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.

I wanted to make sure I am reading this correct reguarding the Breastmaster and pets. If I make 1 beastmaster I can have up to 5 khy, 1 clawed fiend, and 2 razorwing flocks per beastmaster?
if I am wrong please let me know.

yes each beast master can take that.

So a 5 beastmasters can have up to 25 khy, 5 clawed fiend, and 10 razorwing flocks in a squad?

Each Beastmaster may take 0-5 Khymerae, 0-1 Clawed Fiend, or 0-2 Razorwing Flocks. So as an example a squad could consist of 5 Beastmasters, 10 Khymerae, and 6 Razorwing Flocks.

I think my math is correct right? or I am not counting right?

Alcyonmz: Each individual Beastmaster may only have 1 type of Beast; your unit would be illegal.

KK is spot on. With the way it's worded it can be difficult to pin down the meaning, but each beastmaster can only take 1 type of beast.

Umm so it be
1 Beastmaster
-clawed fiend
2 Beastmaster
- Khymerae x5
3 Beastmaster
- Razorwing Flocks x 4
4 Beastmaster
-clawed fiend
5 Beastmaster
-clawed fiend

is that rigth or am I mistaking?

That would be close; you have 2 extra Razorwing Flocks on BM#3. Everything else is correct.

1 other thing with Beast masters that is worth noting: only one of them can get a Special Weapon(Venom blade, Power Weapon or Agonizer).

Thxs Komm for the help at least I know how to form them now.

Hm? This could not be how the rules are intended to be read?

A single beastmaster can only ever have a single beast, and not for example 5 khymeras.
The reason for why I read the rule like this is that it specifies that a single beastmaster may choose either a khymera or any other beast, and the numbers for each beasttype in the option specifies only how many beasts of that type the unit as a whole mght include. There is no need in a "may choose" rule to specify that it's possible to choose 0, as you are not even demanded to choose at all, and the numbers of khymeras, which is the "basic" type, correspon naturally with the maximum amount of beastmasters in the unit.

Another argument for this is the point costs, which if you include a 12 pts DE with only a single CCW makes more sense.

The third argument is gameplay balance, try for example a unit with 3 clawed fiends, 10 khymeras and 2 flocks plus of course 5 BMs. As it is a single unit and hits are allocated even in CC you could easily allocate the first 3 wounds you sustain during the game on the fiends and now have 7 attacks on one of them due to their special rule and still be sure that it's only if you sustain 17 at the same time from a single unit it's even a risk for it to loose it's last wound. That unit have in total 5 attacks from beastmasters, 30 attacks from Khymeras, 10 attacks from the flocks and 15 attacks from the fiends even if you don't charge. All these are at high I, some of them with rending and most at 4 or 5 in strenght. All this for just over 300 pts. Why would you ever use any other CC unit from the list if this was possible?

Add beastcharge and invulsave for the majority, and it's a go!

The Codex quite clearly specifies that each Beastmaster may take one of the specified options. The options themselves specify how many of each beast you may take per beast type.

Konfa wrote: Why would you ever use any other CC unit from the list if this was possible?

Firstly, the unit you build in the last full paragraph is illegal; it would require six Beastmasters. I'd assume you'd want 2 clawed fiends, rather than 3, to keep it legal. Here are reasons why that unit hasn't become status quo for most DE players:

1. The Beasts do not benefit from PfP, so they'll never get FnP, Furious Charge, or Fearless.
2. The unit cannot embark on a transport.
3. The unit is saddled with Ld 8 (Ld 5 once the Beastmasters are dead)
4. The unit is not scoring and cannot be made to be scoring
5. The unit doesn't have grenades and can only be given grenades with the addition of an IC that costs 100+ more points, which would also lose the unit's 12" assault.
6. To build a unit with 5 Beastmasters, 2 Clawed Fiends, 10 Khymerae, and 2 Razorwing Flocks, you would have to pay $284.00 USD base price from the GW website.

