Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Goblins vs Skinks

2»

Comments

  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    Langolier said:

    Ok lets be real, goblins wins from coolness alone,



    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • SherShahSuriSherShahSuri Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,109
    I'd say Skinks.... they are small, like goblins... but they are animalistic and fanatical. Goblins are just cowardly scavengers who are maybe a little better than Skaven Slaves....

    But I dunno Table Top, but this is Total War.... and all that TT Garbo needs to go away :D
  • OrkfaellerOrkfaeller Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,329
    So much missinformation in here.

    In the TT, Goblins beat Skinks in a melee fight hands-down. Skinks are contenders for worst melee fighter in Warhammer. They are excellent skirmishers, but they don't have the.... anything required to hold in melee.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,027
    Just for clarity, yes, Skinks have the Scaly Skin rule, 6+ instead of Saurus' 5+ save.

    The lizards don't wear armor, generally speaking, but the Scaly Skin rule gives them armor their counterparts would have. Temple Guard actually wear light armor, which make them full plate equivalent in combination with the normal innate save.

    Night Goblins do not have better attacks than regular Goblins. They're the same crappy ass unit stats. They even cost the same points. Regular Goblins start with light armor, Night Goblins with a shield, and the options they have are different, but they have the same strength in bows. They're literally just there as a method of using fanatics and nets, their own combat capability is equally pathetic. Normal Skink skirmishers still crap all over Night Goblins in a ranged battle, Chameleon Skinks would absolutely murder them with the permanent 6 to hit. All Skinks are sporting poisoned ranged weapons, be it javelin or blowpipe, the sucker is poisoned. Even with TW giving the boost of free poisoned weapons to Night Goblins(it came from a spell, they don't have em in TT) they should still be comparably epic in a shootout with either configuration. Not that poison is what it is in TT, that auto-wound is epic. :)

    They should though, Skirmishers are 7 points a piece, whether they're using blowpipes or javelins and shields, that's twice the 3.5 points a Goblin with a bow costs. Chameleon Skinks cost 13 a piece, if they didn't murder Goblins there would be something severely wrong with the game.
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887

    So much missinformation in here.

    In the TT, Goblins beat Skinks in a melee fight hands-down. Skinks are contenders for worst melee fighter in Warhammer. They are excellent skirmishers, but they don't have the.... anything required to hold in melee.

    Well, you can give Skink Cohorts poisoned attacks, and they DO go first in melee (big point if you're playing wimpy little 1000-2000 point battles), and they DO get mildly better armour. And if they do lose the combat, they've got better leadership so they can stay and kill even more goblins next round.
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 669
    edited April 2017

    So much missinformation in here.

    In the TT, Goblins beat Skinks in a melee fight hands-down. Skinks are contenders for worst melee fighter in Warhammer. They are excellent skirmishers, but they don't have the.... anything required to hold in melee.

    Actually, here's the math (assuming a ~5x5 or 5x4 regiment).

    Goblins: 10 attacks hit on 4+, wound on 3+, 5+ armour, 6+ parry for skinks = ~1.85 wounds per round.

    Skinks: 10 attacks hit on 4+, wound on 4+, 6+ armour/6+ parry for the night goblins = ~1.74 wounds per round; striking first. If the skinks have poison in melee, they cause ~2.31 wounds per round.
    If the goblins have light armour, that drops to ~1.39 wounds per round, or ~1.85 if the skinks have poison.

    So, Skinks vs Night goblins w/ Hw and shield is pretty much dead even. Vs regular goblins with shields, skinks lose in melee without poison.

    If the goblins have spears, they do ~2.78 wounds per round vs ~2.08 (or 1.67 if the goblins have both light armour and shields; ~2.78 or 2.22 respectively if the skinks have poison) for the skinks, so the goblins win in combat a bit more consistently.

    If you factor in the shooting, the skinks would win the vast majority of the time, since they get 2 rounds of shooting (1 at long range, 1 at short range) and a stand and shoot reaction (at short range) against the goblins before melee even starts, causing an average of ~6.9 wounds to the goblins before melee starts.

    Skinks were bad in melee, but goblins weren't actually superior to them by any significant margin individually. Gnoblars would lose to both consistently, as would Skaven Slaves or Zombies. The main reason you would never see skinks as anything other than skirmish units in TT (even the ranked skink cohorts were taken in units of 10 as chaff/skirmish units) was that the units just weren't points efficient for combat, and ranking them up beyond 2 ranks meant they didn't all get to shoot.
  • copperd123copperd123 Registered Users Posts: 237
    The real issue with skinks is the fact the skirmishers rule wont translate over well into the TW game, their major advantage is their manoeuvrability, plus the power of poisoned attacks was very useful vs monsters and such in TT game, of course in TWW it's a debuff as we've seen, still very good but night goblins have it and with much further range than the skinks will.. Their BS is the same as goblins so really unless they buff skinks in TWW then they wont be anywhere near as useful compared to the TT version, which I agree was a stellar unit.. Collected both armies and played extensively with O&G and Lizards and agree skink skirmishers were a better, more useful unit but it wont translate to TWW I bet.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 11,811
    Well I don't think that the Skinks are going be worse then Zombies and/or Peasant Mob, so in any case they would have an place in Total War: Warhammer 2, even with their short range weapons, and Javelins should more damage then Arrows in a Total War Game.
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    edited April 2017
    EDIT: was corrected.
    Post edited by Gosling on
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,027
    He said that, he's listing the saves for the defender along with the attack odds for the attacker.
  • JavorJavor Registered Users Posts: 910
    Gosling said:

    Saurus Warriors aren't quite the equivalent of Big Un's. Big Un's have the Choppaz +1 strength and better weaponskill. The higher initiative also really makes them a problem for the Saurus Warriors.

