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.

Not having been around for the earlier editions, andn ot havnig personal experience facing such armies, when people on the forums say certain armies just suck, I'm left wondering why. I looked at Wild Elves and can sort of see the problem (6th edition Army Book being the big factor). Could someone explain what the problem with Beastmen is? Are these problems that can be circumvented through clever army building or are they just handicapped?

What i've gotten is that these armies are generally harder to use than others (Skaven, DE etc.) but can stil win but there is a somewhat narrow path to victory, they lack the freedom other books provide and a re currently stuck with 1 or 2 ways to play effectively while other armies can usually afford a bit more freedom and still compete.
As far as Beastmen in particular go people claim their lack of armour is their weakness but i really lack the experience to comment on that.

As a Beastmen player some of the big negatives are no armor, no WS 5 on any troop, Minotaurs are too expensive for at best a 5+ armor save, a WS4 and no rerolls, and will almost never catch anything that they do break in combat. Centigors are too expensive as well and are mediocre medium cav. Bestigors are expensive, would be worth it if you didn't have to give them great .weapons, with only a T4 and a 5+ most do not survive to attack back. The monsters are really expensive and not a single one even has an armor save. Chariot spam can still work, Hordes of Gors with killy characters and BSB with the +1 strength banner do a good job putting holes in teeth. The army is hard to win with and I find myself, against certain armies, playing for the small win and a bit of avoidance. My toys can't go toe to toe with yours. Just my 2 cents.

I think the 1 big problem with beatmen is that they are comparitively overpriced, you look at similar units in other armies and they tend to cost quite a bit less.

Blak are you talking points or moneys?

I think it's pts.

No hell pit abomination comparable monster.

Almost no ranged attack.

On the whole- awful magic.

As indicated earlier - a large chunk of the army is overpriced (IMHO a 10% reduction of centigors, minotaurs, and all the rare selections would be a great start).

There are combos...
A decked out doombull vs rank and fie enemy - Heavy armour, shield, the brass cleaver, ramhorn helm, Gnarled Hide, Slug skin, Uncanny senses for on the charge: d3 St 6 impact hits, every model in base contact is hit with St 3 hit at at start combat, + 1 hit against every model in base contact at St 6, 6 hits at st 6 (YAY FRENZY!) at I6. When return attacks come at him: WS6, T5, AS2+ and then for every armour save I make... I do a St6 attack. LOL!
Throw him and a gorghon down a flank for uber laughs.

Same gear kit out on a beastlord on a razorgor chariot is expensive, but just as brutal.

Beasts have a very, very decent core in gors. Mv5, T4, WS5 for 7 pt. is a bargain, and then you have core chariots!

Special flying infantry with 2 attacks? sign me in.

Bestigors may be a bit overpriced, but they're still 1 pt less than black orcs with 1 better I and Mv, and razorgors at 55 pt (4 st6 attacks on the charge, T5 and 3 wounds) are just about right, just make sure to only attack the flanks as I2 means you'll most likely strike last.

Now for the rare choices, monsters are cannon fodder, but so is everything large nowadays and point-wise they're no worse than stegadons (and everyone fields them nowadays).

Character-wise you can build some interesting choices with the gifts and magic items.

So overall it's an OKish army, it's sad that the only local beastmen player is not precisely the best strategist around, because they have potential.

Gors only have WS4, but I still think that Gors and Ungors are pretty solid troop choices IMHO, because of hatred combined with decent WS and lots of attacks from either spears or addtional hand weapons.

Beastmen magic is decent too, because shamans can choose from the updated lores (Death, Shadows and Beasts) from the BRB, instead of being forced to use their own lore. Some of the magic items for casters are also pretty good.

They can also get some quite strong characters if tooled out properly, because of a nice selection of unique magic items.

The biggest overall weakness is that almost all of the special and rare choices are at least 10% overpriced, which overall weakens the hitting power of the army quite a lot.

From what I've seen, there are two issues with price. The first is that certain things cost too much for what they do. Minotaurs. Harpies.

The second is that things might be point-by-point equal to other armies, but they cost more. The big monsters are relatively fair-priced. But at 275, you can't get two in in a 2000pt game, their abilities are pretty focused, and most importantly they're all just as vulnerable to being cannon'd as any cheaper monster.

I don't think they're terrible. But they could have been better. Point drops alone could save this army. A refined special lore and some very basic equipment/rules changes would raise them up fine.

