8th Ed. Newcomer here! Are Lizardmen for me? :O

[Cragglehatch]

Hi folks; I'm a newcomer who's been trying very hard to find a Warhammer Fantasy army that clicks with me, but haven't had quite much luck. I don't think any army will be absolutely PERFECT for me, but I'm wondering if Lizardmen can be the closest thing to it (I'm currently tossing up between this and Orcs and Goblins).

This post was initially a lot longer, but then I decided that I actually wanted some responses, so here's a super-condensed version that's just about my questions rather than why I'm asking them. (And you'll all figure out pretty quickly where my particular interests lie from the questions themselves. )


Question time!:
1) Is it true that Lizardmen are an army that's renowned for close-combat? Not so much in terms of raw damage, but in their ability to grind out their opponents? (But if the former is also true, that's cool, too )

2) Is it true that the Lizardmen can be played as an infantry-heavy army, relying on many units of Saurus and that they have a lot of things (even outside of their magic) which synergises with them?

3) How much shootiness does a Lizardmen army need in order to succeed? (Both in terms of its Skink skirmishers and long-range support) I know that all armies need a good balance, but I'd like to know to what extent 'shootiness' matters to Lizardmen compared to other armies.

4) I hear that Slann are the most powerful spellcasters in the game, but even though Lizardmen get awesome magic, how reliant are they on it?

5) The fact that Lizardmen War Machines are frickin' dinosaurs which can defend themselves seems really badass; is it as cool as it sounds?


And finally, some concerns I have! (Like I said, I don't think any army is 100% perfect for me )

1) Lizardmen fluff, while cool, doesn't lend itself to as rich storytelling as Orcs (a lot of Lizardmen don't say much); this is a concern for me in the long run.

2) While I love how unified the Lizardmen look (even when comparing a tiny Skink to a huge Stegodon), I worry that I'll miss the more individual-looking Orcs (who manage to look individualistic while still having a unified style).


If you folks want to affirm / deny my hopes for this army, and/or assuage my concerns with them, it'd be most appreciated .

I appreciate straight talk as much as possible, even if it means crushing dreams; just go for it! It's way better than me regretting this army choice in future, if things aren't what I hoped for .

Thanks, guys!

 

[Scalenex]

Question time!:
1) Is it true that Lizardmen are an army that's renowned for close-combat? Not so much in terms of raw damage, but in their ability to grind out their opponents? (But if the former is also true, that's cool, too )

Saurus Warriors outperform most other Core except Chaos. LM are a little lacking on elite infantry but Saurus Warriors can grind away at least in the top 25%.

2) Is it true that the Lizardmen can be played as an infantry-heavy army, relying on many units of Saurus and that they have a lot of things (even outside of their magic) which synergises with them?

Short Answer: Yes. Long Answer: Article on Types of LM Armies

3) How much shootiness does a Lizardmen army need in order to succeed? (Both in terms of its Skink skirmishers and long-range support) I know that all armies need a good balance, but I'd like to know to what extent 'shootiness' matters to Lizardmen compared to other armies.

Depends on the build, The article cited above covers armies that use differing amounts of shooting. LM builds can work without shooting but it would get a bit dull using Saurus Based and Fast Attack lists all the time. If your preferred method of fighting is rushing into close combat with minimal shooting you might be better off with Orcs or better still Ogres.

4) I hear that Slann are the most powerful spellcasters in the game, but even though Lizardmen get awesome magic, how reliant are they on it?

If you don't want to take a Slann you can have a pretty solid magic phase from Skink Priests and bound spells from Ancient Stegadons and Bastiladons. I've won games without taking ANY magic before.

5) The fact that Lizardmen War Machines are frickin' dinosaurs which can defend themselves seems really badass; is it as cool as it sounds?

It IS cool. Our chariot equivalents can march and cross difficult terrain without dying. Our war machines move and fight back. Salamanders are way better than any Fire Thrower. There is a downside. We have nothing equivalent to a cannon or rock lobber. These units are the bane of dinosaurs.

And finally, some concerns I have! (Like I said, I don't think any army is 100% perfect for me )

1) Lizardmen fluff, while cool, doesn't lend itself to as rich storytelling as Orcs (a lot of Lizardmen don't say much); this is a concern for me in the long run.

GW writers do not love Lizardmen the way they love Orcs and Goblins. I'm not one to toot my own horn (okay I am beep beep beep), but I've written many fluff pieces that I believe are filled with rich storytelling. The fluff forum has my my work and mainy more besides. For great Lizardmen humor, check out anything in the fluff forum written by Spawning of Bob.

After the Death of Sigmar, Merestar the Slann tries to take a more active hand in guiding humanity
The Fall of Turochitan (~5 pages)

A pair of outcast vampires journey to Lustria with the goal of drinking a Slann's blood
Count Renliss' Journey to Lustria (~22 pages)

Klodorex is in disarray after the Slann disappear forcing an unlikely hero to unit the city
The Orphaned Temple City (~45 pages)

A party of Skinks is sent on a mysterious quest.
Divided We Fall (~60 pages)


2) While I love how unified the Lizardmen look (even when comparing a tiny Skink to a huge Stegodon), I worry that I'll miss the more individual-looking Orcs (who manage to look individualistic while still having a unified style).