    Saurus absolutely wreck big uns. Choppas give +1 strength in the first round, sure, but Saurus have a solid 2-4 strength 4 attacks, + heavy armor and shield. If big uns want a mere 2 attacks they give up the shield and have mere light armor. Sure, First round of combat won't be fun for the saurus, but my saurus in the TT have yet to be defeated in one round of combat. The main advantage of big uns is that they are cheaper - initiative counts for little in big blocks of grindy units that are unlikely to be broken in one round og combat.

    Skinks on the other hand are one of the worst rank and file melee units in TT - perhaps only surpassed in shittiness by gnoblars. T2 means they are killed by even a light breeze. Their value as skirmishers was amazing though.

    Source: many years of TT gaming, playing as Skaven and LM against greenskins, vampires, brets, chaos warriors, empire and dwarfs. :)
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    edited April 2017
    Javor said:

    Gosling said:

    Saurus Warriors aren't quite the equivalent of Big Un's. Big Un's have the Choppaz +1 strength and better weaponskill. The higher initiative also really makes them a problem for the Saurus Warriors.

    Saurus absolutely wreck big uns. Choppas give +1 strength in the first round, sure, but Saurus have a solid 2-4 strength 4 attacks, + heavy armor and shield. If big uns want a mere 2 attacks they give up the shield and have mere light armor. Sure, First round of combat won't be fun for the saurus, but my saurus in the TT have yet to be defeated in one round of combat. The main advantage of big uns is that they are cheaper - initiative counts for little in big blocks of grindy units that are unlikely to be broken in one round og combat.

    Skinks on the other hand are one of the worst rank and file melee units in TT - perhaps only surpassed in shittiness by gnoblars. T2 means they are killed by even a light breeze. Their value as skirmishers was amazing though.

    Source: many years of TT gaming, playing as Skaven and LM against greenskins, vampires, brets, chaos warriors, empire and dwarfs. :)
    Well, as someone who can also play the TT veteran card, with Lizardmen and Dwarfs against everything else, weekly. My battles have 50 model hordes being the standard size. So I know about grinding...

    I had a look at the stats, and they fight each other to a pretty much stand still actually. The Saurus will win, theoretically if we looking at stats alone without the Boss's additional strength and WS. I'm going to put my previous unit defeats down to my unlucky dice rolling.

    I did a simulation with 50 Saurus Warriors with HW vs 50 Big 'Uns with MHW. Boss stats excluded.

    By end of 4 rounds there are 9 Big 'Un's and 17 SW's. SW's will definitely win.
    If we added the Boss's stats, that's probably an additional dead saurus a turn, 2 dead at the beginning. But in the great scheme of things, not too much of a difference.

    Essentially, it'll just leave the Lizardmen player with an almost useless unit at the end of it, after a long period of time.

    So, I am changed in thinking BU's being better than SW's. The SW's don't wreck the Big Un's though, and we must note that the Big Un's can take magic standards (the Razor Standard being popular, which would change the fight completely). Also, in smaller fights, say a 30 v 30 horde, the Big Un's striking first with the Chopperz rule would conclude it a green skin victory...

    As we both know, SW's are grinders.
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,027
    You're comparing the best possible matchup, they're only at all even in damage output when Saurus Warriors go for maximum save and Big 'Uns go for maximum attacks, and only when the block is large enough for horde rules.

    Saurus Warriors can also take spears free, an 8x4 block would handily defeat an 8x5 block of Big 'Uns. The Big 'Uns fight one rank deep and have no save against S4 attacks in return for having two attacks, while the Saurus Warriors have two attacks by default. Spears cost them the parry save, nothing else, in return for twice as many attacks.

    That's an average ~37 attacks wounding at 25%, compared to 16 wounding at 30% on the first round, and 22% in successive rounds. Even with Horde rules, they'd still lose massively after the first round with even numbers. 10x5 blocks would do an average 17 wounds vs 12 in the first round, and 17 vs 9 in the second. At which point the orcs are done, having lost 34 units in two rounds, they certainly broke even if they managed to avoid doing so that first round, when they had almost two entire ranks killed, lost steadfast, and took a break test they needed snake eyes to succeed. Their second test will be impossible to manage outside of highly lucky combat rolls.
  • wingren013wingren013 Registered Users Posts: 995
    edited April 2017
    In TWWH terms, the Javelin Skinks will be shielded (their shields are quite large too), have poison on their javelins, and decent armor. I think they should beat goblin archers unless they just sit there being shot.

