As i mentioned its the result thats important. We have plenty of units that can achieve this result you're just arbitrarily not including them for whatever reason. The language you're using is too extreme. We rely on buffs yes, but we are not "completely harmless" everywhere else. The game doesn't operate in this black and white existence you seem to view it in. The fact that we don't have mournfang simply DOES NOT MEAN we "only have bodies to be fed into the meatgrinder and our opponents can pretty much attack with impunity." That is so factually incorrect and so unnecessarily exaggerated it stops being a legitimate argument. That's literally a tiny, 100 point window. I hardly think because there isn't a unit that fits perfectly in that window (salamanders, krox) that we are "feast or famine." DoK, Fyreslayers, Tzeentch Archaon, Knights of the Empty Throne, cities, all of death (i'd even argue OBR). If we are simply talking "unbuffed good warscrolls" theres terradons, chamos, salamanders, stegs, and carnos, just to name a few. All of those units are strong based off just what you see on the warscroll. And i guess, that's kind of where my confusion comes from. What's the point exactly? That we don't have good warscrolls without buffs? Well, we clearly do. Any of the above fit that example. That we don't have a 100-200 point unit that can push a flank unbuffed? Krox or a single salamander or a carnosaur (at 210, its like 10 points? Really?) all could fit this specific, niche role if you really REALLY need to. Or is it that as an army we rely heavily on buffs. Because we obviously do. I'm not arguing that point. I've always, exclusively been arguing against this exaggerated, extreme idea that we are "completely harmless" with no buffs or our only option for dealing with something thats away from the buffing core of our army is to "drown it in cannon fodder." Things just aren't that black and white when you're actually playing the game and needing in-game solutions to in-game problems. There's a practicality that exists and in that practicality we seem to do more than fine. As @Jason839 mentioned a few pages back, its the result that matters. Do we have the right combination of things in our book to solve any given problem. And the answer is undoubtedly, wholeheartedly YES. SO MUCH YES. The book has options coming out of every pore, more solutions than some entire factions. It's insane the amount of flexibility our book has. I can't believe this forum isn't overflowing at any given moment with lizard players gushing about weird strategies they tried or happiness over being able to make a decent army out of whatever niche model choice is their absolute favorite. BUT, since this is starting to drag on let's clear this up for anyone who's coming in late: ARE SERAPHON AN ARMY THAT RELIES HEAVILY ON BUFFS? Yes, obviously. It's clearly how the army was designed. They are also one of the armies that more heavily relies on buffs than others. DoK or Knights of the Empty throne or even fyreslayers might fall into that same category. ARE ALL OF THEIR WARSCROLLS TRASH WITHOUT BUFFS? No, of course not. Salamanders are still probably one of, if not the best warscroll in the game completely unbuffed. Carnos are a fantastic, super cheap monster that will push any screen in the game off any objective with or without its own built in command ability buffs. Chamos will always keep people honest with their backline because they threaten heroes. A unit of 5 saurus knights will absolutely chew through any legitimate screen in the game without much issue. Terradons massive movement and mortal wound ability again, keeps everyone's backline honestly. DO SERAPHON HAVE AN EELS EQUIVILANT WARSCROLL? Of course not. Seraphon don't need an eels equivalent warscroll because they achieve a similar thing in a variety of different ways. Not all armies have the same solution to the same problem. But they all have a solution. WHAT DOES RELYING ON BUFFS MEAN FOR OUR ARMY? It means you have to think a tiny bit more. It shouldn't stop you from achieving anything you're looking to achieve in this game, it just means the solution isn't "push this unit forward without thinking." WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS ARGUING ABOUT SERAPHON BEING STRONG? Because this forum is consistently putting out overly exaggerated or hyperbolic statements that IMO give any new player or someone who doesnt play the game regularly a fundamentally incorrect and incomplete understanding of our army and this game. People will think to themselves "all our warscrolls are useless without buffs" in an actual game and literally not make plays they otherwise would have because of their incomplete and incorrect understanding. Or they might think "this