8th Ed. Scalenex finally joins the Consensus, I'm done with Saurus Warriors

No.
I have no basis at all for an opinion on the total value OR the individual point cost of a Saurus unit or its members.

I am asking did you simply choose a number or did you do calculations or math analysis?

I looks like your process is to mentally multiply [STARTING UNIT SIZE] X [b] = [TOTAL POINTS REDUCTION, TPR]
Where b is an arbitrarily chosen test number. (A guess.) Then you compare the TPR to an unstated, subjective criteria and either decide the reduction is too much/too little.

So, a lot of the first and a tiny bit of the second, based on this portion of your post:

 

From Orc perspective the Saurus are prized correctly i think. They are the same price as Savage Orc big uns, or Black orcs. But the Saurus doesn't really excell in anything, so i do understand the issue with them (although also not having any big disadvantages). They have better armor than either black orcs and savage orcs (Yeah, the 5+ ward is nice, but that takes a 150/250 point wizard), dont suffer from animosity or frenzy, and have much better LD so can afford to lose combats by a small margin without consequence. But yeah, you cant really expect them to win many combats either.

However, i dont really understand the issue that people have about the speed. Ok, 4 aint much, but movement 4 doesn't seem to be an issue for Orcs, Woc's etc. And lizards (Iike orcs) have access to an excellent movement spell, and even have the option to let the Saurus make a vanguard move.
So with the proper set up of the army and a good magic phase you can be in your opponents face in turn one or two.

 

So you were just curious... or????

I don't understand why you decided to specifically call out my post when there are literally dozens of posts suggesting numerous changes that are all just as "subjective" and "arbitrary".

 

Sorry if my comments came across like an Imperial Inquisitor. Curious would be one way to put it. But on a quest would be another.

I would like to find somebody that does do rigorous math analysis of warhammer point values.

My current hypothesis is: no such person exists --- NOT EVEN including THE CODEX AUTHORS --- I am less and less convinced the guys that write the books do anything more than best guess the numbers.

 

Having played many many Lizards vs Orcs matches with my gaming mate, trust me when I say Savages and Black Orcs beat regular Saurus down in a fair fight. But isn't it strange how he thinks Saurus are a bit overpowered, whereas most people on LustriaOnline (and players in my local GW) say otherwise... For this matchup, i'd say Saurus are correctly costed, but deciding on their points cost for all matchups is so much more complicated when you take into account the ~13 other army matchups Lizardmen has, and special rules each unit has/has access to.

But yes, you are right, there's pros and cons to each unit, so army composition is an important factor to consider. I would have liked the writer(s?) of this Lizardmen book to give us some more wiggle-room for more versatile armies, eg taking Slann-less lists, but with access to high magic through skink priests for the Hand of Glory buff/ Walk Between Worlds spells. I'd like to just say that O&G don't need a lord level spellcaster for their movement spell, which is how it should be imo.

(Btw I don't think you don't need the Lucky Shrunken Head; savages are complete beasts as it is!)

 

Savage Orc Big'uns take down most things in a fair fight.

 

Yeah, they will and especially the first round they definately will win. They have more attacks, higher WS, higher strength and will reduce your armor save to a lousy 6+. However, if you manage to stick around for round two the tables will slowly turn, as Strength drops a point and the saurus will have better armour, with 5+ and 6++. (Which is a lot better, than the 6+ ward save of the savages). Have to admit that surviving that first round is quite problematic though.

I do however think a fair fight in warhammer is a rare thing, and it is actually a bit of bad generalship if you get into a fair fight that you are garenteed to lose, unless it allows you to win the battle somewhere else. And things like savage orcs do have a lot of things that will make sure your opponent wont have to deal with them in a fair fight (animosity, frenzy etc.).

And I do disagree with the idea that they can do without the shrunken head. The 6++ is useless in combat with sword and board troops. And if you really intend to go with a savage orc horde, you are almost forced to put your shaman, a black orc general and your BSB in there to garentee they will obey orders. And when i look at Saurus units, they can function on their own without character support, and having an independant unit like that is worth something as well, although yeah, they often can appear useless in wrong match-ups.

 

I'd still trade away our saurus in exchange for Savage Orc Big'uns for core!

 

No worries man, just a little confused was all.

I think what you're suggesting is quite hard, simply because there's so many variables in warhammer. Creating a formula, or some type if rigorous math hammer that you can put the "value" of units through would be so involved and clumsy , and I'm not even sure if it would be better than a guess backed by some playtesting.

I also think that at the end of the day GW doesn't want units to be "perfect". or even books to be perfect. They want them to be interesting and fun and unique and, most importantly, awesome looking.

For saurus specifically I think a lot of the problem is the strength of skinks and the slann. It's going to be hard to make a really good combat unit when you also have arguably the best caster and the best skirmishing, bs shooting unit in the game.

That combination woukd just be so strong. Lizardmen are strong now without quality combat troopS. With them they would be a true powerhouse.

 

Troglodon. I know i'm beating a dead horse here, but if you compare it to just about any other monster (beyond giants), even my senile grandma would know it is overcosted and aweful. So I doubt they even guess well.

 

Well the game is too complex to have "perfect" point values, however there must be some basic guidelines for certain stats especially for core troops. However, it is the special rules and synergy with other things/units that will cause it to be mere guess work (and quite often bad guess work, that should have become apparent after 2 test games).

There are however some clear situations where the sillyness of point values becomes quite clear. It is well illustrated by the common magic items list. Lets asume a 50 point sword and now give that item to a old blood on cold one or to a Night goblin warlord. Now for 50 points this item will make the old blood rediculously powerfull, while the same 50 points make the goblin only marginally better. Magic items on models that can easily reach a 1+ armor save with mundane armor are a much better deal than the same item on a poorly mundane armored guy.

Also a pegasus costs 50 points, but on a wizard it just serves as a fast transport, however the same 50 points can make a combat lord virtually unkillable, and becomes a highly problematical unit.

 

I don't think they care. I don't think they ever intended it to be "great". I think it was always intended to be lackluster, cool looking, and unique.

It'll be good in the next book.

 

I also think that there is no universal way of calculating a point cost for a certain special rules or stats. I mean they can be coherent in one book but I don't really see the connection between different books. That's because there have been so many different authors for every book and each of them have their own way of look at the things.

BR
Agrem

 

That's a big assumption... not that they might improve between one book to another... but that we will have another book.

I hope you're right though!

 

Mate. Have you ever tried to charge anything else then a block with your savage orcs? You know it really well, the problem is not with the M4 value, its about mobility. With an infantry block, its not you who choses when and where to fight. Why? Low charge range, hard to 'aim', and easily redirected. If its not you who picks the fights, you gonna loose almost sure. These are bigger drawbacks for me then the pure stats, at least for me, but you can disagree with me.

 

Off course i disagree! No, you are absolutely right that the mobility of infantry is their major weakness, especially in horde formations. But what i was trying to point out is that it is not a Saurus issue but an issue of infantry in general, and that it is not stopping other types of infantry from being used, or from being good. And in that way i think people find the Saurus disappointing, because the rest of the army (read skinks) are relatively fast, and that it is more a synergy issues than a Saurus issue (it still results in the same thing though: Saurus being disappointing, regardless of it being their fault or the fault of the army composition).