In terms of sculpts alone, I am forced to agree with you. Lizardmen have far more options colorwise though which can add a lot of variety. A quick browse through the Painting Forum will show you that. This particular painting blog shows you what different colors look like when in the same army. Colorwise Orcs and Goblins are all green. That never struck me as very individualistic.

If you folks want to affirm / deny my hopes for this army, and/or assuage my concerns with them, it'd be most appreciated .

I appreciate straight talk as much as possible, even if it means crushing dreams; just go for it! It's way better than me regretting this army choice in future, if things aren't what I hoped for .

Thanks, guys!

 

[Cragglehatch]

Hey thanks for the point-by-point feedback, Scalenex!

I'm cool with Lizardmen not having super-elite infantry, as long as the Saurus are as good as people say they are . In fact, having their core unit be able to hold their own against so many foes is a really cool identity. It sounds like what I was hoping from Orcs.

I'm also not totally averse to shooting; I'd just rather the emphasis be on the close-combat, which it certainly sounds like it is . Furthermore, skinks are pretty short-ranged, which gives the Lizardmen a much more interesting identity than just having regular ranged archers.

On another forum, I read that Lizardmen play like 'a steamroller', and again here in that article you linked to, a Saurus-heavy army is described as a 'grinder'. Even the more 'traditional' build with skink skirmishers retains the idea of an inexorably-advancing grinder which sounds appealing to me.

I don't really have anything against the Slann, but odds are, I'll be just starting out with a 1k army, and even that may take a while to reach because I'm slow with painting and whatnot . I've also heard that Slann aren't worth it below 2k, so I'll be Slann-less for quite some time .

Hearing that Lizardmen have no equivalent to the rock lobber makes this army even more appealing in my eyes. It's an interesting weakness because it's offset by giving me more of another aspect that I enjoy: being that unstoppable force that slowly, but surely makes its way to your lines.

It's unfortunate to hear about the state of Lizardmen fluff. It's also ironic because the same reason why they're so badass and appealing (the way they seem like cold-hearted killers) is also the thing that makes it hard for Games Workshop to tell stories about them . I'm not sure if that'll be a problem for me in the long run, but we'll see. Meantime, I may check out those stories you wrote. ^^

Also, by 'individualistic', I mean, even though all Orcs are green, you can give each individual Orc Boy different clothing, armour, and weapons to really make each one look unique. Lizardmen are a much more 'professional' army; the individuals in a given unit have a certain dress code that they adhere to. Sure I could personally modify each one, but I wouldn't want to, because it's 'unfluffy' . Just like the issue with Lizardmen lore being straightforward and badass, I see this as both a blessing and a curse; though perhaps the downside is just a negative byproduct I can live with in order to enjoy the coolness it offers.




I should elaborate a little on things I didn't in my first post (because it'd be too overwhelming otherwise ).

I don't like Ogres because it doesn't feel like a proper army to me; I want to command an army not a small band of giant warriors.

Orcs and Goblins are what Lizardmen are competing against in terms of what army I should start . You've heard my main concerns with Lizardmen (honestly, I reckon the fluff aspect is the most important thing holding me back with Lizardmen); but for Orcs and Goblins, the only thing stopping me from playing them is the "and Goblins" part of the army. In 40k, it was all about the Orks. Even their ramshackle vehicles and hodgepodge units had a unified look to them. In Fantasy, Orcs and Goblins are also really hodgepodge, but in a way that doesn't gel with me at all. Wolfriders, giant Spiders, War Boars, Giants, Trolls.....it's an eclectic mix of units doesn't feel like a proper army to me, even if I love the personality! I know that this very eclecticness is one of the major reasons why some people like Orcs and Goblins, but for me, it's a bit of a turnoff . Lizardmen manage to pull off looking unified despite being so diverse. Also, gameplay-wise, Orcs in Fantasy aren't renowned for close-combat the way they are in 40k. Orcs in Fantasy sound like they play like a more traditional, balanced army with a diverse array of choices; but what I'm looking for is something like how the Lizardmen sound like: an army without long-range war machines that instead relies on just being a steamroller.


Thanks again for sharing all those thoughts of yours; it's certainly done a lot to push me towards starting a Lizardmen army ! I'd still like to hear other peoples' opinions if possible, because I want to make sure I'm not making a mistake; but what you said does seem to be the general vibe I'm getting from the Lizardmen.

 

[Dreyer]

If you really want a combat oriented army I would personally go with warriors of chaos. You can play combat oriented Lizardmen but then your not really playing them to their full potential. Saurus Warriors are fine versus most cheap core units but simply do not stand up against anything above mediocre troops. Some people may disagree though

 

[RipperDerek]

Saurus Warriors are above average in close combat, but they aren't anywhere near the best. The Slann can be one of the most powerful casters, but costs a LOT of points.

I would score a Lizardmen report card something like this:

Infantry: B+
Cavalry: C+
Magic: A
Monsters: C+
Artillery: D

The best close combat army is probably Warriors of Chaos.
The most grindy army is probably Dwarves.