army is only held up by kroak and skinks, every other build is bad" and choose to only play a fangs kroak/skink spam army if they want to be competitive. Or they might think "Salamanders aren't worth their points, i guess i won't use them" which means they would be missing out on the absolute monster of a unit that salamanders still are. There are countless examples of these hyperbolic, exaggerated statements being thrown around with little to no context. Why are those things true? Based on what experience? Into what matchups? On what battleplans? WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY TELLING PEOPLE TO PLAY MORE? THAT'S PRETTY OBNOXIOUS. Because so much of this game isnt readily apparent unless you are actually playing it. I fell into the same trap when i wasn't playing as often. It's easy to feel like you've got a clear grasp of everything when you talk about it a lot and read about it a lot and look at the warscrolls a lot. But if you're not playing a lot you -really- don't know. There's simply too many variables at any given time that can completely change how any give warscroll works out, or how much a buff combination matters, or how to deal with a specific problem... like a unit of goregruntas on a flank (the solution to that specific problem is not "drown them in cannon fodder.") I also think it perpetuates this "black and white" problem i mentioned earlier. It's too easy to make situations seem cut and dry when they are anything but. It's too easy to remove and all nuance that happens from actually playing the game. If you have not played this army a lot, into a lot of matchups, on a lot of battleplans, you are simply making educated guesses based on how you *think* it would work out. You might be right, but you also might be dead wrong. Experience, literal table top experience has to matter in this conversations. It has to mean something, there has to be some weight behind literal, real world examples of these exact scenarios playing out. We don't need to talk in hypotheticals or wonder "well does seraphon need a 100-200 point unit that can flank unbuffed" because we can play games and come to an actual determination if that's needed. Also, tons of problems are solved by just understanding the game better and being a better player. Things aren't always an army book or a core rule problem. Sometimes they are a player problem, and playing more games just creates a community that has a clearer picture of where the line between "army/core rule problem" and "player problem" is. Edit: and please stop comparing plague monks to skinks. Plaguemonks are literally 33% more expensive than skinks i don't know why they are always being compared to each other. Why don't we compare them to shootas? 240 points gets you 40 of each. Shootas have 40 shots 4s and 3s (and this gets massively weaker as the unit loses models) vs 80 shots at 5's and 5's with more movement and we don't lose our buff until we drop below 15 models. Feels pretty damn similar.
It's not arbitray, I've literally told you the reason. 200+ point combo's are the big scary things and big combo's. My claim is literally that our units cannot achieve this result when they aren't a big scary thing, or part of a combo. Hence a big scary thing being able to do that does nothing to disprove my claim. Fine, what enemy needs to go running immeadiatly when an unsupported MSU unit of knights, or rippers, or skinks, or warriors, or guard, or terradons comes near it? Seriously, who is activly threatened by them and can't viable fight them under any circumstance in a 1v1 scenario, not even when they get to strike or shoot first? What unit should actually fear them? And try to find some examples that aren't explicitly designed to avoid any and all combat like the plague; e.g. support heroes or special units like a ratling gun. Try finding units who are actually expected to go into combat. Eh, no? It's a cutoff point at 200 making it a 200 point window? (and technically I guess an infinite window on the 200+ side) It's either sub 200 points local presence, where we're mostly harmless, or a 200+ local force where we are suddenly vying for local superiourity because at this point we can get our synergies going. It's literally feast (200+ combo resulting in local superiourity) or famine (sub 200 points resulting in mostly harmless units noone really needs to fear) with a reasonably clear cut-off point. Well fine, show us how to reliably kill a unit of say palladors with only 200 points without help from our main army. Both when we get the first strike in and when they get the first strike. And since I'm guessing your solution will involve salamanders or razordons, also try finding a way without having acces to either of those; just for fun.
