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.
2010/03/15 16:24:01
Subject: So how does the new Beastmen book perform?
Joined: 2010/03/04 10:10:27
Location: Beckenham, SE London, UK
Offline Filter Thread
I've finished a few models, and a conversion to make slugtongue, but am yet to play with them (or indeed current ed. WHFB); and so am wondering how the beastmen perform?
Falling like tears from the cheeks of the Emperor upon the worlds of his domain.
Combat ... we have some of the best. Magic ... poor unless you build to cast high level spells. Shooting ...limited, but good (after all who doesn't love giants that are stone throwers)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/03/15 22:38:42
Kilkrazy wrote:It is well known that GW, a £100 million corporation which publishes only a few hundred pages of product each year, maintains extremely high standards of proof reading and accuracy in its books.
Any editor worth his salt would easily pick up and query a major typo such as Scout vs Scouts.
It is obvious that Scout cannot be a simple typo, so it must be a new, as yet undeclared rule. Perhaps it is intended to be published as one of the optional House Rules, or FAQs as GW call them.
Falling like tears from the cheeks of the Emperor upon the worlds of his domain. 