Here is a win-loss statistics from battle reports people have been sending to this site. I for one think this is quite interesting. I for one didnt know wer so crap against bretonnians or ogre kingdoms. http://i.imgur.com/NcLWzLW.jpg http://www.wfbattles.com/ArmiesVs.aspx The games played vs a spesific army varies, but looks like its something between 10-20, so not too much and does impact heavily to the fact that these stats are worth anything. but interesting nonetheless.
I for one know first hand we are terrible against Ogres. Never played Bretts though... I would immagine some of the same issues. (long charges with impact hits, and armor nullifing attacks, and crazy amount of attacks) (25% chance of beating Ogres, 30% chance of beating Brets)
Hands down, ive never played Ogres, but I can imagine that they is a matter of redirection, Initiative tests and a whole lot of skinks....piranah blade on an oldblood who isnt on a cold one? thinking of canonfire here..
oh...and just had a little mathmatical giggle cause of the 50% W and 50% L percentage when observing Liz vs Liz Mainly cause it took me 1 second too many to figure out why
But it isn't a chance though, it's just statistics. Those statistics are most likely based off of loads of armies using Saurus warriors, and even though their stat-lines look impressive, they simply aren't worth their cost. Any skink core army facing off against ogres is gonna have a sweeter time than any Saurus based army, infact that's the case against most armies. Heck even temple guard have problems maintaining models against just about any opponent. Ogres is a higher issue due to their better stat lines and stomps/impact hits. Saurus are so expensive per model that those rules get better against them, and wyssan's help less if it puts you on par. Also do note that any unit requiring buffs to work, is sub-par alone on the fact that your opponent can just counter-buff or dispel your spell! Brettonia brings another issue to bear - Low armo saves, and once again the saurus are the issue. Temple guard will do better in this matchup since they won't get swarmed with attacks and can be brought into a situation where they make the average bretonnian a 4+ - Regular saurus however is going to get saved on a 3+ and wounded on a 3+ if the bretonian player knows how to move around the board, grail knights will do this even if he doesn't know how to move around! once again the solution is skinks, while they won't put up much damage against bretonian's they're fast enough or cheap enough to win the game simply by point denial, and having your scar vets mop up the floor. Fact is - Lizardmen, believe it or not, is not a combat army - it wasn't in 7th, and it isn't now. Saurus warriors are to dependent to be a solid choice, and Temple guard survive alone on the fact that they are stubborn when packing a slann. Temple guard can't engage enemies, but need to survive to about turn 4 before going into combat, to last out the game with your slann alive. Lizardmen however is an MSU army. Skink skirmishers - movement 6 core. Skink cohorts - Movement 6 core. Terradons - Flying fast cav in special. Chameleon skinks - Movement 6 skirmisher scouts in special. and add on top of that Salamanders, razordons and ancient stegadons in rare. All movement 6, only one isn't skirmish, but comes with a small enough footprint to be punch - even though it's probably still a no-go for the competitive lizard list. The only reason temple guard are worth it is because it's a valid way of protecting your slann, which is a valid way of avoiding giving up 250 pts the moment he flees or is killed! But it's still a 404 pt investment minimum (per my experience) for it to be useful, and really you need to spend 439 for it to be more solid. Scar vets are ofcourse, also important for the MSU list, as they are one of 2 ways we can earn pts, or hold off our enemies pts from stealing ours, the Slann being the main pt gatherer. The competitive lizardmen list is the "boring" skimisher point denial list with a slann to throw the winning spells and the rest of the list built to avoid giving up pts, and destroying what can ruin our day (warmachines and the likes). While lizardmen on paper look like a fighty combat army, 4+ saves on our special "elite troops" simply isn't enough, and str 5 armour piercing simply does not mitigate that at all! While the above might seem derailing i actually find it very important towards the links (which i still find somewhat useful) because i am under the assumption that the lists used are Saurus based - nbecause that is the general "fun" way to play lizardmen, but also the self-written doom against some armies, which put's us into the 30 % chance department. In fact i think any properly built lizardmen army is competitive against almost anything, at a 60/40 ish rate for the inexperienced player. While i am still in the process of trying, and mixing and min matching, what my experiences is thus far is that against HE, Ogres, Orcs, Bretonnia and WoC Saurus warriors are worth very little, because the matchups there will mostly favor our enemies - lucky me that those and skaven are my only regular opponents! But the moment 4 out of the armies simply don't provide suiting match-ups for saurus, they stop being a competitive all-comers choice. In general if you want a competitive combat-y tournament army, don't look at lizardmen, we play like WE will in the future, and has in the past to be competitive. The above is part rant / part information - I don't play often enough for my liking, but after 3-4 tournaments against all sorts of player enviroments i feel like the above statement is true. As a final reminder - the only units that will regularly earn back their points are : Chamo skinks in units of 6. (haven't tested 9) Scar vets on Co. "templeguard" (since they prevent the opponent from getting to your slann). The slann mage priest. The units that will prevent your opponent from getting your pts, by denying movement, or getting in wild chase mode : Terradons and skinks While the latter might not earn back their pts regularly, they indirectly do so, and are integral to the succesful lizardmen list! I am still testing out the Carnosaur options for an alternative to normal cowboys, so i at least have some combatty units to get pts with - and i'm very much considering adding Stegadon ancients and bastiladons with solar engines to the list of units that earn back their points!
The winner of the SCGT was recently on the latest heelan hammer and he used ogres. To secure first place he fought Jack Armstrong's lizardmen army. He said he felt like the lizardmen match up is in the lizardmen player's favor if they know what they are doing.
I strongly agree with what Vamp Teddy and Putzfrau had said. If you bring Saurus (I'd even include Temple Guard here) than you are cruising for a bruising against Ogres and Brettonians. Using the skink cloud I'd definitely say I have a big edge against Ogres and Brettonians. The stats are interesting, but since you don't know the skill level or army composition ultimately pretty worthless in determining where the lizard book is strong or weak. The big surprise for me though is 38% against Skaven, that number alone tells me that those stats don't mean much. Cheers. Jeff
Ive continued to use saurus in this edition and generally they arent all that. I just enjoy using them. I believe the assumptions made are probably right here, if the people playing against the ogres are trying to actually fight them they will struggle and skew the stats. Ive actually found them a hard match up with my semi balanced lizards (TG + saurus + not much skirmishing) but if I were running all skink core and more shots / chaff I dont perceive it as a problem. D
There is a self selection bias here. We don't have everyone's battle reports. We don't have every person's entirety of battle reports. I don't report every game I play, and I am more likely to report a win than a loss. I'm also more likely to report a game played with friends, (who don't mind me taking notes during battles) versus strangers. There are too many confounding variables to use these stats to prove or disprove anything.