um what? Knights of the empty throne don't use buff heroes at all, Fyreslayers only use 1 buff hero and i already mentioned DoK and Death.on top of that you seem to have missed the entire point of my posts did you read my post at all? we are not i am addressing angels claim that quote "Eels and similar warscrolls, go against the core spirit of the game." when that is clearly not true. why are you arguing this at me? your beef is with canas. yes this is the wide consensus on our stuff you tend to be a outlier on this point about 6% yes and that didn't tip you off? whether or not we are flexible and can handle anything (we are and we can but it's tenuis hence why we are so anti nerf) many many people are unhappy with our book they are not, not even close as their use is both easily countered and point per point they are out done by others in the same job. just becouse they are efective and you like them doesn't mean they are "the best" this can be said about any monster. a 10 man screen is not a challenge for 200 points of anything to take care of true see above with carnasuars redundant and more finicky then chameleons a mater of opinion you seem to think so but many of us do not agree hence the conversation. it also makes us predictable and give many avenues for hard counters because you like to this can indeed be true our army is not for the faint of heart and is terrible for new players as it is such a hard army to piolet. this can be seen by the fact that we ether do very well or very poorly very little middle ground. this is not a point i have ever made but sure. it does tend to be the point of many who complain about use though. again debatable salamanders tend to fail pretty hard if you know how to counter them a lot of reasons that tend to be ignored due to "incomplete data" ,the experience of many of our best players including our best Australian German and arguably our best American player along with most of the north western turny block maybe others but i don't know. very true but i have never said this "WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY TELLING PEOPLE TO PLAY MORE? THAT'S PRETTY OBNOXIOUS." also true yep like salamanders i don't the one time i did was on request shootas are also not very good and when i brought them up you said it wasn't a good comparison
oh wow i had to look up what the heck those where. man those are bad assuming by reliably you mean more then 66% of the time and assuming unbuffed as that is the point of this argument a carnasuar general or stegadon can do it on the charge but not if hit first and they are both more then 200 points and more then 50 points more then palladors. a bastiladon could tie them up for 3 combats if he is close enough but can't kill again more then 200.surprisingly 2 salamanders would not kill them if they strike first(more then 200) nether can razordons. mmm krox can't but surprisingly 30 skinks would live as long as the bastiladon would but again no kill. 20 warriors with clubs could kill them but not if they go second. teradons could if they dropped rocks but thats a waist of rocks and they would have to go first. chamelions would only manage it if they hit first and where in cover but thats also not their job. knights could do it on the charge but not if hit first. guard can't rippers can't none of our heroes can but thats not their job
I've consistently offered to play anyone in a game of TTS. I consistently offer to talk through specific battleplan deployments or strategies. I consistently offer to work through specific scenarios. This game is played on the tabletop. I'll show you on the tabletop. As mentioned, this type of theorycrafting tends to reduce everything down to some black and white situation with no nuance. Sorry my response wasn't intended to be directed specifically at you and only you. I realize quoting you and then going into a long response definitely gave that impression. I wasn't trying to say you were saying all of those things, i was just using your post as a jumping off point to make a larger point. That's my mistake. Regardless, Knights of the empty throne rely on at least 3 buffing heroes. 