I've been wondering, which (sub)race has the absolute weakest combatants and would form the weakest force. Now for the purposes of determining the power of a race I'l only take into account the following: 1) Mounts don't count, unless they're so common that they're battleline units. E.g. when judging skinks on terradons the attacks the terradons themselfs do don't count, it'd just be the bola's or javalins that'd count. 2) Units are compared against similar unit types or similar roles on the battlefield. E.g. wizards compared to wizards, cannonfodder compared to cannonfodder, and so on... 3) Only count the (sub)race itself. If it's part of a larger faction in which it has allies interactions with them don't count. E.g. skinks and saurus are seperate (sub)races, similarly grots and orruks are different (sub)races. 4) Units are compared with similar point-values. 5) It's based purely on their actual stats, not on fluff. My personal suggestion would be skinks, they have abysmall stats and even when riding on mounts they tend to add relativly little, the mount doing most of the work. And even the siege grade equipment that they use on the stegadons and bastillidons isn't very impressive when compared to similar weapons. Then there's the skink heroes who are virtually completly incapable in actual combat, and their special abilities, although usefull, are mostly supportive and rarely on a level where they singlehandedly turn their target into a king of the battlefield. Stuff like a starseer curse of fates is powerfull when used at the right moments, but isn't going to annihilate enemies like a arch warlocks warpstorm would. The only real advantage skinks have is their relative speed alongside ranged attacks on nearly everything with several movement abilities (stegadon's alpha commanding, wary fighters rule, chameleons dissapearing from sight), given a slow and short ranged opponent they might actually be capable of defeating them by just running around them in circles. Unfortunatly very few if any armies would be slow and short ranged enough for this tactic to really work... O, and skinks have high bravery, but seeing as bravery only gets involved in battleshock and a handfull of spells it's not as usefull as one would expect... Runner ups: Grots: they actually have surprisingly decent stats with weirdly inventive and effective weapons. It helps they tend to be either insane, wielding deranged weaponry, or riding something bigger and more dangerous than them, or all of the above.... Skaven: since skaven technicly includes everything from clanrats to stormvermin to stormfiends they are fairly powerfull as a "race". But even limiting it to "normal" skaven only clanrats are about as weak as skinks, and even then only cuz none of them seem to have figured out how to shoot something, in melee they pull ahead quickly. The fancier skaven have their technology or are actuall capable fighters like the stormvermin... Various undead "races": again, varies too much and the likes of a vampire or vargheist can easily defeat skinks... Plus, plenty of cavalry and the like to ride down the skinks... So yeah.. anyone have any "better" worst race than the skinks?
I think you mentioned the important contenders. I think Grots are actually worse than Skinks. But it is a close call.
Weirdly enough grots actually have surprisingly decent stats. The only stat in which the really lose from skinks is bravery, which as I've said is a depressingly small advantage in the current game, and the few grots on foot are of course slower. But they're just as good in shooting and nearly always better in melee. Then they have acces to a far greater array of weird weapons, and unlike skinks it's "normal" for grots to ride something more dangerous than themselfs into battle as each grot faction has cavalry as battleline units since each grot faction has its entire identity based around their respective mounts. Moonclan focusses on squigs, spiderfang focusses on well spiders and the last one is heavily based on wolfs. This makes em far more dangerous as far as I'm concerned as in that case you can't really view them seperatly from their mounts, the spiderfangs don't even have anything that's not mounted on some sort of spider. Skinks on the other hand are most commonly used unmounted.. On that note, why don't we have any skinks riding beasts as battleline? Those grots are battleline, saurus knights can be battleline, and both of those are at least vaguely capable fighters even without the mount (or at least, more capable than skinks...). You'd think that one of the weakest, if not the outright weakest, races in existance would prefer to fight either while mounted or using powerfull weapons. But the most common use of skinks would be as skirmishers. And it's not like skinks are just a desperate militia force, they have the organisation resources and intellect to actually form a capable army. Why are they so increadibly limited. Is there any fluff for this? How do they compare to their previous incarnation in fantasy?
I don't think we can find a lot of logic there. GW just went around saying everyone has to have two or three batlleline units in their army and almost randomly chose some.
Meh.. that's dissapointing, though it would at least explain why terradon and rippers aren't battleline while saurus knights are. And similarly why guard aren't battleline despite only being "elite" in comparison to our warriors but not when compared to other battleline... Still doesn't explain why skinks are so relativly weak though, were they this comperativly weak in the old world as well? Or where they more capable? Or easier to field hordes given the larger scale of that game... that might've helped as well
I think what makes Skinks so useful is: - rend-1 immune used to be a big deal (and still is, kind of. Against many armies at least). - they are very fast - they have high bravery - they are very cheap (40 Skinks = 200 points) - their shooting is not _that_ bad compared with other cheap units and shooting is strong in AoS. - wary fighters! Which is almost as good as retreat and shoot. Which is pretty good combined with the above. I still think they wouldn't be OP if they had +1 hit or wound in melee.
Hmmm... I don't know. 10 Zombies are pretty terrible but 40 of them hit 3+/3+ in melee and their non-existant save isn't that bad because they regenerate and regenerate even more if they kill something.
