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.

greenbay924 wrote:

VermGho5t wrote:I like how no one has mentioned Bretonnians yet.

And yes I play them.

Because they aren't the worst army in the game. They have some stuff going for them this edition, there's a guy who's won a couple largish tournies out here in the bay area with brets.

Sadly that merely suggests he is the most competent, or indeed least incompetent, gamer in his local vicinity. To truly determine these things, you'd need a truly global survey, allowing for random factors. And in a game where even the greatest strategy can be buggered by a few bad dice, that's a lot of variables to include...

Grey Templar wrote:

Surtur wrote:Ogres are powerful against infantry, but stuff like cavalry gives it hell. Their magic is weak. Their mono stat line, WS3 all around, no armor policy also hurts it a fair amount.

actually Cavelry get pummeled even worse then infantry by ogres.


There usually is a 1-1 ratio of cavlery models to Ogres and Ogres have 3 wounds each.


and Gut Magic is NOT weak. it is very easy to use, and dispell, but that is countered by being able to spam Castings and stack them.

And cavalry should always be hitting your flank. Properly played cavalry will be your doom. Even with a numbers advantage on cavalry, they have much better WS, good Str and usually great armor. Against cav, you will almost never get bull charge and you can't stomp and good players will ensure that you can't get supporting attacks against them. With a block of infantry on the front, and cavalry on the side, you will find ogres don't last too long.

Tomb Kings

Upshapti are a joke, I took them on with a unit of skinks and won with steadfast (of course the skink chief did help...)

The scorpion simply turned up one turn, failed a charge and proceeded to get counter-charged by a unit of saurus and promptly massacred.

The magic is lacklustre, and easily countered. Casket of Souls is nasty but any wizard with Lore of Life and curb its effectiveness with a good deal of regrowth.

and units of skeletons crumble easily in CC, the Tomb King's dying curse could be FAR more dangerous, it needs less leadership tests and more ability tests like strength and toughness.

Surtur wrote:
And cavalry should always be hitting your flank. Properly played cavalry will be your doom. Even with a numbers advantage on cavalry, they have much better WS, good Str and usually great armor. Against cav, you will almost never get bull charge and you can't stomp and good players will ensure that you can't get supporting attacks against them. With a block of infantry on the front, and cavalry on the side, you will find ogres don't last too long.

You say properly played cavalry there. Sorry to split hairs here, but properly played anything will be an opponents doom.

Beyond that hair splitting I have to say I find some of your comments a little dubious. First off, hitting Ogres in the flank can be tricky. I have the option of cheap and cheerful Gnobllars to guard it, or as in my case, rely on our high movement to get us into HTH in the second turn. Either one makes the flank charge come to late in most cases. And I only don't get my Bull Charge these days when ovverunning into a new enemy. We simply move too fast. Though I would like to point out that if you are positioning your cavalry to prevent a Bull Charge, I'm pretty much guaranteed the charge, thus reducing your Cavalry to well armoured infantry?. And how do you ensure no supporting attacks against a Horde of Ogres? And finally, stick that block of infantry into my front, to boost up the Cavalry. I like the idea of softer combat res....

And for all the above reasons, *my* Ogres are yet to be worried by Cavalry.

I'd go with beastmen.

Thir monsers are appropriatley or just overcosted (compared to severely undersosted monsters of other armies).

Their troops struggle vs most rank end file enemies.

Thier magic is woeful (the top spell is alright, but fraught with danger)

They need everything to work in synergy and a lot of luck to go their way to win at a tourneament.

The last 3 tournaments I've been to in 8th ed have had a total of 148 players.
1 beastmen player and he lost every game at 2 tourneys.
The other beastmen players have played practice games and decided not to bother...

See this is why Waaaagh_Gonads is a mod

He can follow rules, even if they seem slowed and arbitrary

Thank you Waaagh! May all of your animosity tests be 6's.

Infact, thank you to everyone that's played along so far. May all of your leadership tests be double 1's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So far, separating the wheat from the chaff

we have

Wood Elves recieving 1 vote
Ogres recieving 1 vote
Tomb Kings recieving 2 votes
Brettonia reciving a sort of quasi votes
and Beastmen receiving what I believe to be the most damning evidence in this whole thread.

And that's why it makes no sense not to have a debate, because I can recycle all the reasons Waaagh used for beastmen, and use them for wood elves.

Their "monsters" (treemen) are expensive

Their units can't go toe to toe with any other real melee unit

Their shooting can be out done by dwarfs/empire (I know, they can also be really good, but at the sacrifice of any melee)

Their magic is pretty lame, I've never really considered it a threat.