Anyway, as to the OP, the rule as written in the English version of the codex is very clear:

The unit composition is listed as 1-5 Beastmasters, and the first set of options for the unit reads as follows:

"Each Beastmaster may be accompanied by one of the following options (these models join the unit):
-0-5 Khymerae
-0-1 Clawed Fiend
-0-2 Razorwing Flocks"

The high initiative of the beastmasters and their beasts make this unit very attractive. Especially since you can mix up the unit for crazy wound allocation. They are very scary out of a webway portal. Simply taking 5 beastmasters (1 with venom blade) and 5 clawed fiends gives you 3 wound choices and the majority toughness of the squad is 5 (from the clawed fiends). All you really want to keep is one beastmaster for his 8 leadership, so the other 4 are expendable.

Saldiven and Mandor:
Please explain to me what the 0-X in the rules state if the rules are to be interpreted as you say:

"Each Beastmaster may be accompanied by one of the following options (these models join the unit):
-0-5 Khymerae
-0-1 Clawed Fiend
-0-2 Razorwing Flocks"

We all agree on that one beastmaster may only be accompanied by one type of beast, correct?
And that a beastmaster is not demanded to choose any typ of beast, and may instead elect just to tag along, correct?
Then please explain to me why they saw fit to but 0-X instead of 1-X in each category, as this makes no sense at all if you look at the limit as per BM, as a beastmaster doesn't have to choose any type of beast and the ability to pick 0 becomes redundant.
The 0-X limit can only ever have an impact on the unit as a whole, as it's as explained in the last sentance reduntant for BMs individually.
So to summarise, if the limit were to be for each BM it would have stated 1-X instead of 0-X, which instead is for the whole unit.

It's easy to understand if you think about what units it allows you to construct, it's for example possible to have an all Khymera unit, but not to have a 5 fiends one. And the pointcost for the beasts are in that case much more logical than in the crazy example I put in my last post.

Each beastmaster may take one type of beast, and the number he can take is specified in the entry. So, for example, a unit with a single beastmaster could be:

1 Beastmaster, no beasts (if you really wanted)
1 Beastmaster, 0-1 Clawed Fiend.
1 Beastmaster, 0-2 Razorwing Flocks
1 Beastmaster, 0-5 Khymera

With two beast masters, each beastmaster can take the same or different beasts.

1st Beastmaster +
0-1 Clawed Fiend OR
0-2 Razorwing Flocks OR
0-5 Khymera

and

2nd Beastmaster +
0-1 Clawed Fiend OR
0-2 Razorwing Flocks OR
0-5 Khymera

So you could have 2 Beastmasters and 2 Clawed Fiends, or 2 Beastmasters, 2 Razorwing Flocks and 5 Khymera etc.

The most common unit I see banded around is:

4 Beastmasters
6 Razorwing Flocks
5 Khymera
198 points

Razorwings are very killy for the points, but very fragile; especially to things that cause instant death. Which is why you take some Khymera, who's 4+ inv save is excellent for absorbing lascannon hits and such. Even the beastmasters are expendable - the unit continues to function without them, the only issue being the reduced leadership.


Even the example on the website has a single beastmaster controlling >1 beast of a single type. Specifically a Beastmaster with 3 Khymera. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=15500008a

0-x means exactly what it says, you may take none, or any amount up to the maximum value of x.

I can give you, at my discretion 0-1,000,000 $usd; I choose to give you 0, every thing has been satisfied(excepting of course, you, who will not be personally satisfied with receiving nothing; but the options have been satisfied).

You yourself have quoted the important part of the rule: "one of the following options"; there are then listed 3 options: "-0-5 Khymerae
-0-1 Clawed Fiend
-0-2 Razorwing Flocks"

If you select a number of beasts, from any of those 3 options, you immediately stop; you have satisfied the allowance of "one of the following options".

