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.

The 6th ed Beastmen army book (which is actually cool, b/c it has things like actual Chaos Marks) also explicitly states there are insect headed Beastmen, Tigermen, etc.

I absolutely adore the 6e book.

The art and entire feel of the book is fantastic, with the dark fairytale stuff done really well. And so much amazing black and white art.

And I loved how the army played back then - the skirmish and then sorta-rank-up mechanic with the ambush gave a really unique feel to the army that I felt fit the background perfectly. And the Ambush special rule had a fun gambling element and always made games feel like a special scenario. I didn't feel it was over-powered either. (Have Beastmen ever been overpowered?)

I was so sad when they changed the faction so much in 7e.

I loved how shooting attacks hit the Ungors first because the Gors literally used them for shields. Just one of the many entertaining, fluffy things that got cut to make them a boring in later editions.

 Da Boss wrote:
I absolutely adore the 6e book.

The art and entire feel of the book is fantastic, with the dark fairytale stuff done really well. And so much amazing black and white art.

And I loved how the army played back then - the skirmish and then sorta-rank-up mechanic with the ambush gave a really unique feel to the army that I felt fit the background perfectly. And the Ambush special rule had a fun gambling element and always made games feel like a special scenario. I didn't feel it was over-powered either. (Have Beastmen ever been overpowered?)

I was so sad when they changed the faction so much in 7e.

6th ed really rode the dark gothic Mordheim aesthetic for all it was worth. Loved it. The two chaos books were beautiful.

The fact that is stated there were all sorts of beastmen and thus implying the goatmen were just one type is another in a long line of flanderisations that lose the nuance and people forget. It's the classic 'say the lie long enough and people think its the truth'. Present goatmen as beastmen for long enough and people think that's just what they are.




How long until GW gives up the pretence of being only the old world now they're releasing the great bastion book? Seems pretty silly that DE can't possibly be involved when they skipped over they went further away to get to the bastion...

I understand the goatmen vs beastmen argument.
But realistically how would GW pull this off in a miniature line?
A box for each type, or go the Wargames Atlantic route where you get a couple hooved & a couple pawed bodies?
Then the gripe would become that all of x type have only a couple poses.

I highly doubt the sales numbers are there to justify several overlapping box sets of beastmen that vary only by aesthetics.

New distinct units of snake men, wolf men, tiger men, etc. would be off-putting as well because the studio would give them unique stat blocks to justify their inclusion in the product line.

One would be much better served in today's environment to find & use the variants of beastmen that exist in the RPG minis & the stl world. Sahaugin, yaun-ti, werewolves, werebears, rakhasha, etc.
I am willing to bet someone has made stls for the Wheel of Time Trollocs, which also had the menagerie of beasts types.

Yeah, it's a practicality thing. When Warhammer was a small skirmish game with mostly unique metal models, it was possible to have a wide variety of beastmen because you were probably only ever going to have 20 of them in a warband.

As a mass battle game focused on plastics, they had to shift to a more cohesive look, which has always been the downfall of their Chaos offerings. Like, Chaos Demons described in the novels (especially older novels) come in a horrific variety of forms and often change form constantly. But GW has to sell a range of green, red, blue and pink chaos with infantry and elite units in each one so it gets boiled down.

 skrulnik wrote:
I understand the goatmen vs beastmen argument.
But realistically how would GW pull this off in a miniature line?
A box for each type, or go the Wargames Atlantic route where you get a couple hooved & a couple pawed bodies?
Then the gripe would become that all of x type have only a couple poses.

I highly doubt the sales numbers are there to justify several overlapping box sets of beastmen that vary only by aesthetics.

New distinct units of snake men, wolf men, tiger men, etc. would be off-putting as well because the studio would give them unique stat blocks to justify their inclusion in the product line.

One would be much better served in today's environment to find & use the variants of beastmen that exist in the RPG minis & the stl world. Sahaugin, yaun-ti, werewolves, werebears, rakhasha, etc.
I am willing to bet someone has made stls for the Wheel of Time Trollocs, which also had the menagerie of beasts types.

You wouldn't have stable, abhuman-esque breeds of other beastmen; they'd just be scattered in amongst the others. Oh look, that one has a tentacle. That dud has two heads. Having clearly defined units for each 'type' of beast would be even less Chaotic than what we currently have, but breaking up the uniformity of each infantry block with the occasional wacko would be brilliant. A Warcry-esque box of dual-build individuals would be all it would take.

