AoS NEW *rumor*

so you want to pay more for something the unit doesn't need making them less viable in order to make things more lore friendly? regardless guard do have 2 wounds so our 5 man unit(same as stone guard and dwarves) super solders have that already and giving that to warriors would just make guard look even worse. do you want guard to have 4 wounds each? that's what would need to happen to keep them on par.

 

Saurus Warriors have felt in an odd place next to Skinks for a while; even before 3rd. Based on what I've absorbed from folks on the site, it seems like the combos of lower points, faster move, ranged attacks (regardless of how good/bad) AND available synergies just make Skinks more efficient. I don't really know that Warriors will ever get picked over Skinks without giving Warriors some "gimmick" of their own.

 

There are a lot of ways they could make Saurus worth picking over Skinks. People just disagree on which buffs they would like better.

2 wounds on Saurus would actually be good, imo, and there are things they could give to Guard to make them better as well.

Giving Guard a 3+ save and 2in reach with their halberds and rend -2 damage 2 would make them a solid choice for an elite unit. Warriors could have rend -1 on everything and stay at damage 1.

This would allow for the precedent for Knights to go up to 3 wounds, and get rend -1 on their weapons as well.

Or they could just make Warriors more damaging and not alter much else. Either option would give you reasons to bring Warriors. Because as @Erta Wanderer said, they are already pretty durable, they just do zero damage, and aren't quite tanky enough to be a full anvil unit.

 

Possibly changing the Oldblood's command ability or the Koatl's Claw sub-faction command ability to give Saurus (or just Warriors?) run and charge could help get them into combat. Warriors would just need to be able to DO something once they got there.

Maybe reduce their horde bonus to 9 or 10 warriors so that even a MSU is attacking more? Maybe give clubs +1 Attack when the unit charges, and spears +1 rend when the unit is charged?

EDIT: Is it too much? A unit of 10 warriors commanded to run and charge, each with 3 club attacks (-1 rend) and 2 bite attacks could be good (yes?). Throw in All Out Attack in the combat phase and maybe a Sunblood's +1 to Wound. Would that make them better than Knights?

It would probably make clubs the best option opposed to spears. Hmm...

 

With the way AoS 3 works, I think they should just remove horde bonuses altogether. Just give the extra bonuses to the base warscrolls. With the smaller horde sizes it's too easy to neuter a horde just by dealing 5 damage to them. Coherency rules already make it impossible to get them all into combat anyway.

 

Are there any infantry units on 32 mm bases other then saurus warriors that only have 1 wound? I can't think of any, but I don't know all armies real well, mainly just the ones I've faced.

 

Boodletters, idoneth reavers and thralls, thunderers, dryads, tree revenants.

Considering how you see pretty much all our good units pretty evenly across both coalesced and starborne, I can't say I agree.

Especially when some units being better in some subfactions is basically a ubiquitous situation in aos. Out if curiosity, do you think it's something all factions need or should have?

 

Well, yes and no. I've mentioned before that our Starborne/Coalesced split coincides with flat bonuses for units in each through special rules, and we'd be remiss to forget that 3rd Edition is likely going to be paring those down based on current trends. As pointed out by others, many of those "good" Seraphon units are heavily dependent on subfaction bonuses to be what they are, and so it follows that any changes to those subfaction rules have the potential to either make or break them without ever having to touch the warscroll itself.

It's for that reason that I'd rather see Starborne and Coalesced be treated as functionally separate factions within the Seraphon umbrella, even if it means they get a Horus Heresy Legiones Astartes-esque "We function very differently from one another despite effectively using the same models" shtick. We otherwise simply don't have a guarantee that we're going to be keeping any of those rules transitioning into 3rd.

 

All 3.0 books have subfactions that benefit specific units. It's not something unique to seraphon and we see all of our good units used across both sides in comparable numbers.

If I haven't said it enough, our "good units" aren't dependent on Allegiance abilities. Our Allegiance abilities are just so good that it makes our good units even better. As evidenced by most of our good units being used in all subfactions.

Bastis were a staple of dracos tail lists. 30 skinks are powerful in thunder lizard or fangs of sotek. Salamanders are a powerful asset in coalesced lists just like they are in starborne. Are there a handful of units that are better in one or the other? Of course. But just like redeemers are better in hallowed knights or pigs are better in bloodtoofs, it's the same idea.

Will our 3.0 book be paired down? Possible. But if it's paired down in a similar way there's even less of a reason to seperate them as there would be even less Allegiance ability buffs to pull them apart.

We have A quality warscrolls being supported by A+ quality Allegiance abilities (and a lot of them). If we got less Allegiance abilities there isn't really that drastic of changes that need to be made.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, the sheer number of command abilities seraphon has access to is fairly unique and not something present in 3.0 books at all. I'll be very interested in seeing how that shakes out.

But at the end of the day, if Starborne lost everything but teleport or summoning and coalesced lost everything but -1 damage... we'd still be really strong. Hell, you could probably also remove all of our command abilities outside the priest one and we'd still be really strong. Saurus would suck even more than they do now, but thats kind of its own rats nest of a topic.

For what it's worth, i think if you made warriors a 3+ save they'd be instantly really strong. The last thing seraphon needs is another unit that does a ton of damage.

 

Simple and potentially effective. It just feels like a 3+ save should go onto Guard.

 

Give them both a 3+ and increase the cost on guard maybe?

