PDA

View Full Version : What is an reasonable cost for an TK skeleton warrior in 8:th edition?



Lilike
31-08-2010, 04:23
I just read through an thread where a number of posters expressed how great it was that it is now possible to heal stegadons using an lore of life slann which reminded me that in 8:th edition, TK and VC are no longer the only armies that can heal their units back to life. This made me think about what the TK skeleton warrior has going for it in the new edition and I must say the situation appears rather grim. Please note that this post isn't about skeleton warriors in general, VC skeleton warriors and TK skeleton warriors functions very differently so many of the things mentioned in this post might not apply to the former type of undead.

The stats of an TK skeleton warrior are worse than an goblin but the warrior costs more than twice the amount of it's goblinoid counterpart if similarly equipped. Now, we should remember that goblins are generally not considered very good for their point in 8:th edition or in 7:th edition so we are not comparing to an undercosted unit type. The difference in points between the two unit types are represented by the fact that the skeleton warrior have the undead special rule. Lets see how what benefits this special rule brings the warrior:

+ Immune to psychology
+ Cause fear
+ No break tests

And for the disadvantages:

- May never march
- May only hold when charged
- Crumbles when losing combat

Lets look at each of these points in more detail. With the new rules for standard bearers psychology has little impact on the game in most cases. Thus being immune to psychology is less important than ever meaning that what was previously a great benefit is now worth very little. With the new fear rules, causing fear is no longer very advantageous. It's certainly an boon but not the large benefit it was in 7:th edition. Not having to taking break tests used to be HUGE in 7:th edition before the steadfast rules was introduced, in 8:th edition break tests are no longer that bad for large blocks of weak core infantry so this benefit has also diminished in value in 8:th edition.

As for the weak points: Never being able to march is and will always be an major disadvantage for any unit in the game. The new rules for charging has made this special rule a bit more bearable but not being able to march is still a huge disadvantage for M4 infantry. Only being able to hold when charged as well as being unable to flee if losing combat badly is an sure way of being wiped out to the last man which is more serious in 8:th edition than in 7:th edition since half dead units no longer gives any victory points. The last point is the most important disadvantage of the undead rule, never fleeing and only crumbling used to be what made undead infantry units good. In the new edition it is actually an disadvantage since it means that undead infantry units will always give the opponent VP if loosing combat (since they will never break and later rally denying VP) and perhaps more importantly, due to the new steadfast rules, taking an (in many cases rerollable) unmodified roll on the generals leadership is almost always an better deal than losing models based on CR.

Due to the changes introduced in 8:th edition, I no longer think that it is advantageous for skeleton warriors to have the TK undead special rule (not VC undead special rule given to VC warriors which is an different cup of tea). In fact I would rather have them cost the same amount of points and not having the undead special rule at all thus being able to march, flee instead of being annihilated and taking advantage of the steadfast rule.

I therefore believe that TK skeleton warriors in their current form should cost no more than an goblin (shock!!). I would love to hear from you guys what you think that they should cost and why?

sulla
31-08-2010, 05:04
I'd put them about 5-6pts as is. Mostly because they can't panic ever, which makes them better bodyguards for characters and because they can be healed... but I don't think they will stay the same in 8th. For example, I doubt they'll keep the inability to march. That led to forced gunlines in 6th. Also, how healing is handled in the 8th book will matter too. Pricing undead is always a little different to pricing other armies, because they are so tied to the magic of their armies.

Maoriboy007
31-08-2010, 05:20
I'd put them about 5-6pts as is. Mostly because they can't panic ever, which makes them better bodyguards for characters and because they can be healed... but I don't think they will stay the same in 8th. For example, I doubt they'll keep the inability to march. That led to forced gunlines in 6th. Also, how healing is handled in the 8th book will matter too. Pricing undead is always a little different to pricing other armies, because they are so tied to the magic of their armies.

5-6 is probably about right for skeletons.

slxiii
31-08-2010, 05:22
Honestly, I shelved my TK army as soon as 8th came out. For one point more than the horrible skeletons, I can get a elf spearman, which has double or better in almost all of the stats, and has always strikes first.
The whole TK army book is a horribly overcosted mess now. In an edition where huge blocks of durable infantry form the backbone of your army, TK have some of the worst troops choices and hard caps on unit sizes. Fun stuff.

soots
31-08-2010, 05:27
Steadfast + BSB rerolls (for all psych) > Undead steadfast
fear nerfed to the ground

5pts imo

KillbotFactory
31-08-2010, 05:43
I would agree with pretty much everything said here int terms of their loss of effectiveness but I would go with...

