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.

So, a month ago I started thinking about getting into WHFB, focusing on which army I'd start. Having taken in a lot of input and mulled things over for a few weeks, I feel like I've managed to boil things down to a dilemma. Having gotten this far, my parameters of what I'm looking for can now be focused down to look at things a bit more specifically, and so with different questions comes a different thread. Though I'm still open to third options, things look like they've settled down to two armies for me - the empire and beastmen. I've gotten to the point where I've sufficiently hammered out fluff problems and modelling things, so now I'm starting to focus a bit more on the table top itself. Specifically, it's a matter of play style.

The reason that beastmen, once rejected, were brought back in is because people kept on calling them brown orcs. The comments were intended to be derisive, but it actually made me realise something - beastmen are the same as orcs, but they do what I want orcs to do better. Orcs do a pile of boyz, but then everything else in the codex (goblins), is worse. Beastmen start out with boyz (furrier, but with more or less the same statline and killing power), but they they go UP from there to bestigors and minotaurs. My complaint about O&G was that I didn't like goblins, and beastmen don't have them.

And so this is the cause of the dilemma between empire and beastmen. On the one hand, the playstyle of beastmen seems most what I'm looking for. My second 40k army was khorne CSM to try and get the same effect. I like the idea of a bombastic mass of face-beating charging up the field and, despite heavy casualties still has enough choppy to crunch whatever it rams into on the other side. It rather seems like beastmen would deliver on this, what with good statlines, hatred: everything, everyone with 2x hand weapons, and a bunch of other stuff.

... but. One of the problems I've had with this with 40k over the years is that playing ultra-aggressive armies like this will naturally force my opponents to hold back and castle up. This means that I wind up encouraging my opponents to play gunlines - why not if I'm going to come to them, and beat face once I get there? This means, though, that every game winds up sort of being a contest of if my dudes can survive several turns of blasting or not, which kind of means that whether I win or lose being determined by how lucky my opponent is with a handful of die rolls in the beginning of the game. Furthermore, what got me so frustrated with 40k was not only that things started to become very predictable, but, of course, 6th ed hates CC, which meant I'd just sort of lose. More importantly, lots of games were frustrating exercises in trying to actually DO anything.

Which, I suppose, is one of the things that just happens when you play a one-sided, over-specialized army.

Which brings me to Empire. They don't have this problem. They can still do the charge forward thing (if somewhat worse), but they also have something called a shooting phase. This means that, not being hemmed into a single play style, I'd be less likely to be frustrated when my roughly one main strategy gets countered. Furthermore, I could use this shooting phase to force my opponents to come to me, which encourages less sit-and-defend.

... but... that means now I'M playing a gunline, or at least a very defensive kind of army. I'm kind of concerned that empire soldiers, with their crappy human statlines, etc. etc. are going to slowly force me into bringing more handgunners and cannons just to have any chance of handling close combat appropriately, which will then snowball on itself. One of the reasons I stopped playing 40k with my guardsmen a few months ago was because slowly but surely, I was boxed into playing a mech gunline because nothing else was cutting it. Beastmen, on the other hand, don't have a place like that they can retreat to, so I'd be forcing myself to play the game "right". But then, if I don't HAVE options, and things get frustrating... then what?

So, I suppose the way to boil this down into the TLDR version is this: I like a play style that beastmen seem to fit, but I'm nervous that, with basically no options (and they will probably get some in their next army book, but who knows what they're going to be?) if things don't work out I'll basically be trapped, unsuccessfully doing one thing over and over and getting frustrated. I like the fact that the empire seems to exactly avoid this problem, but I'm nervous that with said flexibility I'm going to wind up getting stuck in a play style I don't like as much.

And so any input I can get on this would be helpful. I suppose if I were to break things down a bit and try to ask some more specific questions, they would be things like...

- Is versatility a play style? It seems like it would be tough to imprint one's idiosyncrasies on that kind of an army.

- Can Empire do a "green tide" style army? A human wave of stabbeties that charges in with some halberdiers, and then some more halberdiers, and then here, have some more. Obviously it would be a bit different because it would be more of a large mass of gribblies than a gor/bestigor rush, but the question is more one of aggression. Or is it more I can take knights and then some outriders, but otherwise infantry units (especially with detachments) are really more defensive units?

