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.

 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?