Ok i like the skeles, but do i give them spears or sword and board? Id like to know what everybody thunks of either.

Sword and board. You actually gain some slight durability.

Spears give you another rank of Str3 attacks. Whoop de frickin do! Assuming horde formation, that gains you 2.5 wounds against T3(not common) with no save modification.

Better to have a 6+ ward that everyone benifits from then cause maybe one more wound. Skeletons arn't a combat block. They are supposed to hold the enemy till a heavy hitter can flank them.

Only take spears if you're also running a mortis engine.
Not much point in having a 6+ parry when they get a 6+ regen.
I'd say that spear are exactly worth the nothing you pay for them.

-Matt

Spear hordes. They have potential to deal more wounds. Id rather kill what im fighting and move on than get stuck in multiple rounds of combat. It also depends on your use of magic. I only use IoN so i dont really care about durability

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Spear hordes. They have potential to deal more wounds. Id rather kill what im fighting and move on than get stuck in multiple rounds of combat. It also depends on your use of magic. I only use IoN so i dont really care about durability

Sorry but you have no idea how to use skeletons. They are not a combat block and shouldn't ever be used as one. At most they are a tarpit that can take one or two enemies with them per turn. If you want to run them 10 wide, 4 deep, give them spears and try to get danse and vigor off on them any turn they are in combat you might have a chance of winning, but that's a huge investment for a sub par block that will require a lot of your power dice to work (assuming you even get the spells off). As for IoN and durability, two different things, they are more durable with shields. That is a fact. IoN will raise skellies back, trying to run them as a combat unit will mean you need to raise a lot though, the parry saves will save you 1 or 2 every turn which is 2 or 4 less you need to raise.

The only reason to run skellies with spears is if you know they'll be getting the mortis engines regen save.

Easy guy its just a game. I disagree with you. I feel all units with a weapon in hand are combat units. Sorry but i think you are using the wrong unit for tarpitting. Zombies are far more effective for tarpitting. I feel you are stuck in 7ed. What if you could make skeles better at killing things aka causing more wounds why not? Skekes are 5 pts and you want them to survive when theres the potential to cause more wounds on higher point models? They are there to be sacraficed and raised. You dont know how to use skeletons in 8th pal


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dude who cares about 1-2 skekes when you can deal more wounds?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skeles are going to lose combat. Why not try and profit from there death

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Easy guy its just a game. I disagree with you. I feel all units with a weapon in hand are combat units. Sorry but i think you are using the wrong unit for tarpitting. Zombies are far more effective for tarpitting. I feel you are stuck in 5ed. What if you could make skeles better at killing things aka causing more wounds why not? Skekes are 5 pts and you want them to survive when theres the potential to cause more wounds on higher point models? They are there to be sacraficed and raised. You dont know how to use skeletons in 6th pal


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dude who cares about 1-2 skekes when you can deal more wounds?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skeles are going to lose combat. Why not try and profit from there death

I.. um first off 5ed and 6th..

As to "why not?": They are 5 points, they are more expensive than a zombie because you're paying for armour and a shield. Most times that armour is worthless but a parry save isn't. They are stil WS2 S3 T3 I2 A1. They are a more durable but smaller tarpit than zombies, using them as a combat block is not cost effective. You can get a ghoul that's WS3 S3 T4 I3 A2 and poison for 10 points, and I know I'd rather 20 ghouls to 40 skellies if I were trying to do damage to something.

I fixed my typo sorry. This post is about skeles not ghouls. Thats a completely diff post.

If you are running a Corpse Cart mounted Necromancer behind your lines, it's actually not hard at all to get Vigour Mortis off and affecting those Spear skellies. It's not actualy any investment - it's just casting Invocation of Nehek, which you probably would be doing anyway.

What im trying to say is if youre going to use them as a tarpit why not a tarpit that has more attacks and thus higher chance of dealing wounds

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
What im trying to say is if youre going to use them as a tarpit why not a tarpit that has more attacks and thus higher chance of dealing wounds

A tarpit is supposed to be as durable as possable. Giving them spears reduces their durability by removing the Parry save.

The 6+ Regen is ok, but it can be negated. better to always have it. Another 5-10 attacks at Str3 are going to do jack squat against most enemies.

I use sword and board skele's for the reasons already mentioned.

Because, in my experience, it is more useful to do 1 wound and take 5 than to do 2 wounds and take 7.

Not looking at big picture. 2 wounds is worth it when you raise with IoN. IoN makes then more durable. We are arguing over 2-7 skekes? In a vacuum spears are not as good as swords but with comboed with IoN it seems better. Ive playtested sword and board and would always lose. When i play with spears i wouldnt lose by as much.

I'd rather be focusing my IoNs on my grave guard though.
It sounds like you are throwing too many resources at them to do a take they aren't suited for. Yes with lots of IoNs focused on them and a corpse cart they can fight, but you're spending 90 points on the corpse cart and using more power dice then you should be on your skellies. You're better off focusing on grave guard or ghouls and making a killy unit more killy rather than trying to push skellies into a killy role.

You are assuming you will be able to get Invocation off, its not garunteed.

Plus there is the issue that the enemy can often kill them faster then you can raise them. So having something to reduce the casualities is always a good thing.

Ion is not focused it affects around wizard. It can hit GG too

I like skellies, always use sword and board. I guess if you used fire or metal and god a pile of buffs.... skellies still wouldn't kill much.

Besides, spears break easier. dumb thin plastic shafts

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd rather be focusing my IoNs on my grave guard though.

It's a bubble effect. Just try to have both units within range.

Yes, it is a bubble, but I'd never position to keep the wizards in range of the skellies rather than the grave guard if I had to choose. As soon as they aren't within 6" of your main caster they begin folding, parry saves slows that a little though.

You can adjust IoN to 18in. So the bottom line is do you wanna preserve your skelles or kill the enemy.

But casting value goes up to 18 as well, it's a lot less reliable.

I want to preserve the skellies because a VC army should be killing things with grave guard, ghouls, black knights and other specials, rares and characters, not skellies or zombies.

Holy crap why not try to make skeles more killy?

Because you have to try.

Grave guard, ghouls or black knights are already killy.

Spears are free. If your opp is going to dispell IoN lettm. I see theres no reasoning with you on this

You can try to make Skeletons more killy, however the best you can do is make them on par with other average units. Which is a waste.

You need to make skeletons more durable so they can hold the enemy while your real killy units do the killing.

You need to use zombies then

I've seen a unit of 70 zombies get wiped out in 1 round of combat, sometimes you just need something with an armour save and a parry.

Yup, Zombies can go down fast. Even a 100 zombies can go down quickly with the right unit attacking them.

Skeletons have a small amount of durability for only a little bit more then the zombies.

You need to kill the enemy screw durability

Guess what Zombies and Skeletons can't do?