I've only been to one 8th edition tournament, but there were 38 players I believe, there were 3 beastmen (more than the two dark elf players!) and zero wood elves.

And I can add to that with skirmishers took a hit this edition with them gaining flanks and a frontal arc for shooting.

There is no way to continue without debate. Examples of the Top Tier armies:

Dwarfs are the worst because they are all M3 and can't make it across the board.
For you that would be a vote.
For anyone else the answers would be a)They don't ever need to and b)if they do need to they have the anvil.

Skaven are the worst because none of their units have good armour saves
To you that would be a vote
To anyone else the answer would be "who cares, there's a million of them. They can have steadfast Ld 10 using the General with 10 ranks deep units for only 100 points per unit..."

Empire are the worst because they are all T3 for an average 6 ppm
For you that would be a vote.
For anyone else the answers would be a)That doesnt matter, because you will not exist by the time you cross the board or b)you're wrong. I'm T7 because of lore of life

WoC are the worst because their main unit costs 16 ppm
For you that would be a vote.
For anyone else the answers would be a)Yes. 16 ppm that can rip your units faces off and b)Yes. 16 ppm for a 3+ Armor and 5+ Ward Save in combat.

I'm going to vote wood elves as well, depsite the fact the I play the army . My reason is simple- I don't think the army has a competitive build to match the most competitive builds of other armies in 8th edition.

Evidence to support the above (the lack of a competitive build):

-Elves in general are very squishy and suffer from "step up" in 8th edition (for WE, particularly hurting wardancers)
-The rise of large blocks in 8th edition makes a glaring weakness of this army (dealing with them) even more prevalent
-Ballistic Skill based shooting has suffered quite a bit, since armies are moving faster across the board, charging farther in some cases, not being as hindered by terrain, and benefiting from more shooting modifiers
-Their effective combat units are all tree-based (except eternal guard) which are very susceptible to the greater number of flaming attacks in 8th edition, as well as anything magical, and don't have any static combat resolution to help them
-Not getting points for fleeing or units under 1/2 strength means whittling down the enemy for minor victories is a less viable tactic
-The magical lore available to non-lord level casters is weak compared to the rulebook lores

Arguments that would go against the above, are that dryads, treekin, and treemen perform better in combat than before. Dryads are undercosted. A level 4 caster can get the lore of life.

I mostly play friendly games with my army, so the lack of a super-competitive build is not so much of a concern. But when you try to tool out a tournament list, it makes things rather difficult. Also, ironically I've actually won more games in 8th edition than in 7th edition with this army, since my particular brand of wood elves (trees) got better. But then again, I won very few games with this army in 7th edition (other than friendly ones against fairly weak liists) since it was considered a weak build for wood elves. The fact that it is now considered one of the strongests points to the fact that most of the wood elf strengths have been neutralized.

Edit: I realize that was a bit more than a paragraph supporting my initial reason, but I was also kind of talking it out to myself, too. Hopefully I'm still somewhat within the guidelines of the OP

Wood elves are pretty bad, but if they are played by a good player they are a realy good army, Tomb king have so many bound items and free spells they get that it is easy for them to get off 5+ spells a turn, Bretonnians are good when they get the charge and any good bret player will use his M@A to tarpit and hit you in the flank with a huge lance. Beastmen seem the weakest, but a huge hoard of minators with great weapons kicks ass.


So for the normal player i would say Wood elves are the worst, but it all depends on who the person is playing agianst and how good they are.

Debate is necessary, otherwise I can falsify information and perpetrate it as the truth.

Worst Army: Beastmen

I called it: heralds of a new edition! Armybooks/codices that get their book right before a new edition's rules are set usually get the short end of the stick: ex: Sisters of battle, 3rd edition. Dark Angels, 4th edition. Orc and goblins, 7th edition. Empire and high elves 6th edition.

They are also in the cusp of another phenomenon I call the "pendulum effect". When armybook's are going through an upward swing, you see the troops get better/cheaper than the previous one, both compared to their own older book and to the current books that came out recently. Eventually the pendulum swings the other way and the first book in a long time comes out that has WORSE basic troops compared to their original book. This book at this cusp usually winds up being bad.

Example: Dark Angels 3rd edition, Dark Angels 4th edition, Dark Elves, 6th edition, High elves, 6th edition.
Dark Eldar 5th ed<- on such a cusp (Troops are more expensive! wow..first time in 5th edition) Not sure if they are bad or not...time will tell.

