage to be hammers, they aren't fast or agile enough to be grabbers, they aren't cheap enough to be chaff or screens, they don't have any special rules that makes them uniquely equipped for certain situations. Unless they go down in points I don't see any point in taking them from a competitive perspective.
in that assessment I am seeing them as they are intended and used. the capability of the sally to do damage in melee doesn't mean you want it there. but that's EXACTLY where the razor wants to be.
I played a tournament this weekend with 2 units of 12 salamanders and they easily killed 1000 pts on their own each game. I really didn't mind the points increase.
1-2 overall. List was DT with Kroak, astrolith, slann, oracle, 5 guard, 2 10 man skinks, 2 12 man sallies, balewind, bound geminids, and bound pendulum. List worked great and killed a lot, but lost to destruction players who swarmed the objectives with bodies turn 1 to claim them, then got the double and were able to build up a point lead I could not catch up from. I'd table them but lose on points. You score points so quickly on GHB 2020 scenarios that if you aren't on objective scoring turn 1 you'll lose. Which means you need units that can charge and kill units sitting on objectives turn 1.
Yeah, i'm starting to think the min skink/max magic and sally lists will start to fall off for exactly the reason you stated.
GHB 2020 is Fang of Sotek or bust I'm afraid. Our saurus are too fragile to hold the objectives and our min skink screens can't take points from people. Sallies are good but not that good.
IMO knights have play, and i think there's more interesting stuff out there. The book is super strong, I dont think we need salamanders to compete. I think they were just so good before it blinded everyone else to other potential lists.
Im having the same experience as you, but that is likely because we almost play the same list - I have switched the Trog for Knight-Incantor + Everblaze. We probably have too much "fluff" that often times dont carry their weight, especially when you meet lists that require a lot of direct firepower. Thats not saying our lists are bad, because I find my list do a lot against many other matchups, but when you meet a list (especially Destruction) that just wants to run across the board asap and punch you in the face, it is too slow and you really get punished for not having more Salamanders. In a lot of cases I feel like 2x3 Salamanders is simply too little to be of real use but if you cut the "fluff" and made it 9-10 Salamanders instead, things would be significantly different (and also a whole lot more boring to play tbh). Im probably gonna lean into Fangs of Sotek for the next couple of months though and Im currently stuck between 2 lists - One with Celestant Prime + 2x40 Skinks + 20 Chameleon Skinks vs No Prime + 2x40 Skinks + 20 Chameleon Skinks + double Priest and Starpriest. It will depend on if I feel I need 2x Heroes and how the Prime performs. Im so sad the Shadowstrike Host is so bad for Starborne. If the Starhost and Templehost were swapped it would be alot more useful for both sides and actually worth running tbh. Skinks hitting on 3s would be insaaaane!
normally i would say, for 100 points you should get 10 wounds ( just to have a red line to hang on) a Dread Saurian cost at this moment 420 points for 35 wounds!!!! That is really awesome. He does not have the dmg potential like other big units ( Mowkrusha, VLoZD ....) But its descent and his base is HUGE. He can bind nearly half an army or take two objektives just by himself i will try him out in my next match and are so pumped up to see my opponent just throw away all his firepower to kill him or does to less and loses important parts of his army to him
This rough ratio really only applies to battleline units. I dont think you will find any monster where this is correct. Take a look at Stonehorn, Mawkrusha or even our Carnosaur.