6 points base +1 point for light armor.

You have to be careful when making them too cheap because being able to mass any unit with somewhat effective shooting could get out of hand. Throw in some incantations with volley fire rules and you would see buckets of archers if they were priced 5 or less.

soots
31-08-2010, 05:59
Yeah, but you dont increase the cost of the infantry, you increase the cost of the weapon option. I agree bow skellos with 5+ unmodified should be more expensive

KillbotFactory
31-08-2010, 06:10
I was just keeping the point options in line with how the TK book is currently written. Even still I don't think the bow should cost maybe more than 1 point more than the Sword and board option... So maybe 6 points for la/shield +1 for bow

Enigmatik1
31-08-2010, 14:56
I believe skeletons should be 5 points per model base with hand weapon, then each additional equipment option would cost an additional point. I highly doubt anyone would still spend the points on spears...but it would be slightly more viable at 8 points than the ridiculous 10 points per it is now.

This way the commonly fielded skeletal infantry would be 6 points for archers and 7 points for warriors.

Rikkjourd
31-08-2010, 15:11
If we assume that everything else in the TK book stays the same, I would say 5pts for a warrior WITH light armour, one point extra for shields. 6 points max for an archer. As they are now, they are totally worthless. Those of you who are worried about massed archers, think of this: 20 will score 6.67 hits, of which 2.22 will wound and 1.11 will pass the save if you are shooting at saurus. An incantation used to shoot an extra round will get you one dead saurus. Compare that to any BRB spell in 8th and you will see that the massed archers are complete crap as it is right now... So if I spend 250ish for a lord priest, 160ish for a unit of 20 archers and 160ish for another, and use shooting incantations on both of them without any attempt to dispel, my 570pts will get me 8 dead saurus over the course of the two turns of shooting I will get at them. Then they will all pretty much automatically die. COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

Aluinn
31-08-2010, 15:19
There have been enough rumors to this effect that I think we can safely assume TK Skeletons will be able to march if within a certain distance of characters, like their VC cousins, when the new army book is released. So we can probably strike that from their list of disadvantages.

We can also add to their advantages, on the other hand, the ability to be raised by magic, much more easily (well, at least, we can assume it will be with the new book) than other models can be raised by the Lore of Life.

Given these and the other issues you listed, I think a fair cost is 6 points for a Skeleton with hand weapon and shield (or, as Enigmatik said, 5 if the shield costs an additional point). Their base stats, had they no special rules, would warrant a cost of about 3 points, and I don't think that 2-3 additional points is too much to pay for Fear and Unbreakable/Unstable.

As an aside I do not think that Unbreakable and Unstable fully cancel each other out in cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the combination makes losing combats unpleasant, but it remains proportional to how much you lost by, and other units always have a chance, even if Steadfast and within range of the BSB, to be destroyed outright. Losing combat with a Skeleton unit, in the first round, by enough to make every remaining model go 'poof' is fairly impossible in my experience, unless your units are tiny or have already been wrecked by shooting and magic. So I think this package of a beneficial and a detrimental rule remains an overall benefit in that you get a guarantee on holding up enemies for a while, proportional to the size of the unit and its defensive capability. (This is also, incidently, why I've come to the conclusion that Skeletons should never, ever take spears.)

Odin
31-08-2010, 16:28
I'd go with 6 points, including shield, light armour and either hand weapon or spear (spears shouldn't cost any points, as they make you lose your parry save). Though you could put a good case for them being 5 points I suspect.

Malorian
31-08-2010, 16:31
The thing is that it really depends on what happens to the rest of the army.

And while we are wish listing I'll say that I think TK skeletons should be WS3 since they are fallen soldiers while the VC ones could be anyone.

theunwantedbeing
31-08-2010, 16:44
8pts if they get ws3, 7 otherwise.
With light armour and spears as standard.

draccan
31-08-2010, 16:57
I just hope that whatever boost TK will get is not going to spill over to VC, which is still OP as I see it in 8th..