Beastmen have this dubious distinction of being both on such a cusp AND being heralds of a new edition. <- sad times for beastmen.

Edit: You see my nickname? I didn't make that up, a tournament player called me that. I KNOW about bad armies. Lol...

The Connoisseur of Crap.

Ragnar4 wrote:and Beastmen receiving what I believe to be the most damning evidence in this whole thread.

In pointing out that one person's criteria is stronger than other's you are entering into debate and breaking the rules of your own thread.

Maks a beastmen list at 2500 points that you will have chanceee of beating the armies your friends or tournament opponents will bring.

Doombull 235, Slug skin, brass cleaver, ramhorn helm,Gnarled Hide, Heavy armour, shield, uncanny senses 107 = 342. (D3 St 6 impact hits, 1 st 3 hit for every enemy model in base contact, 6 attacks (and another 1 for each enemy model in base contact) at I6, WS 6, St 6, -3 AS (+ bloodgreed). And he has T5, an AS of 1+ and 5 wounds. The ultimate rank and file killer.

Wargor 85, BSB 25, The 1+ armour from BRB 45 = 155

Level 2 shaman 110, Dispel scroll (Lore of Beast for default spell) = 135

Level 2 shaman 110, (Lore of beast for default spell)

Chariot 80 = 80

Chariot 80 = 80

19 Gors 133, full command, 25 hand weapons 19 = 177

19 Gors 133, full command 25 hand weapons 19 = 177

16 Gors 122, full command 25 (ambusher) = 147

6 minotaur 330, Great Weapons 48 = 378

6 Minotaur 330, Great Weapons 48 = 378

6 harpies =66

Ghorgon 275 = 275

A few points under 2500.

The real weakness is the pathetic gors. The doombull and the ghorgon as rank and file killers, and the minotaurs crack the hard stuff. The mages simply try to add the default spell onto the models that needs it most.
Initially it looks awesone, however except for the general and BSB there is no armour to speak of.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chariot spam is neither needed or wanted.

Two level 2s and a scroll won't stop much enemy magic.

I vote for the poor beastmen as well, they are by far the worst performing of my 4 armies...
The special rules are uncontrollable; a hindrence as much as a benifit (ambush)
the special rules involve tons of tedious uncontrollable rolls (frenzy/hatred)
the special rules are obscure and irrelavent in a vast minority of games (beastlord/wargor vs 'men')
No ranged war machines, bottom tier ranged troops, bottom tier fast cav, bottom tier regular cavalry, no elite infantry block
Have you seen what cannons do to t5 no save monsters in this edition?!
Vastly inferior lore compaired to the new juicable basic8
Severe price gouging (as opposed to generic gw overpricing)

sebster wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:and Beastmen receiving what I believe to be the most damning evidence in this whole thread.

In pointing out that one person's criteria is stronger than other's you are entering into debate and breaking the rules of your own thread.

It's only debate if I choose to argue it.

Debate requires two sides willing to butt heads. Simply making a statement of opinion is not a qualifier for debate.

The type of thread this happens to be is also a "moderated thread" I'm the moderator. So I get to make statements of opinion.

I don't think you understand what moderator means. It doesn't mean that you get to power trip as you please. It means that you monitor behavior and guide debate. You are entitled to make statements as you please, but they will be based upon their merit of fact, not because you say so.

That said, I think beast men are alright. They have a huge variety of things to choose from. Personally, I worry about Ghorros Warhoof and sons combined with minotaurs because they pack a huge punch.

Surtur wrote:I don't think you understand what moderator means. It doesn't mean that you get to power trip as you please. It means that you monitor behavior and guide debate. You are entitled to make statements as you please, but they will be based upon their merit of fact, not because you say so.That said, I think beast men are alright. They have a huge variety of things to choose from. Personally, I worry about Ghorros Warhoof and sons combined with minotaurs because they pack a huge punch.

If you're suggesting there is no merit of fact in what Waaagh_Gonads has claimed. I suggest you take that up with him. Go ahead, call him a big fat liar, I dare you.

uuuuh.

he wasn't disagreeing with Waaaghgonads. he was agreeing with him.



Beastmen are 1 of the weaker armies, BUT

the strength of all armies in 8th is highily relative to the player skill. it just takes a slightly better general to use the poorer armies in 8th edition.


in general, a Good general playing a bad army > Then a bad player playing a good army.

I don't get how you can make a case for beastmen, when they at least have units that are pretty scary to face, ie: Minotaurs.

There is NOTHING in a wood elves book I'd be worried about facing.