2 shrines and at least one sorcerer lord. Seraphon don't have any hard counters at the moment. If you aren't getting amazing results out of salamanders you're doing it wrong. I said carnosaurs could go through screens because the initial conversation was around "going through 2 or 3 screens." Them being about to effortlessly do that kind of proves my point. The wide consensus on our stuff is it's broken beyond belief. Only here is my opinion an outlier because only here does anyone seriously entertain the idea that seraphon aren't one of the most broken books GW has released in AoS. I think the larger AOS community tend to exaggerate our power, but here its significantly and without fail undersold at all times. Merely mentioning that salamanders might not be pretty damn good proves that point. Anyone thinking salamanders aren't a well above average unit is hard to take seriously. People being unhappy isn't my problem. People are always unhappy and will whine about just about anything. If people are unhappy that this army is difficult to play THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT than what i've addressed. I've continually, and without fail, clarified that its the OVERLY EXAGGERATED statements i have a problem with. For example, saying we're predictable and easily countered. Or that salamanders are easily countered. If we were predictable and easily countered we would be predicted and easily countered. Apparently people haven't quite figured out how to do that yet (good, tournament winning players). If you have the secret, then it seems like you're sitting on some pretty rare information. In my opinion, if we were to say, play a game so you could show me how easily countered we are, it wouldn't go nearly as well as you think it would. Seraphon doesn't have a bad matchup. Played well, they lose to exactly zero armies consistently. It's this type of argument that makes me feel like the rest of your arguments are painted with this same type of overly exaggerated brush. It doesnt do anyone any favors and its without fail at least partially incorrect. But i genuinely don't care if you think what you think. I care that new players come to this forum to get advice and are met with a deluge of negative, sky-is-falling opinions from people who apparently have barely played the army on the actual tabletop given the number of wildly exaggerated hot takes. I think thats messed up, and it creates a community full of negative discussion about an army that seemingly no one is happy about. I'm just not sure if i want to be part of that community. So i do my part to at least provide, what i'd consider, a more measured, grounded evaluation of our army given the extensive experience i've had and the experience others have had in the various online communities i'm part of. EDIT: Upon reflection I think i'm taking the same "overly exaggerated" stance i'm criticizing just in the opposite direction. My rhetoric is too absolute, my opinions too close minded. I'm sorry for coming across or making it seem as if this way of thinking is the only "correct" way of thinking. As mentioned before, I just have a hard time following the logic of some of the complaints that pop up here, but its also not necessary i follow everything. I'll continue to try and provide a more optimistic view of seraphon because thats just who i am. However, i'll try to do that in a less contentious, "my way or the highway" type of discussion. Thank you @Canas and @Erta Wanderer for regularly putting up with my bullshit
honestly not sure what you are responding to with half of this. sorry if i responded badly to things i didn't know the question to as for KotET you didn't use any and most lists i see similarly don't have support. if im wrong i am sorry i have seen very few KotET lists most people don't run them. and you where taking my army apart very well with no buffs the idea that we are broken is not common among the competitive crowd only face book gamers. and this makes sense it's a hard army to run and if you play it well you play AoS well and with that big of a disparity of skill makes things seem broken. i have seen people call old book bastiladons broken over and over again, then there was petrafix debacle and the first time nagash was nerfed and evocators. so i have little patients for the masses(who you yourself say you ignore as they all complain about every thing). we will agree to disagreee on salamanders or you can bring them to our next game(sorry that is taking so long to set up 16 hour days are hard) ill be running LoN feel free to plan for it "Played well, they lose to exactly zero armies consistently." the data you constantly ignore says differently but so be it "If people are unhappy that this army is difficult to play THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT." not really your argument was that you where surprised people weren't elated about our book quote" I can't believe this forum isn't overflowing at any given moment with lizard players gushing about weird strategies they tried or happiness over being able to make a decent army out of whatever niche model choice is their absolute favorite." end quote as happy ness and gushing are the key word here i think my statement was justified. there is a problem hear if every one is doing as well as you say we sould be and every thing is as perfect as you say it is then why are so many seraphon players unhappy?