Haravikk
31-08-2010, 17:07
They definitely should get something to differentiate them from Vampire Counts, as Malorian says they're dead soldiers not random unfortunates with a skin problem (it all rotted off being the problem).

decker_cky
31-08-2010, 17:30
5 pts naked, 1/2 pts for each of light armour, shield and spear. If they're WS3, then 6 pts with light armour.

Harwammer
31-08-2010, 17:42
My gut feeling, based on how my own skeles perform, is 5 pts (including light armour and shield).

I'm glad everybody else ballparks in the 5-6 points region

draccan
31-08-2010, 18:04
I just hope that whatever boost TK will get is not going to spill over to VC, which is still OP as I see it in 8th..

Just wanted to add:
Maybe the problem with TK is not the price cost for skellies..

ramongoroth
31-08-2010, 18:32
I had given this some though as I play VC and share the skeleton pain. Without looking through the thread I thought 5 points for a skeleton and 6 with light armor sounded about right. I see I'm not alone.

smithers
31-08-2010, 18:49
Just wanted to add:
Maybe the problem with TK is not the price cost for skellies..

Thank you!

The way to fix TK is not to turn skellies into goblins! Anyone that wants to field goblins can just play O&G. Or play Skaven or WoC if you want cheap hordes.

I realize the OP was asking specifically about their current situation but it seems others are assuming that the right fix is a simple drop in cost. I think GW will be more creative than that.

The whole idea with TK is that magic supplements otherwise poor (overcosted) troops to make them competitive. I agree they are not at all competitive in 8th, and 6 points would probably be a good cost if they were to just remain simple fodder.

I expect (and hope) that they will remain overcosted for their base stats, but that we will get more incantations (and maybe banners/items) to buff them. Stuff like this:

Banner of poison arrows
Incantation to grant poison attacks until end of turn
Banner to grant +1 AS
Incantation to grant +3 WS (c'mon gimme a reason to assemble a spear horde!)


What we won't/shouldn't see is removal of "no march" rule cause skellies really shouldn't be marching 16" (using urgency) but there are lots of other cool buffs that TK core could get.

Anyways, mainly I'm hoping for more power and diversity in the incantations. There is so much that could be done to improve the army and simple point adjustment would be at the very bottom of my list.

sulla
31-08-2010, 20:11
What we won't/shouldn't see is removal of "no march" rule cause skellies really shouldn't be marching 16" (using urgency) but there are lots of other cool buffs that TK core could get.

.Or you could, y'know, just remove magical movement altogether in favour of other magical buffs/enemy debuffs... Spells that have more value to help out the humble skelly rather than incantations that only really benefit chariots, carrion and elites.

Taking away the ability to march virtually forces the TK player to gunline up and reserve movement spells for 'fast' flankers like chariots.

xxRavenxx
31-08-2010, 21:16
I think, what skeletons need, is a bit of a revamp.

Crumble was very good by 7th standards. 50 men losing combat by five would be likely to all die. 50 skeletons losing combat, and only 5 would go, leaving 40 remaining.

In 8th, 50 men have good odds of staying around, due to LD and steadfast, whereas 50 skeletons will actually die faster, due to higher casualties (Stepup and two ranks fighting).

I would be interested to see if skeletons might not gain a rule to add resiliance to them. Maybe a light wardsave, or a regenerate, to represent them being able to sustain blows that would kill a man, or them simply getting up from said wounds.

Failing that, I imagine they may gain some options to allow them to be "stuborn" against crumble, to be raised from the dead in greater numbers, or as speculated, to simply reduce them to 6 points (I highly doubt they could get any cheaper without becoming too good), but I have to say, it seems the boring option.

slxiii
01-09-2010, 01:38
I've always thought that the rules for undead were a little weak. It seems to me that a magically resurrected warrior with no vital organs should be more durable than a regular human. I mean, the only way you can "kill" a skeleton is to destroy its bones, and even then it can be reassembled.

Dag
01-09-2010, 01:45
why does everyone look to OnG to base points off of... your forgetting that 1/3 of the time that unit of goblins does something retardedly stupid that can lose you the unit, or even the game.

take into account that your unbreakable, cause fear, are replenishable troops, and DONT TEST FOR ANIMOSITY....

STOP SAYING GOBLINS OR ORCS ARE GOOD FOR THEIR POINTS THEY HAVE THE SINGLE WORSTE RULE IN THE GAME AND ITS ARMY WIDE.

