• 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. Characters vs Troops

R
Skink

Raymond Caleatry

Member
Messages
44
Likes Received
3
Trophy Points
8
As a new player, when building my list I often end up with no combat characters because they are extremely expensive compared to troops. A tricked out Old Blood is on par with a solid block of Saurus warriors.

Obviously, as there are no alternatives, we need characters to perform magic, but are combat characters worth it, when compared to having entire additional blocks of troops that could be used to break steadfast and take the flank.

As far as I can see, combat characters have two main roles:

1) They provide additional combat resolution by providing additional high quality attacks to a combat.
2) They can project a large amount of force against distance targets, like war-machines and mage bunkers.

But other than this, I cannot see a situation where I would prefer a character over an additional unit (or two).
 
At how big armies are we talking? Because spending 150pts on a scar vet for AS1+, S7 and a dawnstone is pretty damn effective for certain things. An oldblood even better.
I always start my army list with including my slann and prefered hero(es) and form the army afterwards.
 
In a rather hideous situation where I was up against a Khorne-themed Warriors of Chaos opponent, my Old Blood with that Sword of Shimmering Realities (or something like that) was pretty much the only thing in the block of Saurus that had any chance of wounding the Chaos lord and his Knights that I ended up hitting. It was still awful, but at least I was able to put out a few wounds.

(Protip I learned the hard way: Don't go up against Knights of Chaos with saurus warriors. Just don't.)
 
Also what you seem to forget is that a M7 lone character is much more easy to move around than a 24 saurus unit, not to mention quite a lot cheaper. Against cannons you can get a charmed shield so he won't just go to waste
 
It's kind of like asking if I should buy a two year supply of toilet paper or a rocket launcher.
They both can mop up the shit, but they do it in different ways.

Warhammer is a game of application of force. You get to the point where you've maximized you're ability to put your units on to the enemy. At that point, characters will always give you more bang for the buck. Also, if you run into an enemy that you basic blocks are bouncing off of, characters are ideal.

-Matt
 
The difference between characters and our choices in troops is you can customize for whatever (and what is available) you need to win the battle.

If we could equip our saurus warriors with two handed weapons i bet you less scarvets cowboys should show in our lists, since that role could be fulfilled with our troops (can openers), but the only choice we got is kroxigors, and they have a serious lack of survavility that you "cannot" replace with numbers.

So what we lack in troops is covered by custom made heroes and lords.

Do we need high strength attacks and a guarantee you will deliver those blows?
--> 1+ AS 4 Attacks Str 7 Scarvet for 120 points do it.

Do we need fast war machines/whatever glass cannon hunters who wont die against s3/s4 distance hits?
---> 2+ skink chief on ryppa/terradon gives you that for 90 points.

If you compare those roles between characters and troops you can see the character do the same role, with a better quality at the risk to lose it due to single model with less wounds than a unit and what is more important, for less points. (but easier to move and achieve the goals).
 
Any list not containing scarvet cowboys better have a very good reason for it. They provide so much stuff that your massed skink skirmishers and saurus warriors just cant do. High armor is lizardmens weakness, we simply dont have any great way of reliably dealing with it outside scarvets and oldbloods. And please dont say Kroxigors :) anything that kroxigors awesome strength will be good against will murder them before they get a chance to strike.
 
I'm an infantry player at heart, so I always prefer to bring Troops over Characters where possible.

That being said, characters can offer a lot of flexibility in doing things that Troops can't. Saurus characters, for instance, are great at actually killing things (which the Saurus can often struggle with themselves); especially things that have extremely high toughness or armour save. Skink Characters can offer a lot of tricks.
 
They're also good anti-characters. Even just chucking a Scar vet with mundane gear - light armour and a great weapon - into a block of Saurus. He'll beat down a Warrior Priest or most hero level characters who are in there to support THEIR units against tough blokes like our infantry.
 