No worries at all. Most kotet lists rely pretty heavily on their shrines and sorc lord to hit that 2+ rerollable save space. It's a very buff dependent army. I agree, the masses are rarely spot on with their evaluation. I'm not referring to them. I don't really want to give names, but people you'd recognize by name have told me on several occasions that seraphon "isn't unbeatable, its just really unfair. You can fit 6 or 7 threats into a list when most have 3. There's just nothing it can't do." They've also said "salamanders are a problem. It's the melee profile, a unit that can do that kind of damage at range and in melee is always going to be problematic." I've heard from ETC players that seraphon lists are "giving matchup problems because no lists can beat it." Owen on the Honest Wargamer is an accomplished player and his opinions are documented across the various podcasts they've done. Benjamin Savva has said on the Lustria Online whatsapp group that "seraphon could beat most lists 500 points down." I can totally see where you are coming from, i guess you'll just have to trust me that the voices i'm referencing are not facebook gamers, but competitive players that i'm actively participating in tournaments with on a regular basis. Are they all amazing? Probably not. I dont think i'm particularly amazing at the game either. But these are people who are at least actively playing a competitive style of game, not just general opinions i'm scooping up from whatever community has the most people in it. If you're hearing wildly different things i'd love to know. My opinions are only based on my personal experience and the experience of voices I trust. I'm definitely not exposed to every good player in the country, so if there are varying opinions i'd love to hear them. I just don't think those opinions are probably as exaggerated as have been put forward here. No worries man, and i'm fine to agree to disagree. I have no problem with you holding that opinion. Does it though? We have data showing the army isn't unbeatable, but we also have data showing that in the best players hands it rarely loses. Pietari took a koatl's claw list to 5-1 with his only loss being to fangs. The most recent hammertime tournament was won by a seraphon player with 3 seraphon being in the top 8 and 2 in the top 3 (including the knock out stage they played after). Eric Hoerger i think is like, 8-0 in tournaments with his thunderlizard lists. I'm certainly not in the same realm as eric or pietari, but my fangs list is 8-1 in literal tournament games and probably... 17-1 (give or take a win, not exactly sure how many games have been played) including tournament practice games. I've beaten DoK multiple times, IDK, tzeentch, other seraphon lists. and honestly that might be where a lot of my argument originates from. I don't view myself as a "tournament winning" player but i'm having an absurd amount of success against people i'm obviously less skilled then, who are still taking competitive lists. If me, a B player at best, is beating A+ players who are using good lists... I dunno. Feels like the list is probably doing some of my heavy lifting for me. If we include all seraphon builds and all players, you're right. It's not all sunshine and roses. But when the books best lists are piloted by the best players, i will stand by that it has no bad matchups and doesn't lose consistently to any army. IDK might be close honestly. I guess my point was that it seems like seraphon players are unhappy... exclusively on this forum. The sseraphon players i'm talking with that are regularly participating in games and tournaments are not. There's a distinctive disconnect between the response i see on Lustria and the response i see elsewhere. I'm not totally sure why that is. Maybe people here are looking for something else. If i had to guess, I think it's a mixture of the army being a little difficult to play and people not being able to play enough games to get the practice in to overcome that difficulty. I'll readily admit that my first few games with the book felt weird. It took me a second to work out the kinks and start to wrap my brain around what this book wants to do. Edit: I made an edit to my earlier post, so i'll reiterate here. Upon reflection I think my opinions are probably just as exaggerated or as absolute as what i'm criticizing... just in the opposite direction. I'll continue to have a more positive outlook on seraphon, but i'll try to discuss this in less contentious ways. if my problem is that new players could be getting a poor impression, I don't think my page long diatribes are the solution
Just a fact I'd like to point out. There is no right way to play this game. Table top experience or not. Op as fuck army or some amalgam of like 4 order armies. One thing that is for certain is that you're at the mercy of the fucking dice. No matter what your averages say, no matter what your charts say, you could have an army that always hits on 3s and roll nothing but 1s and 2s. It's an astronomical chance that it happens but it can happen. Example game. 1st turn vs my cousins big waaaagggghhh I missed all the attacks that my carno(oldblood) had vs his megaboss. By all reason and logic I should of hit at least once vs that derpy neon green lad. Didn't. Took until 3rd turn for him to kill my carno. I hit the megaboss 4 times that entire game so if that doesn't scream terrible luck I don't know what to say to yall
Aye, I agree with this. Two games with the new book and I've already had a lot of swingy dice. We are at their mercy, and only able to really counter it with weight. @Putzfrau said something I found amusing. About weird lists not being all too common. I'm currently getting a friend to print up about 9 Kroxigor to round out my force to 12.... I'd call that a weird list when shoved into a Thunderquake alongside a Dread. So many dinosaurs. But you also said that we could go 500pts down and win games easily. I think I'd like to see that honestly. Some brave, and skilled soul, to run a gauntlet of enemy armies with only 1500 points of Seraphon.
