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.

Hey folks, I frequent the Seraphon/Lizardmen board over on Lustria often, so I see a lot of favorable and creative thought about building the army and how it's played against others. This is an attempt to get the other side.

What, as perhaps someone who plays against Seraphon, would you say about the army?
How have games felt and played?
What has felt strong and what felt like wet paper?

Just curious what others not focused on them have to say. Of course, some things may change/be clarified by the 2 week FAQ.

Cheers

I wish I could say! Several of my gaming group started collecting them with the new release but none of them got an army together before we all got locked down...

On paper they look very good. Probably not top of the pack, but up there as one of the stronger armies around.

There is a lot of strong things, a ton of viable and fun builds. I believe that properly min-maxed (thunder lizard) they can be top tier. The coalesced allegiance ability for -1 damage is probably too strong. Yes it is situational, but in those situations it absolutely wrecks the opposing army and there is nothing they can do to counter it.

In raw power I would say coalesced > starborne, because both the summon point gained for not casting were nerfed and the benefits of casting were increased so slaan & co actually want to be using spells instead of banking them. Once that is the case it becomes -1 damage vs one teleport/turn. Also Coalesced can still summon via EotG, even twice per turn using thunder lizard subfaction.

Salamanders are broken, calling it now.

Slaan, great rememberer trait, itxi grubs is the new auto-take general (for those looking to min-max). Some flexibility on the trait, but itxi grubs are one of the best artifacts in the game.

Saurus Knights are slightly better, but still bad IMO. Everything else varies between decent and extremely powerful.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Salamanders are broken, calling it now.

Yep, they’re bonkers.

Really looking forward to facing the new Seraphon. They were fairly one note for a long time. I’d probably have about half dozen games already against them, as one of my regulars plays them, but... social distancing :(

The last game played at the local shop I witnessed an amusing Seraphon vs Sylvanith battle.

* I was not in the game.
* I don't know either force well enough to tell if there were rules shenanigans/errors/liberties going on.
* It was a Path To Glory game, so lists might not optimized or be what you'd expect. Might not even be legal as far as regular matched play goes?
* It was turn 2(?) when I started watching.
* I was never clear on what battle plan trhey were using.

The Seraphon player had a Bastiladon, a Slann, & ?? garosning his zigeraut. He had a unit of Salamanders* ,a skink caster, & a unit of saurus warriors hiding behind it.
He might have also had a unit of dactyls of some sort. They were sitting off to the side of the board. I don't know if they'd died turn 1 or were intended for summoning - either way they played no role.
The player complained constantly & bitterly about the changes to his summoning rules. Apparently they were nerfed?

The Sylvanth forces were an Ancient, a treelord, 2 units of 3 hunters with bows, 1 10(?) strong unit of dryads, & the Worm endless spell.
This player complained constantly & bitterly about A) his dryads (he hates the unit, but whatever he was going to use hadn't shipped to the store yet apparently) B) the fact that his endless spell could be unbound.

So I guess the battle started off with the Sylvanth player doing the whole hide out of site in trees thing, summon more trees. Well the Seraphon player, not being able to see him, decided to turtle in/behind his pyramid & turn the woods into MW dealing terrain.
Wich forced the tree folk to come out.

What followed was an absurd scene where living trees were beating on a pyramid while being shot by lasers, & taking MW from patches of trees they'd created....
And then the Salamander pack came out to play & just obliterated the dryads with shooting and mauled the Ancient to death on the charge.
After that massed fire from the hunters wiped out the Salamanders - but the damage was done & the Seraphon went onto win the match.


**The Salamanders....
Their entry is oddly worded. Unit consists of any # of skink handlers & 1 in 4 of the models must be a Salamander. Unit is listed as being 4 - 12 models on the pts page.
They (both players) were interperting that it could be read as: Any # = minimum 0-3 skinks + at least one Salamander. But since the min unit states 4 models, if you eliminate the all the skinks (choose 0), you must have +3 salamanders. Afterall, to have a min. unit you need 4 models....
(&*^%, why can't GW just write what they're intending??? I KNOW they intend blocks of 3 skinks + 1 salamander. How hard would that've been to write out, vs this "any # BS)

Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

This is how just about everyone reads it, yes.

I will agree, Sallies either need a points increase, both to make Razordons more attractive and properly reflect their power, or a little tweaking on their shooting. They're literally the best thing as it stands.

That Sylvaneth vs Seraphon battle sounds like a pair of salty dogs to me. Hearing a third party recount it is good. Turn 2, Rippers already dead? Sounds like they didnt do much....