Lizardmatt said:
Warhammer is a game of application of force. You get to the point where you've maximized you're ability to put your units on to the enemy. At that point, characters will always give you more bang for the buck. Also, if you run into an enemy that you basic blocks are bouncing off of, characters are ideal.
Click to expand...

+1 to Lizardmatts point above.

Your combat heros are manoeuvrable and have a small footprint, meaning you can bring them to bear where they're needed. 110pts gets you a Scarvet, coldone, Light armour and Great Weapon. That's 2 wounds T5 and a 2+ save for defense and 4(+ Predatory Fighter) S7 attacks plus 2 S4 from the coldie... and then you can add items.

You can throw them individually at lighter targets, support your mainline blocks (maybe even with a flank charge), or throw multiple cheap cowboys at a single enemy unit as pseudo-Monstrous Cavalry. Anyway you slice 'em they add the hitting power of the monstrous cav we lack, combined with being single models for tactical flexibility.
 
Thanks for the replies. So do you guys think that the character allowance should be maxed out? Half your army being characters?
 
No that's not what people say. In my next 2000pts game I'll use an etheral slann worth 430pts, a cowboy at 150pts, priest with dispel scroll and a cheap chief on terradon for war machine hunting. Nowhere near half my army and chief is just an alternative to regular terradons.

Use characters as you see fit, but personally I dont see the need to overdo it and risk not having a sufficient amount regular units.

Im also new at the game so I wont tell you not to spend half your points on characters, just that I find it to be a bit too much so you should have a clear plan if you decide to do so.
 
You should be able to adjust your list due to your opponents army / style of play.

If you are facing a high armor save army (WoC, Cav Empire), yes, youll need saurus heroes as many you can to be able to do wounds on average rolls. And also youll need a WD Slann for casting Searing doom and keep access to many other useful spells.

But if you are facing against gunlines or big blocks units like O&G or Skavens. You will need to bring more troops to ensure your units in combat will be capable to face the enemy and win. So here numbers are better to minimize casualties.

What I recommend is always have the roles your troops cant perform, fulfilled with at least one heroe/lord. And add more if you are facing more that one single model could take.
 
With the easy access to the lore of beasts +1 Str /+1 Toughness spell, I wonder if it is better to spend charcater points of priests, and turn basic troops into characters?

I would still need characters for rapid force projection, but not for any other aspect...
 
Spells are a random part of the game, it can fail due to bad wind of magic rolls, to bad spell cast roll, and it can be dispelled with a good roll or scroll.

What our heros give is high str many attacks with average rate of hits (WS 5 4+ or 3+ to hit) (S7 2+ to wound) and very good protection to be sure you survive to strike (2+ no magic items AS) just for 110 points. At this point you can customize him with more protection or offensive.

This guy is point equal to 10 saurus warriors.
Against lower infantries the warrios shines due to more attacks, but also you can lose some models. But when you are facing heavy cavalry, you get pummeled by their +2S when charging. You will lose about 3+ saurus warriors. In return youll be lucky to deliver 1 unsaved wound.

The Scarvet in cold one does far better since you could get the charge before they do. But lets keep the same example.
They charge and with the superior WS of the Scarvet, about 50% of attacks are missed. With T5 usually you'll equal their S5 so again 50% of hits will do no harm. So lets say you have to save 1 or 2 wounds. You've got a heavy armoured guy with 1+ save modified to 3+ so youll be able to save on 66%, that means your Scarvet will be alive to strike the 88% of the times.
And now is the time to strike 4 attacks (or maybe moaaaaaaar due to PF) who should hit on 3+ , wounds on 2+ and be saved on 5+ (with initial 1+ AS)

What is more important, your main blocks wont be engaged in close combat so you can keep with your initial battle plan.
 
Not to mention that relying on priest is an issue if they get killed before the spells you relied on gets off. A scar vet is so much more useful not to mention that variety in your army also makes for a more fun game to play :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top