Wouldn't that still make the slann very good? The lizardmen magic phase flexible and effective? How is that different then anything I've said. I listed everything because in the comparison the other user posted he listed everything other armies had access too. Either way this has turned into more of an argument then I had wanted and drifted away from the original topic. Sorry for causing issues!
Couldn't that be because they've all faced the slann in 7th edition where he was truly powerful? What other players think can easily be because they might not understand how the lizardmen book. If we pay 4-500pts for a single character then yes he should be better than a regular lvl 4 wizard at 200pts, but on the other hand the opponent might've spread out his points, either getting more units, cannons, monsters or another lord model and thus be more powerful in another way and in a way that I feel is more "safe". Almost every time I've tried the expensive party frog he has passed out before midnight with low rolls. I think the few times my slann has done well it certainly haven't been because of all the disciplines.
These are the best players in the world. They understand it's not 7th edition anymore. They are power gamers that attempt to win more so then anyone on these forums (probably). If the slann wasn't optimal they would be the first to drop him. And just to clarify these are top level Lizardmen players as well. Is it possible that your poor experience is perhaps due to poor or inexperienced play instead of it just being "unsafe" or "not worth it"? Maybe it just doesn't match your playstyle but that's different then it being bad. What about every experience that is completely contrary to yours?
Having access to all the lores is great, yes, but not "the best mage in the game". Adding up items might be "the same", but then you look at the points - we can put EVEN more junk on the frog and reaech something silly like 600pts if we're truly mad, but that won't automatically make our slann a better caster when you compare it to what some of the other armies can field. I do, however, think that we have a different perspective of when and what we can call our slann the best caster. You look at all the aspects and consider it all to be a part of being "the best caster", where as I'm purely looking at the casting aspect and compare it for the price we pay. And even with all the bells and whisles I don't think our slann is utterly nuts for what we pay. A demon prince is feared amongst all gamers, a 4-500pts slann not so much. Not that I want our slann to be in a similar position, but I think that the fear of our slann is mis-placed.
Fair enough. Like I said, this is turning into more of an argument then I wante so I'm gonna back off. I just think it's completely unfair to call slann anything but what he is. And that's an absolute monster of a mage. There is literally mountains of evidence in both tournament results and experienced player testimony.
At what point have I ever stated that he wasn't "optimal". You're putting words in my mouth and more or less shutting my opinions down by calling me inexperienced. I've never called our slann bad (point me to where I've done that and I'll correct my statement). I've pointed out that a naked slann for 300pts is no better at casting than a regular lvl4 mage. This has nothing to do with experience, but just merely looking at the books and accepting things for what they are. A slann is a lvl 4 mage with some neat stuff. Great. We pay extra for that. However at that price point I wouldn't consider him superior at casting. Casting through a skink can be neat, but good placement of the slann can do the same thing. I've argued that if we add disciplines and items we can make a more powerful slann although we're still hampered by winds of magic. We'll suddenly have a better mage than the 200pts lvl4 mage, but we've also poured a lot of points into one single model. I then said that against High Elfs it becomes ridiculous because they can get things that make their mage better at actually casting for less than what we pay for our naked slann. One last note - I'd still consider Wind of Magic to me more unreliable than for instance.. Rolling to charge. But fair enough. A few tournaments have been won, the super pimped out death slann has won and my spider senses are telling me to STFU.
You clearly did not read my post. Vampire Lord, Master of black arts, black periapt, preservation For about 500 points you have a level 4 lore of vampires that can reroll one of the two winds dice, move 2 pd to dd or vice versa each phase. Throw in a 4++ for good measure. That is crazy good. What do you do with him? Buy two L2 death and *guarantee* two spirit leeches plus invocation and vanhels each turn. Shove them into a skeleton wraith wall for less points than temple guard. That is objectively better than our slann, you can't deny. The black periapt is objectively better than channel slann, eldritch, and becalming,
Here is the list Vampire Lord Necro Necro Wraith Wraith Wraith 4x20 Zombies 50 Skeletons, MB 2x10 Hexwraiths Black Coach Fill to taste. The casters end up in the second rank of skeletons. And the VLord can't be punched until you kill six other characters, one at a time. You're claiming the slann is the best caster. He isn't. Disc Sorcerors with chaos familiar and channel staff are another one.