Dag
01-09-2010, 01:47
muscle tissue and ligaments are waaaaaaay more resilient than bone on its own...

coming from a chyro, bones are really.... REALLY easy to break w/o support on them, you could poke a skeleton in the shoulder and shatter it for instance.

lets not forget these bones have been rotting for centuries, eaten by various things, and degenerated.

we're not boiling people down and making skeletons out of that, which would make the skeletons your thinking about.

Bloodknight
01-09-2010, 02:00
STOP SAYING GOBLINS OR ORCS ARE GOOD FOR THEIR POINTS THEY HAVE THE SINGLE WORSTE RULE IN THE GAME AND ITS ARMY WIDE.

Dude, nobody did that. TK skeletons are being compared to goblins because Gobbos are pretty close statwise and are already overcosted.


@Topic: When I read the question of this thread my gut feeling said "about half their current price". Seems to be what most people think.

Lilike
01-09-2010, 04:06
Well 5 points would mean that the skeleton would cost about the same as the basic state troops which seems reasonable. A bit on the expensive side considering how weak they currently are but not terribly so. I like the idea of bumping them up to WS 3, then 5 points might even be a bit on the cheap side.

Regarding the effectiveness of bow armed skeleton archers: I run 40 archers in my army (due to lack of better choices in the core section really) and must say that they are really situational. Against some armies (mostly elves) they do fine while against others they cause minimal casualties. Also, while I also sometimes use the smiting incantation on archer units I believe this to be somewhat of an wasted incantation unless you are shooting against stuff like wardancers and the like. In most cases an simple 2D6 S4 magic missile will be a lot more potent, and compared to some of the spells in the new basic lores the destruction caused by an successful casting of smiting an unit of archers feels.... disappointing.

Gorbad Ironclaw
01-09-2010, 07:11
I expect (and hope) that they will remain overcosted for their base stats, but that we will get more incantations (and maybe banners/items) to buff them. Stuff like this:

Banner of poison arrows
Incantation to grant poison attacks until end of turn
Banner to grant +1 AS
Incantation to grant +3 WS (c'mon gimme a reason to assemble a spear horde!)



While I think you have a point in that characters and incarnations should still be integral to getting the best use out of there skeletons I think it's a mistake to go for a situation where they are just flat out worse for there points than other troops. You very easily end up in a situation where to get something equivalent to what everyone else can get just by buying there troops you have to buy the troops and then spend points/characters on getting them up to par. So to be equal with everyone else you a) have to spend more points and b) hope your opponent doesn't disrupt that.

Shouldn't the idea being that if you can set up good synergy and utilise your army in a coherent faction you get an advantage over your opponent, rather than getting to be equal with your opponent?


Skeletons (and undead troops in general) have always been expensive because they didn't ran away and fear made others run away. Both of those are much lessened, steadfast makes other troops more reliable and fear isn't anywhere near as powerful. The basic statline is terrible for combat troops and while you shouldn't forget the synergy unless they radically change something I'd be surprised to see more than 6 points. I don't think having the option to spend even more points on turning them into not quite as sucky troops should be included in there base cost.

decker_cky
01-09-2010, 09:21
Well 5 points would mean that the skeleton would cost about the same as the basic state troops which seems reasonable. A bit on the expensive side considering how weak they currently are but not terribly so. I like the idea of bumping them up to WS 3, then 5 points might even be a bit on the cheap side.

As they currently are at 5 pts would be fair. Lower WS and I than state troops, but fear and ItP still are ok rules, just not gamebreaking anymore.

Zombies should be 2 pts each though. No steadfast + lose badly to everything + no pursue means they'll crumble in short order even from huge units. Even a unit of 10 ungor raiders tears through a unit of them.

Tabernacle
01-09-2010, 14:59
I find that the best way to play TK is to leave them in the cupboard and play my DE or Beastmen instead. If I show signs of relenting my wife has a standing order to hit me with an Argos catalogue until the feeling passes. Everything in the army is too expensive, but the main problem is with the magic. Compared to what is available to the other races, the incantations are about as effective as a muttered insult.