Check this link out. Its crude but math is pretty solid
http://www.vampirecounts.net/Thread-Skeletons-With-Spears-Worth-It?page=4

Against Halberdiers, who are NOT a good representation of the average unit you may expect to face with your skeletons.

Most T3 enemies you face will have at least a 5+ armor save.

And then you will find that T4 opponents are just as common as, if not more then, T3. Plus they tend to come with either good armor, good fighting strength, or both.

Well lets see your statistic buddy? Enemy Toughness nor armour save matters the numbers of wounds caused by skelles would just be lower but still spears out perform swords period.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And then you will find that T4 opponents are just as common as, if not more then, T3. Plus they tend to come with either good armor, good fighting strength, or both.

That's a tad unfair of a statement, as it depends entirely on your opponents. I know of mine, I won't face much above T3 in rank and file.

Ok, Chaos Warriors with MoT and Shield.

20 against the 60 previously mentioned.


First round.


Warriors go first with 20 attacks. hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, allowing 6+ armor. 20(2/3)(2/3)(5/6)=7 dead skeletons

53 skeletons hit back. 41 attacks, hitting on 5s, wounding on 5s, allowing a 3+ armor and 5+ parry. 41(1/3)(1/3)(1/3)(2/3)=1 dead warrior

6 skeletons die from crumble. leaving 19 warriors against 46 skeletons


2nd round

Warriors. 20(2/3)(2/3)(5/6)=7 dead skeletons

39 skeletons hit back. 40(1/3)(1/3)(1/3)(2/3)=.98 dead warriors

6 more skeletons die to crumble. leaving 18 warriors vs 33 skeletons


3rd round.

Warriors. 20(2/3)(2/3)(5/6)=7 dead skeletons

26 skeletons hit back. 27(1/3)(1/3)(1/3)(2/3)=.6667 dead warriors

We will generously round up to one dead warrior.

Again, 6 more skeletons crumble. leaving 17 warriors vs 20 skeletons.


4th round.

warriors. 20(2/3)(2/3)(5/6)=7 dead skeletons

13 skeletons hit back. 14(1/3)(1/3)(1/3)(2/3)=.345 dead warriors.

rounding down to no dead warriors.

Warriors have 2 ranks on the Skeletons, so another 9 die.

Leaving 4 skeletons vs 17 warriors.


5th round, warriors cut the skeletons down before they swing.




Now with Shields on the Skeletons.


Round 1

Warriors. 20(2/3)(2/3)(5/6)(5/6)=6 dead skeletons

54 skeletons hit back. 31 attacks(1/3)(1/3)(1/3)(2/3)= .75 dead warriors rounding to 1

5 skeletons die from crumble. leaving 49 skeletons vs 19 warriors.

By giving your skeletons shields, you basically reduce the casualities you take each round by 2.

You reduce the casualities you inflict on the enemy by 25%, gaining a 10% increase in durability.

Basically you make your skeletons survive one additional round of combat.


Now this may not seem like much, but one more round will probably the end of the game. And remember you get no points for units that are still alive.

Your unit of skeletons has basically held up a unit of Chaos warriors the entire game and given up no points. Its called point denial.

Preventing your opponent from getting points is just as valuable as killing him. Plus your spears can't kill him very well anyway, and they lose the spear bonus fast. The parry bonus stays with them to the last man.

There is one reason why I might give my skeletons spears instead of sword and board, and that's when you are filling up your front rank with characters, specifically Wraiths and the Vampire Lord. Then, it doens't matter that you get the parry save, your skeletons aren't really getting attacked. ANd you'll have that one extra rank of guys to maybe, just maybe, cause an extra wound.

And spears look better.

Dude the math is so wrong. Ur giving chaos 20 attacks every time. Please submit another


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ur comparing 4 rounds of 20 chaos attacks eventhough the skelles are killing 1 per round and only showing the first round of swords. Lets compare first round to first round then. Spears out perform swords by 25%

If you run the skellies 5 wide, as you should when going tarpit, you get 6 chaos warriors in base to base. That's 6x2 attacks right there, plus 6 more from the second rank and 1 more fro the unit champ.
6+6+6+1=19

And casualties on the warriors side doesn't affect number of attacks until they are reduced to 11 strong.

Right, sorry. They should only have 15 I'm tired.

I'll correct the math tomorrow.

The skeletons will not be able to reduce the Warriors attacks ever. They would need to reduce the warriors to below 10 models. And at the rate they kill them, it would require 10+ rounds of combat.

Dont bother i did the math. They survive longer however they dont kill as many as spears do. Either way the skeles with spears out perform those with swords


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What do you mean? They reduce the attacks by 1 every turn if in horde.

No one will run 20 warriors in a horde though. There is LITERALLY no point. They'd be run 5 wide - 7 wide, meaning 16 or 19 attacks (assuming a unit champ.

There is no point to the spears killing more of the Warriors, the difference isn't enough to make it worthwhile. A unit of Blackknights in the flank will earn you the points on the warriors. So make sure the Skeletons can survive as long as possable, so potentially you get multiple units out of the one two combo.

If your warriors get MoT then i get IoN every turn

Say what?

Warriors can garuntee MoT, Invocation can be shut down by the enemy and you might not have enough Power Dice.

Sorry, Warriors get MoT, no Invocation for you. Unless the Warriors also get a spell or something. Lets say a buff from a Warshrine. So either +1T, +1Str, or +1 armor. Take your pick.

Jono im only going off what hes provided. He wrote 20 attacks i assume 20 warriors ergo horde. But i agree with you.
Grey Your assuming you wont be able to flank until 5 turn? A stationary unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No way grey Thats a "may"ability. This is base core vs base core. They dont get any extra buff unless i get to do IoN. MoT is constant so should IoN if all things being equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even if IoN gets off a couple of times the spears would still out perform and stick around


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IoN only needs 1 di to cast

A tzeench lvl4 will stop IoN if he wants to though. You can counter that by throwing everything you have at it but if you do you're sacrificing your whole magic phase to try and beat him.

Warriors can guarantee their mark every turn, there is no way you can stop it.

Warriors have a 4+ save. Champs get the 3+ cuz they hav chaos armour, the warriors only have 4+. We got some serious math to do. Lets crunch some #s

Yeah, it only needs one dice. And thats a 1/3 chance of the wizard losing concentration. Plus your opponent can simply counter dispel it. There are lots of variables with it. Not so with MoT.

And no, I don't assume you won't be able to flank till turn 5. I never said anything like that. You should be flanking either immediatly or at least the turn after the skeletons engage.