Mmk. I said that lizardmen have one of the best phases and that the slann is a monster mage Vampire lords don't cast. It's too risky. and when i said "best caster" i was using caster to mean mage. not to mean actual casting. It's amazing some people will try this hard to prove that the slann isn't the "best" mage at "actual casting" Hilarious. What's the actual point here? To prove that if you tool up a vampire lord to do something other then destroy in CC he's moderately better at "actual casting"? Well you sure got me there. I'm glad we were able to seemingly ignore the point i was trying to get at pages ago to arrive at a conclusion that points out how you can become slightly better at "actual casting" using a suboptimal character thats even riskier then the slann. because at 500 points not only are you losing your general down a whole (and those 500 points) you're army starts to crumble. If someone wants to heavy cast with their vampire lord they can be my guest.
I apologize id you feel attacked, but that is a list I actually run as a change up from the blender. I always wanted a death choir, so I built the best one I could with VC. The disagreement comes from wanting the best wizard, and the best magic phase. Slanns and Disc Lords are expensive. You want them to be WMDs. They are juged on their ability to win the game by themselves, but can go cold if the 2d6 let you down. Death Choirs and Light Councils are nasty if you can feed them. You want consistent magic phases. That vampire is a MotBA and Periapt caddy. The death choir is doing the real damage. Is it worth the 125 pt upgrade from a MN to a VL? For Ld10, and the ability to take MotBA, it can be. Anyway, sorry! Saurus and T4! Predatory list stink!
No worries. I just found it rather crazy to criticize the slann for not being the "best" mage at "actual casting" when it has a ton of other aspects that make it good. Built in ward, protection (moderately) from miscast, rerolling failed dispell attempt, etc etc. Those don't make the slann better at pushing spells through but they make him a better MAGE (in general) and make the lizardmen magic phase stronger. The points you are spending are worth something. Even with this "death choir" theres still no ward, no miscast protection, and a vast vast majority of your dice is being used on the death signature. Theres something to say about having the level of flexibility that the slann possesses. The ability to six dice a final trans, or a fiercy convocation, or a dwellers, and feel a *little* safe in some of the protection you can put on him. Or feel confident in your ability to pick a lore that fits well in whatever meta you happen to play in. I think all that makes the slann the "best" mage. I think arguing against the slann being the "best" mage because he's not actually the best at physically casting spells is an asinine technicality that holds no bearing on how he performs in the game. The magic phase isn't all about just generating a bunch of dice. If your slann cascades it blows, but it doesnt blow as much as cascading a 500 point vampire lord. Being able to push a bunch of death sig spells through on low level casters doesnt matter if you can safely dispel with your re rolling failed dispel attempts, channeling additional dispel dice, and your +4 to dispell. I may have been a little defensive, and i may not have articulated precisely why i think the slann is the best mage in the game, but i think its because he possess a flexibility and protection you dont see on any other mage. Yeah he's 300 points naked, but those are some of the best points you can spend because, while he might not generate dice/control the winds of magic like the mentioned vampire lord, he more then compensates for it by being strong in other areas of the magic phase that are just as crucial. I'm sorry as well, i never intended for this argument to get a little touchy. I know i played my part. (just wanted to say, sometimes people see the quotes and assume i'm being condescending. I'm choosing to put "best" in quotes like that because i realize theres always a level of personal opinion that plays a roll. Theres no way to really quantify what mage is actually the best, so there will always be some level of ambiguity)
3 Things 1. Look up "Ad hominem", I think some of you might wanna keep it in mind when debating. It makes good debating look less good, and it will be harder for the person you are talking with to accept your points . 2. Had I been Darnok, he who closes threads, from warseer this would be dead for being so de-railed but im not...so 3. Great read you guys. I must say im thrilled how this thread evolved into "this is wrong with Lizardmen, and this isnt" as it actually fits the subject. While it might read "Toughness" it could as well has said "Lizzies in 8th's meta". I would like to try something. I think this debate could use a "common understanding" written in stone. by watching this ive made a couple of simple "True/false"+1liner questions I think would serve it: A. I think that the Slann is the best caster in the game, because of his flexibility and different abilities. B. I think that the Slann is not the best caster in the game, as he cant force more spells through than any other mage. C. I dont play special characters. d. I recognize that Saurus are useful e. I recognize that Saurus are useful, but not for the things I want them to be. f. I recognize that Saurus are useful, but not for the things I need them to be. g. I dont appriciate my skinks h. I want my Saurus to be a viable choice for my type of army so I can field them. i. I started Lizardmen because I heard Saurus where the toughest kids on the