Haravikk
01-09-2010, 15:24
Shouldn't the idea being that if you can set up good synergy and utilise your army in a coherent faction you get an advantage over your opponent, rather than getting to be equal with your opponent?
While I kind of agree that they're in a bit of a bad way right now, I think the idea of over-costed troops supplemented by the characters that you need to have is a good one and a more interesting mechanic. By reducing the points all you'd do is make Tomb Kings just another standard army with little to differentiate it. I mean, combats now can last several turns easily due to a mixture of Steadfast and the inclination towards bigger units, so how many armies can keep those units at the original size for that entire time while moving their support units into position?

The real question is how effective are the incantations compared to Lore of Life's Regrowth spell, and how good/easy to cast should they be? That said, for 1,000 points you can still get yourself six units of 20 Skeletons, sure they're over-costed but it's not as bad as people are making out I think! As for the price you'll get a unit that won't budge for anything, they're not just Steadfast they're essentially Unbreakable and with enough of their number coming back they could tar-pit for an entire game, I realise that isn't easy to do at the moment but it's the kind of thing that could happen if things were fixed a bit. Fear might have been reigned in but it's now a sane effect that can easily cripple an enemy unit for several rounds of combat.
If I were to change the basic stats of the skeletons it would likely be to represent their natural ability to withstand damage since they're already dead. Either an innate bonus to armour save, or maybe a -1 to hit. This represents a mixture of them being skilled warriors of old, and hard to destroy, without making them inherently more effective (they are reanimated dead after all, so not as spry as they used to be).

If the army list is to be fixed (and hopefully it will soon-ish, I heard rumours ages ago of it being "next" but who knows?), then I would say it's all about making incantations prevalent enough that they can give the skeletons the boost they need, both in numbers, or in stats perhaps to boost the magic animating them such that they are able to fight more like the skilled soldiers they were in life?

Tabernacle
01-09-2010, 15:41
If the troops are over-costed then to achieve balance, the characters would have to be under-costed. This would curtail your options in army selection.

CaliforniaGamer
01-09-2010, 17:15
I would say 5 points for as is + light armor + shield/HW
+1/2 pt for spear upgrade (definitely not worth a full point per spear)

would be the same obviously for VC.

hacksaaw
01-09-2010, 17:53
for VC a skelly should probably be around 3 points now, probably the same for TK. with fear removed from the game for all intents and purposes, they really need to come in below a human in value and cost, maybe below a goblin. ( and along with that the nerf to the ability to raise them from the changes in the magic system).

dont expect to see many undead armies in the coming years as effective undead armies now have to follow a formula that has nothing to do with undead and instead resembles pale shadows of Chaos or Dark Elf.

decker_cky
01-09-2010, 18:54
for VC a skelly should probably be around 3 points now, probably the same for TK.

You're right....because fear is worse now (still an advantage mind you), skeletons should be priced like a goblin. :rolleyes:

Aluinn
01-09-2010, 19:31
Needing a character nearby in order to march is a fine way to make the General and other leaders matter in armies that really don't care about their Ld. Otherwise (that is, if they could just always march normally) there would be little "native" or non-magical synergy between characters and other units, which is something that every Warhammer army is meant to rely upon to an extent. I consider it fairly core to the game. The VC even have a further rule to cement this concept (crumbling upon the General's death), but I'm beginning to think that goes too far and leads to odd situations like an obviously combat-statted character hiding in the back of the army.

Not being able to march at all and relying on a spell to move more quickly is, on the other hand, bad design, as it effectively just gimps the army's magic by requiring a power dice expenditure every turn (not exactly the issue for current TKs, but we'll see how they turn out in their next incarnation--I'm expecting them to use PD in some way). It's even more overly punitive in that it isn't guaranteed to work even if you don't decide to just screw it and move 4" per turn. This is why it was done away with for VC, as far as I can tell, and TK should get the same treatment. In the rumors forum here we have some pretty reliable people suggesting that this will be so, which is for the best, IMO.

So I'm assuming that TK Skellies will have VC-Skelly-like mobility in the next book, if not better. There's really no reason for GW not to do this. In light of that I think 6 points is fine; if they still could not march without spells, then I would say something more like 5. 3 is just way too low under any circumstance, IMO, unless their S or T was dropped, and I don't anticipate that at all.

On the comparison to Goblins, it's valid when discussing stats and thus deducing what the Skeleton profile is worth *before* special rules are added, but as a flat comparison it completely fails because, aside from Fear (which can be significant, making them hit on 3s and be hit on 4s rather than, likely, the reverse), Skeletons are Unbreakable while Goblins have godawful Ld. Yes other armies can get around this with a BSB and General in range, but that's far from free:

-The BSB and General can die;
-They aren't always within range of everything, especially in an army with tons of models;
-They cost points, and potentially quite a lot of them if fully kitted out for survivability, in which case they may not be especially killy.

