• 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. Saurus vs Temple Guard

Carnivorous
Skink

Carnivorous

New Member
Messages
46
Likes Received
0
Trophy Points
0
Hello folks

"You Know What Really Grinds My Gears"?* [I have to get something off my chest]

Ok here goes: I think people are too quick to dismiss TG in favour of regular Saurus, (or Saurii?)

In other words, whenever anyone throws in TG in an army list without a Slann, you can be guaranteed that the first post, among other things, will sound like this: ...and replace your TG with more Saurus...etc etc.

As a straight tar pit, I like Saurus better too. Period. BUT, noticed lately how many army lists throw in a "cheap" Scar Vet with a unit of Saurus to give it a bit more offensive power? By now, 20 Saurus with a Scar vet are roughly same points as 20 TG.

The other thing too is that the Saurus often need help to actually defeat whatever is on front of them (hence the Scar Vet as a starter, I know) from another unit. Well TG will have a much better chance of slaying something without support. They are our elites and they are better against Chaos Knights, Giants, and freaky-deaky Snake Knights from TKs.

Know your roles I say. Don't let your TG get bogged down against 60 Rat Slaves. Of course then its points wasted. But TG give you more flexibility on the field than just Saurus can give and I feel that is misunderstood.

Saurus are an anvil unit; Temple Guard are (a slight lesser) anvil and hammer combined. Play them accordingly and the latter is worth the extra points.

There's my 2 cents

Carnivorous out

*courtesy of Familiy Guy
 
Thats a good point, great post.

As a counter, I will say that I have never really found my TG are able to take on elite of other armies on their own, especially when the other armies bring support which is often combined still at most the same cost as the TG, and usually cheaper. Granted, I don't really take huge units of TG and always have a Slann in the second rank which takes away a couple of s5 attacks, but still. They are a tough unit, and will eat through core units, but against hard hitting things they do die. Now when you have the ability to buff them with magic, they do become an amazing unit. Of course you need a Slann to do that though.

It would be interesting to try in a non-Slann list switching a unit of saurus with scar vet for a unit of TG without a character and see how they fare. Food for thought.
 
I like the counter argument that a unit of sauri and a scar vet costs about the same as a unit of TG, but it has one flaw: the ppl who bring scar vets for their offensive capability are committing a huge blunder. In this edition of warhammer only the most insane character builds will be worth their points when it comes to actually killing stuff. That is a remnant from 7th edition (where it was great to use cheap heroes for extra punch) and some people are just not thinking critically enough to realize that the stuff that worked before doesnt necessarily work now. Scar vets have not been nerfed, but all standard infantry has been hugely buffed (supporting attacks, casualties from the rear) which makes the added punch from the hero very significant compared to the cost.

But back to the subject. They seem pretty weak when compared to saurus warriors if you do not include "the cheap scar vet". 20 TG would cost 355 points. for that you would get 30 normal sauri with HW+shield, or 27 with spear and shield. Yes the TG does hit considerably harder, but can they make up for the fact that the HW+shield sauri have 10 more wounds, thus having full ranks longer, and a better save? doubtfully, but it is possible.

If you wanted that mega punch, you could buy 6(and a half) kroxigors for the same price. that would be 18 S6 attacks + 3-4 stomps. Compare that to the 16 (or 19 if deployed 6 wide) attacks the TG would put out. Are they better than kroxigors? possible, but then again, we dont usually play large units of kroxigors cause they are considered bad. just compare them to ogre ironguts and you will understand why. also, remember that the kroxigors are very much faster.

So TG are possibly better than 30 sauri, and possibly better than 6 kroxigors, but to me either case seems pretty doubtful.

It could very well be a good idea to use a smaller unit of TGs though. Lets say 12 TGs with a champion (and possibly a musician) could produce a good amount of attacks. 19 S5 attacks (well, some would die, but still) charged in as flank support would be devastating to most enemy units. You might note many very good chaos players would use their warriors, or chosen like this. 12 TG would cost just over 200 points, but that isnt too dangerous if you lost it. If you screen it with skinks it will likely not be shot at with bows, and if they "waste" a warmachine shot or a spell on it you can always say "at least he didnt land that catapult shot in the middle of my sauri". Even if only ~6 of them remain when they enter combat it could easily tip a combat to your favour assuming they get in the flank.