- -1 rend immune isn't useless, but oddly specific & more importantly with how squishy skinks are it's rather superfluous. The rend protection on a sunblood is much more valueable as you would normally use rend attacks against a hero. However, using rend-attacks against fodder is kind of a waste to begin with... Basicly we get a bonus against attacks which already shouldn't really be shot at them, so wohoo... - they are fast, there isn't much to argue there - Bravery is surprisingly useless as it only benefits battleshock tests. If we had more mechanics that involved bravery, say battleshock in a nearby unit could spread throughout an army and cause a route it'd be far more beneficial. - They're not exceptionally cheap though, just "horde" level. There's several other units for comperable or cheaper costs (clanrats, grots, basicly any fodder horde unit has similar costs). - these grots shoot just as good, and their horde bonus also benefits their melee... O and you can field 60 of em making it easier to maintain the bonus, and as long as there's 10+ of em they have a better save, even when taking into acount rend of -1. The only downside is their bravery and movement... The skinks shooting really isn't anything special, even for cheap units. - wary fighters is amazing, and probably the sole reason skinks are actually usefull. Not cuz it makes em actually capable fighters, but cuz it allows em to be a very effective screening force. After all, running away is an amazing way to prevent getting killed... Wary fighters prevents em from being absolutly terrible. But it doesn't actually make em "good" combatants. Putting them in a very weird place, and I'm curious why. Zombies have the benefit of regenerating, converting kills to more zombies & being able to merge units. This makes mantaining their horde bonus far easier, resulting in fairly effective troops. As for zombies v skinks. If skinks have sufficient space they should theoreticly win as they can literally run around in circles around em. However, just like skinks have their heroes supporting them zombies are supported by necromancers and vampires and the like. At which point skinks are probably going to be on the losing side... also, in any practical case there won't be infinite space for the skinks to run. At which point the zombies will eventually just overrun the skinks, and once in melee the zombies win thanks to their superiour melee capabilities & regenerative capabilities. Also, 40 skinks vs 40 Zombies is liable to end in a stalemate if the skinks just keep running away. They're liable to ressurect just as quickly as the skinks kill em... Also, they perform different roles if you take ranged weapons, so not entirely a fair comparison though as both are mostly fodder its not too different. So no zombies don't entirely count, or at least they have support that can help em, in a practical situation they're liable to win & they aren't entirely comparable as its melee troops versus ranged troops.
True. Still not a great battleline unit. What sells the skinks to me, is basically their low cost and their speed, which makes them a perfect screen / chaff unit. If I'm on a budget and I'm not building my list around battlelines (as I could do with an eternal host or a firelance), then skinks are just great. As a "race" they perform poorly (even in horde, they don't win by themselves), but they are included in the Seraphon, and thus they cover the role they have since the old editions of WHFB. The fight is made by sauri, skinks are the smart small ones, great for scouting and riding beasts.
Meh, with horde bonuses zombies get 3+/3+/-/1, nothing exceptional, but with how easy they can maintain a horde they have good stats for a horde especially. And yeah, skinks have their "uses" in game, it's just a kind of depressing "use" as fodder, I wish they could do something more than that. A horde of zombies is also fodder, but with enough of em they form a threat as they actually gain decent stats and are one of the few horde units that actually can maintain that bonus and that especially makes em good. And yeah in a combined seraphon army skinks have their function, I'm just wondering why even among fodder they are as relativly incapable. Or why we don't have em ride more stuff or just drag smaller versions of solar engines with em or something. Grots fullfill a similar function in a greenskin army, but they have a much greater tendency to ride something bigger or drag some deranged weaponry with em to make up for their weaknesses.
Basically because GW "translated" HORRIBLY the skinks from 8th to AoS. IN 8th, skinks were skirmishers (and this was a huge bonus in a system that was based on file & ranks and frontal arc of view for regiments), AND their blowpipe was poisonous. On a 6 to hit, it was an automatic successful "to wound". They were absolutely incapable of sustain real CC (unless stacked with kroxigors), but as skirmishers with poisoned attacks, they were great hunters, almost impossible to catch. AoS units are all "skirmishers", and GW forgot to give them a rule to duplicate their old poisonous shooting.
Do you mean that skirmishers were capable of shooting backwards basicly? Cuz that'd indeed be a massive advantage if everyone else can only shoot at stuff in front of em. Especially considering their speed it'd allow for obvious flanking maneuvrous, not to mention the possibility for bonusses to being shot in the back as there's no shield to cover you there (did that exist? I know flanking mattered for melee attacks in 8th) Also, god we need that poison. That'd improve skinks massivly. They're still not going to be "good" fighters, but at least now a unit of 10 skinks will actually force a save every turn, they'l actually be able to do something. Even better if it'd be mortal wounds like SCE retributors with their hammers. That does explain a lot though.
Back in 8th Skinks being skirmishers got a -1 to being hit with ranged attacks, any unit get an additional -1 to being hit with ranged attacks when they are occupying terrain, Skinks also got extra cover form being in water terrain (swamps, rivers, ponds). (non-aquatic units get a 1/2 movement penalty for being in water.) *and chameleon skinks get an additional -1 to being hit. So a general strategy was to plop them down in the nearest body of water for a -3 to getting shot. and create a small machine gun nest of poison shots. and if something charges you just flee leaving them bogged down in a water hazard. ps. skirmishers can shoot on any direction, and don't have to keep a rigid formation.
Basically yes. Skirmishers had front and back, BUT they can turn for free and without a limit of "turning" during their movement.
Dwarf missile troops are dreadful in close combat (Gun Butts hit on 5s and wound on 6s I think), and if it wasn't for the fact that they can shoot into melee they would be annihilated if charged. This applies to Kharadron Overlords and Dispossessed ranged units - Fyreslayer Hearthguard, although not a patch on their melee brothers, are slightly better in melee and can hold against truly rubbish combatants.
@Canas ... I believe the bottom of the barrel (absolute worst troops; the dregs) was Gnoblars or Skaven slaves ... weren’t they two models for one point?