PDA

View Full Version : Are skinks undercosted?



Havesome
17-03-2008, 15:29
Yeah, they die very easily if anything so much as looks at them, but the fact that a small unit of 10 can take down a giant is pretty impressive. Should they cost more than they do?

theunwantedbeing
17-03-2008, 15:33
Yes they are undercosted.
Cold blooded was not taken into consideration when the points values were given out for the army.

They are undercosted because it is hellishly difficult to get them to panic and run away.

Malorian
17-03-2008, 16:33
With the old rules, I'd say yes, but not with the new rules. Now that they can be marched blocked it really takes away from their movement.

These guys are good, don't get me wrong, but I think the points are right for them.

Famder
17-03-2008, 17:18
Yes they are undercosted.
Cold blooded was not taken into consideration when the points values were given out for the army.

They are undercosted because it is hellishly difficult to get them to panic and run away.

I think you are mistaken. Their leadership is only effectively 6.5 with Cold-Blooded, little worse than average human. On top of that they panic just fine because in order to do anything they need to be within 12", with T2 once their poison hits home they won't be around to see the effects.

superduperkoopatrooper
17-03-2008, 18:02
I think all of their attributes do add up to them being a bit too cheap. Skirmishers that can scout for only +1pt and count as core, poison on multiple shot weapons, decent Ld (afaik, Ld5 cold blooded is actually better than regular Ld7). The fact that they're such cheap core options also allows LM players to take a lot more points within their other slots.

It would be interesting to see an average distribution of where each army tends to spend its points. For instance in 2000pts the new vamps seem to be about 50% HQ, 25% core and 25% special/rare. I'd say Lizardmen are similar with perhaps some more on special rare and less on HQ. At a minimum LM only need to spend 180pts on core if they so wish (although skinks being so good they tend not to ;))

EvC
17-03-2008, 18:04
Only by a point perhaps.

theunwantedbeing
17-03-2008, 18:06
Famder...your mistaken.
Skinks almost never need to use their own leadership value, it's always the leadership of the general nearby who is leadership 8.
Which means you need to roll a single 1 or 2 on 3d6 to pass the test in most instances.
That's assuming the other 2 dice are both 6's..then you need to roll a 3 or less if either of those dice isnt a 6, and if one of this dice is a 4...well it's now a 4 or less.

This gives them an effective leadership of beyond 10 I think.
Which for 6pts a skink makes for an immensely difficult to shift screen that fires a lot of poisoned shots your way.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 18:27
I would say yes.

Since the latest edition, and the march blocking of Skirmishers perhaps less so, but they are still capable of unreasonable amounts of damage.

However, the biggest problem is when players use them to the exclusion of all other units, barring Salamanders and Chameleon Skinks. Boring army to fight, and very little you can learn from such games to prevent future drubbings.

huitzilopochtli
17-03-2008, 18:46
yes, but for the love of tzunki don't tell anyone!

Prophet of Quetzl
17-03-2008, 18:57
I don't think they are too cheap but then I play LM!

Seriously though they are about right for points but perhaps the next revision of LM should include either:


you must include at least one non-skink skirmisher core unit for every skink skirmisher unit in your army

or


skink units do not count toward core

Dalamyr the Fleetmaster
17-03-2008, 19:14
i would say yes, but not by much possibly 8 points rather then 6 but really not much more then that i mean creeping death can wipe a unit out or cause it too panic i do admit they are difficult to shift when the general's nearby but isn't that the same with all armies? and if thier performing a skirmish screen they can't come spitting at you with they blowpipes of death.

TheDarkDuke
17-03-2008, 21:21
i can see them being increased to 7 points with all the damage they are capable of with there movement value and cold blooded. however i dont think they should be allowed to scout as that seems to take away from chameleon skinks a little to much since they are a fair bit cheaper then them.

just my personal opinion as i play lizardmen and i dont use to much skinks myself( 2 units of 12 and maybe some chameleons at most)

Causa Mortis
17-03-2008, 21:22
It's great that I can take 30 of the li'l buggers for less than 200 pts. They'll give my units a screen in the early game and can cover a wide area as they are skirmishers. Panic is usually a non issue as at least one of them will be within 12" of my general. Then later in the game they're good for a few shots and some march blocking etc.

Sometimes if I'm careless I let them get in the way and then I curse them! ;)

But overall I think they are a little underpriced, but hey, I'm not complaining! :D

destroyerhive
17-03-2008, 21:26
does anything like LD 6, T 2, STR 3, WS 3, BS 3 mean anything 2 u

Causa Mortis
17-03-2008, 21:29
does anything like LD 6, T 2, STR 3, WS 3, BS 3 mean anything 2 u

I don't know what stats you're quoting there, but they certainly aren't the ones of a basic skink.