block j. I have a sad feeling because I really want Lizardmen to be good at something they are not: CC k. I tend to make lists I know wont be as competetive simply because I want some choices to work. .....and yes...I DID have to sing the alphabet-song in my head to make this! A. False. Its not my definition of "best", I do recognize and appreciate its power though. B. True. If I could choose I would go with a High elf mage everytime C. True. We dont in my meta, so its not an option for me. d. True. They are not bad for core e. True. My army dont need more solutions for the the things Saurus is good at f. True. For me to field Saurus they would need a boost to their defensive abilities. g. False. I absolutely love skinks equally as much as my opponents hate them. h. True. Theres no reason for me to field them other than I really want there to be. i. True. I chose Lizzies because I like Dino's and the thought of combat heavy Saurus lists. j. True. As I got to know my army I realised I was playing it wrong, and that it was bad at the things I thought and wanted it to do. K. True. I still struggle to make an optimal PF list for ETC.
a) false, that flexibility comes at such a steep price that it limits the rest of the army b) true, magic has been hamstrung by winds of magic c) false, I like me some Tetto and Gor Rok d) true, toughness 4 is better than toughness 3 when fighting strength 3 or 4 e) true, they have been severely nerfed via edition change without enough of a boost from predatory fighter f) not sure what this one is supposed to be since it's a duplicate g) false h) true i) true, but that was true when I started lizards way back at the start of 6th edition j) true, because they had been for the 10 years I'd been playing them prior to 8th edition k) false, I use what works because winning is fun and if the choice if fun and lose or fun and win I'll take the latter You might want to add a final question: When did you start playing? (edition/year) For me it is 2000/6th
I will selectively answer. a) Mixed? I think a naked slann with maybe eldritch is a good value. Vampires pay 55 for a wound, IIRC an extra wound on a dwarf is also around 50, we all know what 4++ wards cost. A naked slann plus one discipline and cheap arcane item is a bargain. b) Lizards have a solidly average magic phase, as they have a difficult time making it consistent. d) true e) false - I use my saurus in one of two units. 30 spears on defense, or 40 hw/s on offense with infantry old blood. They do what I need them to, which is step in front of a charge or deliver a character while being buffed. e) true - I would love to run a detachment style 20 hw, 30 TG, 20 hw list. I don't think predatory lists work. h) I started lizards because I wanted a mix of 20 and 25mm infantry. I'm not a cavalry player. I) Started fantasy with 8th edition as it reinvigorated my FLGS that was abandoning 40k. I busted my chops on khorne marauders and hydras...
I'd like to just point out that even if this "discussion" got a little touchy, no one resorted to full on attacks of the other person, so i dont think anyone needs to worry about ad hominem. A) True, but by no means do i think it is clear cut. I think the slann is clearly a top 5 caster, and that top 5 can be arranged in numerous ways depending on personal preference. However, i do think a lot of the lizardmens current "magical strength" also lies in tetto. To get the best magic phase you can you need both a slann and tetto. One or the other gives you an above average phase at best. B) True/false. I believe the book of hoeth right now makes high elves the best at forcing through spells. However, the slann brings reasonable survivability/protection which high elves simply do not have. Also the slann provides better magical protection, between rerolling failed dispell dice/double scroll, triple channels, and tetto, the lizardmen can be very good at disrupting the enemies magical phase. C) True, but that is only because currently i do not own any. I am going to buy Tetto as soon as I can. D) True because.... E) I find this to be true. I generally bring one unit of saurus to be my anvil. They are a reasonable tar pit and between the reasonable toughness/save/parry they survive okay and dish out enough damage in response that i find it acceptable. F) False. I dont feel like saurus need to be killing machines, or need to go toe to toe with elite infantry to be "worthwhile" G) False. Love my skinks. IMO one of the best units in the game, and one of the only things that have been keeping lizardmen competitive in recent editions. H) False. I don't think Lizardmen need to be a combat army. There are plenty of combat armies to choose from. Saurus could be moderately better so a "mixed arms" style list was more useful, but i would draw the line there. I) False. I started Lizardmen because slann + dinos + fluff. J) False. I know that lizardmen are not good at this. it would be nice if they were because it would make them an extremely powerful army (and who doesnt want that!) but i am well aware of what is type of list is "effective" for lizardmen and i find that list enjoyable to play with. K) True/false. I like to bring things like scarnosaurs/stegs which can be seen as risky choices in todays meta, but I also dont bring things like rippers/skrox/noslann/tons of saurus because I know those armies aren't very effective. Last question "when did i start playing" My first lizardmen book is from 2003 and my first warhammer rulebook is from 2000. However, a vast majority of the actual games i've played have taken place during 8th edition. Was much more hobby focused back in the day/very very young. in 2000 i was 11.