I do use a slann with TGs, but if i didnt use the slann i wouldnt use TG. the reason is very simple: i can not use them to replace sauri, because i need all my saurus units to fill the core requirement. My standard army doesnt include much more than 25% core, so i would have to replace something else than sauri if i wanted TG. They cant replace characters, cause they do very different things. they cant replace skink, salamanders or terradons. Possibly they could replace a stegadon, but again it is doubtful if they can be said to do the same thing. hence i feel stuck to only using them when i use my slann (which is pretty much all the time) and THEN i love them to bits :P


PS. if you play opponents who regularly field huge expensive units like 30+ chaos wariors, there is nothing that says you cant field 30+ TGs to counter that. maybe 20 is the least viable unit size for non-slann TGs...
 
Lord Tsunami said:
I like the counter argument that a unit of sauri and a scar vet costs about the same as a unit of TG, but it has one flaw: the ppl who bring scar vets for their offensive capability are committing a huge blunder. In this edition of warhammer only the most insane character builds will be worth their points when it comes to actually killing stuff. That is a remnant from 7th edition (where it was great to use cheap heroes for extra punch) and some people are just not thinking critically enough to realize that the stuff that worked before doesnt necessarily work now. Scar vets have not been nerfed, but all standard infantry has been hugely buffed (supporting attacks, casualties from the rear) which makes the added punch from the hero very significant compared to the cost.
Click to expand...

I still find cheap heroes very much worth it. I tried buffed up scar vets, they worked well of course. But honestly not much better than scar vets with just mundane equipment. Dropping the magic items and saving 80-100 points is enough for a bunch more saurus, or TG, or another salamander with points left over. Just from getting rid of maybe an attack or two, or a couple points of strength on a character.

Cheap scar vets are still quite powerful and pack a decent punch, they often help tip the favour of a combat to me. Though maybe that ~100 points for the character would still be better used elsewhere, either way the LM are a powerful army and I don't feel the need to milk every point for all its worth to be more than competative.

I often considered using TG as small flanking units as you suggest. To be honest though, it doesn't take too much to make them inneffective and they really are rather slow to be a flanking unit. Skinks with a krox or two work very nicely. Yes the skinks die easily, but they provide more ranks thus negating ranks easier, the krox hit very hard, they are fast, often underestimated, and while approaching they can often shoot as well. I haven't actually tried TG as a flanking unit though so I don't know how well they would go in practice.
 
Oh don't forget theat a temple guard champion can take a cheap magic item,
this makes them similar to a very cheep scarvet.

Something to think about.
 
Lord Tsunami said:
I like the counter argument that a unit of sauri and a scar vet costs about the same as a unit of TG, but it has one flaw: the ppl who bring scar vets for their offensive capability are committing a huge blunder. In this edition of warhammer only the most insane character builds will be worth their points when it comes to actually killing stuff. That is a remnant from 7th edition (where it was great to use cheap heroes for extra punch) and some people are just not thinking critically enough to realize that the stuff that worked before doesnt necessarily work now. Scar vets have not been nerfed, but all standard infantry has been hugely buffed (supporting attacks, casualties from the rear) which makes the added punch from the hero very significant compared to the cost.

But back to the subject. They seem pretty weak when compared to saurus warriors if you do not include "the cheap scar vet". 20 TG would cost 355 points. for that you would get 30 normal sauri with HW+shield, or 27 with spear and shield. Yes the TG does hit considerably harder, but can they make up for the fact that the HW+shield sauri have 10 more wounds, thus having full ranks longer, and a better save? doubtfully, but it is possible.

I say again, know your roles. Yes if you leave out the Scar Vet you can get 10 more Saurus than TGs. And that is better if your plan is to hold up something. I already said that Saurus make a better tar pit. You have 10 more Wounds to extend Steadfast but you still have the same kind and same amount of attacks as before and if those didn't win you the combat before, they won't win you the combat now (granted you have more rank when calculating combat res).

If you wanted that mega punch, you could buy 6(and a half) kroxigors for the same price. that would be 18 S6 attacks + 3-4 stomps. Compare that to the 16 (or 19 if deployed 6 wide) attacks the TG would put out. Are they better than kroxigors? possible, but then again, we dont usually play large units of kroxigors cause they are considered bad. just compare them to ogre ironguts and you will understand why. also, remember that the kroxigors are very much faster.