- What other options would beastmen have if their "charge everything now!" way of doing things wasn't really working?

- Are things like ambush and bestial surge enough, and I'm overblowing the problem of getting ground down too hard before I make it in?

Having shooting doesn't necessitate a defensive army. It can be used more often as support, weakening threats while the rest of your army advances. Likewise, having no shooting doesn't mean you're screwed against a defensive army with shooting. WoC has zero shooting outside of the Hellcannon, which is all right but not always used, and they're considered one of the strongest armies out there.

Empire has more than naked infantry. You have knights, demigryphs, a steam tank, etc. Big blocks can also kill plenty if you set up right and pick your engagements, especially if you're spending more points on them than on your ranged fire. In fact, spending too much on ranged abilities will weaken you, as things that are durable against shooting will just walk up and then through your meager melee abilities. You'll have to find a balance that works for you, but it will be a balance and not an extreme that you're pigeonholed into.

Personally, if I were in your situation, I would start with Empire.

Empire are a great beginners army. As you pointed out, they can participate in the shooting and combat phases equally well and they also have a wide range of fast cav and fliers (for the movement phase) and the ability to take all Magic Lores in the Rulebook (which is great in the Magic Phase). Having Empire as your first army is good because it gives you a solid, up-to-date book with which you can build army lists to try out many different styles of play. Don't assume that a certain play-style will be the same in WHFB as it is in 40k, because it's not. A WHFB gunline plays far more differently than you'd think to a 40k gunline, same goes with pure-combat armies.

Starting Empire and using it to learn the game also gives you time to wait until Beastmen get a new book. By the time you've spent your stint with Empire, you may decide you really do like the combat approach, and with the new toys Beastmen will inevitably get in their new book, you may choose to have them as a second army, or sell your Empire to have them as your only one. On the other hand, you might find that you actually quite like having a lot of shooting in your army, and that Beastmen can't offer you that. 9th Edition is also going to bring a host of new changes as well. With Empire being the jack-of-all-trades army, they won't be affected quite like the other armies, such as Beastmen.

The long and short of it is that I think Empire are a solid starting army that fulfil a lot of your needs and can potentially answer many of the questions you have. Beastmen are better saved as an option for the future, especially when they get a new book, which will put you in a better place to decide.

Evertras wrote:In fact, spending too much on ranged abilities will weaken you, as things that are durable against shooting will just walk up and then through your meager melee abilities.

Yeah, and that gets to what I was talking about with snowballing. I don't have the ability to take down, say, a pile of blood knights (or whatever), and so I need to have more shooting or more wizards to weaken them up first, but because I spent more points on more shooty stuff, I'm now even less able to handle the charge of that big, scary death star, which means now I need to buy more cannons and wizards, which will make me need to buy more cannons and wizards, etc. etc.

The Shadow wrote:The long and short of it is that I think Empire are a solid starting army that fulfil a lot of your needs and can potentially answer many of the questions you have. Beastmen are better saved as an option for the future, especially when they get a new book, which will put you in a better place to decide.

Well, the problem is that a second WHFB army for me would take an indeterminate amount of time. That amount of time could very well be never.

I'm willing to put the leg-work in to learn how play a hard army. I'm more concerned about the long-term.

Ailaros-What i am getting from your posts is that you want an army that bring the following.

1. Diversity of Playstyles
2. Diversity of Models
3. Enjoyment.

Well I can tell you Beastmen are not what you want. They are not really diverse they have several useful units and some workable strategies. But they really lack in a diversity of playstyles.

If you want a Pinkish Mustachioed Tide yes it can work I'd think Halbrediers and Greatswords would work. If you want a fast combat army They can do Knights and Demigryphs. If you want magic Luminarks and Light mages. If you want shooting they have a ton of warmachines and shooting. Also on top of all that if you desire you can have a great diversity of color in your army.

I really think beastmen just aren't the option for you.

 Ailaros wrote:

Evertras wrote:In fact, spending too much on ranged abilities will weaken you, as things that are durable against shooting will just walk up and then through your meager melee abilities.

Yeah, and that gets to what I was talking about with snowballing. I don't have the ability to take down, say, a pile of blood knights (or whatever), and so I need to have more shooting or more wizards to weaken them up first, but because I spent more points on more shooty stuff, I'm now even less able to handle the charge of that big, scary death star, which means now I need to buy more cannons and wizards, which will make me need to buy more cannons and wizards, etc. etc.