MoT is something the warriors can buy, IoN is not. You can't have it unless the warriors also get something that is equally random.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Warriors have a 4+ save. Champs get the 3+ cuz they hav chaos armour, the warriors only have 4+. We got some serious math to do. Lets crunch some #s

Chaos Armor gives you a 4+

Shield makes it 3+

Jono his math is wrong and thats not fair . marks are considered buffs anyway and even if its guaranteed it shouldnt be allowed in this comparioson. What if he was garanteed d6 str9 hits on undead for each hit? See what i mean. Let spears vs basic warrior no marks with a 4+ save and parry save for a representative sample of heavily armoured sword and shield foes. I will do some math


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey i do not have current chaos codex my bad

Are you sure you have the current Chaos book?

Yea no i do not. Shoot sorry man. Lemme do ur numbers again


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So its seriously 20 attack for 2 ranks?

If skeletons are running 5 wide you can place them 6 wide to get 19 attacks from the front 2 ranks. If the skeletons are running 10 wide you can place them 10 wide for 31 attacks.

Well i did the math for heavily armoured foes with parry and the 60 skeles with spears in rank and file and they lasted 5 turns. Which is a stsndard game. I took out one of there ranks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess its all about how you form them up. I like jonos 31 thats like 2 warriors (4+) per turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like they still out perform sword and shield but not by much


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey jono, i just read that 70 zombie massacre post. One thing what ever they went up against i dont think a parry save our crappy armour save would have helped much.

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Yea no i do not. Shoot sorry man. Lemme do ur numbers again


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So its seriously 20 attack for 2 ranks?

No, somehow I got the MoK effect mixed in there.

At 6 wide, warriors with a champion get 19 attacks. They have 2 attacks base, champs have 3. so 13 plus 6 supporting attacks. All at WS5 I5.

I think im playing the wrong army. Its like fighting a unit of VC heroes

Yea WoC have nasty core but I rather piss poor core then a lord that does 8 attacks at S5, rerolls to hit, WS6, I8, red fury and carries a strength potion

Also bty, a unit of vampire heroes could get a max of 42 S5 attacks at WS6 I6 against a unit on 20mm bases that are 5 wide.

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
I think im playing the wrong army. Its like fighting a unit of VC heroes

Don't worry, WoC players are just as envious of our Vampire Lords.

Thing to remember about this match up is that 6 wide warriors mean that the outside warriors are corner to corner.
If the skeletons stick the unit champ in the corner, then 3 warriors are forced to swing on only the champ.
Likewise, the skeletons chance at killing anything is so low, that they might as well dump as many attacks as they can (6 to 10 attacks) on the chaos unit champ each turn.

It's most likely best to assume that neither side has a champ, as it makes the numbers pretty wonky.
The comparison of 18 warriors vs equal points of skeletons (~60 skeletons) isn't all that useful.
Neither side is likely to kill the other quickly enough to matter, without support of other units. Anything chaos can throw into the flank will most likely mean the death of the skeletons.
Where as a single scream from a terrorghiest will hose the warriors.

What's more important is if the spear is going to matter against softer opponents? If not, take handweapon.

-Matt

Meh, all that really does is mean 3 warrior attacks are forced to kill the Skeleton Champ. Which isn't bad since thats about as many attacks it takes to do it anyway so you really don't lose anything, but you do reduce the skeletons attacks by one before they swing.

Only 2 warriors get stuck attacking the Champ being corner to corner. The Warriors are on larger bases so the warrior just inside the edge should be able to attack the unit just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Where as a single scream from a terrorghiest will hose the warriors.

Really?

Warriors are Ld8, the average roll on 3D6 is 10. So 2 wounds a round on average. Not exactly jaw droppingly effective.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really?

Warriors are Ld8, the average roll on 3D6 is 10. So 2 wounds a round on average. Not exactly jaw droppingly effective.

Plus the 6 wounds of the Terrorgheist. I think. Isn't it 2D6 + remaining wounds?

Ahhh right, its different from the Banshee's scream.

IIRC even the Banshees scream is 2D6 + remaining wounds (so 2) now. I think, it's been a while since I read the scream rules.

I wish. Terrorgheist has that attack. Banshees just 2d6+2. Funny tho banshee does have 2 wounds.

 Grey Templar wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Where as a single scream from a terrorghiest will hose the warriors.

Really?

Warriors are Ld8, the average roll on 3D6 is 10. So 2 wounds a round on average. Not exactly jaw droppingly effective.

And average roll on 2D6+6 is 13, killing 5 warriors. That's a whole point of combat res, almost 2 points of combat res (loss of ranks).
If I'm running the Terrors, I'll have a -1 LD vampire stuck in the army too.

-Matt

Terrorghiests are (2d6+#of wounds) - target's leadership. Terrorghiests start at 6 wounds. Average roll is 7 so 13 subtracting your ld 8 and your down by 5 wounds.

I just cant pass those guys up. Give all ur vamps Aura DM with 2 of those things flyin around looks good to me

 Grey Templar wrote:
Against Halberdiers, who are NOT a good representation of the average unit you may expect to face with your skeletons.

Most T3 enemies you face will have at least a 5+ armor save.

And then you will find that T4 opponents are just as common as, if not more then, T3. Plus they tend to come with either good armor, good fighting strength, or both.

Hmm, dunno about that. Empire uses Halberdiers a lot. My group has Skaven, Empire, Brets, HE, DE, TK, Vampires and a single Dwarf player, so the vast majority is T3 (with a couple T5-T8 monsters).

I agree with you that shields are usually the better option. I understand the other side insofar that causing wounds is good and if it works, it works, but Skellies aren't my first choice for this role.

I use a horde of 60 spears. They have done better for me than S/S (not by much) Combat res is lil better, they kill lil more and they look cool (imo) they still have shields just not in combat. Also if opp fail fear test with 2 vamps with AoDM its pretty devastating. I have an affinity for using combat vamps over magic. When we lost those 2 power dice with master of the arts, i gave up trying to control the magic phase. Now i just keep casting IoN or macabre (book of A). With multiple characters and channeling im usually successful. Although when my opp realizes thats all i do, they start dispelling my IoN

They have shields in combat, just no parry save, it adds to their armour still...

Oh wow i thought i read some where they drop there shields in combat and grab spear with both hands. I need to read the rulebook again lol

Spears are one handed.

Thanks jap, i reread the weapons section they do not require two hands in combat, the halberd does but not spear. Interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks grey

Aura of dark majesty doesn't stack with itself. You only ever knock the leadership down by -1 regardless of how many AoDM vamps there are around.

Well i guess when it says "this penlty is cumulative with any other modifiers". I interpersted wrong. I see what you mean.

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Well i guess when it says "this penlty is cumulative with any other modifiers". I interpersted wrong. I see what you mean.

Yeah, it would be the other part where they say an enemy unit within 6" of one or more vampires with aura get -1 Ld.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Well i guess when it says "this penlty is cumulative with any other modifiers". I interpersted wrong. I see what you mean.