Everyone needs a General, of course, but Undead and Daemon armies are spoiled in that they're the only ones in 8th which can really afford to skip a BSB (and, if they do take one, can suffer their death without disastrous consequences).

I don't say all this to suggest that Skeletons in particular or the Undead armies in general are in a wonderful place right now, but I think what they need are a few, albeit very important, tweaks. If we have to resort to a tier system I'd say both the unit and the armies are lower-mid right now, so they need a bit of help, but not too much. A knee-jerk reaction to their current struggles could result in them becoming overpowered. (I know, I know, overpowered TK are hard to imagine, but there was a time not so long ago when people would have said the same of Lizardmen--massive balance shifts can and do happen.)

Enigmatik1
01-09-2010, 21:45
I just want to put the idea out there that the Undead rule isn't all strawberries and cream at Wimbeldon. There's this additional rule called Unstable, that goes hand in hand with Unbreakable which in the age of steadfast, stepping up, practically ItP infantry is just not worth the 4 or so extra points we pay per model for skeletons.

I know it's an obscure rule and easy to miss. But it exists, I swear! It's destroyed more skeletons and skeletal units of mine than I dare to remember and nothing will really change until that changes.

I'm sticking by 5-6 points per model, because when GW decides to get creative we either get something stupid like army-wide, crippling Animosity! or we get something stupid like 7E Daemons of Chaos. I'll pass on both.

Who wants to sell me some Beastmen? :D

Gazak Blacktoof
01-09-2010, 21:50
I might drag my tomb kings out for a game in a couple of weeks to see how good/bad they really are in the new edition. From a theory-hammer perspective though I'd have to agree with the majority and say 5-6 points for skeletons fully equipped as they are roughly on par with state troops. Where they might need a further adjustment would be to compensate for the relative power of other entires in the book.

If you wanted to do an ammendment similar to the dark elf 6.5 revision (which adjusted the core to sompensate for the lack of power in other areas) I'd probably consider knocking another point off skeleton warriors and upgrading chariot crew to wights. That may be terrible, or possibly terribly broken, but you could run with it for a while and see how it plays out.

Idle Scholar
01-09-2010, 22:01
If I was re-vamping TK skellies I'd go for giving them better stats rather than a big points decrease, make them the 'elite' of the undead world as opposed to the VC grave robbed dross.

smithers
01-09-2010, 22:03
I might drag my tomb kings out for a game in a couple of weeks to see how good/bad they really are in the new edition. From a theory-hammer perspective though I'd have to agree with the majority and say 5-6 points for skeletons fully equipped as they are roughly on par with state troops. Where they might need a further adjustment would be to compensate for the relative power of other entires in the book.

If you wanted to do an ammendment similar to the dark elf 6.5 revision (which adjusted the core to sompensate for the lack of power in other areas) I'd probably consider knocking another point off skeleton warriors and upgrading chariot crew to wights. That may be terrible, or possibly terribly broken, but you could run with it for a while and see how it plays out.

The only fix that chariots need is to rank in threes. You could tweak their stats, improve the impact hits, but again, I'd rather see them remain mediocre with incantations or banners needed to power them up. Of course, if TK light cavalry was able to do feigned flight then the army would be about twice as dynamic so I hope that something opens up in this area too but that's a pretty major change so we'll see...

slxiii
01-09-2010, 22:33
A lot of people here seems to think that the Unbreakable/Unstable combo is a good thing... it isn't. Against completely average troops, regardless of who charges, the skeletons will strike last, do fewer casualties, and then explode. Then there's the Heirophant problem, with TLOS and character sniping spells available cheaply to at least 9 armies that i can think of, you can count on having your Heirophant die at some point during the battle, which means that all skeleton units will lose 2d6-3 models every turn. If they're in combat, they get to lose models from casualties and then explode some more, too.
And fear is really not useful at all anymore. Skeletons are priced for fear doubling their usefulness and cost, it doesn't do one anymore so it shouldn't do either.
Not to mention they are hard capped at 40, which means you can't really do VP denial with them, as any equal sized unit of infantry will completely destroy them in a few turns of combat.
You can argue that the characters make them better, but every army's characters make their units more effective.