I'm still fussy about the wording of the Starborne Summoning Ability, and just want a full clarification before playing it.

I'm hoping I can get some games in once the whole 'stay inside' thing is blown over.... i have a few players in my local meta I want to surprise. I was already making them frustrated before with the samey ShadowThunder list before.

How many wounds does the new Bastiladon have to lose before it loses it's 1+ ignore rend save?

 Eldarain wrote:
How many wounds does the new Bastiladon have to lose before it loses it's 1+ ignore rend save?

3 of 10/12, depending on Constellation.

 Carnikang wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
How many wounds does the new Bastiladon have to lose before it loses it's 1+ ignore rend save?

3 of 10/12, depending on Constellation.

Reasonable. Such a cool army. Was almost my first back during the 5th starter box era.

So surreal seeing our local enthusiasts dissecting the pre release rules leaks and then just nothing.

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

This is how just about everyone reads it, yes.

I will agree, Sallies either need a points increase, both to make Razordons more attractive and properly reflect their power, or a little tweaking on their shooting. They're literally the best thing as it stands.

That Sylvaneth vs Seraphon battle sounds like a pair of salty dogs to me. Hearing a third party recount it is good. Turn 2, Rippers already dead? Sounds like they didnt do much....

I'm still fussy about the wording of the Starborne Summoning Ability, and just want a full clarification before playing it.

I'm hoping I can get some games in once the whole 'stay inside' thing is blown over.... i have a few players in my local meta I want to surprise. I was already making them frustrated before with the samey ShadowThunder list before.

A full 12-man unit can suffer 11(!) wounds without losing any shooting capacity. They are like an artillery piece with high movement speed and strong melee combat capability, but still priced like a slow war machine that melts in melee.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

This is how just about everyone reads it, yes.

I will agree, Sallies either need a points increase, both to make Razordons more attractive and properly reflect their power, or a little tweaking on their shooting. They're literally the best thing as it stands.

That Sylvaneth vs Seraphon battle sounds like a pair of salty dogs to me. Hearing a third party recount it is good. Turn 2, Rippers already dead? Sounds like they didnt do much....

I'm still fussy about the wording of the Starborne Summoning Ability, and just want a full clarification before playing it.

I'm hoping I can get some games in once the whole 'stay inside' thing is blown over.... i have a few players in my local meta I want to surprise. I was already making them frustrated before with the samey ShadowThunder list before.

A full 12-man unit can suffer 11(!) wounds without losing any shooting capacity. They are like an artillery piece with high movement speed and strong melee combat capability, but still priced like a slow war machine that melts in melee.

A counterpoint. They're Bravery 5.

A lot of the time, you'll be teleporting, calling them down, or moving them far up and outside of range for heros.... so they do their damage, and tend to be removed unless heavily supported.

Not that I disagree. They're still too cheap. Hell, there's quite a few Salamander Spam lists that make me shake my head.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

Wich player are you referring to? Both were in agreement that this is how they thought it it works. And neither was upset about the results. Nor is anyone else in the group.
Me? I'm just annoyed at GWs sloppy writing.

For the record;
Even though several of us do believe the INTENT is a 3:1 skink/salamander ratio, the rest of us in the group also agree that how it was played is how it works according what GW wrote.
So, as we're all in agreement, and each of us has access to our own broken gak, that's how it'll continue being played barring a FAQ/Errata. Or maybe some negotiation within the group.
Should the Seraphon player ever attend some event? Then he'll have to find out how the rules played there & maybe adapt.
The rest of us? Any who draw the Seraphon player in future rounds will just make that salamander pack a priority target.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:


That Sylvaneth vs Seraphon battle sounds like a pair of salty dogs to me. Hearing a third party recount it is good. Turn 2, Rippers already dead? Sounds like they didnt do much....

Yeah, I don't know what the birds did/didn't. Like I said, they might've been intended for a summoning that never happened.

To be fair, the Seraphon player just built his list/bought $$$ models based on the original book. Then about 6 weeks later came word & arrival of the new book.
Right now he thinks he's been screwed over.
His complaining will subside once A) He adapts & learns whatever new tricks are hiding in his book. B) Some of us creatives/rules lawyers pass this book around here during our Covid-vacations & bring him up to speed. I especially doubt that his summoning has been wrecked. But he's too close to the problem to be objective atm.