Treemen? Monsters are easy enough to deal with
Treekin? Zero static combat res will do them in
Glade guard? Not enough volume of fire for the large blocks
Nothing special about their magic


It might be the three armies I play for fantasy (see my sig) happen to have really good strengths to the WEs weaknesses, but I just don't see anything in there as intimidating.

So what in the beastmen book is scary?

Treeman is way better than the monsters in beastmen
Treekin are toughness 5, 4+ save, 5+ demon ward..way tougher than minos, and also strength 5. Immune to psychology and leadership 8 don't hurt either.

Strength 4 shooting?

As to their magic...every time you successfully cast a spell from lore of life you can heal a unit. Look at that treeman get wounds back...

No..beastmen are the junk book.

WG wrote:Chariot spam is neither needed or wanted.

For the record, the only reason I chose wood elves over beastmen is the chariot spam list (chariots as troops). Otherwise, I think they're pretty on par with one another, maybe even a slight edge to wood elves in some circumstances.

I really think it's down to those two, though... ogres and brettonians do not belong in the conversation!

(Sigh... couldn't resist having a conversation. I guess the only thing to do to avoid one is to have a simple poll...)

scuddman wrote:So what in the beastmen book is scary?

Treeman is way better than the monsters in beastmen
Treekin are toughness 5, 4+ save, 5+ demon ward..way tougher than minos, and also strength 5. Immune to psychology and leadership 8 don't hurt either.

Strength 4 shooting?

As to their magic...every time you successfully cast a spell from lore of life you can heal a unit. Look at that treeman get wounds back...

No..beastmen are the junk book.

Treeman are also 285 points, and the basic spell from lore of metal/fire can pretty much make it disappear.

Treeman have a pretty good statline with 6s in all the right places, they get tree singing which is meh with the decrease of forests this edition (since now there's all kinds of terrain), and strangle-roots, which is kind of cool.

To compare it to the beastmen rare units: (the first 3 are all 10 points less than a treeman, for points comparisons)
Ghorgons - same stat line as a treeman, with 2 more Movement, 1 less WS, 2 more LD, 1 more Attack, and 1 more initiative, frenzy, a unique killing blow, which can lead to a way to regen wounds. Also gets the same bloodgreed awesomeness as minotaurs.
Jabberslythes - can fly, so much better mobility. It's nuking affect can be pretty good at times, though I think he's the worst of the rare slots, simply because he's S/T/W 5 instead of 6.
Cygor - same stat line with 2 more Movement, 3 less WS, 1 less Toughness/wounds, 1 more initiative, MR(2), reroll hits against anything with some kind of magic (items, spells,etc...), a built in stone thrower, ans soul-eater can be pretty effective with this magic heavy edition.
Giant - 60 points less than the treeman, and all the normal expected results of a giant.

While I'll admit the beastmen rare slots are not really worth the 275 points, how are they worse than something whose only real advantage is a 3+/5+ save?

On to Treekin:
Treekin are also 10 points MORE per model (6 more if minos have xhw, 2 more if minos have GWs) than mintotaurs, can't take unit musician/standard. Bloodgreed and extra handweapons also mean minos are hitting a lot harder. Don't over look M6 (minos) vs M5 (treekin, treeman) either.

Again, I'll take the beastmen unit.

S4 shooting? yeah, only at short range, and only on models that cost 12 points per model. In comparison, I can take a dark elf RXB for 2 points less, that shoots twice as many shots, at S3 armor piercing, AND RXBs can make decent melee units if given shields due to hatred being really good.

You can only get the lore of life on your the lord level caster, AND you have to remember, it only works if within 12" of the target you wish to regen the wound on. Not to mention, to get a lvl 4 is a minimum of 240 points, what do you get with that? a longbow? For comparison, for 10 more points, I can take a lvl 4 dark elf sorceress that has access to more lores, gets the sweet Druchii Sorcery special rule, Power of Darkness automatic spell.
Beasmen can get casters at a cheaper cost, with S4 2 attacks and T5 (so isn't an autodeath in combat) and can take some very powerful lores (shadow/death). One pit of shades/sun on that treeman/kin, and it doesn't matter how many wounds you heal from a unit that's just removed from play.

I'll say it again, neither army is good, we have established that. I just think, with the reasons stated above, it's hard to call beastmen worse than an army with over priced and gimped units.

P.S. - I didn't even mention beastmen chariots. Razorgor chariots are just....swell.

Not a big fan of all chariot beastmen armies. They tend to implode on themselves. Sniper characters with cannons and absorb the chariot shocks

Because a 3+/5+ save is a big deal in fantasy. You see what happens to gorgons against skinks? That doesn't happen to the treeman. You can't kill the treeman with a bunch of strength 3 attacks. I can kill a giant with gnoblars throwing stuff.

