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.
2013/10/02 01:27:40
Subject: Which army is the most tactically rewarding?
I'm really enjoying the discussion. Shouldn't beastmen be similarly ranked to WE given their under-powered state & the ambush orientation to play-style that they have? Can anyone explain that?
"The objective of the game is to win. The purpose of the game is to have fun. The two should not be confused."
No, beastmen are a cakewalk in comparison to WE or Brets in terms of difficulty since beastmen can actually have the lasting ranks to negate steadfast and they have excellent characters to support their units.
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.
2013/10/02 15:37:55
Subject: Which army is the most tactically rewarding?
Also beastmen have chaff and hard-hitting units. What they need is to be repriced.
8000 Dark Angels (No primaris)
10000 Lizardmen (Fantasy I miss you)
3000 High Elves 4000 Kel'shan Ta'u "He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which." -Douglas Adams
(No primaris)
(Fantasy I miss you)