Wow, I never heard anyone complain harpies would over priced.
I love my 11 point harpies in my dark elf army; which are exactly the same as the beast unit... except that you have an option to upgrade them to scouts.
So you can deploy 12" away from say, a warmachine, and should you go 2nd, charge how far? Best of 3D6 +10" right?
These guys got a lot better in 8th, because you don't care about "slots" anymore.

-Matt

But they are still special, and that's my only complaint about them. It's not much of a difference to go from Core to Special, but it just feels like a sucker-punch to Beastmen that Dark Elves can field them as Core (even Core that doesn't count as such), and they can't.
Also, I do think the Scout upgrade is overpriced. T3, no armour, and...15pts a model? The Scout rule is still a finicky one. It might not reasonable come into play.

It's just a minor complaint, really. I think they should be Core, but not count as Core. More of a principle thing than a tactical one.

In this version of the game I don't think there's really a difference between special and core that doesn't count as core, you have max 50% special your going to use a little over 25% on core probably a little under 25 on heroes/lores, if not more, then that basically lets you put in as much special as you want.

Maybe. But the restriction's there. As I said, it's really just the idea. Harpies. Beasty-bird-ladies. Core for elves, Special for beasts. Like them. Why? Don't know.
Also, aren't Beastmen still Panicked from fleeing Harpies, where Dark Elves aren't? That logic I follow, but its another check in the Dark Elves' favor, I guess.

I just want the Beastmen to be good at beastie things...

jouso wrote:
Beasts have a very, very decent core in gors. Mv5, T4, WS5 for 7 pt. is a bargain, and then you have core chariots!

Special flying infantry with 2 attacks? sign me in.

Bestigors may be a bit overpriced, but they're still 1 pt less than black orcs with 1 better I and Mv, and razorgors at 55 pt (4 st6 attacks on the charge, T5 and 3 wounds) are just about right, just make sure to only attack the flanks as I2 means you'll most likely strike last.

Now for the rare choices, monsters are cannon fodder, but so is everything large nowadays and point-wise they're no worse than stegadons (and everyone fields them nowadays).

Character-wise you can build some interesting choices with the gifts and magic items.

So overall it's an OKish army, it's sad that the only local beastmen player is not precisely the best strategist around, because they have potential.

Bestigors may be 1 point less than Black orcs but that 1 point gives options, and the I doesn't matter because I am always striking last with great weapons. Razorgors are on 50mm bases so lots of attacks at them and WS 3 I2 LD 6 and just like the rest of the army no save. Stegadons have an armor save, my 275 point Ghorgon gets hit with a bunch of strength 3 or poison he just dies, also stegs get that wonderful randomize save from all the skinks up top.

Squash wrote:Not having been around for the earlier editions, andn ot havnig personal experience facing such armies, when people on the forums say certain armies just suck, I'm left wondering why. I looked at Wild Elves and can sort of see the problem (6th edition Army Book being the big factor). Could someone explain what the problem with Beastmen is? Are these problems that can be circumvented through clever army building or are they just handicapped?

I think they are handicapped by inconsistent rules writing and points pricing. Here are my gripes:

1. Lack of armor hurts, T4 only goes so far unfortunately. Bestigors should come with shield stock or should get a Shaggy hide (scaly skin) save of some sort, at base. Something similiar for Gors would go a long way too.

2. I don't think I've used the Lore of the Wild once since 8th came out, its just inferior in every way to Lore of Beasts.

3. Look at the Hydra, HPA, Shaggoth and possibly even the Chaos Giant. So many more special rules/options for those creatures, yet significantly cheaper then the 275 pts(aside from Giant, but still priced more then the Chaos or Orc/OK one, I think) that all the new monsters in Rare are priced at. Jabberslythe is just there for modelling opportunities at this point, it was weak in 7th, now damn near worthless in 8th, aside from being an expensive warmachine hunter. Although, I must say the Ghorgon has been good to me, either taking missile fire that could've hurt my troops or tearing through pretty much anything. Again, a base scaly skin save would go a long way for all of these beasties.

4. Centigors seem to be forever cursed with a lack of identity. Too expensive to use as a small harassing unit, too weak to use as heavy cav.

5. Although I've had Ambush work out well for me for the most part, with only a few horror stories, I think I miss its older incarnation. Although I may have nostalgic, rose colored glasses on for that.