Konfa wrote:
It's easy to understand if you think about what units it allows you to construct, it's for example possible to have an all Khymera unit, but not to have a 5 fiends one. And the pointcost for the beasts are in that case much more logical than in the crazy example I put in my last post.

We've already explained multiple times exactly how the rule works. I feel that your resistance to this is a misunderstanding of how "crazy" the unit you designed is.

I had just written a 5 paragraph long example of your proposed 310 point Beastmaster unit against 310 points of Gray Hunters using average rolling to show that the BM unit would barely win out over 3-4 combat phases, but I figured you'd probably not believe me. I suggest you actually take that unit that you think is "crazy" and try using it in games. I promise you will discover that it is pretty good, but not spectacular. The unit's majority toughness is still only 3, and when you lose the last Beastmaster, the unit's Ld drops to 5. The BM unit on the charge shouldn't even wipe out a single 10 man SM Tactical Squad (but the BM cost more than twice what the Tactical Squad does), and would get beaten up by 310 points of any higher end dedicated assault unit like Assault Terminators, TWC, Ork Nobs, etc.

However, if we instead consider a unit that consists of, say, only 5 Beastmasters and 5 Khymarae, that unit would likely not survive it's first round of shooting and would accomplish next to nothing in assault. Even if you tweaked it to 5 Beastmasters, one 'Fiend, two 'Flocks, and two Khymarae, it would take very little shooting to result in a unit that consisted of nothing but two 'Flocks and a 'Fiend running off of the board from a failed morale test at Ld 5.

Saldiven: I'm happy to see that you can handle basic math, but I'm unsure as to why I wouldn't believe your calcs thought unless something were wrong with them, and the most interesting part is how you did the wound allocation. You are very allowed to calc them against something assaultorientated with >15pts per model and no PA instead, as an example about fighting GH with countercharge and PA will of course turn out less than super, as you are assaulting PA troops with good statlines and good CC gear in for example WB without powerweapons or a significant amount of rending. For example hormies or maybe even tyranid warriors. In the meantime while you are doing the calcs you are very allowed to stop putting words in my mouth.
You did however fail to answere the single question I asked you, beacuse what I asked you for is to explain to me that if the rule is to be read as you state, why does it say "may" and "0-X" in the same rule. It's reduntant and the 0 have no meaning on modelbasis.

GCMandrake: Thank you for providing some info from official GW.


Kommissar Kel: I agree with your post in general, but it doesn't explain why under the option of "may" there is any need at all for 0-X, as the option of 0 is already fullfilled by the option of not choosing any beasts at all making he 0 redundant.


The general discussion: I have no problems seeing that I am alone on my side of the discussion and by general consensus I won't argue with players playing it as 0-5 per model, but I would still like an explanation for the redundant 0.

The reason for the redundant zero is because GW wanted to make doubly sure that people understood they didn't have to take any beasts with the beastmaster.

You don't have to take any, and when you do, you still don't have to take any.

It is a nonsensical sentence, but the implication remains the same.

Konfa wrote:
The general discussion: I have no problems seeing that I am alone on my side of the discussion and by general consensus I won't argue with players playing it as 0-5 per model, but I would still like an explanation for the redundant 0.

The reason is quite simple.
By saying 0-5 Khymerae you have th option to field the beastmaster alone.
If the entry said 1-5 Khymerae, then the beastmaster would be required to take at least 1 Khymerae.

It would have been, if the rule didn't say that he may choose one of the following and instead said must. As it is now he doesn't even need to choose a beast by the basic part of the rules, making the 0 redundant.

Konfa - evidence of redundancy is not evidence of necessity

The bike rules tell you the modified toughness does not apply to ID, despite this being perfectly well covered in the ID rules themselves.

Theyre just being explicit. EACH beastmaster can take options from that list. You are not limited to one type per unit.

Why does the wording matter to you that much? The result is the same: you can take a beastmaster without having to take their beasts.

If more things were redundant and explicit like that...YMDC would be a much less lively place.