A. I think that the Slann is the best caster in the game, because of his flexibility and different abilities. - false. I get out magic'ed for less points in most games I play. B. I think that the Slann is not the best caster in the game, as he cant force more spells through than any other mage. - true. He is better at disrupting my opponents' magic phase than he is at making my magic phase accomplish much. C. I don't play special characters. - false. People around here complain about Tetto, but he hasn't been too much of a factor in many games I've played. d. I recognize that Saurus are useful - false? e. I recognize that Saurus are useful, but not for the things I want them to be. - true. This is probably more accurate. f. I recognize that Saurus are useful, but not for the things I need them to be. - Skinks cost less and in practice they die at about the same rate as Saurus. If I need something to tarpit, I'd rather skinks. If I need something to kill things... Temple Guard maybe? Scar Vets are really the most effective for killing things, though. g. I dont appriciate my skinks - FALSE! You can never have too many skinks! h. I want my Saurus to be a viable choice for my type of army so I can field them. - Yeah. I'd like to run two big blocks of Saurus and get some dice rolling. It's not fun to play against a shooty army because only the shooter gets to roll dice. And this is a dice rolling game! i. I started Lizardmen because I heard Saurus where the toughest kids on the block - false. I started Lizardmen because I couldn't figure out how to play 5th edition Empire and Lizardmen came in the box set. j. I have a sad feeling because I really want Lizardmen to be good at something they are not: CC - true. So much WS 3 is killing me! k. I tend to make lists I know wont be as competetive simply because I want some choices to work. - true. I like my 5 Stegadon list. And I'd like to run a list that fills up my special (and heros?) with Rippers and Terradons (4 units of 3 rippers & 7 units of 3 terradons?!) When did you start playing? (edition/year) For me it is 2000/6th - I started with 5th Edition, I think around '96. Pretty much only played against Wood Elves and Brettonia. Stopped playing in '98, and came back to 8th edition in 2012. Needless to say, it was a very different game than I remembered.
A lot of people seem to be saying they have a hard time getting their slann to accomplish much during their magic phase. Would anyone mind elaborating on that statement? What lores are you running? What spells do you cast first? Because honestly its not a problem I have very often. With the exception of the book of hoeth, which everyone would agree is fairly broken, I dont find myself getting out magic'd very often. Even if i can't shove through every spell i want, The lizardmen have some great magical defense. At the very least i'm putting the kabosh on the enemies phase even if my phase is going poorly.
Well, I think you said something there: the slann is good at disrupting the enemy magic phase, but the problem is the saurus needs the buffs to go from 'not even mediocre' to 'excellent'. The enemy already got the boost on the roster and is great to begin with. I think most people agree that saurus buffed with just about any spell is great. But to buff them you need to cast spells, not just disrupt the enemy. And while I'm at it, comparing a semi-tooled slann + tetto with any lvl 4 I think you have to factor in the 600 points invested in 2 pure casters compared to the 200-300 points the enemy spent.
Fair enough. You'll have to agree that you're getting quite a bit for that 600 points tho. Maybe you're not getting twice as much raw casting power as the 300 points your enemy spent, but you're getting twice as much utility, at least IMO.