Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello,

Id like to start a discussion for slayers v hammerers (duh).

Im leaning towards hammerers. I cant see the point of taking slayer units because:

hammerers 5+ armour save
stubborn, with a bsb and ld9 is pretty much like unbreakable
can take standards ie the one where immune to psyc AND roll break test using 1D6
all characters can join it
always stike last vs slayers I2 is pretty much the same
S6 hits where slayers cant go above S6 anyway, so same S!

ok, slayers can have 2 attacks and are 1 point cheaper and anyone hitting you on S4 is going to give hammerers a 6+ save, so 6 wounds means on ave you lose 6 slayers or 5 hammerers.

Also, weve got arty to deal with S5+ targets anyway. Are slayers just for fluff? Please add to the topic, thanks.

Slayers are best fighting large multi-wound targets. don't they get a bonus against them or something?


Hammerers are better at fighting elite troops. and, IIRC, you can give them shields for a 4+ total save.

yup shield can be given to hammerers but thats only for running at stuff so its not worth it...

slayers a fun and fluffy, i think hammerers are more competative i might be a bit biased tho as i use hammerers al the time (and they work wonders) slayers would be awesome vs things like units of trolls/minotaurs etc with multiply wounds (or even orges for that matter)....

but lacking armour means dying in bucket loads to shooting compared to getting a 1 in 3 chance of living (well vs S3 anyways)

-Shields do not work in CC due to the preference for great weapons rule in the BRB.
-The 8th ed meta has made s4 AP or S5 attacks the order of the day. Having heavy armor may as well be no armor when one reaches CC. Having the option between multiple attacks or GW attacks is not so cut and dry as it may at first appear. Hammerers may take fewer casualties to small arms fire, (Same vs crossbows or hand guns) but in CC against most opponants in my area, the CC losses are identical. Why not give yourself the option (and the far greater number of attacks/variable amount of cheapish characters) for the same price?

I am starting to evaluate Slayers in these criteria, and when it comes to killing orcs, I know who comes out far and away on top in the CR.

The basic slayer is WS4; compared to the WS5 hammer.
That's what turned me away from slayers.

Hammers just have better hitting power, unless you are going to dump a lot of points into several slayer unit champs.

-Matt

Why are slayers better vs multi wound targets? they dont get D3/6 wounds I believe.

Like Matt said, WS5 and equal strength, plus the runic standards has made me ignore slayers.

Doesn't their Str go up or something against Multi wounds or high Toughness?

A slayers strength will increase to equal the toughness of what they're fighting, up to 6 and that's with modifiers for things like great weapons. They work against multiwound models just as well as any other dwarf, but excell at high toughness models. They can also chose whether they use ahw or gw for combat.

The dwarf rulebook just says that a slayer's strength increases until it equals the target's toughness. In addition, they can choose between two handweapons (with increasing str!!) or a simple Great Weapon, which means strikiing at str6, but with only one attack. Another advantage slayers get is that they will never flee from battle, which is excellent at holding up nasty and big things

most multi-wound models have pretty high Toughness so the slayers are good against them.

Multi-wound models are also high enough Str to make the Hammerers Armor go away, which the slayers don't care about since they are naked.

I think I would prefer hammerers in most instances; however, I do see some advantage to slayers. A slayer has the chance to strike with two hand weapons at str. 6 as opposed to one ASL str.6 from a hammerer. If those slayers go up against something with higher than toughness 6 then they can switch to gw which will give them that +2 bonus to their already modified str. 6 attack.

I don't think that's true. I don't have my rulebook with me atm but IIRC slayers loose the flexibility of slayer axes when choosing great weapons... Correct me if I'm wrong please.

No, they get to choose between 2 Hand Weapons or a Great Weapon. It's if a slayer carries a rune axe when this ceases to apply.

While slayers have poor survivability, I guarantee anything they touch should die. Even Slayers with 2 Hand Weapons are deadly, thanks to the Slayer rule, which increases their STR. Hell, they may even kill a T6 Dragon with 2 Hand Weapons thanks to the Slayer rule.

Hmm, its says its S matches the T, including modifiers eg GW. So it seems that if fighting a T5+ youre better off stating youre using 2 axes, which will be modified to match the T. Hence slayers are better than hammerers as they get 2 non ASL S5+hits.

Its situational, because if youre fighting T5 stuff, hammerers may be better as you need 3s to wound, whereas a slayers S will only be modified to match T5, hence 4s to wound, but you do get 2 attacks..

Also, if fighting rank n file T3s, youre better off stating youre using a GW axe or youll be S3 instead of S5, but lose the extra attack.

All in all, slayers prob good going for that T6 target, but to spend over 200 points, is it worth it, than runed up warmachines?

Also, please tell me unbreakable is immune to fear/terror? cheers

Yea I just double checked the rule and realized I was wrong, then saw KSpen had cleared it up. Thanks.

Yes, I believe unbreakable means you are immune to psychology so it would include fear/terror.

There are definitely some matchups where the advantage goes to the slayers. I got a stack of 12 into the flank of an ancient steg, and it was awesome! Also good against a doomwheel.

However, generally speaking, I think the hammerers have the edge in an all-comers list. You can join characters in to the unit, flee as a reaction if you need to, and take runic standards. The heavy armor *does* make a difference in enough matchups that I don't think it should be discounted outright.

