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.

Why do people think beastmen arent a strong army? Why are the in the bottom tiers in Europe? Can someone please point out their faults, and what makes them not so good?

They're just...not great at everything they do.

They're supposed to be a horde army, but don't really work as a horde army.

They're not AWFUL as the tier lists would have you believe, but they're just crushingly mediocre.

They are average in alot of things, and below in a few more.

Not really any strong points to them, which really makes them suffer badly.

Seems odd. They do not really seem to bad, but I understand what you mean when you say they do not do anything special. And with skavens horde capability no one can really match it. I guess I can see where everything they would be good at another army is better.

They're mediocre.

They were meant to be a horde army, there whole fluff is based on a horde style army, but they're plagued by overcosted units (Gors, Bestigors, ALL of the rares)

Its bs, it really is. They were terrible in the last book, and barely better in this book.

Don't play them to be competitive, play a game, if you do play Beastmen, with the idea that you are going to lose, because most of the time you will, and savor the wins you get.

I hear that a chariot heavy force is viable - but it's one of the most expensive (dollars, not points) armies I can think of.

Everything Beastmen can do, other armies do better.


Hordes of cheap infantry. too expensive to be taken in numbers to off set their fragility. their stats are good, but they pay for it and don't get any survivability.


Monsterous infantry and monsters. no way to make Minotaurs Core(which a Doombull really should do) and Ogres do much the same for far cheaper. Monsters suffer from being units without models and not being very survivable.


Chariots. this beastmen can do, the main problem is that Chariots just can't break infantry blocks anymore. after the initial round, which the infantry don't run from due to steadfast, they just fall apart in the face of lots of attacks and static combat Res.

Really, it's because they don't have much in the way of survivability for their somewhat more than average cost troops.

I really don't think they're a bad army at all, it's just that the other 8th ed. books have cheaper/more useful tools. Beastmen can compete, but they have such a hard time doing it in the tournament setting that there's no point. They're still a good army for casual though, I mean, they're still quite capable in the right hands.

Beastmen can't compete.

Lets put it this way: if the army doesn't have a viable chance at 'ard boys, its not competitive.

All chariot forces are hillarious. One standard (your BSB) and your counter is what 8th has encouraged the most: infantry blocks.

Only play this army if you like it for the fluff, not its viability in tournaments.