6 Kroxigors would...be cool to play with. Sadly I agree with you that they are bad. Plus with all the artillery around I will stick to my TG. Still 6 Kroxigors on a flank would be nice for once.

So TG are possibly better than 30 sauri, and possibly better than 6 kroxigors, but to me either case seems pretty doubtful.

And I haven't yet played often enough just with a unit of TGs to say much here

It could very well be a good idea to use a smaller unit of TGs though. Lets say 12 TGs with a champion (and possibly a musician) could produce a good amount of attacks. 19 S5 attacks (well, some would die, but still) charged in as flank support would be devastating to most enemy units. You might note many very good chaos players would use their warriors, or chosen like this. 12 TG would cost just over 200 points, but that isnt too dangerous if you lost it. If you screen it with skinks it will likely not be shot at with bows, and if they "waste" a warmachine shot or a spell on it you can always say "at least he didnt land that catapult shot in the middle of my sauri". Even if only ~6 of them remain when they enter combat it could easily tip a combat to your favour assuming they get in the flank.

I do use a slann with TGs, but if i didnt use the slann i wouldnt use TG. the reason is very simple: i can not use them to replace sauri, because i need all my saurus units to fill the core requirement. My standard army doesnt include much more than 25% core, so i would have to replace something else than sauri if i wanted TG. They cant replace characters, cause they do very different things. they cant replace skink, salamanders or terradons. Possibly they could replace a stegadon, but again it is doubtful if they can be said to do the same thing. hence i feel stuck to only using them when i use my slann (which is pretty much all the time) and THEN i love them to bits :P

Well the real reason I've been thinking lately about a unit of TG is that, once again, my Steggie has been taken out by an Ogre Cannon before it could anything. I doubt I will be playing it much more this edition. So what to replace it with? And that's how I got thinking more about TGs.


PS. if you play opponents who regularly field huge expensive units like 30+ chaos wariors, there is nothing that says you cant field 30+ TGs to counter that. maybe 20 is the least viable unit size for non-slann TGs...
Click to expand...


Thanks also To Stewart for your input. I agree that even Temple Guard can't hold up against everything but every Superman has his Kryptonite. If I were to take, say, a unit of 24 TG I would give them the banner of swiftness (+1 move) to help get them into combat faster.

Carnivorous
 
I use TGs without a Slann in my army, have the Terror banner on them and it works pretty well. I find my TGs to be the most effective unit in my army. Since their S5 removes any heavy armor, I love to pit them against GW-wielding heavy armor enemies. Like say, Executioners, Dwarf Warriors and such.. and lesser foes I just scare off with my Terror banner :)
 
Well the real reason I've been thinking lately about a unit of TG is that, once again, my Steggie has been taken out by an Ogre Cannon before it could anything. I doubt I will be playing it much more this edition. So what to replace it with? And that's how I got thinking more about TGs.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. i have had trouble with my stegadon lately too. I love it when it gets in CC against standard infantry, but it feels like it is a little bit too easy to snipe with warmachines. my regular opponents are dwarf (bye stegadon), ogres (bye stegadon), Orcs (he has two catapults, but id rather he shoot at the stegadon then at the sauri tbh) and bretonnia (same thing there).

and yes yes i know i could ditch teh steg vs dwarf and ogres, and keep it against the others, but we all try to make lists capable of facing anything rather than playing against our opponents weaknesses.

But back to topic, yes, maybe they could replace the stegadon. a small unit with +1M banner would be costing roughly the same, and possibly pack more punch and be able to resist more cannonballs...

EDIT:
I use TGs without a Slann in my army, have the Terror banner on them
and it works pretty well.
Click to expand...
sigh...
 
Saurus Warriors are good, but TG are better- Even more so if a Slann is in the unit. I can't speak for other, but if I take a Slann I always take a TG bunker for him, (and vice-versa), as to get the most out of either you need the other.
 