However, it should be noted that Lizards do have one of the most powerful (if surprisingly tiny) combat lords in the game. A properly equipped Oldblood will take out even the toughest combat creatures eventually, since he hits at S7 and is virtually indestructible. Also, while the Lizardmen's monsters are mostly kinda sorta terrible, there is one that stands out: the Ancient Stegadon (w/ Sharpened Horns). That guy is very good against almost anything but a cannon.

 

[Cragglehatch]

@Dreyer
I actually looked at all the armies, and narrowed it down to O&G and Lizardmen because the other armies have things that I'm more unhappy with . For Warriors of Chaos, it's the aesthetics of the army; I just don't see myself having fun painting/collecting them; even if gameplay-wise, they may be more my cup of tea .

I'm still struggling over whether or not gameplay trumps 'flavour' for me. How visually-appealing an army is to a player is apparently quite a big deal, and I don't want to lose interest over the long run if it bugs me .

I'm a little disappointed (still grateful for your thoughts, though ) to hear that Lizardmen aren't as good in combat as I hoped. I think it's because a few other opinions I read talked about a 'grinder' playstyle for Lizardmen, so that got my hopes up .


@RipperDerek
I don't really need for Saurus to be the best core infantry in order to like them; but it'd be nice to know that they're at least 'up there' . They may not be able to beat the likes of Chaos Warriors on a one-for-one basis, but how do they fair on a point-by-point basis? I gather that they're cheaper than Chaos Warriors; but that Dwarf Warriors do beat Saurus on a one-to-one basis AND they're cheaper, too! (this I gleaned from Scalenex's tactica writeup - thanks )

Dwarves do sound like they may be more my sorta thing from a gameplay standpoint; but again, I'm not a fan of the models and the aesthetics of that race.



Thanks guys, for your insights into this dilemma of mine!

 

[spawning of Bob]

1) Lizardmen fluff, while cool, doesn't lend itself to as rich storytelling as Orcs (a lot of Lizardmen don't say much); this is a concern for me in the long run.

2) While I love how unified the Lizardmen look (even when comparing a tiny Skink to a huge Stegodon), I worry that I'll miss the more individual-looking Orcs (who manage to look individualistic while still having a unified style).

I've put some thought into the fluff comparison LM to O+G.

1) Both races no doubt take themselves seriously.

- This is inherently funny for O+G because they are completely inept, and anything they achieve is almost by accident, making for amusing fluff.
- LM are single minded and efficient (on paper) but put them into real (WHFB) combat and they run away and bugger up with similar frequency to everyone else. This is the interesting paradox of LM fluff. They should be dominating everything (especially themselves) because of their focus and commitment and general badassness, but evidence shows us that they are just hanging on. We need creative fluff to make sense of the paradox.

2) Noone can agree on what the Great Plan is meant to achieve, let alone what steps need to be taken to get back on track. This gives a lot of fluff freedom as different generals can use very different tools to achieve the same ends.

3) LM are not homogenous. We've got 3 main classes (4 if you count the Spawning of Bob), none of whom communicate terribly well with the others. That's not even considering how equivocal the Old One's plaques can be.


Snoozy Slann occasionally croak something cryptic. Skink leaders follow their own agenda, and Saurus just want to be pointed at the problem.

Add to that some technology which noone understands and war beasts and monsters that are not remotely tame, and a home environment which is inimical to life all by itself. They also have stuff that everyone else wants (gold, knowledge, magical power, helicopters, territory)

Plenty of space for fluff here.

4) If cheap humour is more your bag, you can't go past the names of individuals and places. Itzibitzi, Chokibicci, Qupakoco. It doesn't matter that they take themselves seriously (and don't have any real friends), the silly names take the edge off their cold bloodedness.

5) Welcome to the community. You won't find a less snarky WHFB forum anywhere. Guys and gals here take their gaming / painting / fluff very seriously - but they don't take themselves seriously, and they support new members. Where else could a newbie get one of the Old Ones to help them out with a custom avatar http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/does-anybody-else-want-a-custom-avatar.12655/ or go into detailed discourse about how to build that first list for the fiftieth time and get treated with such respect and patience.

We are proud of our community, and thanks to the Red Devil, saved it from the Realm of Chaos recently.

6) Da Opposishun. The fools can't even spell. We've got a few here like that, but if you ignore most posts from n810, you will actually be able to understand what is going on.

I have done extensive research on the O+G forces


As the clincher I present Exhibit D. This is the best that the O+G forum (Da Warpath) can muster, from a humour point of view:

what did the giant say after eating a skaven?

hair ball

lol i almost fell of my chair laughing good one

Do you really want to be associated with these savages?

 

[Cragglehatch]

Hahhaa, Spawning of Bob! XD Thank you for such a detailed response! :O

I've seen some of your stuff while doing my research here, and I gotta say, you do make a lot of good points ^_^.

Darn this moderation system; I need all my posts approved before they get published, but I guess that's just because I'm a little spawnling.

I know that the 3 main species in the Lizardmen are pretty different; I just meant to say that the army as a whole feels like a proper, unified army for whatever reason. Logically, Skinks and Saurus shouldn't feel any more aesthetically unified than Goblins and Orcs; but I think that the difference in fluff is what ties the disparate types of Lizardmen together as opposed to the Greenskins. Despite their differences, The Slann, Skins, and Saurus were all engineered for specific purposes and fit together like a jigsaw.