Yeah, it would be the other part where they say an enemy unit within 6" of one or more vampires with aura get -1 Ld.

-Matt

This^

If it didn't have that little snip they would stack.

Stupid snips

It's an effective enough tactic without driving Vampires further into the Herohammer problem once again.

Now, at risk of opening all this up again:

- first, this is gonna bug me: comparing Skeletons to Warriors with the Mark of Tzeentch is more than fair. Marks are upgrades, like weapons and command. If the Warriors couldn't pick a Mark, then Skeletons couldn't pick spears. The skeletons would just get 4 more models.
I'll admit though, a flat price to give every model in a unit an upgrade is a weird, sort of outdated concept in these days of 50 Marauders with great weapons.

- tar pit units need to hold the enemy down. As the game progresses, units tend to decrease in size. If your tar pit is durable enough (from its size, armour/T, or both), it can fulfill its roll multiple times.

- with that said, you can never win by purely outlasting your opponent. Causing more wounds, in a general sense, is always going to be better than preventing that same number, because killing the enemy both makes progress to your objective of claiming victory points and preventing that model from attacking again.

Either way, the difference between a few extra S3 attacks and a 6+ save is incredibly minor.
For a while, I thought about running units of Clanrats and Night Goblins with spears instead of hand weapons, since the amount of time they'd last in combat would be so minutely less as to not worry about it, while an extra casualty or three has been the difference between a dead unit and a live one at the end of enough games as to be a concern.

I didn't go with spears, though. For three reasons:

1. They're more expensive on those models. The spear is, at its best, as good as the hand weapon/shield, not better. Not even at +.5pts/model. A unit like Skeletons has a much better reason for taking them.

2. An extra rank of attacks is comparable to a 6+ Ward (they're both usually bad). But those extra attacks aren't there when you charge or when you drop down to two ranks. Not that the second problem matters much (with 10 or less Goblins/Skaven, you're done anyway), but the big one is that a S3 attack has varying use. A 6+ Parry will perform exactly the same against every opponent, period.

3. I gave my goblins shortbows instead. They don't have any save at all now, but they're much more useful now, picking off small units (like the ones that want to release all my Fanatics. Or one of my Fanatics itself, if it looks like it's about to bounce through half of my battleline).

So, all in all, I'd have to say: it really doesn't matter.

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
I use a horde of 60 spears. They have done better for me than S/S (not by much)

Well, that's great! Never change a successful team because some anonymous on the interweb says it shouldn't work on paper, never. You use what works for you, and that's all there is to say.

Warpsolution wrote:

2. An extra rank of attacks is comparable to a 6+ Ward (they're both usually bad). But those extra attacks aren't there when you charge or when you drop down to two ranks. Not that the second problem matters much (with 10 or less Goblins/Skaven, you're done anyway), but the big one is that a S3 attack has varying use. A 6+ Parry will perform exactly the same against every opponent, period.

This one isn't quite true. The effects of spears are indeed situational - and so is the benefit of a parry save. You don't get it when flanked or rear-charged for example, you don't get it against impact hits or thunderstomps and so on.

Well, sure, but both Parry and Fight in Extra Ranks cease to apply via non-frontal charges, and against anything that has Impact Hits or some form of Stomp, the usefulness of spears will almost certainly diminish as well.

They're both conditional, but spears are more so.

Honestly, after having read this whole thread, I kinda feel like the debate has been misguided. It isn't really about the difference in combat resolution between the spears and the parry saves; it's about what the unit should be doing, is designed to do, and what it's best at.

Basically, trying to make a unit capable of doing damage when it has trouble doing so is a waste of points. You only get victory points for enemy units that are completely destroyed, so if skeletons with spears are usually incapable of reaching this goal then, more often than not, having more durable skeletons and using them as a tarpit is a better way to use the unit that you spent points on. Their ability in the points-denial field with parry saves outshines their ability in the victory points-acquisition field with spears. Warp's point about spears being conditionally good more often than parry saves is spot-on.

What it comes down to is this: if, when equipped with spears, their success rate in acquiring victory points is less than their success rate in points denial when equipped with parry saves, then they shouldn't ever be equipped with spears if you're trying to play to the stats. Do you want your unit to succeed at the task that you've given it 40% of the time, or 70%? Or whatever it happens to be. This is where the math hammer comes in, I guess... but it's fairly obvious to me when I read the army book that skeletons can't kill worth a damn no matter what you give them.

This is, of course, ignoring the obvious point of why you'd want to try to force a weak unit into a killy role when the army book is already saturated with other killy stuff that's not only better at killing but also designed to be so.

While I do agree that a discussion about which unit of skeletons are better all by their lonesome, I still think there's a case against you, however minor it may be. Let me break this down:

The point of an anvil is to hold down a unit.

The point of holding down a unit is to hit it with a hammer.

The point of hitting a unit with a hammer is to kill the unit.

So if your tar pit helps out a little towards the ultimate goal, so what?
Skeletons lose a tiny little bit of durability when they don't have a Parry save. They gain a tiny little bit of offensive power from having spears.

Sometimes, those spears will lead to losing your Skeletons one turn earlier.
Sometimes, a unit will end the game with 3 more models than if your skeletons had spears.

Now, to be fair, I'm not considering a point-denial tactic in any of this, but I'm also not considering the defensive benefit of +1 dead enemy, so I'd say it's pretty even.

Honestly, it's such a tiny, tiny difference.
Shieldetons are the go-to, but I could see the benefit of having Spearetons; one of your killy units gets nuked, and you have a unit that (with some work) might be able to help the other units make up for it.

In closing: skeletons are going to be an Anvil no matter what. The difference between spears and shields is going to come down to a difference of one phase, when there's a noticeable difference at all.

Shields are better, though, when you have to pay extra for spears. No doubt.

1) again not forcing them to be killy. Spears are free. Im allowing them to be more effective in combat.
2) math shows that even on avg against crazy powerful 20 WoC w MoT, 60 spears kill more and tarpit as good as shields (aka 5 turns). Unfortunately greys math was a lil off. If youre playing till the last man then i would use S/S
3) skeles that kill more of enemy help designer killies.

Skeles with spears took out 5 WoC before end of game (5 turns). Needless to say thats 1 less rank the killy units have to deal with before they move on to the next. I know spears are a tad unorthodox and it strays from our comfort zone of defensive units but its a new codex and a new rule book (a brave new world lol). The spears are free so try them out.

But some of that is not correct or, again, seems misguided.

First, if you take spears and the enemy unit ends the game with 3 less models but is NOT completely destroyed, then those 3 models mean nothing - you only get the VPs if you wipe out the entire unit. The same can be said for whether or not skeletons are destroyed, and for many of the reasons already mentioned (parry is good no matter how many skeletons you have left, spears are only good to the first 3 ranks, etc) a parry save is preferred to prevent this. The value of points-denial is greater than the value of killing one more model, since the enemy unit's effectiveness is only diminished when reduced below 10 models (usually). I think the difference is bigger than you're considering, Warp.