TG also have 4WS and saurii only have 3WS. More attacks hit and at higher S.
It made a difrence in my game.
 
i think the +1ws is better because of the possibility of less attacks hitting you, not that you will hit with more. id think the majority of units youd be sending your TG into would be at least ws4.

i think 1 of the overlooked benefits in TG is that +1 I. now its not going to help much in CC, but i'd take 33% over 16% when it comes to pit or purple. its a start at least, meaning that you have a glimmer of hope should your light magic fail you for a turn or two. i also enjoy the better armor save vs shooting. can be really helpful against dark elves and such

i do enjoy myself a big horde, so ill be running my 46 strong block once the next tourny(league) starts up :). life slann, light slann, 2 skrox units, 20 block of saurus for watchtower, horde-o-TG, 2 sallie units, 2 chameleon units, 1 razordon unit. should be fun.
 
no one disputes that 1 TG is better than 1 saurus. comments on the superior stats of TG become fairly useless... the conundrum (fancy word eh?) is if 11 TG are better than 17 saurus.

one giant is better than one goblin, but is it better than 70 goblins? thats where things become interesting. :)
 
I suspect that 11 TG are worth 17 SW.... :smug:
 
actually, when comparing 20 TG to 20 SW + Scar Vet, stats come into play quite a bit. I believe that was in the OP if my eyes don't deceive me :). so, like i said, i think the deciding factor is the better stat lines on the TG making up for the fact theres no SV with shiny objects. you give up 2 additional attacks at a better WS and an additional body for a better overall armour save, better WS and 12 more S5 attacks. However, it really depends on what you have in the rest of your army. if your hurting on core, you obviously take the SW over TG. many variables as always
 
well you can upgrade the TG champ with one small piece of equipment for kind of a mini scarvet.
 
Plus the Tg can have a magical banner to 50 pts.
 
ThreadNecromancy_zpsa40b9ee8.jpg

With Temple Guard going down in price, are Slann-less Temple Guard more viable than they used to be?

I haven't done mathhammer on what kills more, but it seems like a reasonable trade (IF you don't have an issue filling your 25% Core which I rarely do). There is only a 3 point difference per model and Temple Guard command upgrades no longer cost extra.

For three points a model, you get +1 WS, +1 S, almost as good saves in CC and better saves against shooting. Also Temple Guard is our only chance to get magical standards. A Fast Attack Army could use TG with the Standard of Swiftness. The War Banner and Banner of Eternal Flame are pretty utilitarian. A very large game 4000+ points (which might make taking a second TG unit in addition to the Slann's viable) might make the Gleaming Pennant useful since you won't be able to get everything within in BSB range.
 
These thoughts have crossed my mind as well!

They also have better initiative. It's not much, but if you've got a Solar Engine nearby their I3 will actually matter against many opponents.
 
Moniker said:
These thoughts have crossed my mind as well!

They also have better initiative. It's not much, but if you've got a Solar Engine nearby their I3 will actually matter against many opponents.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to lean that way too. The only thing though is Saurus are Core so I still would rather take half the points of that TG unit and add some Saurus then take the other half the points to add some other type of unit. I still don't know if I'd take them without a Slann but I think they are better now.
 
Interesting! - I actually just posted an armylist build around this a couple of days ago :)
As my list is now, i'm just wondering what kind of magic, that would suit such an army the best!
I was suggested beast for my skink priest, which is actually a good idea... Suddently they become really tough.
But as for my Slann, the recent discussions about whether Wandering Deliberation or Focus of Mystery is the better choice, became quite interesting for me. You could also run him with the Lore of Death, and save the 30-35 point for other units, or a Leadership banner on the unit without Slann.
I will try a:
TG unit w.
- Crown of Command on a Scar Vet BSB
- Unit standardbearer with LD banner

and

TG unit w.
- Slann
- Gleaming pendant (one use only, but it could be that critical roll you know?)

This way you would get two stubborn ld 9 units, that are able to reroll ld-check in those dangerous situations.

An army build around TG, will suffer at bit from the lack of big monsters, crushing flanks on your opponent. Therefore I got 2 Skrox units, helping them on the flank. I actually think that Wandering Deliberation would fit very well to this list, instead of Highmagic. Being able to cast 2 x the beast signature, rather than one, would suit the TG very well.
Also, The army would get som neat ranged attacks and be able to shrug of regen on some units/monsters, before engaging with your High str. units (Skrox and TG). Miasma would also be better, in synergy with your WS4 and I3 (provided by bastiladon) :-)

Thx for bringing this discussion up again ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top