Hi all. From what I have seen when browsing the forum, the majority of people seem to dislike Saurus Warriors, and I ask, why? I understand that they're not perfect, and they do have a couple of issues (WS3 & I1), but are they really that bad? S4, T4 core with 2A and a 4+ Armour all for their cost is so good. I don't know if maybe I have just had good experiences with them, but they haven't really let me down much (2-3 times in 20ish games). Can anyone share their wisdom, experiences on why they are disliked so much? Similarly, if you have had good experiences/think Saurus are great, please share. Thanks!
I have alwyas had good experiences with them, even though I did not have a Slann until relatively recentlry. As far as I can remeber they have never let me down, and they are almost alwyas tearing empire infantry apart. Most of the time I don't really use Skinks that much, in fact I only have enough models to make two units of Skirmishers. In my experience Saurus are awesome, especially if they are backed up by the big dinos.
The thing really isnt are they themselves good or not, thing is that the stuff they are facing is better and sauruses get their ass whoopped. The times ive taken them I have also been happy with them, cos they have filled a special function in the army. I could not imagine taking sauruses on a regular basis to a competetive match. They would face 1+ armor cav, savage orcs, woc warriors, nurgle beasts, ogre deathstars etc. They are slow and rarely get to decide what they are up against.
@Assassin What unit size do you run? Do you have any characters accompanying them? I usually have a unit of 29 w/ Full Command and Gor-Rok. I like to use them to hold a unit in place and grind it out and flank with a Stegadon. @rantapanda So is it that they are good but other armies' choices are better? Whilst I can understand what you mean, does that make them a bad choice for us? They'd excel against most infantry excluding Chaos Warriors and Elven elites, and they are Core. I believe they serve a good role in the Lizardmen army. Would you say they are good if you don't play in highly competitive environments?
Its because skinks are much more usefull since redirectors are really really good. I still run 30 saurus with H&S, but pretty much every game i wish i had more skinks in core from a competitive side.
How I run them depends on what I feel for, but my best setup is probably 48 Saurus Warriors with 2 charactres (Gor-Rok is usually one of them ). Sometimes I give them the Skavenpelt Banner, but at that point a lot of points have been invested in them, but they do their job, even against Chaos Warriors.
@protector plays heavy saurus lists and has found great success with them. He did some calculations a while back and found that Saurus will actually defeat every other core unit in the game in close combat with the exception of chaos warriors.
@Yrtomin Yes, Skinks are a great chaff unit, and can serve roles in the Lizardmen army. But, so can Saurus Warriors. I do think Skinks are good, don't get me wrong, but are they really that much better than Saurus? Or are Saurus just not worth it in a competitive setting (My group and I play semi-competitively)? @NIGHTBRINGER And it's those sorts of calculations that make me wonder why they can be disliked by the percentage of people that they are.
People fear dying in plane crashing more than car crashes even though car crashes kill a lot more people. We remember the dramatic. When my Saurus Warriors die, they are rarely ground down slowly like my Temple Guard who don't run or my Skinks who are split between many small units. My big Saurus blocks tend to be broken in combat and ran down when they are over 50% their starting strength. Hundreds of points down the drain in one phase.
I think some of it has to do with the fact that they are M4 infantry. Additionally, because they strike at I1 you need to have enough of them to weather the storm and grind down your opponents. I think many people fail to factor this in and as a result their unit is steamrolled.
Saurus Warriors are a solid choice and I enjoy using them. After protector's great posts on them I'm now considering running more units (Something like 2x21) rather than 1 big block. Even without magic buffs they can stick around and put out some hurt against most opponents, but with the number of attacks they dish out (got to love those 2x Pred Fighter front rank attacks each) even one or two buffs/hexes can really up their performance. HoG, Wyssan's, Speed of Light, Timewarp, Enchanted Blades all make Saurus pretty hard hitting. I'd also recommend HW&Sh over Spears. I initially ran with Spears but those parries are worth so much more than a handful of extra attacks. It's not often that they give up much in the way of combat res and so unlike Scalenex, I find they do tend to stick around (T4, 4+, 6++, Ld8 Coldblooded is pretty survivable). Having said that though, they can be whittled down by massed shooting (particularly of the Elven variety). Skinks are great, but they do something quite different to Saurus Warriors. You can't expect them to do the same job so plan accordingly.
I think another weakness of Saurus warriors is the increasing numbers of Monstrous Cavalry that are making it onto the field. A unit of skullcrushers will put a very serious hurt on our poor Saurus warriors.
That's made me understand a lot more. Thank you, everyone, for your input. I still think I'm gonna use a nice block of Saurus Warriors though. They've regularly performed well for me and personally, I don't think I'd like an all-skink core so I don't have much choice. One question though, where can I find @protector's posts? Seems like they would be a good read.
I can't help but wonder whether or not, we'll see an increase in joy for these guys with the new 9th age (And other system updates) seemingly focusing on improving units that is deemed less useful, e.g. Infantry. The boost for hand weapon and the boost to spears are definitely not bad buffs for our sauruses. I believe such things, among others, might change the opinion as well; our saurus warriors aren't so bad and it basically comes down to the fact that most infantry is slow (M4) and saurus warriors just shares the negative features of most infantry...since they are infantry....
@The Sauric Ace I think that would be a welcome boost to this unit, and to Infantry on the whole. I think the bigger problem would lie in trying to get many people to accept the 9th Age or other system updates. I know that me and my group will likely continue to play 8th, alongside AoS, but will be unlikely to play any updated systems.
Too difficult to convince everyone that these fan based updates are a fair system? I personally am looking forward to see what they come up with, and would like to try a couple of test games for the sake of arguments, before I fully am settle for a yay or nay
@The Sauric Ace - I don't think they will be a fair system, so how could I convince someone else that it is? @Pinktaco - I think it's more than when GW supported the game and they made a unit/rule/whatever, it had to be accepted by the players. When a fan-based makes a unit too powerful, or a rule that a few/a lot of people don't like, it's much easier to just simply not play, and continue to play 8th. I'm not saying that's going to be the case, but not everyone will be in agreement on everything, and in a fan-driven update, it's easier to disregard.
Yes - This is one of the main issues these new updates faces. I suppose it's about generating a since of fairness and validity, that it would take for people to start considering this in a larger scale. Like in tourneys or as a general good alternative. To be honest I don't see why not, it's a system that seems to be given a great deal of thoughts and play testing already set in motion; we can even keep updated as the rules changes and give our own response. Personally I like watching what our own @Pinktaco and others suggest in the lizard thread on the official forum
WIth the exception that this game will be play-tested. You can play it with your friend and tell your experience with the game to the developers. There'll always be units who under/overperforms, but my bet is that it'll be much lower than what we've seen from GW. Have a look at the alpha version of the new beastemen update. Also they're getting help from ETC. Two of the major "players" in the tournament scene. With that said I know where you're coming from and I've seen people bring up weird arguments about what's OP and not and how rules should be and shouldn't. Obviously if you're in such a group where there's a different opinion of what the game should be you should play whatever suits you