Second, I know that spears are free, but that's not what I mean when I say that you're trying to force non-killy units into a killy role. I mean that you're doing other things with your list and tactics to make this whole thing work, when that time and energy would be better spent on tactics that work more often and/or are more effective. For example, magic buffs.

Third, if skeletons with spears kill 5 WoC by turn 5, then I don't know what enemy units your killy unit will move on to once those WoC are dead, considering the game will be over. If a unit of skeletons is in combat, and you have one of your friendly killy units charge into the enemy's flank, you want your skeletons to be more durable because the smart opponent will focus his attacks on the skeleton unit to try to beat you with combat res and make both of your units crumble. If those skeletons have spears, killing one enemy model doesn't prevent an enemy infantry unit from hitting back with the same number of dice (assuming 20 models).

Yes, causing 1 casualty and making 1 parry save has the same effect on overall combat res, but, as previously mentioned, parry saves work to the last man, parry saves work all the time against every enemy model no matter what, and the casualty caused by a spear usually doesn't reduce the number of dice that the enemy unit will be able to put on you (and certainly not in the first round of combat at initiative 2).

I see what you guys are trying to say... but what I'm saying is that even if you're right, and parry saves do the same thing as spears on the micro scale, the problem with your points is that parry saves do that thing more often and in more situations, which makes them more reliable on the macro scale, especially considering the fact that both options cost the same.

A less reliable option with virtually no statistical potential for huge spikes in extra benefit for the same cost equates to a worse option. The exception (all your other killy units die and, using magic or whatever, you can kinda make your skeletons a little more killy in a way that you couldn't do with zombies) only proves the rule.

@Ineedvc2500: spears will cause more casulaties, Parry will result in a longer-lasting unit. Both by tiny amounts, but them's the facts.
Spears are not better than hand weapons and shields, in any way whatsoever. They're just different. If you're going to argue otherwise, I will have to say: your opinion is wrong. And if that is the case, Tangent and I can disregard further remarks and carry on our discussion.

@Tangent: as you say, killing/not dying only matters when your reduce/stay above zero models.
Now, spears lose their effectiveness at 14-11 models, and disappear at 10. That's true, and it's a point in the favor of shields.
But when your unit of Skeletons is reduced to a unit of 15 or less models, a 6+ Parry save won't help them either.

You do bring up one potentially good point, though: combat resolution and crumble.
You're probably not going to get more than 5 spear attacks, but you could end up rolling a lot of Parry saves. Granted, if you get to roll 24 Parry saves, you're screwed anyway.
What really matters here is something like Chaos Warriors; something you'd want to send your killy units into:

Spears are going to need 5's to Hit and Wound, half will save, and then 1/6 to 1/3 of those will save. So, with 5 attacks, that's .18-.23 extra wounds.

Now, let's assume those Warriors smack you for 8-13.3 wounds. With spears, you'd take 6.7-13.3. With shields, you'll take 5.6-11.1

Comparison: spears deal around .2 more wounds, and take 1.1-2.2 more.

So it's like I said before: killing the enemy is better than not dying. But spears have a varying effect, depending on WS, T, armour, and the like. The Parry save performs just as well from 3 S3 attacks as from 17 S7 attacks.

So, Tangent, you are corect. But I will also point out that the difference is still very, very small.
If your killy units don't do well enough to swing the tide, it's bad news all-around. A safer bet would be to delay the enemy, whittle them down, and then--hopefully--wipe them all out in a turn. Sending your Elite units into Skeleton-combat involving an even remotely formidable opponent is dangerous, regardless.

My conclusion remains unchanged: spears will offer you an ever-so-slightly-more valid option when facing low-point troops, while shields give you the most-barely-noticeable edge against tougher, more aggressive opponents.

Spears give you more options against a smaller range of situations, where shields give you less options, but in a much large number of scenarios.

Warpsolution wrote:

They're both conditional, but spears are more so.

Quite so, Warpsolution, I mentioned it more for completeness' sake.

 Tangent wrote:

This is, of course, ignoring the obvious point of why you'd want to try to force a weak unit into a killy role when the army book is already saturated with other killy stuff that's not only better at killing but also designed to be so.

I gather one major reason was looks, which, while not a tactical aspect, is a major one for many people. Also, if the rest of the army is already killy, would it not add to the killiness even more? I mean how cool is that?

Watch out Mike, warp may disregard your post.

@Ineedvc2500 - The main point for you to consider is the following:

No one is debating that spears do more damage. The question is "How much damage can they reliably do?" and the debate is "Is that number high enough to make them worth taking over parry saves?"

The answer to the debate, in my opinion, is no. Spears don't do enough damage to make a difference. In your example, where 5 WoC models are dead at the end of the game, is a bad example because you need to kill the whole unit to get the VPs for it. If your skeleton unit is in combat with those WoC at turn 1, and on the same turn you get a unit of, say, Black Knights into combat on the WoC flank, then your example is self-defeating. If it takes 5 turns for skeletons to kill 5 WoC, then your Black Knights are already statistically long-dead 5 turns later, either from crumble or from WoC attacks or both. And so, skeletons that kill more enemy models do NOT actually help designer killy units, and in some cases HURT those units simply by not being more durable. And "making" them more killy is something that you actively have to do, either by spending power dice that would be better spent elsewhere, or by using tacfics that are sub-par (for instance, keeping your casters or corpse cart or whatever in range of the skeletons to support them when they could be moving in other ways to support other more valuable units).

Mike, I see what you're saying about the looks and I agree that making things more killy is fun. But I actually disagree with your (joke) point that if the rest of the army is already killy, making skeletons more killy adds to the effectiveness of the army as a whole. The reason is that spending the time, points, power dice, or whatever to make skeletons killy has less of a return on the investment (because skeletons are bad) than dedicating those same resources toward making strong units even stronger.

Example - You can use magic to give +1S. Giving +1S to skeletons results in one additional casualty. Giving +1S to Black Knights results in two additional casualties. Clearly, giving +1S to Black Knights is the better option if the cost of doing so is the same no matter what your target is. So, making skeletons killy might add to your overall damage output, but not as much as if you focused your efforts on other, better units. Considering you already paid the points for the ability to give something +1S, choosing skeletons makes your army worse. Further, your tactics should revolve around positioning your units to improve your Black Knights and ignoring your skeletons.