The Sylvanth player?
Well....
His complaint about the endless spell would apply no matter what. Or who's spell it was. He's one of those players who'll definitely let you know his opinion....
He's also never had much appreciation for basic units, whatever the game. And he's especially irritated that he felt he had to add dryads (a unit that even accounting for his basic troop disdain he dislikes) vs whatever he'd ordered that didn't arrive. It was either that or play "short".

ccs wrote:
**The Salamanders....
Their entry is oddly worded. Unit consists of any # of skink handlers & 1 in 4 of the models must be a Salamander. Unit is listed as being 4 - 12 models on the pts page.
They (both players) were interperting that it could be read as: Any # = minimum 0-3 skinks + at least one Salamander. But since the min unit states 4 models, if you eliminate the all the skinks (choose 0), you must have +3 salamanders. Afterall, to have a min. unit you need 4 models....
(&*^%, why can't GW just write what they're intending??? I KNOW they intend blocks of 3 skinks + 1 salamander. How hard would that've been to write out, vs this "any # BS)

From the Salamander Hunting Pack warscroll:

DESCRIPTION
A Salamander Hunting Pack has any number of Skink Handler models, each armed with a Celestite Goad.

SALAMANDERS: 1 in every 4 models in this unit must be a Salamander instead of a Skink Handler.

The unit is composed of Skink Handlers not Salamanders, so when you add additional models to the unit you add Skink Handlers and then you 'upgrade' one out of every four models in the unit to a Salamander. Since in Matched Play you purchase the models in four-model blocks, you will always be purchasing three Skink Handlers and a Salamander

 Ghaz wrote:

ccs wrote:
**The Salamanders....
Their entry is oddly worded. Unit consists of any # of skink handlers & 1 in 4 of the models must be a Salamander. Unit is listed as being 4 - 12 models on the pts page.
They (both players) were interperting that it could be read as: Any # = minimum 0-3 skinks + at least one Salamander. But since the min unit states 4 models, if you eliminate the all the skinks (choose 0), you must have +3 salamanders. Afterall, to have a min. unit you need 4 models....
(&*^%, why can't GW just write what they're intending??? I KNOW they intend blocks of 3 skinks + 1 salamander. How hard would that've been to write out, vs this "any # BS)

From the Salamander Hunting Pack warscroll:

DESCRIPTION
A Salamander Hunting Pack has any number of Skink Handler models, each armed with a Celestite Goad.

SALAMANDERS: 1 in every 4 models in this unit must be a Salamander instead of a Skink Handler.

The unit is composed of Skink Handlers not Salamanders, so when you add additional models to the unit you add Skink Handlers and then you 'upgrade' one out of every four models in the unit to a Salamander. Since in Matched Play you purchase the models in four-model blocks, you will always be purchasing three Skink Handlers and a Salamander

Yeah, except that the damned mathematicians all agree that Zero is a #. And by what's written Zero is a # that can be chosen. Leading to ???

Look, I agree that the intent is a 3:1 skink/salamander ratio.

The main thing I'm waiting to see is if the new book made Saurus more viable. Koatl's Claw with nearly all Saurus seems like it'd be neat.

Wayniac wrote:
The main thing I'm waiting to see is if the new book made Saurus more viable. Koatl's Claw with nearly all Saurus seems like it'd be neat.

There are a lot of optimistic options on it. It may not be the strongest way to play, but it will definitely be viable and a variable way aside from the old way.

KC Sunclaw Temple Host and Firelance Temple Hosts are nasty with the number of attacks they can bring to bear with -1 or no rend on the charge. The command ability is also neat.

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

This is how just about everyone reads it, yes.

I will agree, Sallies either need a points increase, both to make Razordons more attractive and properly reflect their power, or a little tweaking on their shooting. They're literally the best thing as it stands.

That Sylvaneth vs Seraphon battle sounds like a pair of salty dogs to me. Hearing a third party recount it is good. Turn 2, Rippers already dead? Sounds like they didnt do much....

I'm still fussy about the wording of the Starborne Summoning Ability, and just want a full clarification before playing it.

I'm hoping I can get some games in once the whole 'stay inside' thing is blown over.... i have a few players in my local meta I want to surprise. I was already making them frustrated before with the samey ShadowThunder list before.

A full 12-man unit can suffer 11(!) wounds without losing any shooting capacity. They are like an artillery piece with high movement speed and strong melee combat capability, but still priced like a slow war machine that melts in melee.

A counterpoint. They're Bravery 5.

A lot of the time, you'll be teleporting, calling them down, or moving them far up and outside of range for heros.... so they do their damage, and tend to be removed unless heavily supported.