I have to admit, I do like a bit of cheap humour now and again . I lost it so hard when I read "Akhseptsahmex" (sp) in that comic of yours. XD I may end up naming a couple of my guys something similar. XD It's much more easy to take Orcs and Goblins less seriously, but thanks for reminding me that it's possible with Lizardmen, too.


I really am leaning pretty darn hard towards Lizardmen at the moment, in no small part due to your words . They may not play completely the way I'd want them to; but as long as I don't need to do anything super-cheesy with Skinks in order to succeed and they're in my army solely to harass and provoke enemy units while leaving the real fighting to my Saurus, I'll probably be happy.


Thanks! ^_^

(I did also make another post before this one which hasn't gotten approved yet, but hopefully that makes it through, as well )

 

[Spiney Norman]

Also, by 'individualistic', I mean, even though all Orcs are green, you can give each individual Orc Boy different clothing, armour, and weapons to really make each one look unique. Lizardmen are a much more 'professional' army; the individuals in a given unit have a certain dress code that they adhere to. Sure I could personally modify each one, but I wouldn't want to, because it's 'unfluffy' . Just like the issue with Lizardmen lore being straightforward and badass, I see this as both a blessing and a curse; though perhaps the downside is just a negative byproduct I can live with in order to enjoy the coolness it offers.

Its entirely possible to make Lizardmen individualistic without ruining the synergistic look of the army. The best way to do this is by applying 'spawning marks' to your units, which usually means painting the scales or crests of your Saurus/skinks a different colour. The concept is that each Lizardmen unit is spawned with its brothers, and although every Saurus looks broadly the same you can create different looking units by applying diffrent spawning marks. War paint is another way that you can make more individual differences to an unclothed model, its not something Gw have ever really pushed with the Lizardmen, but it definitely fits the meso-American imagery.

Orcs and Goblins are what Lizardmen are competing against in terms of what army I should start . You've heard my main concerns with Lizardmen (honestly, I reckon the fluff aspect is the most important thing holding me back with Lizardmen); but for Orcs and Goblins, the only thing stopping me from playing them is the "and Goblins" part of the army. In 40k, it was all about the Orks. Even their ramshackle vehicles and hodgepodge units had a unified look to them. In Fantasy, Orcs and Goblins are also really hodgepodge, but in a way that doesn't gel with me at all. Wolfriders, giant Spiders, War Boars, Giants, Trolls.....it's an eclectic mix of units doesn't feel like a proper army to me, even if I love the personality! I know that this very eclecticness is one of the major reasons why some people like Orcs and Goblins, but for me, it's a bit of a turnoff . Lizardmen manage to pull off looking unified despite being so diverse. Also, gameplay-wise, Orcs in Fantasy aren't renowned for close-combat the way they are in 40k. Orcs in Fantasy sound like they play like a more traditional, balanced army with a diverse array of choices; but what I'm looking for is something like how the Lizardmen sound like: an army without long-range war machines that instead relies on just being a steamroller.


Thanks again for sharing all those thoughts of yours; it's certainly done a lot to push me towards starting a Lizardmen army ! I'd still like to hear other peoples' opinions if possible, because I want to make sure I'm not making a mistake; but what you said does seem to be the general vibe I'm getting from the Lizardmen.

Ok, as someone who plays both Lizardmen and O&G perhaps I can help you crystallise your thoughts.

As two armies Lizardmen & O&G couldn't be more different, Lizardmen are possibly the most reliable army in the game, cold blooded gives you a significant advantage to passing any leadership test which means that more often than to your army will stick around where others would run away. That is one of the major factors that makes Lizardmen such a great grinding army.

Orcs and goblins are the polar opposite, they are one of the most random and unreliable armies the game has to offer. That is one of the reasons that their units appear to be so cheap. Animosity introduces a random element into the game that you just have to live with, basically you test each of your units for animosity at the start of each turn and on the D6 roll of a 1 the unit doesn't do what you want it to. On the one hand I've had games where Ive not failed an animosity test all game, on the other I've had games where potentially game-winning charges have gone south because my orcs just wouldn't do as they're told. I can find my O&G frustrating because they are so luck dependent, its more than possible that you can get thrashed for no-other reason than you just failed too many I animosity checks, or your trolls spent the entire game drooling or your random movement units never got where they needed to be. On the other hand its not all bad because when luck does go your way, you can find your units romping through the enemy army with little to no effort.

What I usually find with orcs and goblins is that if you have the right attitude to them you will never have a dull game because crazy stuff always happens.

Another big difference: the general, Greenskins are a highly general-dependent army, most of your units have low to average leadership and trying to keep them all within 12" of your warboss can be a very tricky exercise, especially when units fall behind through a failed animosity test. Most Lizardmen units have a fairly respectable leadership anyway and with cold blooded increasing their odds of passing still further certainly any Saurus unit can quite happily operate away from your general, skinks less so, but they a no means as difficult to control as goblins.

In terms of shooting O&G have no small arms shooting worthy of note, I always feel its a bit of a waste of time fielding Orc archers because orcs just should be in combat and why give them a bow when you can give them a shield or second hand weapon instead? Goblin archers on the other hand are too short range to really be a threat, unless you want to do something ridiculously gimmicky like a huge unit of gobbo archers with the poisoned banner. Conversely O&G have a good selection of warmachines, cheap bolt throwers and the doom diver is particularly useful for putting wounds on armoured targets.