Warp, I agree with your post and especially so with your last two lines. But I guess the point is... in how many situations are spears situationally better, and at what point is the answer to that question such a low number as to make the debate irrelevant? I don't know what that number is, but I think it's sufficiently low to make the question pointless - at this point, we're debating with Ineedvc2500, who, at the start of this, thought that spears were BETTER than parry saves and who clearly doesn't understand the value of point-denial. Ineedvc2500, I'm absolutely not trying to make fun or you or anything - I'm more trying to point out that this debate is really a TACTICAL debate as opposed to a MATH debate.




___

@tan
I understand point denial. What i cant understand is that why you would even bring that up when the spears lasted the whole game. Can you read? You read that they didnt and that parry lasted longer when they both lasted the whole game. Youre assuming that that when flanked by a killy unit more attacks from skelles hurt the black knights (or killy units) because they will focus there attacks on skelles and not on black knights and both will crumble when math/tactics have shown that both will survive the the whole game thus not yeilding any VPs. They dont even need to be flanked either if you just want to hold them up flank or charge a diff unit.
I found both your responses condecending and impolite. If you want to discuss this between urselves then PM each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im willing to compromise and say they both have their uses agreed?

The point I'm trying to make is:

1) Skeletons work best in a point-denial role.
2) Point-denial is "better" (more efficient in a wider array of circumstances) if the skeletons are more durable.
3) Parry saves make skeletons more durable than if they're able to kill a single infantry model each turn.

Therefore, parry saves make skeletons better within the role that they're best at. I understand that, in your example, both units lasted the whole game. However, YOU don't understand that there is a greater number of additional scenarios in which that won't be the case, and THAT'S what I'm arguing (and why I brought up point denial).

If the VC player has a unit of skeletons and a unit of Black Knights in combat with WoC and loses combat because of the casualties that the skeletons are giving up, then the unit of Black Knights will NOT last the entire game even if the skeletons do - they have less models (probably), they crumble at an identical rate, and they don't raise as fast. If you can somehow reduce the number of casualties taken by the skeletons, this impact is reduced. Spears don't do that, because 1 extra casualty won't reduce the number of attacks that the enemy unit makes (and certainly not at initiative 2). Parry saves do. Math has NOT shown that the Black Knights are better-off if the skeletons have spears.

Of course they do! That's no compromise for me.

I would consider taking spears in many cases, if spears are free.
One of the few cases I will hesitate, however, is with Undead, because of the Unstable rule.
That said, I will hesitate to take spears, not refuse to. And that is because there is such a small difference that I think sending an Elite unit into a combat with Skeletons is a bad idea, unless you are as sure as you can be that the combat will end in one round.

And on the topic of point-denial, it's simple: Parry saves help you towards that goal better than spears. The earlier posts depicted the mathematical averages; there's still room for some good and bad rolls. And in that case, Parry saves further your aims, where spears do not.

As far as impolite responses, sir, I'm a little surprised. Even if someone had posted with the intent to offend you, what did you expect to happen after overt verbal attacks and implied profanity? This forum is, as far as the internet goes, a pretty classy joint. That stuff doesn't fly 'round here.

Tan i see your points. I see that both of these comparisons are situational. Its hard to argue a point without sighting specific examples. I use math. Which is a universal truth. Others use conjecture, opinion, exp, and popularity. Its been posted over and over that durability is better yet no one has given any examples other than just that 3 is better than none at turn 6. And assume just because theres a parry that they will last longer. Ive provided statistical evidence to the contrary yet you choose to ignore. Ive run the numbers on greys which were off but once corrected still yielded the same results.
Frankly im tired. Im going to use skeles with spears and you are going to use skeles with swords. I know this.

In conclusion, If we are to sway each other we all need to agree on a representative sample for our skeles to go up against. Ive provided empire halberds, WoC and, S4 T4 4+ generic warriors. All of which, tarpitted, provided no VPs to enemy, lasted the entire game (5 turns), killed more, had higher combat res, and looked cooler doing it. Whether you decide to flank (hammer the unit) depends on the game situation. Im sure there are doubts when swords are involved as well. If you do hammer flank there will be less enemy (not by much) to deal with and higher combat res. your choice. But enough with hypotheticals
If no one will accept emperical data then theres a bigger problem that i can not resolve. (btw Global warming does exist and we all are contributing to it).
Do not lecture me on roles and tactics for they are not shared by all and will dilute the discussion further. I will continue to advocate spears until there is statistical evidence that shows otherwise.

Im sorry warp for my response earlier in the posts. I took yours the wrong way.

my god a guy doesnt go on for a few days and theres a huge debate going on lol well i've got a lot to consider with my skeletons so thanks all

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Tan i see your points. I see that both of these comparisons are situational. Its hard to argue a point without sighting specific examples. I use math. Which is a universal truth. Others use conjecture, opinion, exp, and popularity. Its been posted over and over that durability is better yet no one has given any examples other than just that 3 is better than none at turn 6. And assume just because theres a parry that they will last longer. Ive provided statistical evidence to the contrary yet you choose to ignore. Ive run the numbers on greys which were off but once corrected still yielded the same results.
Frankly im tired. Im going to use skeles with spears and you are going to use skeles with swords. I know this.

In conclusion, If we are to sway each other we all need to agree on a representative sample for our skeles to go up against. Ive provided empire halberds, WoC and, S4 T4 4+ generic warriors. All of which, tarpitted, provided no VPs to enemy, lasted the entire game (5 turns), killed more, had higher combat res, and looked cooler doing it. Whether you decide to flank (hammer the unit) depends on the game situation. Im sure there are doubts when swords are involved as well. If you do hammer flank there will be less enemy (not by much) to deal with and higher combat res. your choice. But enough with hypotheticals
If no one will accept emperical data then theres a bigger problem that i can not resolve. (btw Global warming does exist and we all are contributing to it).
Do not lecture me on roles and tactics for they are not shared by all and will dilute the discussion further. I will continue to advocate spears until there is statistical evidence that shows otherwise.

Im sorry warp for my response earlier in the posts. I took yours the wrong way.

Again, man, it's not a math debate. I agree with your math. You agree with your math. There's no debate that your numbers are correct. Stop acting as though my points are irrelevant because I haven't posted an equation. My point is, essentially, that you're not seeing the bigger picture.

In my previous post, I listed the following:

1) Skeletons work best in a point-denial role.
2) Point-denial is "better" (more efficient in a wider array of circumstances) if the skeletons are more durable.
3) Parry saves make skeletons more durable than if they're able to kill a single infantry model each turn.

Do you disagree with proposition 1?
Do you disagree with proposition 2?
Do you disagree with proposition 3?

If you disagree with prop 1, I can focus my efforts on making points that may convince you of the value of point denial, why skeletons are best suited to this role, and how that suiting affects their value in points cost and on the tabletop during a game.

If you disagree with prop 2, I can present some math-styled arguments.

If you disagree with prop 3, I can present some other math-styled arguments of a different variety.