In fact, should you be posting pretty much complete stat lines at all? ;)

The Poisoned Dwarf
17-03-2008, 22:20
I dont think they are. I play aginst them often and I admit I hate them with a passion, especially when they hide in water and pelt you to death but they are relying on 6's majority of the time to do any damage, they are at a considerably close range so are going to get jumped on soon after (unless they arein that damned puddle). You still get armour saves against them. They are designed for a job which they do well.

can i just ask, Havesome, why would you put a in your army if you knew what you were facing and if you didnt know why send it anywhere near skinks.

small armies tend to have high armour saves, horde armies have lots of throw away troops that can chase the skinks and get shot without really changing anything major.

the only army that I think would have a big problem is ogres because they are a small army with low armour but then they can charge from a distance and once your in combat you cant be shot at and with skink ranges its unlikly to be problem.

Heimlich
18-03-2008, 04:17
does anything like LD 6, T 2, STR 3, WS 3, BS 3 mean anything 2 u
To answer your question, not really, no.

guillaume
18-03-2008, 04:26
No they are not...ahahah

Skinks are one of the best unit in warhammer. A scout unit of 10 blowpipe can be deadly, especially with the new rules for building.

So Undercosted, most non-lizardmen players would say yes because they loose a whole lot more than 60-70pts to skinks
But obviously, lizardmen players would say that there are other unit types that are overpriced.

As always it is just jealousy!....(just joking)

snyggejygge
18-03-2008, 09:47
Yes & no, they´re undercosted for what they can do & also because 3 units of them costing less than 200 pts (or 210 if you make them all scouts) is enough to fill all the coreslots needed in a 2K game.

No because they´ve gotten easier to handle & if the army isn´t just skinks, Kroxigors, a slann & some salamanders they´re actually quite balanced.

So either let them cost more (but still see the same tpe of lists w. perhaps 1 less skink unit), or do the one thing I favor, make them not count toward minimum core units (but add ranked units of skinks as a core unit), that would probably be a lot more balanced.

Famder
18-03-2008, 11:00
Famder...your mistaken.
Skinks almost never need to use their own leadership value, it's always the leadership of the general nearby who is leadership 8
What the hell are the skinks doing that close the the general? If they are that close that means they aren't doing anything for at least 2 turns and therefore not useful. The key reason skinks aren't undercosted is because they have to move faster than the high leadership units in order to get in range. If they don't it is easy to wipe them out.

Braad
18-03-2008, 18:17
When they couldn't be march blocked, they were terrible! Now, not anymore. I'm not having that much troubles anymore.

geoff
18-03-2008, 19:00
I'm new to all of this business, and my understanding of the rules is... little to none, but this conversation has been lovely in that I feel vindicated in my skink purchase.

One question, what does, "shift" mean? Is this using a game effect to move an opponent's unit?

Tarliyn
18-03-2008, 19:20
first disclaimer: I play lizardmen lol

I think skinks are right where they should be. I certainly feel like they can be abused if taken in huge numbers but every army has something that can be abused. The kinda of list you have to take that makes skinks overpower is not fun to play with, not fun to play against, and won't earn you any friends at your local stores/gaming groups.

Also they have a short range and if they get shot themselves or charged they almost certainly die in large numbers.

I just think a point increase would hurt more players than balance things out, cause for those people that only take a few units just to add a screen and some light shooting outnumber the rediculous players who take 100 skink armys

geoff
18-03-2008, 22:46
One of the suggestions earlier in the thread is not counting skirmishers as core units, and the Red Host army does exactly that. What do the people who think the skirmishers are undercosted think of that army list and the red-crested skinks?

TheMav80
19-03-2008, 02:10
They can raise the cost of my skinks as soon as they drop the cost of my Saurus Warriors.

ESPECIALLY if you are trying to make them not count as core.

soots
19-03-2008, 03:00
I think the Lizardmen army has totally borked point costs that work well as 1 army. The army is well balanced the way it is made.

As for Skinks...
They could have been BS1, T1, S1. it doesnt matter because what you're paying for is essentially hard to catch guys with decent LD and uber multishot poison. They are ok with the current army list, but if you put said unit in any other army they would be dirt cheap and extremely effective

Runt Nosher
19-03-2008, 03:45
Being an opponent of a very good Lizardman opponent ever since they were first released in the 5th ed box I found them very hard to deal with up until 7th. I find that since the new rules came out for skirmishers the armies that relied on more than 2-3 units of them to have success really got stung. For the longest time my opponent used to take 3-4 units of 10 with a mix of them being scouts. When they were able to run up to lines and limit me to (being a High Elf Player) 9 movement max and they could still go 12 and slow me right down whilst peppering my lightly armoured infantry taking down as many as 3-4 on average. Now that they can't do that any more I find that they clog the central area of the battlefield a lot, if any of them flee it only compounds the issue. My buddy takes only 2 units now, no more no less, and he swore by the very successful Solo-Slann list that is in the top 3 regularly...

Alathir
19-03-2008, 11:53
I would take poison shots away from them, it just doesn't make sense that a skirmisher unit that is suited for march blocking, harrassing etc. can also take down dragons and giants.

Give poison shots to Chameleon skinks instead.