Again Lizardmen are the opposite, lots of short range poisoned shooting with only the stegs giant bow to threaten at range.

With regards to magic, different again, the Orc and goblin lores are fairly limited (esp the goblin one) and not that good really whereas the Slann isn't just a better caster, he has access to far superior spell lists.

In all honesty I don't really see an O&G army working without any goblins at all, night goblin hordes are one of the staples of my list, they carry your fanatics and use nets to debuff your opponents in combat without needing to get a spell off. Also squig herds are one of the better combat units in the list, plus your support units (mangler squigs, wolf riders, squig hoppers) will all be goblin-based. A greenskin army made up of just orcs sounds a bit like a Lizardmen army made up of just Saurus - not that interesting, and not that competitive.

 

[rothgar13]

Spiney makes some really good points, and those points validate why I would recommend Lizards over O&G for you as a newer player (and why my O&G experience has been rather bittersweet) - they're just so darned unreliable. Even the best-laid plans are at the mercy of dice rolls in this game, but O&G adds even more dice to the equation in exchange for what amounts to a hometown discount on several units. If you ask me, I think an army like Lizards that is well-rounded and stable is better to start things out with.

 

[Cragglehatch]

@Spiney Norman
Thanks for your thoughts! ^___^

I know of the animosity rule for Orcs and I have to say; for me, it sounds like something I'm perfectly happy to live with . I'm 'that guy' . It's a small price to pay for being able to field impressively large hordes of boyz, and it may not even be considered a 'price' as such, since there's potential comedic value to be had, as well, even when things go south.

You raise a good point about Orcs being very general-dependent. Their army book was the first one I looked into, and when I read opinions from other Orc players about how you want all your guys within 12' of your general, I just assumed that this was just a Warhammer Fantasy thing in general. I didn't realise how much less-reliant on proximity to their general some other armies are, such as the Lizardmen .

I'm still not opposed to playing an army full of melee shock troops as opposed to a slower, grinder strategy; but I think that what turns me off is needing to use the non-Orc units which don't have the same aesthetic synergy I feel with Lizardmen. Also, using siege weapons to kill certain enemies from range feels kinda un-Orcy to me. I'm actually drawn towards the Lizardmen partly because lack of long-range firepower is a weakness of the army. ^_^



@rothgar13
Thanks for your feedback . Like I told Spiney Norman, I'm actually ok with Orcs being unreliable . For me, it's part of their flavour and charm; and it actually works in favour of them as my army of choice .

But that said, they do have other issues which make them an imperfect choice for me, such as my aforementioned displeasure at Goblins (especially night goblins) being pretty much mandatory =/.




I also have a couple new concerns which developed for me recently:

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we nearing the tail-end of 8th Edition? What if when 9th Edition rolls out, it changes the rules in such a way that hurts Lizardmen? We'd have to wait for a long time to be able to do stuff again. For instance, I recall reading somewhere that someone took a break from the hobby for a long time because infantry was apparently useless in 7th ed. That sounds like dark times. X( Although I don't expect to rely solely on them, blocks of dead 'ard infantry being Lizardmen's core units is one of the reasons why I'm so interested in this army. Is it the fate of Lizardmen to only get to experience their codex for a certain edition only during the twilight of that edition?

2) This one may sound sillier, but I'm a little scared to invest in Saurus models because I feel like they may update them soon; has there been any word on this, and is this a valid worry? :O I have to say that while the current ones look pretty cool; they could certainly be overhauled to better-fit the artwork in the books, which I reckon looks so much more badass . Giving them 'narrower' and 'taller' heads like in this art:
http://chaosorc.com/images/lizardman%20armies%20book%20NEW.jpg
as opposed to the 'wider' and 'flatter' heads you see in this art (and which is more accurate to the current models):
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3900/c6ef6/products/8132/images/9150/GW88-06a__70276.1343723401.1200.1200.jpg
I feel like this visual change across the Saurus models are inevitable and that the more (in my opinion ) badass-looking heads is being foreshadowed with the design of the rider for the Carnosaur model. What do you guys reckon? @_@


Sorry if I sound super-picky, guys! It's just that starting an army from nothing's a big investment and I wanna make sure I get it right :O. You guys have been awesome, and I really appreciate everyone's input; thank you!

 

[Padre]

My first army was Orcs and Goblins. I would probably contend that Goblins are really not necessary, depending on how you build your list. Some of the more successful builds right now are centered around a horde of Savage Orc Big 'Uns and a horde of Black Orcs, backed by a horde of something else, usually trolls or another block of Orc Boys with two choppas. Back it with a BSB, a Savage Orc shaman, and a General and you have the core of a strong, fighty army. I actually started my army with something similar because I started Fantasy back in Storm of Magic with a Grimgor's 'Ard Boys list. On the other hand, I switched to Lizardmen because I wanted to play an army that wouldn't run away as often and was a little more reliable, wasn't considered an "evil" army, and could dominate in every phase of the game.