I don't know, immune to psychology, toughness 5, 4+ save, 5+ demonic ward. We'll just agree to disagree...but I've seen minos charge strength 3 units and get obliterated from stand and shoot and then hth...that doesn't happen to treekin. The way treekin are (no command, etc) force woodelves to play combined charge elements, but it works just fine. As destructive as minos are, they have no armor, leadership 7, and are only toughness 4. It means they take damage worse than ogres do but cost a lot more. It also makes them unreliable because they are weak to basic shooting.

I don't know, I just see more viable strategies with WoodElves. Beastmen just remind me of charge forward, get into hth, and hope you win. And they don't even do that better than warriors of chaos.

Amongst the elf armies, wood elves have the best monsters, both ogre sized and not, and still have really hitty units. As machiara of the wood elf glade website once said, their secret is that they are surprisingly nasty in hth for an army that looks like a shooty army.

The thing about dealing with steadfast, is that the tough hth elements of woodelves are actually good at grinding steadfast units, but right now the WE players are still too used to playing the passive aggressive "denial" army.

Edit: I like how we're arguing which army deserves the bigger wheelchair. It amuses me...

Of all the elves armies? Sorry, Hydra gets that title.

And yes, S3 can bring down something with 3+/5+ my elves do it all the time, the term's called 'paper cuts'

Like I said before, both armies stink. I just think beastmen stink a little less, as they actuallycan vary a little in army build.

Wood elves, if play skill is negligible, have ONE build that *might* win. All it takes is one lore of metal/fire caster and the battle plan goes up in flames (pun intended).

All I know, is in these parts, there's people actually winning games with beastmen. The few times I've watched wood elves, they've just gotten destroyed, and now are all hiding in people's closets/bookshelves.

And yes, it's a nice change of pace to arguing between skaven/dwarfs/dark elves/lizardmen for most OP award.

Ragnar4 wrote:It's only debate if I choose to argue it.

... so when I made comment that you were debating that was just a statement, and not the start of a debate. But when you challenged my comment you started a debate?

Do you see how silly your rules for this thread are?

greenbay924 wrote:I don't get how you can make a case for beastmen, when they at least have units that are pretty scary to face, ie: Minotaurs.

There is NOTHING in a wood elves book I'd be worried about facing.

Treemen? Monsters are easy enough to deal with
Treekin? Zero static combat res will do them in
Glade guard? Not enough volume of fire for the large blocks
Nothing special about their magic


It might be the three armies I play for fantasy (see my sig) happen to have really good strengths to the WEs weaknesses, but I just don't see anything in there as intimidating.

well, Tree singing could be nasty if the forests on the table are of a particularly unpleasent sort.

not to mention breaking up a units steadfastness and giving it to the WE units.


imagine them treesinging on a Blood forest and making it go stand right on your Lvl4 making him virtually useless.

of moving a bunch of poisened trees in front of your units and theirs.

of sticking a Wildwood over one of your vital units and whiping 1/2 of it out

Grey Templar wrote:

greenbay924 wrote:I don't get how you can make a case for beastmen, when they at least have units that are pretty scary to face, ie: Minotaurs.

There is NOTHING in a wood elves book I'd be worried about facing.

Treemen? Monsters are easy enough to deal with
Treekin? Zero static combat res will do them in
Glade guard? Not enough volume of fire for the large blocks
Nothing special about their magic


It might be the three armies I play for fantasy (see my sig) happen to have really good strengths to the WEs weaknesses, but I just don't see anything in there as intimidating.

well, Tree singing could be nasty if the forests on the table are of a particularly unpleasent sort.

not to mention breaking up a units steadfastness and giving it to the WE units.


imagine them treesinging on a Blood forest and making it go stand right on your Lvl4 making him virtually useless.

of moving a bunch of poisened trees in front of your units and theirs.

of sticking a Wildwood over one of your vital units and whiping 1/2 of it out

In all of my 8th edition games, tournament and casual, there hasn't been more than 1-2 forests per game, and they're usually out of the way. Now, the forest the wood elves get to bring with em, but change things.

And countering tree singing is as simple as thinking "hey, maybe I should stay back from the forest with my unit/caster I don't want to get hurt by it."

Dark elves are the worst army.
Reason being i've never won a game playing them.

Which makes me believe that wood elves are better then dark elves, even though i also have never won with wood elves, They are just more fun to play with so thats a +1