Not that I disagree. They're still too cheap. Hell, there's quite a few Salamander Spam lists that make me shake my head.

If you are teleporting them then you are running starborne and they are bravery 10, if you are running coalesced they are foot slogging and it should be no issue keeping them in range of a hero to spend one of the many, many cp the army gets for immunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

ccs wrote:
**The Salamanders....
Their entry is oddly worded. Unit consists of any # of skink handlers & 1 in 4 of the models must be a Salamander. Unit is listed as being 4 - 12 models on the pts page.
They (both players) were interperting that it could be read as: Any # = minimum 0-3 skinks + at least one Salamander. But since the min unit states 4 models, if you eliminate the all the skinks (choose 0), you must have +3 salamanders. Afterall, to have a min. unit you need 4 models....
(&*^%, why can't GW just write what they're intending??? I KNOW they intend blocks of 3 skinks + 1 salamander. How hard would that've been to write out, vs this "any # BS)

From the Salamander Hunting Pack warscroll:

DESCRIPTION
A Salamander Hunting Pack has any number of Skink Handler models, each armed with a Celestite Goad.

SALAMANDERS: 1 in every 4 models in this unit must be a Salamander instead of a Skink Handler.

The unit is composed of Skink Handlers not Salamanders, so when you add additional models to the unit you add Skink Handlers and then you 'upgrade' one out of every four models in the unit to a Salamander. Since in Matched Play you purchase the models in four-model blocks, you will always be purchasing three Skink Handlers and a Salamander

Yeah, except that the damned mathematicians all agree that Zero is a #. And by what's written Zero is a # that can be chosen. Leading to ???

Look, I agree that the intent is a 3:1 skink/salamander ratio.

Then you have a unit size of zero, and you have no unit. The rule is written quite clearly.

True enough. Forgot about the 10 bravery added to Starborne.

I will say that those CP are generally still being used for something else, especially during your turn (though maybe not in Dracothian Tail, where you'll be dropping and teleporting often). Unless you're playing very conservatively with them, you're going to end up losing one or two if you're throwing them up the board without hero support. Terradon chief seems like an easy pick to get where he needs to go to throw immunity to morale around.
If they aren't removed outright of course. They will become top targets once more games are played out in the wild.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Major TFG on the Salamanders. It is abundantly clear that the unit is supposed to have a 3:1 ratio of skinks to salamanders. Therefore to have 3 salamanders one needs a unit of 12, with 9 of them being handlers. That one is on the player being an donkey-cave, not on GW.

This is how just about everyone reads it, yes.

I will agree, Sallies either need a points increase, both to make Razordons more attractive and properly reflect their power, or a little tweaking on their shooting. They're literally the best thing as it stands.

That Sylvaneth vs Seraphon battle sounds like a pair of salty dogs to me. Hearing a third party recount it is good. Turn 2, Rippers already dead? Sounds like they didnt do much....

I'm still fussy about the wording of the Starborne Summoning Ability, and just want a full clarification before playing it.

I'm hoping I can get some games in once the whole 'stay inside' thing is blown over.... i have a few players in my local meta I want to surprise. I was already making them frustrated before with the samey ShadowThunder list before.

A full 12-man unit can suffer 11(!) wounds without losing any shooting capacity. They are like an artillery piece with high movement speed and strong melee combat capability, but still priced like a slow war machine that melts in melee.

A counterpoint. They're Bravery 5.

A lot of the time, you'll be teleporting, calling them down, or moving them far up and outside of range for heros.... so they do their damage, and tend to be removed unless heavily supported.

Not that I disagree. They're still too cheap. Hell, there's quite a few Salamander Spam lists that make me shake my head.

If you are teleporting them then you are running starborne and they are bravery 10, if you are running coalesced they are foot slogging and it should be no issue keeping them in range of a hero to spend one of the many, many cp the army gets for immunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

ccs wrote:
**The Salamanders....
Their entry is oddly worded. Unit consists of any # of skink handlers & 1 in 4 of the models must be a Salamander. Unit is listed as being 4 - 12 models on the pts page.
They (both players) were interperting that it could be read as: Any # = minimum 0-3 skinks + at least one Salamander. But since the min unit states 4 models, if you eliminate the all the skinks (choose 0), you must have +3 salamanders. Afterall, to have a min. unit you need 4 models....
(&*^%, why can't GW just write what they're intending??? I KNOW they intend blocks of 3 skinks + 1 salamander. How hard would that've been to write out, vs this "any # BS)

From the Salamander Hunting Pack warscroll:

DESCRIPTION
A Salamander Hunting Pack has any number of Skink Handler models, each armed with a Celestite Goad.