Padre

 

[rothgar13]

To be honest with you, I don't consider O&G with no Goblins to be very competitive. The Goblin-crewed war machines are an integral part of the army, especially if you're going to be running Hordes of Savage Orcs and Blorcs (which I'm not too keen on if Grimgor's not involved, frankly), and Night Goblins are just awesome to have. Other useful pieces include things like Wolf Riders, Wolf Chariots, Snotling Pump Wagon, and Squig Herds. I just don't think it's a good idea to skip out on those pieces in the name of theme.

As per the questions...

1) Some rumors regarding 9e are in the mix, but those have been unsubstantiated so far. GW is pretty tight-lipped with regards to future releases, but you'll usually hear the rumblings getting louder as a release is imminent (Dark Elves in October, for example). So far, I wouldn't worry too much about that.

2) Definitely haven't heard anything regarding a Saurus Warriors resculpt. They had a golden opportunity to do it when the new book was released, and they declined to do so. I would expect the current sculpts to be around for a while longer.

 

[GCPD]

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we nearing the tail-end of 8th Edition? What if when 9th Edition rolls out, it changes the rules in such a way that hurts Lizardmen? We'd have to wait for a long time to be able to do stuff again. For instance, I recall reading somewhere that someone took a break from the hobby for a long time because infantry was apparently useless in 7th ed. That sounds like dark times. X( Although I don't expect to rely solely on them, blocks of dead 'ard infantry being Lizardmen's core units is one of the reasons why I'm so interested in this army. Is it the fate of Lizardmen to only get to experience their codex for a certain edition only during the twilight of that edition?

2) This one may sound sillier, but I'm a little scared to invest in Saurus models because I feel like they may update them soon; has there been any word on this, and is this a valid worry? :O I have to say that while the current ones look pretty cool; they could certainly be overhauled to better-fit the artwork in the books, which I reckon looks so much more badass . Giving them 'narrower' and 'taller' heads like in this art:
http://chaosorc.com/images/lizardman%20armies%20book%20NEW.jpg
as opposed to the 'wider' and 'flatter' heads you see in this art (and which is more accurate to the current models):
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3900/c6ef6/products/8132/images/9150/GW88-06a__70276.1343723401.1200.1200.jpg
I feel like this visual change across the Saurus models are inevitable and that the more (in my opinion ) badass-looking heads is being foreshadowed with the design of the rider for the Carnosaur model. What do you guys reckon? @_@

Starting a new army is certainly a huge investment, so I wouldn't worry about that.

9th edition is expected to drop sometime next year; probably Q2 or Q3, and judging by the rumours there's going to be some shake ups. The only detail that we have so far are for allies to play a stronger role, and for there to be an end to single-army rule books and the adoption of multi-army codexes that are light on fluff: presumably to encourage more sales. To that extent, I'd be surprised if we return to the Dark Times, as bigger roles for infantry mean more sales of infantry boxes - but with GW, you never know. Unfortunately, with edition changes you just never know, and GW deliberately foster this climate so they can try and maintain sales right up until the last minute.

If we were having this conversation in 6 months time I'd say hold off. But as we've got an easy 8-12 months before the new edition drops, you might want to still go ahead as that's a lot of gaming time to get in.

On the other hand, I would sincerely doubt that the Saurus will get replaced any time soon. GW don't tend to replace existing plastic box sets, especially Core plastic box sets (note: this is just a trend. Exceptions do occur, although they are rare. For instance, Dark Elves are expected to get new Core Warriors next month - though that's probably to bring them in line to the rumoured update to their entire range of old, largely metal models. On the other hand, High Elf Core plastics which are just as old didn't get updated, much as most people dislike them, but they didn't have a big range update either). There are plenty of older plastics which have both aged badly and don't fit into their range; Saurus Warriors still look good, in my opinion, and perhaps more importantly, are still thematically similar to the other, newer plastics.

I could agree that builkier Saurus, more like the Saurus rider from the new Carnosaur, would be great: but bulkier Saurus would probably mean revisiting both the Cold One Cavalry and Temple Guard to make them 'fit,' and that's a lot more work for GW which could be spent on more productive efforts (like making new things, or redoing poor selling ranges, or making new Space Marines).

 

[Spiney Norman]

I also have a couple new concerns which developed for me recently:

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we nearing the tail-end of 8th Edition? What if when 9th Edition rolls out, it changes the rules in such a way that hurts Lizardmen? We'd have to wait for a long time to be able to do stuff again. For instance, I recall reading somewhere that someone took a break from the hobby for a long time because infantry was apparently useless in 7th ed. That sounds like dark times. X( Although I don't expect to rely solely on them, blocks of dead 'ard infantry being Lizardmen's core units is one of the reasons why I'm so interested in this army. Is it the fate of Lizardmen to only get to experience their codex for a certain edition only during the twilight of that edition?

If you believe the current rumours we are something like 1-2 years away from 9th edition, although its pretty fair to say the rumours are quite vague at this stage,

Its always a risk that with a new edition a particular army will take a hit, but every army is going to ride the same wave and there is nothing to say that Lizardmen will fair any better or worse than orcs or any other army. I started Lizardmen when their 6th edition army book came out (incidentally that was when the current line of Saurus models were released) and they have weathered two edition changes since then and never been remotely on the back foot. A good solid stat line means that Saurus are always going to be a viable contender in your list whatever they do to the rules.