There are more weaknesses that I could list, but I'm ranting at this point. I know its a lot of complaints(with more out there, if I had the time), but in my opinion, Beastmen are so close to being competitive it hurts. For me it comes down to points cost and armour saves as to whats primarily holding them back. If GW were to FAQ in cheaper points costs and scaly skin armor saves where its most obviously needed (and fits with the lore), Beastmen would be money.

That's all some pretty legit stuff.

The whole armor thing is up in the air for me, though. Obviously, the Beastmen shouldn't be rocking too many good saves, since they're all about the killing. And honestly, the difference between an Orc Boy and a Gor in terms of saves is not noticeable.
But the nevertheless, the points don't really reflect their actual worth.

The Lore of the Wild is indeed a weird lore. The big spell is generally better than the Transformation (not remains in play, letting the Shaman test before he takes a wound), but that's about it. And no Lore Attribute. I don't know why they didn't give the special Lores one of those nifty little things...

I don't think comparing anything to the A-bomb or the Hydra is going to come up good, but the Beastmen monsters are ridiculously expensive. I don't think that they're all that over-priced so much as they cost too much, if you get me. Like, a monster with S10 T10 A10 might be worth 700pts, but 700pts is just too much to invest in something and still have an army around it.
The other problem with big monsters is Poison. The rules for Poison are dumb. They make some sense, but ultimately, my question is this: can a blow-gun needle actually punch through enough hide, muscle, and fat to reach a Ghorgon's bloodstream?

And then there's things like Centigors. This seems to be a trend in the semi-elite armies, like Dwarfs and Orcs, where your models are better than average but not by as much as, say, Elves. Some of their units are attempts to be versatile, capable of helping out here and there. Cool idea, but generally what that means is that, Centigors, for example, will get out-maneuvered when they're sent to harass people and butchered when they charge in to anything significant.

...but seriously. Poison is a dumb rule. For the very reason that giants and the like are more afraid of Skinks than they are of...well, most things. 19 Skink skirmishers cost 133pts, and can kill a giant, on average, in a single volley. Dumb.

Warpsolution wrote:The Lore of the Wild is indeed a weird lore. The big spell is generally better than the Transformation (not remains in play, letting the Shaman test before he takes a wound), but that's about it. And no Lore Attribute. I don't know why they didn't give the special Lores one of those nifty little things...

Cuz these didn't exist untill 8th.

Warpsolution wrote:Poison is a dumb rule. For the very reason that giants and the like are more afraid of Skinks than they are of...well, most things. 19 Skink skirmishers cost 133pts, and can kill a giant, on average, in a single volley. Dumb.

Considering the odds and the fact that even toothpick (or whatever it is that snotlings wield) can normally wound a giant by rolling a 6 to wound, poison makes about as much sense as regular ways to take wounds off monsters. I do agree however that most monsters need better armour and/or more wounds.

I assume that at least some of the newer codexes were written with 8th heavily in mind. And something as major as the Lore Attributes were almost definitely ground out a while ago.

I think hand-to-hand is a bit easier to swallow. You can get in there and mix it up. A bunch of goblins fighting a giant would sort of climb up his shanks and stab and pry. Until he shook them all off or fell down.
In 7th, at least, monsters didn't need much in the way of armour, aside from Poison. I've always pondered the difference between high T and a scaly skin save, though. Even a 5+ would help.

Even if GW planned to have attributes ahead of time, implementing them in army books before they made an appearance in the rulebook would have likely caused undue confusion or cries of cheese.

HoverBoy wrote:
Considering the odds and the fact that even toothpick (or whatever it is that snotlings wield) can normally wound a giant by rolling a 6 to wound, poison makes about as much sense as regular ways to take wounds off monsters. I do agree however that most monsters need better armour and/or more wounds.

36 S3/4 shots at a 6 to hit (I'm using 36 shots purely for division purposes), would normally result in 6 hits and 1 single wound.

36 poisoned shots at a 6 to hit result in 6 automatic wounds, killing most monsters, and any Beastmen rare.

The toothpick (and really all attacks now) may always wound on a 6, but poison removes an entire step from the process and reduces the impact of shooting modifiers in most cases. Needing a '6' to hit with a BS ranged attack should be a cause for concern, not a "well, anything that hits automatically wounds!". It would make large monsters certainly less afraid of tiny little skinks and gutter runners.