RZ

Unbreakable isn't immune to psych, it just means you won't go anywhere if you lose (might be wrong)

Scarecrow456 wrote:(might be wrong)

I'm afraid you are. Unbreakable is Immune to Psych and then some. As a rule- if you are unbreakable, you are also ItP.

Same for Stupidity- if you're stupid, you aren't smart enough to panic when you should, either (i.e. ItP)

and a stupid model makes the whole unit ItP because the Stupidity affects the whole unit(and a unit affected by Stupidity gains the benifits)

KSPen said something odd there. Imagine a unit of slayers fighting a rank and file unit (T3), I wouldn't know so sure whether id go for GW immediately. U see, the slayer basic str. is 4, and it won't ever go lower than that. I guess you might have overlooked that somehow. Anyway, 15 atks at str 4 or 10 atks at str 6 against a barely armoured unit... IDK for sure...

Actually, basic slayer strength is only 3, unless you're talking about giant slayers. The decision on whether to go great weapon should only really come up when talking about T3 targets, and in those cases it will be driven primarily by armor, and secondarily by relative initiatives.

Yes.

Honestly, I've never understood the Slayer from a designer standpoint. I mean, they're practically the Warhammer mascots! They should be awesome.

This thread has been relatively eye-opening for me, though. If you're willing to take a chance and make some pretty broad generalizations, it seems like Slayers will serve you well.

Slayers should be S4 base, Init 3, and WS5 base. WS6 for unit champs, 7 for slayer heroes and 8's for slayer lords.
Slayers should also have the option to switch from 2 weapons to 2handed weapons each phase, and not be stuck with what they took in the first round.

IMO, that's what it would take to make slayers compete with the other special choices.

-Matt

The biggest anti-Slayer factor for me is you're looking at the only Dwarf unit with no armour save. Pass.

Clearly, Squash, you've never fought orcs, ogres, or any of the other myriad S5/S4AP attacks in the game right now.

Both units have their places, I can assure you.

Nagashek wrote:Clearly, Squash, you've never fought orcs, ogres, or any of the other myriad S5/S4AP attacks in the game right now.

Both units have their places, I can assure you.

Both those armies can pack some effective and cheap S3 shooting. The 5+ save is nice. The 5+ save also helps against impact hits, stomps, and any orc in the 2nd round of combat.
You might find a unit that slayers are slightly better against, but you won't find and army; and you won't once you factor in shooting.

-Matt

Red_Zeke wrote:Actually, basic slayer strength is only 3, unless you're talking about giant slayers. The decision on whether to go great weapon should only really come up when talking about T3 targets, and in those cases it will be driven primarily by armor, and secondarily by relative initiatives.

The other big issue is the second rank only getting one attack.

To actually break down the numbers for everyone, against T3 opponents with no armour, a five wide unit of slayers at least two ranks deep will average 4.3 wounds per turn if they're using two-handed weapons, while the same unit with two weapons will average 3.75. As the target's armour increases the ratio only gets better for the two handed weapons, so always use two handed weapons against T3 opponents.

Against T4 opponents with no armour, with the same conditions as above, you'll see slayers using two-handed weapons killing 3.35 opponents per turn, to the two weapons slayers killing 3.75. If the target has a 5+ save then the two weapons slayers drop to 3.23, giving a slight edge to the two handed weapons. From there any further increase in armour improves the advantage for two-handed weapons even further. So use two weapons against unarmoured T4 opponents, but if they're wearing armour of 5+ or better switch to two-handed weapons.

Against T5, the strength of the slayer's attack will be five, whether you use a great weapon or two weapons. It is therefore better to always use two weapons.

In summary, always use two handed weapons against T3. Against T4 use two hand weapons unless the target has a save of 5 or better, in which case switch to great weapons. Against T5 or greater use two weapons.

Note I assumed WS4 opponents in all cases, because it doesn't matter, the better weapon remains the better weapon regardless of the opponent's WS. Same goes for ward saves. I didn't include concerns over initiative, because there's few things with initiative of 2 or less, and when they do exist initiative only matters when you or your opponent is about to run out of your second rank of troops, and these considerations are so situational it isn't practical to mathhammer for them.

Nagashek wrote:Clearly, Squash, you've never fought orcs, ogres, or any of the other myriad S5/S4AP attacks in the game right now.

Both units have their places, I can assure you.

Dude forget those armies, I'm yet to play at all. Not one single game. I used to play 40k, but haven't since, jeeze, 2003.

I agree hammerers for fighting high armour elite infantry and general points efficiency ( especially when joined by a combat lord ). Slayers are fun to throw at those big beasts ( Want to see them fighting an arachnaork.). With the seeming increase in big monsters with the the last few army books. I think slayers usefulness might increase. And due to their unbreakableness you can use a unit to hold your flank or slow down the enemies and shave at least a few models off their unit doing so. I think though I will side with slayers. They are a bit of a wild card that can perform amazingly or so so. Planning to have a unit of 14 backed up be a dragonslayer with no upgrades as a monster killing/holdup unit once i get past 2000 points games. Not a heavy loss for points if they die badly then. I definitely wouldn't hinge my entire army on them performing well.