8th Ed. Saurus spears better then handweapon?

I am just about to glue my Saurus warriors.

And it seams to me that it is better to give them spears and get 10 extra attacks if i have 5 saurus in each rank rather then handweapon which gives a parrysave.

What is your guys opinion?

*edited for spelling*

 

If your planning on running a engine besides the saurs then the spears are better unquestionable.
If your not.....then its up to prefference. With the PF rule i extualy prefer spears and more attacks off-sets our low WS. But thats just personal pref

 

They finaly got it ballenced, (took them 4 edition)
yea it's prety even at the moment. both have equal
strenghts and weeknesses.

 

5 extra attacks*

You'll always get 5 attacks from the second rank.

The parry save is definitely worthwhile, i think of my Saurus as an anvil, you can do that 2 ways. Not die, or do enough wounds to stay out. Handweapons are option 1, Spears are option 2.

Depending on what you're facing either may be the better choice - but the more str your opponent puts into hurting you, the more you're gonna wish for a parry save, at the same time, the more your opponent can tank, the more you're gonna wish for a parry save.

Spears are definitely also worthwhile - no questions asked, they do better versus most average core, where i believe HW's do better against more elitist core.

 

Well, my main concern is facing dark elves, that will always strike first. I think it would be nice to save each 6th wound. But it is also nice to have those extra attacks to hit back with, especially when they are toughness 3.

only 5 extra attacks? If i get another rank of units fighting, and they have 2 attacks each, is it not 10 extra attackes? If there is 5 Saurus in a rank.

 

Supporting attacks only get one attack, so your average saurus block of 20 warriors in a 5x4 formation with a champion makes 21 attacks total in melee, 16 with hand weapon and shield

 

Ohh... Now spears is not as clearly a better option.. I did not know that about secondary attacks. Guess i must read more about that.

 

I guess thats why they are free... Hand weapons look way cooler though

 

Back in 7th edition Saurus spaers where king,
since no one got suporting attacks and we got
out full 2 attacks from the secomd rank.

Generaly against ST4 and up units you probaly hand HW/shields Saurus.
Against ST4 and under you will want Spear Saurus.

Ps. run wider units when running spears for maximum attacks.

 

I usually dont expect my saurus to kill much at all so I go with the hand weapon for extra staying power

 

For me free spears on a S4 unit is a no brainer.

Spears should be a free swap on S3 units and cost a point on S4, the fact that WS2 S3 skeletons in my tomb king army pay a point for their spears and my Saurus get them for free is frankly hilarious.

 

I like the sword and board because it fits the theme of the army. Rolls 6's to win.

 

The way I see it, it depends on the size of the unit, and what role it has. For small units, handweapon is a given as you will quickly lose attacks with dead spearwielders.

For bigger units, the role becomes more important - is it meant to win combats, or hold and grind? Spears are statistically a bit better, since it's about 22-23% higher offense, which can be combined with buffs like wyssans, while parry gives a 16,67% higher defense. So against units that saurus has a good chance to wound, spears is better, and if not, parry will minimize the loss diffenrence.

Spears is good if you can win a combat, handweapons if not.

 

Its a lot more complicated than just calculating wounds and survivability.

- what is it against?
- what is it for?
- do you have an EoTG?
- are you planning to get the charge or get charged?
- what formation are you using?
- are you using it together with swarms for the poison combo?


you can never just say "this is always better", as there is just too many variables that effects the result.

You cant even count on that spears will get you most attacks when in a big unit as in the long grind / stubborn unit they might die off that much faster than a Sword and Board saurus unit, which will in return deliver more attacks through the ENTIRE combat.

On paper I usually find spears to be best, but in action sword and shield usually performs better...but thats under MY circumstances.

 

I concur with what's said above - I completely forgot about the staying power and damage over time.

 

no harm done, your math and points still holds up

 

Ive always run hw's in saurus as they are my anvil I dont expect them to dush out huge wounds I use them to soak them up. Its nice every now and then when they smack a character to death with lots of 6s to hit though.

Also most people I know are playing pred fighter as even support attacks have it otherwise I think they would have clearly defined it especially with krox/skink units being more popular now skinks have a decent save. It either hints at how 9th ed will be played or that GW love grey areas and dont play test enough to find out these problems real gamers spot right away. I think doing a set of dice for front rank and set of dice for support attacks is an unnecessary complication.

 

=> Why does this forum not have a facepalm or running-into-brick-wall smiley?

"Most people" are blatantly cheating then. It IS clearly defined. At present, if you "play it" differently than what is there, you are cheating.

You know, orcs have been described as the "toughest" fighters in Warhammer. Does that mean they should "be played" as T11?

=> Just like doing an extra set of dice for cold ones as opposed to their riders is? Or a different set for Krox in a cohort is? The game is FULL of examples where you have to roll different dice in one combat. What about when some models in a unit have to re-roll wards and others don't? Do you ignore the effects of the Other Trickster's Shard as well just because it's too complicated to roll a few dice in a different pile or using different colored dice?

No matter how you slice it, any justification for not following the rules in this case is just wishful thinking or selfishness. The rules is abundantly clear - it's just not what people want it to be.

EDIT: Adding in another thought. Why is it impossible to believe that they did playtest it and the testers had no problem with the rule, and followed it, because what it says in the Lizardmen book and the BRB woks out fine? People assume something go missed in testing rather than just accepting that what they wish were true isn't. If I had been a playtester still for this book, I would not have even thought to try additional PF attacks, let alone suggest to the author that there was a grey area ---- because there isn't one!




That all said, I have a pretty strong suspicion that we are seeing several hints about 9th in the Lizardmen (and Dark Elf) book. This is one of them. I think all units will be allowed to make a full set of supporting attacks in 9th. Until then, or until GW publishes and errata that changes what is written now, there is nothing even close (from a language and rules standpoint) to a leg to stand on to claim that the special rule PF is an exception to the main rules that say no special rule allows for more than one Attack in support.



MORE EDIT:
Ok, ok, I know I'm just getting cranky at this point ( ), but come on...the Army Book unit entries even have a bold section in each one called Special Rules. It's not like one can even argue that PF is not a Special Rule. It is one, and since the BRB specifically states that no matter what, no Special Rule will allow a model more than 1 supporting attack, how can anyone claim with a straight face that this is at all unclear. My god, GW actually wrote a later book's rule to work with already existing rules for once! They should be commended for getting this right!

I sort of feel bad for the designers at this point. Even when they execute perfectly, people still want to claim that they messed up somehow.

And don't go claiming AB>BRB here. That only applies when there is a conflict, and there is not conflict here. What we have here is rules working together, not in conflict. In order for there to have been a conflict, the PF rule would have to state something like "This is an exception to the normal limit on supporting attacks." That would be a conflict.

All we have now is a Special Rule that sometimes grants additional attacks, and a main rule that says no Special Rule can grant extra attacks in support.


It's just....

so darn clear!