    Not sure how Skink blowpipes will work though.
    Gosling said:

    Saurus Warriors aren't quite the equivalent of Big Un's. Big Un's have the Choppaz +1 strength and better weaponskill. The higher initiative also really makes them a problem for the Saurus Warriors.

    And Saurus Warriors had a better armor save, Predatory Fighter, much better LD, the all important 2 attacks, and initiative meant nothing in infantry block combat. Really Saurus were more comparable to Black Orcs (although Black Orcs in TWWH are much better than their TT versions, similar to Greatswords) and Saurus do have the higher point cost significantly as well.
  • endurendur Registered Users Posts: 3,672

    One can hope that the Skink issue will be what finally breaks the single-type-unit rule of Total War games, since while Skinks alone might not translate well into TW as a useful unit (except possibly chameleon Skinks), a Skrox block certainly would.

    Yeah, I don't believe that rule will be violated either. Too many game systems affected.

    ...In practice this might be done by retaining the single-type-unit rule, so movement, animation systems, damage and loss calculations etc. would require no changes, but merely making the Skrox unit consist of n figues, each animated using 2 or 3 Skinks and a Kroxigor together, and then assigning some appropriate stats for the conglomerate Skrox unit.

    I think this would be really cool if they bring the Skink/Kroxigor formation into the game.
  • JavorJavor Registered Users Posts: 910
    Gosling said:

    Javor said:

    Gosling said:

    Saurus Warriors aren't quite the equivalent of Big Un's. Big Un's have the Choppaz +1 strength and better weaponskill. The higher initiative also really makes them a problem for the Saurus Warriors.

    Saurus absolutely wreck big uns. Choppas give +1 strength in the first round, sure, but Saurus have a solid 2-4 strength 4 attacks, + heavy armor and shield. If big uns want a mere 2 attacks they give up the shield and have mere light armor. Sure, First round of combat won't be fun for the saurus, but my saurus in the TT have yet to be defeated in one round of combat. The main advantage of big uns is that they are cheaper - initiative counts for little in big blocks of grindy units that are unlikely to be broken in one round og combat.

    Skinks on the other hand are one of the worst rank and file melee units in TT - perhaps only surpassed in shittiness by gnoblars. T2 means they are killed by even a light breeze. Their value as skirmishers was amazing though.

    Source: many years of TT gaming, playing as Skaven and LM against greenskins, vampires, brets, chaos warriors, empire and dwarfs. :)
    Well, as someone who can also play the TT veteran card, with Lizardmen and Dwarfs against everything else, weekly. My battles have 50 model hordes being the standard size. So I know about grinding...

    I had a look at the stats, and they fight each other to a pretty much stand still actually. The Saurus will win, theoretically if we looking at stats alone without the Boss's additional strength and WS. I'm going to put my previous unit defeats down to my unlucky dice rolling.

    I did a simulation with 50 Saurus Warriors with HW vs 50 Big 'Uns with MHW. Boss stats excluded.

    By end of 4 rounds there are 9 Big 'Un's and 17 SW's. SW's will definitely win.
    If we added the Boss's stats, that's probably an additional dead saurus a turn, 2 dead at the beginning. But in the great scheme of things, not too much of a difference.

    Essentially, it'll just leave the Lizardmen player with an almost useless unit at the end of it, after a long period of time.

    So, I am changed in thinking BU's being better than SW's. The SW's don't wreck the Big Un's though, and we must note that the Big Un's can take magic standards (the Razor Standard being popular, which would change the fight completely). Also, in smaller fights, say a 30 v 30 horde, the Big Un's striking first with the Chopperz rule would conclude it a green skin victory...

    As we both know, SW's are grinders.
    Hail fellow TT player!

    My battles were usually with 24-30 saurus blocks with a 6 wide front, and I never, ever had problems with similar or even larger sizes of big uns. Having horde formations were usually a great way to lose half your unit to various attribute test spells, before combat was even initiated :/

    You are forgetting that leadership plays a big role in the TT, and most fights won't get to the grindy part. The second big uns lose steadfast due to having less ranks than Saurus, they will flee the round after. You also have to factor in that saurus have a champion too, who has an extra attack. I am also not sure whether or not you factored in predatory fighter, which has a possibility of giving up to 2 extra attacks per frontline saurus.

    Now, since we are talking standards and the like, such as the ever-popular razor standard (man I loved that thing, and damn you GW for reking warhammer), we might as well go so far as to list the possible buffs the slann could give the saurus. Everything from better initiative, to regeneration, to higher toughness - you name it!

    And a 17 strong saurus unit is by no means a useless unit! It's a roadblock to the enemy that can take a beating, and hold for at least 2 rounds if it's within the Slann's influence.

    To get back on topic, though. Skinks really shouldn't be able to hold their own in close combat with pretty much anything, unless they have kroxigors with them. Toughness 2 is just too much of a liability, especially if ever going against anything with strength 4, which would flatten a regiment of skinks in a round.
Sign In or Register to comment.