Or I really like the rally rule a few things have gotten in New books. Being able to rally warriors in combat would be a powerful, thematic rule IMO.

 

Before trying to fix saurus I think you need to try to define what role you actually want them to take and then think whether that is actually useful in our army.

If they are supposed to be an anvil, great, they already do that but that is not really a role our army is hurting for. If they are damage dealers then we have plenty of those. If they are targets for buffs then we need better suarus buffs and buffs that knights and guard can't just do better.

Honestly melee units on 32mm bases just aren't all that good right now. You need a very compelling reason to take them and just damage really isn't enough. It's also hard to give them a unique ability when there isn't much in the lore that sets them apart.

 

i think you're misunderstanding something. they don't have to be the best thing in the book, that isn't what we are asking for. they do need to be useable. warriors are cool we want to use them because thats the part of the army we like.

 

Exactly. They don't need to be OP, but it should be worth bringing them. Right now even with buffs they are just a decent anvil but not a great one, and even fully buffed they do next to no damage. Just because other units in the army can be tanky and/or deal damage doesn't mean that Saurus Warriors shouldn't be able to do either of those things. You are allowed to have some overlap in unit roles, especially in an army with as big of a unit roster as we have. If they did one of those things really well or did both of them reasonably well they'd be worth taking. Right now they do one thing kinda sorta well, but not well enough to be worth using. 315 points for a unit of 30 that can basically sit on an objective for a couple turns before dying but won't eliminate anything just isn't worth the cost.

On another note, I think a lot of people seem to still be holding on in their minds to the 1st edition "swamp the board with bodies that do nothing but die to hold your opponent back" playstyle. This really isn't how the army works anymore. And it certainly isn't how armies are supposed to work in 3rd. Giving our units better stats doesn't mean that we'd be less of a "thinking man's" army. Personally I think it's going to be necessary given the examples of how they write battletomes for 3rd edition so far.

 

Not at all. I said the whole warscroll needs attention so I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying it would be a nice-to-have. I actually agree with you that it's killing power that Warriors need more of first and foremost.

Besides, people don't take Guard over Warriors just because they have more wounds... People take Guard because they sponge wounds for a Slann while filling a battleline slot. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure the units could both have 2W and still be viable if priced appropriately.

 

thats exactly what you said "Might not be what they need, but it's what they deserve" you want them to have it even if it wouldn't help and would in fact make it worse as that's what you where replying to.

didn't say this. i said this would make that divide worse not that people don't use them. you original argument was that it's lore friendly to have 2 wounds but that would ruin guard lore wise they would be bog standard warriors at that point who know how to throw them selves in front of bullets'.

 

Explain to me how having an extra wound would actively work against Saurus Warriors. If they're priced properly, why would it end up being an issue?

There are ways to balance units besides the amount of wounds they have... I would even argue that Warriors and Guard should have the same number of wounds as they're basically the same kind of lizard. Differentiate the units with better saves and attack profiles for Saurus Guard. As it is they occupy a clearly separate niche due to their ability to absorb damage for Slann and come in smaller units. Not that complicated. I'll say it again - the whole Saurus warscroll range needs attention.

 

I personally think it's helpful when talking about changes to a unit to think of it in terms of "what does this unit need to perform it's job well" rather than "how can we make sure it doesn't step on the toes of any other units."

As much as I love Saurus Guard and think it would be nice if they were a true elite infantry option, they're really there just to be bodyguards for Slann. People only take them to save their Slann, not to fight on the front lines. And since they're in 5-man units they wouldn't be worth taking as pure combat infantry unless they received massive buffs as well. As our only dedicated melee battleline, Saurus Warriors should be reasonably good at both damage and defense. Able to not die to a stiff breeze but also able to actually kill something in combat, especially when buffed.

Guard would still be worth taking to protect a Slann even if they didn't get any buffs. But if you wanted them to become an actually viable choice for combat I think the buffs I proposed earlier would make them perfectly viable in that regard. Just give them a 3+ save, 2in range for the halberds, and make them hit/wound on 3s with -2 rend and 2 damage. That's a solid but not massively OP elite troop unit.

 

warriors are currently a rather tanky unit and we don't take them like at all. making them MORE tanky (a thing they already do well) and therefor more expensive is not going to help. they aren't worth taking now let alone at 200 points rather generous seeing those dwarves are 160 for 10 2 wound dwarves who are worse or 125 for 5 2 wound units and the elves are 120 for the same. fyre slayers are bad right now so are hammer elves no one uses them. 2 wound warriors would be that but worse.

you keep changing your argument. the original point you made was that warriors needed 2 wounds because fluff wise it made sense i said that that made our actual heavy units look poor in comparison so you switch to balance.
if we are talking balance then 2 wounds are almost exclusively to make 5 man units worth considering at all with 2 exceptions(both of witch are bad). when you cut a unit in half you need twice as many wounds as a base 10 for it to be on par. making the base 10 have 20 wounds makes this balance issue even worse. this gives the 10 man more wounds then every monster in the game (including 800 point god monsters) more wounds then 5 and 3 man cav units this is a MASIVE balance problem. how do you point that? a full 30 man unit would be 120 effective wounds and would still be bad. see bone splitas, the gut busters half of ogres, and 2nd edition SoB. more wounds doesn't make a unit good it just makes them fat and expensive