What you're describing isn't a spiral into a gunline army, it's a spiral into an arms race you cannot win. You're attacking it from the wrong direction.

Remember that movement in Fantasy is infinitely more important than movement in 40k. If that big deathstar charged you, it's because he outmaneuvered you. You can throw chaff in front of it, redirect it, tie it up in a tarpit, flee from it, etc.

For example: those Blood Knights with Frenzy? Stick a minimum sized unit of fast cav in front of them at a 45 degree angle towards the edge of the board. If they fail their frenzy test, they charge. If they don't, they still have to figure out a way to maneuver around you, costing them a turn. If they DO charge, they'll wipe out that unit and then overrun off the board because they have to. They come back next turn off the board, can't charge. That's three turns bought, and by the time they're in the fray again you'll either have a trap prepared with multiple flank attacks that they won't withstand or they just won't do anything significant.

You don't have to kill everything, that will lead to spirals like you're describing and it's not going to lead to wins. There's always a way to tie something up so it just simply doesn't matter, and then take out the rest of the army easily. Deathstars are expensive, and if they can't kill enough to make their points back, they're not worth it.

In short, don't think "How do I kill this?", think "How do I make this unit not worth the points he paid for it?"

I didnt read but the first line. This is WAY too in depth for picking an army to play. Which one looks pretty? go there

 namiel wrote:
I didnt read but the first line. This is WAY too in depth for picking an army to play. Which one looks pretty? go there

I'm all for that method, but this isn't just about which army at this point.

It isn't?

Anyways, I'm certainly a compulsive overthinker, but it still is a bit of a big decision, after all.

Better to over think then under think in this case it seems.

Well, as I said in my above post, there's stuff you're not considering about how the game works. This also happens to factor into choosing an army and a playstyle, but yeah.

I agree beastmen doesn't seem that great.

Empire can do what you want. But Ogres can also do what you want. They are big, fast, very hard-hitting, and can have some of the best elite shooters and best cannons in the game. It's just they likely won't have a LOT. Mostly because they are better at beating stuff and their gunlines are support.

Ogres are also cheap(er) to buy and not super complicated. Though you can do a lot with them.

Out of the two you listed, I would go with Empire. They are adaptable and can play aggressively if you desire.

I agree with DukeRustfield though. Ogres sound like they may fit also.

Empire can be a very in your face army. My friend plays them, and he really likes playing with heavy hitters, and getting in his opponents face.

Demigryph Knights for their cost are some of the most powerful monster cav in the game- in a game where close combat is often favoring Monsterous Cav. Demigryphs put out 3 s5 armour piercing attacks each, in addition to their stomp attacks

Inner Circle Knights are also solid. Strength 4 base, which bounces up to strength 6 on the charge from their lances, and defending with their 1+ armor save. Even off the charge the 1+ save and strength 4 can often carry them, I've seen a squad of 6 Ogres charge 10 Empire Knights and lose.

Also the Steamtank. 10 Wounds of 1+ save unbreakable fury. It scares everybody.

Warrior Priests also greatly amplify the damage potential of Empire Blocks, since they grant hatred, which is re-rolls to hit. Halbrediers or Greatswords with re-rolls can be fearsome for any opponent. The infantry blocks also benefit from detachments. A popular strategy is to take a large block (40-50) Halbrediers or Greatswords, and 2 Detachments of 20 Halbreds. Because of the detachment rules, when the Main block gets charged, the detachments can counter charge, which can often result in a flank charge. Skilled opponents will be able to avoid this, but its a very powerful tool.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and the metagame hasn't shifted to the point where War machine spam is needed for Empire to do well, and units like the Steamtank are terrifying in close combat and can also shoot a cannon.

Of your choices I feel that you would enjoy Empire more than Beastmen, due to the flexibility and different builds.

Also codpieces and facial hair

Having played with, and against all three armies listed here. I can give you a little advice. Unlike 40k which is all about who bringsmore of the biggest guns, Fantasy is really more about the rest of the game. There really is only one army that just sits back and camps and that is Dwarfs. Empire is an army that can play as a gun line, but If you build a gun line, then they have to take things apart with shooting cause if they don’t they will get destroyed in CC. Everyone else will be bringing units to get into CC. Outside of the 6 spell nuking, CC is where the game is won and lost the most often. You have to move, and get things in the right position. Even Dwarfs like CC, they just cannot get you, and they need to weaken you down before they do. A few things of note, every army wants to bring/needs a lvl 4, It really is hard to play wit out, Even if you are just using it defensively to slow down you opponents casting. Don’t know about your Meta, but in most of the ones I have played in, If you have access to cannons, you bring at least one.