I gotta hear how those games go, that sounds incredible. Haha, its honestly a pretty interesting idea. If i ever get up the courage to try it out i'll let you know, but it might require a better player than me!
I do plan on doing battle reports for it when the time comes. They'll be posted much the same as the others. That is of course after i am done running the list I'm currently using into a few more armies. NEed more (anecdotal) data on the Dread, though she's so swingy, and didn't even get to use her Roar against Ossiarch. I'm sure you'd do just fine with the handicap. It's about fun, gathering the numbers, and putting the original speakers words to the test. Besides, if it does turn out to be true, it's something we will be able to laugh about when its gone.
It isn't theorycrafting. Those palladors being an nuisance in my flank and me not having any real response to them while I waited for my carnosaur to finish eating up the SCE's general is something that happened. Also, I'm not interested in a full game. Winning the game as a whole isn't an issue. It's this specific scenario/moment that annoys me. As I have no response available beyond "Wait till my carnosaur is done and come back to eat the chickens" to chase them off, which isn't much of a response. A big part of that will be the difference in type of gamer you meet in these two locations. Our focus on synergies works perfectly fine in the competitive enviroment of a tournament where the focus is more on winning and things being "fair and balanced." Like you mentioned yourself, you care most about being able to win, and not having an unfair (dis)advantage. However, tournaments are generally less focussed on armies being "fun", interesting, or even making a lot of sense (as in, this is a sensible army with a healthy distribution of troops in real life). As an example of what I mean; the same cheesy strategy that will be much more accepted at tournaments, because while effective it still has counters and doesn't end up dominating the charts, than when compared to its acceptance in more casual settings because it just isn't a whole lot of fun to play against. And imho this is kind of the underlying issue. Seraphon is very well designed from in terms of its basic design ideas from a tournament's player point of view. It has very clear strengths & weaknesses. It's complicated enough to allow a lot of skill-expression, so players can be challenged. And it has tools for nearly every situation. That's the exactly type of design those players generally love. I wouldn't be complaining if all I cared about was playing in tournaments, or at least I'd complain less However, I care about playing more casual games against my girlfriend, and building a sub-optimal list that's still semi-viable is hell, and magnifies the complaints I have. What might help is to ask why we find a certain problem important. It might make it easier to follow the argument. Try explicitly asking why we think the complaint is important whenever this happens. It might simply be that we have very different priorities and aren't adequatly explaining our priorities for someone who isn't already aware of them Don't worry too much about it, plenty of weird nonsense being said by us as well you're allowed to mix and match different units if that wasn't clear. Feel free to throw 10 warriors and a salamander at them or something Anyway, it kinda shows my point. To reliably deal with a mere 170 points we already need something more than 200 points worth of stuff because 200 isn't enough for a combo or for a big behemoth (and even those behemoths and combo's need to be carefull not to be charged first...). It's not even a particularly strong unit. But it already has a lot of freedom to do as it pleases whenever we cannot send a dedicated force to crush it. Which imho is kind of a big design flaw. Sure it might ultimatly be fine in the grand scheme of things because the game is larger than that one unit of palladors murdering a flank, but it is a frustrating experience and unfun experience. Also for laughs, and only if you can do it quickly. Could you calculate how many MSU of saurus the palladors could chew through before dying of attrition? For the sake of argument the fresh unit of saurus will show up the "next" turn and immeadiatly charge in/get charged.