Frankly, Poisoned was overdone in 8th. I would have been fine with a "never needs worse than x" to wound (which would have allowed for varied levels of poison similar to the varied levels of regeneration), but automatically wounding?

I guess they didn't want to make it too simmilar to 40k.

Just ocurred to me that poison is the rending of WHFB. You don't need to care if you can reasonably damage the big thing, just roll a lot of to-hits and see if you can autowound. Without armor, works like a charm.

I wonder if the new army books will over cost poison by 5 points per model or something to balance it, and then in the next edition drop it down to "Never needs more than X to wound", making everyone melt their skinks in fury...

Melted Skinks = Chaos Skinks. Double poison.

That mechanic for Poison would probably be a vast improvement. A poisoned needle or knife needs to scratch you a little for it's poison to get in there. So a "6" to hit is as good as it gets, so your dart or whatever is as close to its target as it can get. It makes sense, up to a point. Then you throw dragons and monsters into the mix.

Really, Warhammer has trouble replicating this sort of situation because 1d6 is not a lot of variation.

Yea, the distinction between "Hard to hit", "Hard to hit with enough force for it to care" and "Hard to get through it's protection" is a bit fuzzy in the designer's minds. Giants should probably have a version of Scaly Skin seeing as how their flesh is probably thicker than a dagger is long. Instead they have a lot of Toughness, then the rules say a 6 always wounds, so their only defense doesn't matter 16% of the time.

I sometimes think that GW doesn't spend a lot of time thinking of the various outputs of their rules.

Wehrkind wrote:Yea, the distinction between "Hard to hit", "Hard to hit with enough force for it to care" and "Hard to get through it's protection" is a bit fuzzy in the designer's minds. Giants should probably have a version of Scaly Skin seeing as how their flesh is probably thicker than a dagger is long. Instead they have a lot of Toughness, then the rules say a 6 always wounds, so their only defense doesn't matter 16% of the time.

I sometimes think that GW doesn't spend a lot of time thinking of the various outputs of their rules.

Can you imagine what Godzilla would of been like if every Japanese person had a 1/6 chance of wounding him?

*L* A mercifully short film? I can imagine some girl's yappy little dog running up and nipping at Big G while he focuses on smashing a building, only to roll a few 6's and dropping him. The little rat would hold its head up high from that day onward!

Don't forget, though. Godzilla has X+1 wounds, X being whatever you've dished out. Poor guy always gets beaten up, but he always manages to nuke the other schmuck with his atomic breath.

Atomic breath. Now that's a breath weapon. S10 d6 Wounds. Survivors and any models within 6" of at least one survivor take a S4 hit each turn from radiation.

I got it. Beastmen should just get Godzilla as a rare choice. That would make them better. He'd have...goat...horns. That way he fits the...theme?

Man I would love to have big G in my army, then nobody could stand in my way... unless they have alot of fish!?

With beastmen you pay alot for primal, and ambush on your core. I don't mind no saves on my core infantry, it's sort of the beastmens lot.

-Though primal fury is nice you tend to use alot of points on heroes/lords, to help the low Ld on its way especially if you go with ungors.
-If you want minotaurs, and you do, they can be a pointsink as well.
-Your rare also eat alot of points.

All these wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't because you really needed all those points on core units. In my mind it doesn't hurt as much that beastmen are easy to kill if you could just outnumber your enemy. But if you wan't to play around with your special and rares, and if you herobuff your Ld like I do, you wan't have as many core troops as you would like.

And while I'm dreaming of discount priced beastmen, it would be great if Bestigors came only equiped with hand weapons and HA at 10 p. And you then could buy AHW, shield or GW for them.

I dont think giving all beastmen an armoursave is the correct solution, because that would be taking away their identity and overall uniqueness as an army.

As said earlier, points drops could do it alone, but I think that some of the issues also could be solved by increasing movement and maneuverbillity on some of the more overpriced special units like centigors (come on! They dont even HAVE mounts, it's their own bodies!).

I dont think that the army is terribly underpowered, but I do agree that the 275 point monsters lack some form of scaly skin armour save, further representing their natural toughness, but because of poison, it cant be done with toughness alone.

The problem is that armour save doesnt help them againt cannons, but that problem could also be helped by giving them +1 wound, so a Ghorgon for example can't be killed outright by a cannon, giving it a chance to reach close combat and regain the wounds later on by eating people.