Something that is also worth bearing in mind is that perhaps more so on Internet forums than anywhere else, people hugely exaggerate when it comes to wargames. Infantry were not 'useless' in 7th edition, I was running Saurus and temple guard blocks back then just as I do now (although the blocks were smaller) and they performed just as well then as they do now. Even the armies that were hurt by the 8th edition changes (I'm thinking mainly of wood elves here, another of my armies) they a still playable and don't auto-lose every game, whatever you might read on warseer or other comparable forums.

New editions function much the same way a new army book does, its an exciting time to review your strategy and army composition, to find new ways to make the new rules work for your army.

2) This one may sound sillier, but I'm a little scared to invest in Saurus models because I feel like they may update them soon; has there been any word on this, and is this a valid worry? :O I have to say that while the current ones look pretty cool; they could certainly be overhauled to better-fit the artwork in the books, which I reckon looks so much more badass . Giving them 'narrower' and 'taller' heads like in this art:
http://chaosorc.com/images/lizardman%20armies%20book%20NEW.jpg
as opposed to the 'wider' and 'flatter' heads you see in this art (and which is more accurate to the current models):
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3900/c6ef6/products/8132/images/9150/GW88-06a__70276.1343723401.1200.1200.jpg
I feel like this visual change across the Saurus models are inevitable and that the more (in my opinion ) badass-looking heads is being foreshadowed with the design of the rider for the Carnosaur model. What do you guys reckon? @_@

Unfortunately there is no rhyme or reason to which plastic kits GW will redo next, I personally think that the current Saurus plastic are very good, despite their age. They would have to bring out some really, really good models to get me to replace my current 60 Saurus models that make up my core. It has been extremely rare in 8th edition to re-design core models that are already plastic, and if you ask me, common orcs and common goblins are much more in need of a new kit than Saurus or skinks.

On the other hand, even if we do see ninth edition next year or the year after I would guess that a 9th edition Lizardmen update will be 4-5 years away at least, so even if you do invest heavily in Saurus right now you'll get good use out of them before you need to decide whether to replace them or simply add the new models as a new separate unit. Generally speaking immediately after an army book has been released is the best possible time to start an army because you know you have the maximum amount of time to enjoy playing with it until something gets changed/replaced/added.

 

[Cragglehatch]

Hey guys, thanks for another round of insight! ^_^ (and thank you, Old Ones, for no longer needing each of my posts to require mod approval ^_^)


@Padre
I'm actually not too averse to Goblins crewing ranged support weapons; but it really, really bugs me when Night Goblins are almost-required infantry because even regular Orc boys are not cost-efficient enough compared to the Night Gobbos. @_@

It also grinds my gears a little from a fluff perspective. Like I said, while I'm ok with Goblins manning support weapons, would Orcs REALLY trust them with a weapon that lobs giant rocks? Night Goblins are supposed to hate sunlight, yet they're always on the frontlines of an O&G army. Goblins in general are supposed to be super-cowardly too, and brighter than their Orc counterparts, so it feels so weird that they're the first to battle in great hordes . Also, it feels kinda unfluffy that Orcs would let the weedier Goblins be the first into battle, no matter how comedic it is to see them get massacred. >_>

But yeah, despite those issues, an O&G army does still tempt me; mainly because the impression I get is that I can still have at least a fairly casual army without Giant Wolves / Night Goblins (maybe with War Machines though). It may not be the most competitive thing out there; but I also wouldn't be totally shooting myself in the foot, either . I'd still have, as you pointed out, access to the highly-rated Savage Orcs and Black Orcs.

That said, Lizardmen have frickin' dinosaurs. That definitely counts for a LOT. I obviously love Orcs, but I don't like Orcs AND Goblins. I don't love Lizardmen as much as I love Orcs, but I love the Lizardmen army as a whole more than Orcs and Goblins as a whole. If the Orcs and Goblins armybook had more support for an all-Orc army, I'd be all over that, but I don't think that's happening soon; so I'm leaning towards Lizardmen at the moment, especially in light of what everyone here's been saying .



@Rothgar13
Thanks for the clarification on those questions . I went into my thoughts on Goblins in their various roles, in my response to Padre ^_^.

The current Saurus sculpts aren't bad at all and hold up perfectly well; I'm just scared that there'd be new ones that look even better. XD But thanks for allaying those fears .



@GCPD
I'd be horrified if those rumours were true!

Being able to identify with a particular army is, I think, part of the appeal of games like this and being forced to play multi-army just seems incredibly bizarre. And being 'light on fluff'? Fluff is often the deciding factor between why a player may pick one army over another. If there isn't much fluff to make a player excited over a particular unit, I just see that hypothetical 9th edition being a mess . But yeah, I'm glad it's just a rumour for the time being.

I think I may have to end up holding off in the end because mind you; while we could still be as early as eight months away as you say; I'll eventually be moving into the 'making-an-army-list-that-scales-in-points-value' phase, then the 'researching a way to paint Lizardmen that appeals to me' phase, then I'll need to order the models and hobby/painting supplies I need (and I'll be trying to find the cheapest way to do these ), and then I want to actually assemble and paint my whole army (I want to just start at a 1k points, which I sounds quite modest) before I bring them to battle . All told, that could take a while, so I dunno . I'm very keen on getting started, though.