For your talk about universal truths, you continue to ignore the fact that a chance at less casualties is better for point-denial. You've also, oddly, almost completely avoided addressing the points regarding skeletons being best suited to this role.

@IneedVC2500: it's all good.

@Grimmor: don't consider too hard; we can all agree that the difference is really, really tiny.

@Tangent: your 1-2-3 presentation is elegant and to the point. Well done.

I agree with your points

Thanks, and excellent. Keep in mind, I'm not haranguing your usage of units that are not the "best." I, myself, use units in both fantasy and 40k that are generally considered to be actively bad. It is through discussions like this that everyone (myself included) gains a better understanding of tactics which, ultimately, makes the game more fun (in my opinion).

Indeed

Really, WS2 T3 5+ save, with or without parry really doesn't make a difference.
Skeletons die so fast, parry vs no parry doesn't matter.
If it comes close to mattering, you should have taken more skeletons.


I'd say take what you think looks better.

o.O
In competitive play especially there is a big difference.

In competitive play I think you won't see too many skeletons of either type unless the front rank is full of characters, especially wraiths. In that case it doesn't really matter what the skeletons are armed with.

I've only recenty got back into warhammer after looong gap, and am looking at VC.

Whilst the above discussion was interesting, and I can see both sides - either way seems pretty marginal.

What I am more interested in is why skeletons in the first place?

If you are wanting a tarpit (and that seems the argument for being pro-shields) then are zombies not better?

Sure zombies die faster, but if something can kill 70 zombies in one go then presumably it would have had no issue with 40 skellies for the same points?

Crunching the numbers it appears that in most cases the extra numbers of the zombies cancels out (or more) the extra casualties compared to skeletons. The only place skeletons appear to be better is where you are taking on enemy dross tarpits as well, i.e. WS3 S3 T3 where the skellies armor works to full affect and the extra WS they get makes a difference. At WS 4 or as enemy S goes up, or you face impact/stomp attacks the zombies get better relatively. Against hard hitting enemy units the zombies look more likely to survive that 1 round of combat due to sheer numbers, isn't that what you want tarpits to do?

Add in that zombies don't need a master necro to boost them beyond start size, and get twice as many models per IoN and they look better, if there is a mortis engine near by they gain from Regen where as shield skellies don't. A lodestone cart can make that reroll more useful (cos you roll 2D6). OK non of those are truely certain, but they all add to extra survivability which skellies don't share to the same degree (ok, spear ones gain regen the same).

puree wrote:
I've only recenty got back into warhammer after looong gap, and am looking at VC.

Whilst the above discussion was interesting, and I can see both sides - either way seems pretty marginal.

What I am more interested in is why skeletons in the first place?

If you are wanting a tarpit (and that seems the argument for being pro-shields) then are zombies not better?

Sure zombies die faster, but if something can kill 70 zombies in one go then presumably it would have had no issue with 40 skellies for the same points?

Crunching the numbers it appears that in most cases the extra numbers of the zombies cancels out (or more) the extra casualties compared to skeletons. The only place skeletons appear to be better is where you are taking on enemy dross tarpits as well, i.e. WS3 S3 T3 where the skellies armor works to full affect and the extra WS they get makes a difference. At WS 4 or as enemy S goes up, or you face impact/stomp attacks the zombies get better relatively. Against hard hitting enemy units the zombies look more likely to survive that 1 round of combat due to sheer numbers, isn't that what you want tarpits to do?

Add in that zombies don't need a master necro to boost them beyond start size, and get twice as many models per IoN and they look better, if there is a mortis engine near by they gain from Regen where as shield skellies don't. A lodestone cart can make that reroll more useful (cos you roll 2D6). OK non of those are truely certain, but they all add to extra survivability which skellies don't share to the same degree (ok, spear ones gain regen the same).

Screaming banner.
Both will get chewed up by anything remotely killy but against units that are only marginally better the screaming banner can by you (a least) an extra turn in combat for every failed fear check.

Case in point; I was at a tourney yesterday and a failed fear check mean I beat and overrun a unit of clanrats.

Screaming Banner is one (good) reason. You can't make the Fear Bomb with zombies.

Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

Another is that, believe it or not, some people don't like the look of GW zombies. I do, but some don't.

Another is ease of painting. In my opinion, skeletons are both faster and easier to paint than zombies, and on top of that, you have to paint a LOT more zombies if you're going to use them over skeletons.

And just so you know, it's hand weapon skeletons that get parry saves, not shield skeletons. All skeletons have shields as spears are one-handed weapons.

Also, you don't need a Master Necro to get Master of the Dead - you can buy that for a regular hero-level Necromancer.

 Tangent wrote:
Screaming Banner is one (good) reason. You can't make the Fear Bomb with zombies.

Aye that seems reasonable, Haven't got into the stuff deep enough yet to look at all the magic item effects etc.

Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

OK. Though I would have thought the best place for a hero type was more likely a hammer unit, rather than a tarpit unit.

Another is that, believe it or not, some people don't like the look of GW zombies. I do, but some don't.

Another is ease of painting. In my opinion, skeletons are both faster and easier to paint than zombies, and on top of that, you have to paint a LOT more zombies if you're going to use them over skeletons.

I realised aethestics/painting will always be a reason, I often make such choices in games as well, but the thread was more about what is best in game.

And just so you know, it's hand weapon skeletons that get parry saves, not shield skeletons. All skeletons have shields as spears are one-handed weapons.

Also, you don't need a Master Necro to get Master of the Dead - you can buy that for a regular hero-level Necromancer.

Yup - I knew both of those, just sloppy wording by me.

puree wrote:
Aye that seems reasonable, Haven't got into the stuff deep enough yet to look at all the magic item effects etc.

Actually, I guess you COULD do the Fear Bomb with zombies. You'd have to make a hero Vamp into your BSB and then give him the Screaming Banner and the right powers, then dump him into the zombies. Though, I guess the reason people don't do it is because that makes that Vampire really expensive, and he's all but guaranteed to die in a unit of zombies with no points for combat powers and half his magic item allowance (which would go towards weapons or armor) sunk into the banner.

puree wrote:
OK. Though I would have thought the best place for a hero type was more likely a hammer unit, rather than a tarpit unit.

Meh, it kinda depends. If your hero-type is a rank-and-file-eating machine, then you could do worse than putting him in a tarpit especially if you have a hard time getting the right match-up. You also might not have any place else to put him if you're not running other units in which he would fit. IE, your hammer units are all chariots or monsters or whatever. And just about the only way to make the Fear Bomb complete is with a hero Vampire, who most conveniently fits in the same unit as the Screaming Banner.

Yea i attempted to argue that zombies were better at tarpitting but i felt it was a tad off topic.

I like zombies for tarpitting, too.