I think you make a lot of really great points here. Your analysis of the differences between what you are looking for and what i'm looking for is spot on. To answer your specific pallador question, I didn't mean to be overly dismissive. I'm just not sure if the solution is always "whats an independent warscroll i can help to alleviate this problem?" I think it could be a strategy change, a deployment change, etc etc. These solutions are just inherently harder to offer up because its far more dependent on what army your bringing and what battleplan you're playing on. That's kind of what i was trying to say with my "its played on the tabletop" comment. I tend to first and foremost try to find solutions from a strategic or battleplan focused POV and then think "what warscroll can help achieve that" if its still not working out. Basically, the question "what warscroll can unbuffed clear off 200 points of palladors" creates a situation where seemingly the only solution is a warscroll solution. I dont necessarily agree with that line of thinking, so its difficult for me to answer in the way you're looking for. I'll take your advice tho, for anyone thats unhappy with the book as a whole or even small pieces of it, what is causing you issues? What play experience are you having/looking for that the book is falling short in delivering?
wouldn't matterr if a thing can't kill it and another thing can then mixing the two only makes the second one weaker if they charge first 3-6 depending on luck if the warriors charge first then 2-4.
To make it the question more specific, because "what warscroll can unbuffed clear off 200 points of palladors" isn't entirely accurate as the palladors are just an example. My question is: "What response do I have for under 200 points or less to fight off a unit of palladors (or rough equivalent)" An acceptable anwser could theoretically be "20 saurus warriors", but it could also be "10 warriors and an oldblood", or "10 warriors and a salamander" etc. The point of this question is to figure out what we actually have available to hold our flanks against medium threats while our big stuff (e.g. carnosaurs, 40 man buffed hordes etc.) are busy fighting more important things elsewhere. And so far I have yet to find an answer that isn't just "Wait for our big stuff to become available to kill it". The reason I don't find strategy changes/deployement changes acceptable answers is because ultimatly those won't stop an opponent from trying to flank. And your carnosaur can only be in one place at a time. So sooner or later you will find yourself in a situation like this. Eventually you're going to run into a game where your opponent will use a pallador to try and steal an objective and you can't always have a carnosaur waiting on that objective. So what can we put on there that does stand a fighting chance? In general: - We miss a lot of fluffy mechanics that other armies did get (priest prayers, mount traits) - Our magic is largely uninteresting (not bad, uninteresting); Spelllores are fairly blend with a lot of duds. It's possible to not have enough spells to cast on a slann. Several niches of spell are just flat out missing (no single entity nuke, no novel CC. For interesting stuff look at the new Slaanesh lores, they got some neat ones. Might not be the best spell lore, but it is interesting.). Very few interesting effects (again, not bad, just not interesting.). Bound spells are cool, but since you only cast an endless spell once (assuming it isn't dispelled) it can leave the wizard a bit superfluous the next turn. - Our summoning is fairly boring mechanicly (I hate the boring "sacrifice a spell" mechanic..) - Too too few units/mechanics that still work decently under sub-optimal circumstances due to the focus on synergy. It's either go big or go home. - Stupidly difficult to make a casual list. Again, it's either go big or go home, and that does not work terribly well in a casual setting. Well having 10 warriors and say a salamander could potentially be advantageous. Warriors buy an extra turn of shooting for the salamander, maybe even 2. Which could be just the edge that's needed. So on average you should count on needing at least 30 saurus to start reliably fighting back. That does seem accurate.
Could a unit of 5-10 Temple Guard hold off, or defeat, the Palladors? EDIT: In looking over the SCE warscroll, I'm ticked that the Pallador's standard-sized mounts have -2 rend on claws & beak. Our Carnosaur's big jaws only have -1. I know I shouldn't compare this in a vacuum, but come on!
Most of this conversation is over my head. I guess it won't really matter after our new battletome comes out next month. (joking of course)
10 guard would be killed in the second combat wether they are hit first or not. Again on average about 70% of the time. And that's if they are at perfect health which they won't be if they're doing their job by taking wounds for the slann. The.numbers change a lot if you throw spells or cp their way but that defeats the purpose of the question
Well you did weight it heavily in their favor if you sent 20 in at once you have a good chance of winning and 30 would win outright. The only reason paladors did so well was them only having to deal with ten at a time