• 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. New Lizardman army book and info

The ripperdactyls stat line shows 2A, no brackets or anything. Doesn't that mean they'll have 3A each with frenzy?
 
Secondly, upon reading its bestiary. It reads something like the bloat toad grants it's frenzy d3+1attack. I'm pretty sure that means you add your base attacks to it. Meaning it can have anywhere from 4-6 attacks each for that one phase.
 
Sorry for all the posts, but it also says they re roll to hit while under the bloat rage"
 
I'm guessing it will be only W3+1 so that you have at least your 2 base attacks and can go up to 4. 2+W3+1 would be pretty much insane. That's potentially more base attacks than an Oldblood.
 
I don't know if its just me, but I am getting a little worried. I haven't seen any skirmisher skinks so far. Not in the white dwarf or in the preview from the book.

Do you guys think we might lose the skirmisher rule on the skinks?
 
I doubt it, although they didn't feature in the battle report, I think that was mainly so the 2 Tomb King monsters didn't die instantly to a hail of poison shots.

The other reason being that our choice of Core is already reasonably small (Saurus regiment, Skink Regiment, Skink Skirmishers) now that Jungle Swarms have been moved to special, removing the Skirmishers from that would only leave 2 options, which would be very strange.
 
You have a point there! I think you are right I dont think they would leave us with only 3 core
 
A friend suggested they might move krox to core (without the need to take them with skinks). Just a suggestion, not a rumour, but I would not object.

*edit* although I would probably rage if that meant no lotion to take skrox units
 
From warseer

"Went to gamesday yesterday met Mr Vetock (really cool dude BTW) saw the Lizardmen book. Saurus are the same but gained PF, Templars went down in points by the cost of a Slave, Skinks stay the same from what i saw and the slann goes up by 12 and a half slaves. Those are the things that stood out to me. Overall from what i saw looked to be a solid release, he told me he had written the book a year and a half ago and Robin Cruddance helped him with the design. He's worked on it and play tested it in that time."
Click to expand...

Wow, our core got even BETTER >: D

If Skink Chiefs have gone down in price/improved, I'm not fussed about Ld 5 skinks. Will make Chiefs more of a leader of units autoinclude!
 
Skinks dropped ld is a problem, and even skink chiefs ld is now 6, just have to manage with it. Still I'm pleased that saurus stayed the same points, even with predatory fighter and that temple guards are now cheaper ^^
 
He had a chance to look at book and only think he looked was points??
How about TG, can they choose H&S or they have to have Halberds like now, thats the main question for me because i would like to have H&S.
Skins didnt change, you mean there not 4pts each? Thats uber lame... LD5 oh may...
Slann dint go up much points thats not bad, but why in the hell dindt he look at diciplines.
 
Mahtis said:
Skinks dropped ld is a problem, and even skink chiefs ld is now 6
Click to expand...


Confirmed? Because that'd be complete bullshit for a Hero choice.... I really wanted Schiefs to be at least semi-viable :(
 
If you look at the skink chiefs stats, there it is, unfortunately.. at least it's 40 points now, instead of 55... and weapons are cheaper
image_zps60a21588.jpg
 
Missed oppurnity on Carnosaur. Stats are same, gains "Predatory Fighter", +10pts. As usable in game as empires griffons.
 
The issue with the Carnosaur is not unique to it, it's a game-wide problem facing almost any monster, in that blocks of infantry are popular and common, and cannons are not uncommon and very easily used to take monsters out.

The problem is, you can't just slap a 4+ ward save on a monster to give it protection from cannons, or make it T7 to make it more durable against hordes of troops, because suddenly the balance tips the other way. It also means when 9th edition comes around and they change the rules again, possibly to the detriment of cannons and hordes alike, the monsters become overpowered.

There are 2 things I would do to make monsters "viable" again (that's in quotes because I can and do use monsters all the time, to great success, but mine is not a cannon-heavy meta)

1. Increase the cost of cannons/any long-range highly accurate high-strength weapon and/or make them use the BS of the crew firing them.

2. Have some kind of mechanic in place enabling the monster to deny ranks to an enemy it fights, when fighting to the flank or rear. I don't understand why 10 skeleton horsemen charging into the flank of swordsmen makes their rank bonus disappear, but a stegadon's charge does not. I'd say use the combat resolution, eg. A stegadon charges into the flank of a unit of 30 swordsmen, 5 wide, 6 deep, the stegadon inflicts 9 wounds in total on the swordsmen, taking none in return.

The swordsmen have a banner, however since the number of casualties inflicted exceeds their number of ranks (9>6), they do not receive their rank bonus to combat resolution.

The swordsmen lose the battle by 8, and since this also exceeds their number of ranks (8>6), they do not count as being steadfast, and therefore need snake eyes to stay put.

This might sound like a whitewash, making monsters far too strong, but the stegadon needed to:
A. Get into position for a flank charge
B. Successfully complete that charge
C. Cause 7 or more casualties in the combat
D. Have the enemy inflict none back

Any of which it could fail to achieve and therefore receive no benefit. This represents the monster crashing into the enemy lines and dealing so much carnage that the enemy line falters.

My gaming group and I have trialled this extra rule and so far it's been great, it requires skill on your part to line up the monster properly, so it hasn't dominated the game, but it makes monsters that much more likely to run units down.

Thoughts?
 
I disagree with monsters being able to deny steadfast. They should be able to dish out damage but that's it, not single handedly roll whole armies and regiments. Like modern day armour, a monster should need infantry support or get overwhelmed. It may work in your group, but let a few unscrupulous players get hold of it and all armies will be monsters and cannons. Its not good for the game to br able to put a single model into something and win.

They really only need something to survive getting into combat.
 
"The problem is, you can't just slap a 4+ ward save on a monster to give it protection from cannons"

Wasnt that exactly what GW did with WoCs Chimera? :P.
 
I simply think fear and terror should do something for combat resolution. It just makes sense. +1 for combat resolution and terror denies steadfast.

On another note, I know it'll be 5+, but that scar-vets save does look like a 3+. I can always dream.
 
For those questioning Ripperdactyls:
They have 2 base attacks + frenzy, for 3 total with S4, armor piercing, and killing blow at WS/I 3.

Toad Rage: For each unit of Ripperdactyls, you may place a blot toad on an enemy unit at the beginning of the game. While in combat with a unit that has a blot toad, Ripperdactyls gain d3+1 attacks (instead of just 1) on their frenzy, and re-rolls to hit.
Blot toads last for the entire game, meaning this bonus is for as many rounds as the Ripperdactyls are in combat. The bonus attacks are lost if they lose combat, but the re-rolls to hit are not.
It also means that you can put blot toads on up to 3 enemy units, and all 3 units of ripperdactyls will gain the bonus against all of them, so all 3 ripperdactyl units can charge the same unit with a blot toad, and all of them will get the bonus (Not just the unit that placed that blot toad).

Read from the picture in the white dwarf of the Ripperdactyl page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top