@Spiney Norman
Hey there; thanks for putting my first concern into perspective. I appreciate the more-positive outlook regarding rulebook changes compared to some of the more doomsayer-ish ones I've heard . I actually DID visit Warseer over the course of my initial research. XD

What you said about the Saurus models is also pretty encouraging. I agree that they do still look very good; I'm just a little paranoid about an imminent update that looks way better, I guess.

You're also right that now would indeed be a good time for me to get into Lizardmen specifically, since we've just gotten a shiny new Army Book. ^_^




Basically, the question for me comes down to whether or not me liking a fair portion of a certain army A LOT (the Orcs in O&G) outweighs me not liking any one aspect of the Lizardmen as much, but preferring the Lizardmen army as a whole a lot more compared to O&G as a whole .

After considering everyone's feedback, it's safe to say that I'm heavily embedded in the Lizardmen camp . I think that poking my head in the painting section and taking a look at some really beautifully-painted models helped tip the scales, too. XD It may be a while before anything actually comes out of me, though.

Thanks again, everyone!

 

[Spiney Norman]

@Spiney Norman
Hey there; thanks for putting my first concern into perspective. I appreciate the more-positive outlook regarding rulebook changes compared to some of the more doomsayer-ish ones I've heard . I actually DID visit Warseer over the course of my initial research. XD

What you said about the Saurus models is also pretty encouraging. I agree that they do still look very good; I'm just a little paranoid about an imminent update that looks way better, I guess.

You're also right that now would indeed be a good time for me to get into Lizardmen specifically, since we've just gotten a shiny new Army Book. ^_^

Basically, the question for me comes down to whether or not me liking a fair portion of a certain army A LOT (the Orcs in O&G) outweighs me not liking any one aspect of the Lizardmen as much, but preferring the Lizardmen army as a whole a lot more compared to O&G as a whole .

After considering everyone's feedback, it's safe to say that I'm heavily embedded in the Lizardmen camp . I think that poking my head in the painting section and taking a look at some really beautifully-painted models helped tip the scales, too. XD It may be a while before anything actually comes out of me, though.

Thanks again, everyone!

Warseer is a good site for release rumours, it is one of the more discerning rumour sites out there, unfortunately reshape because of that a fair number of posters there have quite a negative attitude towards the game and GW as a whole.

Something to think about is that for the last 3 editions (6th, 7th & 8th) Orcs and Goblins have been the first army to get the update following the rule book drop. If you do go with orcs I would mainly invest in savage orcs, spider riders and night goblins as your core because these models are the newest in the O&G line. I'm personally hoping that the old common orcs and common goblins get redone this time, because the current models are quite horrible and dated.

If I were you I would look at making a start with Lizards, see how they go for 18 months or so and then, depending on how it goes, consider getting into O&G (whose turn will probably be coming around about then) if you want to.

 

[GCPD]

@GCPD
I'd be horrified if those rumours were true!

Being able to identify with a particular army is, I think, part of the appeal of games like this and being forced to play multi-army just seems incredibly bizarre. And being 'light on fluff'? Fluff is often the deciding factor between why a player may pick one army over another. If there isn't much fluff to make a player excited over a particular unit, I just see that hypothetical 9th edition being a mess . But yeah, I'm glad it's just a rumour for the time being.

I think I may have to end up holding off in the end because mind you; while we could still be as early as eight months away as you say; I'll eventually be moving into the 'making-an-army-list-that-scales-in-points-value' phase, then the 'researching a way to paint Lizardmen that appeals to me' phase, then I'll need to order the models and hobby/painting supplies I need (and I'll be trying to find the cheapest way to do these ), and then I want to actually assemble and paint my whole army (I want to just start at a 1k points, which I sounds quite modest) before I bring them to battle . All told, that could take a while, so I dunno . I'm very keen on getting started, though.

From what I understand, allies will be encouraged but not required. Look at 40k for how allies currently work in that system, in that it is built into the rulebook and fairly straightforward to do ruleswise with only a few full restrictions (I don't think Tyranids can ally with anyone, for instance) in order to generate more sales.

Apparently, there's some sort of plan to keep either the existing Armies books for sale, or they'll produce books similar to DnD-style "campaign" settings that are fluff only for each race. Otherwise, all or most of the rules will go in thematic joint army books, which will be mostly rules only. There may even be a launch date Ravening Hordes-style reset for everyone, its unclear.

On the other hand, its just recently come out that the army book rumours is the least of our worries: apparently the timeline is going to jump forward about 200 years. This could open the way to much freer alliances, as well as completely change the way we look at some armies - Brettonians and Wood Elves spring to mind.

Edit: In addition to what Spiney said, OnG are rumoured to be getting a new book early on in 9th - though how that works with the above I have no idea.

Edit2: I may be talking out of my arse. Apparently there's a strong indication 9th may not be until 2015, which would explain how OnG get another new book before the "joint" books stuff, if true.

 

[Padre]

At risk of highjacking the thread, I'm not following the rumors on 9th that much, but when I heard the comments on joint army books, it immediately brought to mind what they did with LotR. Basically, each major area or faction got their own book with a small section and list for each group. For example, they lumped all the good armies into one book called "The Free Peoples."

Padre