PDA

View Full Version : Slann Question For Lizardmen Players (New Units!)



Malorian
26-04-2012, 15:56
Ok, here is the situation:

GW has released a new lizardmen army book which now contains two new kinds of characters. You have the saurus shaman priced like an orc shaman (so 205 for a lvl 4) and you also have skink shaman priced like a night goblin shaman (so 175 for a lvl 4).

Both have access to all the main lores like an empire wizard.


So, here is the question:

Would you take one of these new options or stick with your slann?

Urgat
26-04-2012, 16:03
A skink, certainly. There'd be little point to a lvl4 slann. I'd consider it if they had a special rule making them lvl5 as they ought (and in some cases used) to be.

Why
26-04-2012, 16:04
I would stick with the slann if I could only choose one option. But I would probably use a lvl 4 skink shaman along side my slann to give some good magic support and access another lore. Like a double slann list only not as good.

This is only if the slann stayed as good as he is now;)

The bearded one
26-04-2012, 16:41
A pimped out slann because I enjoy the model and fluff, and I think they're simply cool.

A saurus shaman would remind me so much of the bazillion goblin and orc shaman characters GW made up for the LotR range.

Malorian
26-04-2012, 17:10
A pimped out slann because I enjoy the model and fluff, and I think they're simply cool.

A saurus shaman would remind me so much of the bazillion goblin and orc shaman characters GW made up for the LotR range.

I think you voted in the wrong spot then. Looks like you are in it for reasons other than the rules.

The bearded one
26-04-2012, 18:04
I figured 'pimped out slann' meant I chose a slann :p


A lvl4 skink priest with acces to the BRB lores besides heavens would certainly be attractive though. It's nice to have a choice somewhere in the middle of a 100pt lvl2 skink priest, and a 350-500 pt slann..

BooTMGSG
26-04-2012, 18:11
I would go with the skink shaman, frankly a saurus caster would seem wrong. They Hit things 'til dead.

Perhaps would make more sense to limit skink to heavens, light and beasts, let the big boy have all the lores.

yarrickson
26-04-2012, 18:14
Pimped out Slann. Mostly because I like the idea of my army being led by a lazy frog who only half wakes up to incinerate a unit and eat a fly.

BooTMGSG
26-04-2012, 18:22
Would like rules for a Relic priest, but I can alway be content with subing it for the usual slann

decker_cky
26-04-2012, 18:25
Not a lizardmen player, but I think a more expensive slann than now, but letting you pimp him out (just make him pay for what he gets) and skink priests as they are now, but with access to other lores would be the best solution. Maintains the current fluff, and brings back some of the 6th edition fluff with different spawnlings, while improving the flexibility of the army.

Gaargod
26-04-2012, 19:41
I would never actually do it, as it's a horrible affront to fluff, but a Saurus Shaman would probably be an excellent option rules wise. Considering it's a saurus, it would most likely be able to have armour - and thus a T5 3+ (or better, with magic items) magic caster. With probably reasonable combat stats. In other words, not that dissimilar to the Ogre Slaughtermaster now. It would also leave you with enough points to take an oldblood - for example, a roadblock oldblood with crown of command.

If that option was around, I can't really see why you'd take a skink priest instead. A bit cheaper, but lower LD and a lot easier to kill.

Apart from the aforementioned horrendous and unforgivable fluff abuse.

Frankly
26-04-2012, 19:58
Slann all the way, rules-wise he eats up other spell casters. Fluff wise he's awesome.

I purely play Southlands and even I don't want to see lvl4 skink priests, its just not how the LM magic phase works.

Clockwork
26-04-2012, 22:29
Slann, purely because he can double as BSB and make Temple Guard ItP and Stubborn. I'd take him just for those things, regardless of his magical capability.

Spiney Norman
26-04-2012, 22:57
I wouldn't take a Saurus shaman because that's as unfluffy as hell
I wouldn't take a skink shaman because following the trend of the last couple of editions I'd be lumbered with the lore of heavens, plus he'd be really hard to keep safe.

In addition the Slann is the coolest wizard model in the entire game, I'd likely bring one however much he cost. Heck I used to field a Slann in 6th ed when they were distinctly overpriced, and all of a sudden 8th ed hits their the new OPd character ofthe moment (Teclis excluded) and I get criticised for being WAAC.

Screw you guys, I like my frog!:angel:

Duke Ramulots
28-04-2012, 00:12
I would never actually do it, as it's a horrible affront to fluff, but a Saurus Shaman would probably be an excellent option rules wise. Considering it's a saurus, it would most likely be able to have armour - and thus a T5 3+ (or better, with magic items) magic caster. With probably reasonable combat stats. In other words, not that dissimilar to the Ogre Slaughtermaster now. It would also leave you with enough points to take an oldblood - for example, a roadblock oldblood with crown of command.

If that option was around, I can't really see why you'd take a skink priest instead. A bit cheaper, but lower LD and a lot easier to kill.

Apart from the aforementioned horrendous and unforgivable fluff abuse.

Pretty much this 100 times.

It would offend me but would be the most competetive choice.

Adohi-Tehe
28-04-2012, 05:02
A pimped out slann because I enjoy the model and fluff, and I think they're simply cool.

I second that senitment. In terms of rules though, the thing I have always liked about the Slann, especially in this edition, is the ability to have a reliable magic phase no matter how poorly the roll for the Winds of Magic goes, as one can effectively double their power dice on low rolls using Focused Rumination.

Malorian
01-05-2012, 21:24
Wow, I didn't expect these results...

N810
02-05-2012, 20:54
Frankly I would like a level 3 caster option.
be it a SC Skink or a rather unfluffy Saurus.
and a lore that isn't heavens would be nice

Tarliyn
03-05-2012, 01:05
I think there is plenty of room in the fluff for lvl 4 skink lords, and if they were introduced they would hve to have access to more lores, keeping hero level skinks to heavens is fine but inorder for a lord level skink to be taken I would wanna see a bit more versatility. I would never take a general saurus shaman due to the complete change to the saurus fluff it would require. A special character saurus shaman would be okay, it would represent him as a unique occurance in the warhammer world not an everyday thing the spawning pools are puking out.

Slanns are pretty central to the image of lizardmen magic though, but as said a lvl 4 generic skink lord could be pretty cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moss
04-05-2012, 06:40
Slann, purely because he can double as BSB and make Temple Guard ItP and Stubborn. I'd take him just for those things, regardless of his magical capability.

This. It gives me a center around which to build my army.

Hali
05-05-2012, 03:31
To be honest I've used a saurus caster before with very good effect so I'd have to stick with that. An Old Blood with Wizarding Hat, Halberd, Light Armor and a Cold One is only 293 points and did really really well in a small escalation league, no ward but a 1+ save and toughness 5, the game he rolled up Savage Beast and Wildform was especially effective. I think making him level 4 would be over the top though and I don't think a saurus should have full lore access but a lord choice level two shaman with access to beasts, light and life would be lots of fun. Or what if scar vets and old bloods could buy innate bound buff spells like warrior priests? Imagine letting his unit reroll wounds on a 4+... :)