 Tangent wrote:


Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

I can't really think of a situation where you would be in danger of losing your vampire lord to an enemy challange. Not many things can stand up to a tooled out Vampire.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tangent wrote:


Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

I can't really think of a situation where you would be in danger of losing your vampire lord to an enemy challange. Not many things can stand up to a tooled out Vampire.

I agree there aren't many times you'd be worried about him dying. Though there are still times where being sucked into the challenge could severely cost you. Unkillable Dreadlord, HE wizard with ethereal magic weapon denial combo etc.

It's not that the Vampire is worried about losing the challenge, it's that the Vampire would prefer to kill as many rank-and-file as possible and being in a challenge would prevent that. My Vamp Lord with an Ogre Blade, Red Fury, and Quickblood averages 8-9 wounds per round against rank-and-file. If he's forced to fight a 1 would champion in a challenge, the most he can contribute to combat res is 6.

 Tangent wrote:
It's not that the Vampire is worried about losing the challenge, it's that the Vampire would prefer to kill as many rank-and-file as possible and being in a challenge would prevent that. My Vamp Lord with an Ogre Blade, Red Fury, and Quickblood averages 8-9 wounds per round against rank-and-file. If he's forced to fight a 1 would champion in a challenge, the most he can contribute to combat res is 6.

And it isn't the loss of 2-3 wounds for combat res, it's that you didn't take out another rank to break steadfast quicker.

-Matt

Right-o!

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Spear hordes. They have potential to deal more wounds. Id rather kill what im fighting and move on than get stuck in multiple rounds of combat. It also depends on your use of magic. I only use IoN so i dont really care about durability

Sorry but you have no idea how to use skeletons. They are not a combat block and shouldn't ever be used as one. At most they are a tarpit that can take one or two enemies with them per turn. If you want to run them 10 wide, 4 deep, give them spears and try to get danse and vigor off on them any turn they are in combat you might have a chance of winning, but that's a huge investment for a sub par block that will require a lot of your power dice to work (assuming you even get the spells off). As for IoN and durability, two different things, they are more durable with shields. That is a fact. IoN will raise skellies back, trying to run them as a combat unit will mean you need to raise a lot though, the parry saves will save you 1 or 2 every turn which is 2 or 4 less you need to raise.

The only reason to run skellies with spears is if you know they'll be getting the mortis engines regen save.

I totally agree with this, to use skelies effectively they need to be tarpitts. They are to weak and expensive to take in a horde formation with spears. Use them wisely and a skeleton unit can be a graveyard for your opponent to charge into.

If your intent is to make sure the Skeletons get charged, I think spears are good. In all other situations, I would think hand weapon and shield is better.

Well I would say that if you are willing to risk your skeletons as a tarpitt then there is no point in splashing out on upgrades that won't really help or be cost effective. Tarpits aren't there to kill things they are there to hold them up...

Im not trying to stir things up again but a tarpit that has a slight advantage in combat is worth exploring. I argued effectiveness while my opps argued durability which was informative however math wasnt winning anyone over. I play differently than they do. When IoN went bubble and we got a new combat lord i chose a different style. I found through play testing that the skeles with spears were lasting the whole game, killing more per game, denying VPs, and tarpitting. Yet our discussion hinged on 3 skeles vs no skeles in close combat with 20 marked WoC on turn 5 with no magic. the math was wrong and once it was recalculated again the skeles with spears lasted the whole game, killing more, tarpitting, and denying VPs. I gave up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regardless there are times in battle i wished i had parry but there are times i wished i had spears too. Theres are hypotheticals that show scenarios were both shine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shine is not appropriate they both suck just sometimes less

I run skele's with spears because of two simple reasons

1.) I love a block of troops with spears in the air
2.) The previous owner plastic glued them that way

However, I kind of would prefer them to be sword and board simply to make them a tarpit unit. I don't expect them to do much with their pokes. Alas, I don't have that option, so vigour mortis and a wall of stab is the path I walk!

Pardon my extreme ignorance, but what's the conflict between shields and spears? It seems to me that since spears are only one-handed, you still get the parry save in close combat. Is this an incorrect assumption?

EDIT: Ah, nevermind. I've just looked at the rulebook again, and I believe it specifies that parry saves are only awarded with hand weapons and shields, not special weapons such as spears. Sorry to intrude!

While I'm not a VC player, my friend is and as he's new to both WHFB and VC we've been trying to help him out.

How big are skeleton units normally run at? 30 seems a tad small, but 40 for the 5x8 also seems a tad expensive. Is it more of a preference thing?

Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Regardless there are times in battle i wished i had parry but there are times i wished i had spears too. Theres are hypotheticals that show scenarios were both shine.

This is the problem with anecdotal evidence. I believe it actually came down to even less skeletons than that - something like a difference of 1 (in favor of parry, IIRC). The difference in the math is obviously very small. Again, that wasn't the debate - no one was debating the math. We were trying to debate tactics, and the crux of the argument was thus: skeletons work best as a tarpit unit. The single most important aspect of a tarpit unit is durability. Therefore, anything that increases durability should take priority during list building. No, it does not matter that the difference is only 1. What matters is that the greatest point efficiency is achieved when units are used for the purpose for which they are best suited. Skeletons are best suited to the purpose of tarpitting, and as durability is the priority of tarpits, you achieve the greatest efficiency with your skeletons both tactically and in list building when you purchase them and kit them for this purpose. That DOES NOT MEAN that you CAN'T use them for other purposes occasionally. It just means that if you want the MOST success more OFTEN then you should be looking for point efficiency.

This whole debate would be like if you came on here and started talking about how you found a way to tarpit with Vargheists, and showed math that supported the assertion that, in certain situations, backed up by the right supporting units and magic, Vargheists are really good at tarpitting, and that people shouldn't discount them as tarpits. You then go on to say that you've effectively used them as tarpits in many of your games. We don't need math to know that Vargheists are more efficient while performing other tasks and that, tactically, it might be a bad idea to use them as tarpits if you have to dump so many other resources into making that particular strategy work.

Cryonicleech wrote:While I'm not a VC player, my friend is and as he's new to both WHFB and VC we've been trying to help him out.

How big are skeleton units normally run at? 30 seems a tad small, but 40 for the 5x8 also seems a tad expensive. Is it more of a preference thing?

I use a unit of 40. I wouldn't use less without a necromancer with Master of the Dead.

Ur right tan. Now i remember. Giving them a parry makes them more durable which is what they are better suited for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the debate is over

Good to have you back after the holidays regardless.

Thanks tan. Happy new year!

I read threw most of the debate. The one thing that I did not see is that the VC army really works in a combo fashion. So with that thought, corpse cart will make them just as good as high elf spearmen. I think just on that note, they are far better than the sword board combo.

Lichbone pennat combo with a 4 up ward makes a necro that much hard to kill.