It makes sense that most beastmen you see is based on the cattle humans have. A mutated bear or wolf would be more rare than herds of sheep or cows. Throw in a pig unit and the most common animals would be covered.

 Fayric wrote:
It makes sense that most beastmen you see is based on the cattle humans have. A mutated bear or wolf would be more rare than herds of sheep or cows. Throw in a pig unit and the most common animals would be covered.

Pig men, now we are talking!.. that would be great with Nurgle too. Before I run away for cover, bunnies too

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
It makes sense that most beastmen you see is based on the cattle humans have. A mutated bear or wolf would be more rare than herds of sheep or cows. Throw in a pig unit and the most common animals would be covered.

Pig men, now we are talking!.. that would be great with Nurgle too. Before I run away for cover, bunnies too

Beastmen inspired by hares would be terrifying...
Their proportions already look weird.
Translate that to a bipedal stance and eek!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Spoiler:

 skrulnik wrote:
I understand the goatmen vs beastmen argument.
But realistically how would GW pull this off in a miniature line?
A box for each type, or go the Wargames Atlantic route where you get a couple hooved & a couple pawed bodies?
Then the gripe would become that all of x type have only a couple poses.

I highly doubt the sales numbers are there to justify several overlapping box sets of beastmen that vary only by aesthetics.

New distinct units of snake men, wolf men, tiger men, etc. would be off-putting as well because the studio would give them unique stat blocks to justify their inclusion in the product line.

One would be much better served in today's environment to find & use the variants of beastmen that exist in the RPG minis & the stl world. Sahaugin, yaun-ti, werewolves, werebears, rakhasha, etc.
I am willing to bet someone has made stls for the Wheel of Time Trollocs, which also had the menagerie of beasts types.

You wouldn't have stable, abhuman-esque breeds of other beastmen; they'd just be scattered in amongst the others. Oh look, that one has a tentacle. That dud has two heads. Having clearly defined units for each 'type' of beast would be even less Chaotic than what we currently have, but breaking up the uniformity of each infantry block with the occasional wacko would be brilliant. A Warcry-esque box of dual-build individuals would be all it would take.

It would have to be full units of like creatures with multiple poses, otherwise you get the clone effect when you pepper them over several units.
You are describing mutations, which is also a valid approach.
But are we discussing alternate breeds of beastmen, or chimera creatures?

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, it's a practicality thing. When Warhammer was a small skirmish game with mostly unique metal models, it was possible to have a wide variety of beastmen because you were probably only ever going to have 20 of them in a warband.

As a mass battle game focused on plastics, they had to shift to a more cohesive look, which has always been the downfall of their Chaos offerings. Like, Chaos Demons described in the novels (especially older novels) come in a horrific variety of forms and often change form constantly. But GW has to sell a range of green, red, blue and pink chaos with infantry and elite units in each one so it gets boiled down.

I always thought Kill Team would be the natural home of daemons for this reason. Can just make a team of 10 truly kaleidoscopic creatures.

Instead they have never had a proper release for the game at all. AoS is doing a bit better with the excellent Ephilim's Pandaemonium, but it's still a far cry from their true potential.

 skrulnik wrote:


Beastmen inspired by hares would be terrifying...
Their proportions already look weird.
Translate that to a bipedal stance and eek!

Rabbitmen were pretty common in medieval art.

They're actually real, the Viera just went into hiding after the 1400s.

 skrulnik wrote:
It would have to be full units of like creatures with multiple poses, otherwise you get the clone effect when you pepper them over several units.
You are describing mutations, which is also a valid approach.
But are we discussing alternate breeds of beastmen, or chimera creatures?

You'd pop the odd dude in amongst your units of Gor. One box of ten randos, and you spread them across several units. I presume that the dominant caprigor would put a stop to any other breeds becoming too numerous, through bullying if nothing else. Any large populations of 'stable' say, duck-men would have to be in an isolated location.

Surely it's also to do with European pagan imagery (stereotypes) dominated by goatman devil type tropes. Which also happens to gel with other greek stuff like minotaur and centaurs, harpies etc

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, it's a practicality thing. When Warhammer was a small skirmish game with mostly unique metal models, it was possible to have a wide variety of beastmen because you were probably only ever going to have 20 of them in a warband.

What edition was that?
1e? 2e? Because I know it wasn't 3e. And it's certainly not any later edition.

You can do a little research to find out which edition buddy, I believe in you.

And I really believe that this thread can get back to News and Rumours! Might even be able to keep it on topic for more than 2 pages too.