Toshiro
01-09-2010, 23:10
In 8th ed unbreakable/unstable is completely useless, I put more trust in 40 night goblins with a general behind them then 40 skeletons with a general with them.

Enigmatik1
01-09-2010, 23:21
In 8th ed unbreakable/unstable is completely useless, I put more trust in 40 night goblins with a general behind them then 40 skeletons with a general with them.

Thank you, Toshiro. I knew there was a reason I liked you (aside from the love you game me in that other thread). :D

Toshiro
01-09-2010, 23:23
My pleasure! :D

xxRavenxx
01-09-2010, 23:23
I disagree. 40 night goblins plus a night goblin hero has a 50% chance to be run down and die entirely when out-fought.

40 skeletons... only a quarter will die.

I'm not saying skeletons couldnt do with becoming a little cheaper, but dont undersell unbreakable. Most other armies would kill for it.


And again, remember when making comparisons to night goblins that 1/6 of the time, they will be immobile. and another 1/6 of the time they will be behaving erraticly. (Possibly running sideways, or into woods, only rarely sneaking extra inches of movement to make a charge).

Goblins would be the best troops in the game... if they were allways reliable.

Enigmatik1
01-09-2010, 23:28
I disagree. 40 night goblins plus a night goblin hero has a 50% chance to be run down and die entirely when out-fought.

40 skeletons... only a quarter will die.

I'm not saying skeletons couldnt do with becoming a little cheaper, but dont undersell unbreakable. Most other armies would kill for it.

You do realize that 40 Night Goblins are roughly 20 Skeletons, right? Give or take a few points... :D Now...what's the average margin for defeat for each unit and how many casualties does each unit have to take before becoming a lost cause?

Those goblins could lose combat by 10 and still remain steadfast, testing on potentially re-rollable LD9. A equally pointed skeleton unit loses combat by ten, that unit is wiped completely off the table.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Toshiro
01-09-2010, 23:36
I disagree. 40 night goblins plus a night goblin hero has a 50% chance to be run down and die entirely when out-fought.

40 skeletons... only a quarter will die.

I'm not saying skeletons couldnt do with becoming a little cheaper, but dont undersell unbreakable. Most other armies would kill for it.


And again, remember when making comparisons to night goblins that 1/6 of the time, they will be immobile. and another 1/6 of the time they will be behaving erraticly. (Possibly running sideways, or into woods, only rarely sneaking extra inches of movement to make a charge).

Goblins would be the best troops in the game... if they were allways reliable.

I play both OnG and TK, my only two armies actually, and so far in 8th ed my night gobbos has FAR OUTPERFORMED tk skeletons.

And with general I mean a orc general, a orc warboss is only 120pts and a orc bsb 95pts vs a tk king on 170pts, not to mention that 40 gobbos are only 175pts with nets and full command vs 345pts for 40 skeletons with full command, so I think that the OnG can spare the 45pts difference to get two characters. actually they can even put a 4+ ward on both characters, and still have 35pts to spare :p

But yes, the animosity is a very crippling rule that I dislike, but I'll still take the gobbos over skeletons any day.

EDIT: Enigmatik put it very well :)

EDIT 2: Or take for example when my skeletons were fighting against a unit of chaos knights, figured I'd do the old, heavy hitters on the flank which works very well with for example the night gobbos and chariot or trolls. With TK I did it with skeletons and scorpion and guards. problem was that all my opponent had to do was to kill skeletons so that my heavy hitters crumbled, yay. very worthwhile to loose those units with about 2 strikes done against them, rest coming from crumbling due to the skeletons.

Enigmatik1
02-09-2010, 01:46
EDIT 2: Or take for example when my skeletons were fighting against a unit of chaos knights, figured I'd do the old, heavy hitters on the flank which works very well with for example the night gobbos and chariot or trolls. With TK I did it with skeletons and scorpion and guards. problem was that all my opponent had to do was to kill skeletons so that my heavy hitters crumbled, yay. very worthwhile to loose those units with about 2 strikes done against them, rest coming from crumbling due to the skeletons.