SALAMANDERS: 1 in every 4 models in this unit must be a Salamander instead of a Skink Handler.

The unit is composed of Skink Handlers not Salamanders, so when you add additional models to the unit you add Skink Handlers and then you 'upgrade' one out of every four models in the unit to a Salamander. Since in Matched Play you purchase the models in four-model blocks, you will always be purchasing three Skink Handlers and a Salamander

Yeah, except that the damned mathematicians all agree that Zero is a #. And by what's written Zero is a # that can be chosen. Leading to ???

Look, I agree that the intent is a 3:1 skink/salamander ratio.

Then you have a unit size of zero, and you have no unit. The rule is written quite clearly.

Well we disagree with your opinion & have decided upon how to play it within the group for the time being.

ccs wrote:
Yeah, except that the damned mathematicians all agree that Zero is a #. And by what's written Zero is a # that can be chosen. Leading to ???

From page 22 of the Age of Sigmar Gaming Book:

Each unit in a Pitched Battle is assigned a points value and a minimum and maximum unit size in its Pitched Battle profile. These profiles can be found in the Pitched Battle Profiles 2019 book, or in the battletome where the warscroll for the unit appears

So when the Salamander Hunting Pack warscroll says "A Salamander Hunting Pack has any number of Skink Handler models,..." the Pitched Battle profile overrides that in a Matched Play game, essentially making it say "A Salamander Hunting Pack has 4-12 Skink Handler models,..."

So how do they explain that a number between 4 to 12 equals 0?

ccs wrote:
Well we disagree with your opinion & have decided upon how to play it within the group for the time being.

There is a difference between "opinion" and "definition". The way you guys are playing it is not how the rule is written, and you even admitted that you know that is not the intention, which mystifies me as to why the attempts to jump through hoops to do something everyone agrees is wrong. Especially when, RAW, you could just run a 12-man unit with 3 salamanders in PtG since the chart does not provide a unit size. Heck you could run a 200-man unit with 50 salamanders. But running anything other than a 3:1 ratio is against the rules.

Somehow missed the dread saurian update.
35 wounds .........
It degrades fairly slow too and with a few buffs here and there, becomes a nightmare to kill.

Price tag is painful but a plastic Dino and some spare parts and done.

I think it is good they made it such a powerful (and thus high point cost) unit, it justifies both the monetary cost and the size of the model itself.

Having built one, the price tag is a bit more reasonable than you'd suspect. It's a big kit.

Exactly.

I picked up the new Seraphon battletome right before the outbreak hit, and so I've been theory crafting on my own. I'm building my list around a Coalesced Koatl's Claw army. At the moment the only temple host I can make is the Skink skirmisher one (I had the old Seraphon Battle Box from back in the day, with Five Cold-One Riders, 1 Scar-Veteran on Old One, 12 Skinks, and 20 Saurus) and picked up the new Skink starterbox (12 Skinks, 1 Star-Priest, Terradon/Ripperdactyl Riders, and Bastilidon), plus some Chameoleon Skinks and an Astrolith Bearer. I'd like to build out and add more Saurus for a second temple host, and probably going to get some Salamanders as well.

You will definitely want Salamanders for a Coalesced army, and Sauras are amazing in a Sunclaw of either host. As Koatls, they're buffed pretty heavily.

If you're looking for the Sunclaw Starhost, definitely look at the Sunblood with an Eviserating Blade in a Sunclaw battalion.

Awesome, thanks! As someone new to Age of Sigmar, how many warscroll battalions is typical for a list? How many command points does an army usually start with? Is it worth basing my future purchases around building specific warscroll battalions?

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:
Awesome, thanks! As someone new to Age of Sigmar, how many warscroll battalions is typical for a list? How many command points does an army usually start with? Is it worth basing my future purchases around building specific warscroll battalions?

0-2, 0-2 (equal to the number of battalions and/or buy one for 50 pts), yes if you find some you really enjoy.

Note that Seraphon can generate tons of cp via certain character options that you want for support & spells anyways, so you will have plenty regardless.

Also note that despite the same name, cp in AoS are pretty much an entirely different system from what they are in 40k. Which is odd given GW went out of their way to make so many identical rules elements have different names; run/advance, battleshock/morale, rend/AP...