Beastmen do miss out by having limited, overpriced shooting. That being said, they really do not need it. If you deploy correctly, you can generally make it across the table and still be able to do a ton of Damage once you get there. Will there be games where you are mowed down, Sure. But this will not be the norm. They need Wizards to make up for the fact that they do not have shooting. I have a really good win-loss record with these guys, but they take some work, and I am glad I had experience from other armies.

Empire, Really are the Jack of all trades, the problem is this is the army that you would end up spending the most $$ on, as If you want to be able to do everything it is going to cost you. But they are rally good at doing it. You could take a bunch of shooting guys, and back them up with a couple of knight busses, and a STank, This would give you the best of both worlds, sure the Empire does not have the T of the Beast, but they make up for it with their armor. And a couple of units of hand gunners, or bowmen will make people think about coming to you, along with the STank’s shooting weapon, you would be set. Just a Ton of ways you could go with these guys.

Ogres, These guys really do what you want the beastmen to do only better, plus they have access to shooting things. They move surprisingly fast across the table and on top of that are one of the most fun beat your face in armies. But I am a little bias to these guys, as they are my Favorite.

When it comes down to it. All three armies are good - great, Beastmen are the most one dimensional. Empire is the most diverse. And Ogres are somewhere in the middle. As it appears you have put some time and effort into picking your first army, I think it really comes down two which one do you like the models the most. Then how fast do you want to be able to play? How much time do you have to build, paint, and test each part of the army, and what you want them to do. I do fell that you are locked into one thing with Beastmen, where the others provide more diversity. So Start with whichever one you like the look of the most, but as hard as I find it to tell people what they will like the most, I my gut feeling is you will be happier in the long run with Empire over Beastmen because of you want for diversity,
I hope this helps

I will reinforce the prevailing opinion in that spiraling arms races usually don't work in fantasy. This is actually a logical consequence of the limited ranges and 12 PD limit. If you go all in on magic you might get 3 PD and get owned and even if you get 12 PD you might 6 dice the big spell and still not get IF letting your opponent dispel scroll it away.

I would recommend empire of the two listed as they can be used in a variety of play styles and have some incredible models. Alternatively I think the play style you want is actually much better captured by ogres who can charge forward against anything and do great.

namiel wrote:I didnt read but the first line. This is WAY too in depth for picking an army to play. Which one looks pretty? go there

To be honest, this is a very good point.

Ailaros wrote:
Well, the problem is that a second WHFB army for me would take an indeterminate amount of time. That amount of time could very well be never.

I'm willing to put the leg-work in to learn how play a hard army. I'm more concerned about the long-term.

It sounds like you're turning away from 40k and towards the light WHFB. If you'll be playing it a lot, you never know, a second army could be an option. Still, if it isn't then that's fair enough.

Do you have any friends willing to lend you an Empire/Beastmen army to play a few games with, or someone willing to play against an army of movement trays as proxies? That way, you can try out the various different play styles and answer any questions you might have regarding builds and whatnot. You'd be far better placed to make a choice after that.

Compared to 40k, Fantasy armies are super easy to proxy. My friends and I started many years ago with cardboard cut outs, then gradually transitioned to models. That being said, it's a GW game, get something with models you'd like to convert.

My friend was considering starting Skaven, but was unsure if he'd enjoy the unpredictability and lack of decent elite infantry. So we played about six or seven games, I used a different army and/or build each game, and he played a different list a lot of the time, or tweaked it based on experience from the game before. The whole time he was using cardboard as the units, with pennies showing the individual models (and sometimes we used a pair of D10s to show the number of models remaining).

Perhaps not the best game to spectate, but I was more than happy to help him and the exercise genuinely made up his mind. He know collects Skaven and uses proper models, mostly. As long as you have the patience and someone willing to play you like this, it's a good way to get the feel for an army, if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of it.

Is your meta super competitive? If so, don't play Beastmen.