Tis a shame you live so far away...we'd get along nicely. :D

At any rate, this example right here was my single biggest gripe with skeletons in 7E and was/is my only major issue with the list in general. 8E has made the problem exponentially worse. If they did their job, I probably wouldn't bitch about them so much...but they are such an utter failure for an infantry unit that it sometimes makes me ill. Despite the fact that at face value they seem like a great tarpit to the uneducated, they are among the worst units in the game to tarpit with for this very reason.

Skeletons are only useful for shooting. You want to tarpit something, run Tomb Guard. You want to give away free combat resolution to an opponent, run skeleton "warriors."

Lilike
02-09-2010, 03:09
Well Enigmatik your hate for skeleton "warriors" is well known here on Warseer (matched only by your hate for skeleton "Heavy" cavalry). Truth be told I believe that skeleton warriors could cost something ridiculous such as 2 points and the TK army would still not be the top army in the game (possibly top 3 though). As I mentioned in the first post, the situation is pretty grim, just look at the TK core options:

Overcosted skeleton archers
Even more overcosted skeleton "warriors"
Light cavalry
"Heavy" cavalry
"We are no longer the only great core choice" Light chariots


Look at that list and weep my bony brethren, may the new book arrive swiftly as if carried on the back of a thousand 7:th edition "I move 40 inch in the first turn" carrions!

(Couldn't help myself going off topic and joining the whine parade! :))

Enigmatik1
02-09-2010, 03:18
Well Enigmatik your hate for skeleton "warriors" is well known here on Warseer (matched only by your hate for skeleton "Heavy" cavalry). Truth be told I believe that skeleton warriors could cost something ridiculous such as 2 points and the TK army would still not be the top army in the game (possibly top 3 though). As I mentioned in the first post, the situation is pretty grim, just look at the TK core options:

Overcosted skeleton archers
Even more overcosted skeleton "warriors"
Light cavalry
"Heavy" cavalry
"We are no longer the only great core choice" Light chariots


Look at that list and weep my bony brethren, may the new book arrive swiftly as if carried on the back of a thousand 7:th edition "I move 40 inch in the first turn" carrions!

(Couldn't help myself going off topic and joining the whine parade! :))

YAY, Lilike! You forgot my disdain for Liche Priests also. It's not sheer contempt like skellies because at least they can come with a still useful Casket of Souls.

I'm actually off the Heavy Horsemen though, at least as an individual entity. I'm more focused on the root problem for every unit you listed. Guess what that is...lolz. Is it so wrong to want a viable core choice? That's all I ask for...haha! I feel like a Woman's Liberation activist in the 50s and 60s...equal pay for equal work! ROFLMAO!

Edit: At this point, I'm bored and just BSing as I try to write a 3K list for a possible game this weekend. I've hit a snag and am unsure how to equip my characters. 3K is out of my comfort zone, so I'm not entirely sure what to take. :P

Toshiro
02-09-2010, 07:40
Tis a shame you live so far away...we'd get along nicely. :D

I agree! :D


At any rate, this example right here was my single biggest gripe with skeletons in 7E and was/is my only major issue with the list in general. 8E has made the problem exponentially worse. If they did their job, I probably wouldn't bitch about them so much...but they are such an utter failure for an infantry unit that it sometimes makes me ill. Despite the fact that at face value they seem like a great tarpit to the uneducated, they are among the worst units in the game to tarpit with for this very reason.

Skeletons are only useful for shooting. You want to tarpit something, run Tomb Guard. You want to give away free combat resolution to an opponent, run skeleton "warriors."

I agree, and it actually got worse in 8th ed due to the initiative striking order, meaning that sending for example the scorpion against things which it is good against (characters ad heavy stuff) generally means it's going second so it won't be able to mitigate the punishment done against the skeletons by clearing one or two of the enemy out beforehand.

Even the casket got a hit in this ed I'd say, with 2 dices rolling a 7 in average and most opponent running a lvl 4 mage it means that where most people saved 3-4 dispel dice for the casket they now only save 1-2 because that will enable them to stop it most of the times. And of course with the bigger unit sizes effectiveness decreases as well, when there was 8-9 units of 20 men running around and you took 3-4 guys of each it hurt, now when there are maybe 4 units of 40 it means that it not only cause a total of less casualties, but also that the units won't notice the loss :p

And the carrions went from being the best flyer in the game to being amongst the worst due to the inability to march lol

Don't get me wrong though, I love 8th edition, and I love the TKs, but at the moment the two are not a match. :(