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 the impression I'm getting is that, at a very general level, any army without a behemoth is at a disadvantage as opposed to an army with one.
For example I would like to field a "pure" Bonesplitterz list, which would be without, as they don't even have one (probably ate it on the way).
Still haven't tried this army out, but would like to know what the consensus is.

I'd say they're not really needed, they're nice to have but not a necessity. Especially so for Savage Orcs, due to all the buffs they can get against Monsters

Monsters are strong in this game and while a lot of good lists are built around them they aren't to age of sigmar whata level 4 wizard was to 8th. You can still run good lists without them

You can do ok without a monster. But I used to do ok without a wizard in the last edition. At the tournament level though its vastly easier to have one (or two) because most of them are very powerful and cheap to boot.

You don't need one, they do make a nice centerpiece to an army which is one of the secondary reasons I see that people take them.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You don't need one, they do make a nice centerpiece to an army which is one of the secondary reasons I see that people take them.

Yea, I pretty much always include 1 or 2* for the centerpiece effect, and because they're fun and a pretty big change from 8E, with the 10+ wounds and decaying effectiveness thing. My monsters also tend to die round 3-4 without doing very much damage, but that's because they're easy (read: huge) targets that I use for that distraction effect, and I don't really play the handful of monsters that are really good at killing things.

*I virtually always take 2 of the same Behemoths if points allow (double arachnarok, double grinder, double cygor), though that's personal list building preference as well - redundancy overcomes dice, that sort of thing. I blame playing Skaven for like 10 years

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:
I virtually always take 2 of the same Behemoths if points allow (double arachnarok, double grinder, double cygor), though that's personal list building preference as well - redundancy overcomes dice, that sort of thing. I blame playing Skaven for like 10 years

As the man says, one is a target, two is a threat.

I find every game and every army they are less and less important. For me it's an old mindset of Fantasy--bigger models are tough and require something that can match or deal with them. AoS is much more level a playing field. Bonesplittas would be ideal but my Fyreslayers can tango (especially if it's not me rolling the dice)

I like running two behemoths in my list currently - and screw your bonesplitterz monster killing buffs because my behemoths are a Steamtank and Hurricanum :p

Bonesplittaz could probably manage fine because they are so good at killing enemy monsters.

 Bottle wrote:
I like running two behemoths in my list currently - and screw your bonesplitterz monster killing buffs because my behemoths are a Steamtank and Hurricanum :p

I'm in the same boat good luck with your monster bonuses against my war altars

 Spyro_Killer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I like running two behemoths in my list currently - and screw your bonesplitterz monster killing buffs because my behemoths are a Steamtank and Hurricanum :p

I'm in the same boat good luck with your monster bonuses against my war altars

Hehe, good for you

Not all Behemoths are created equal, but in general I find that you want your General to have as many wounds as possible so that they can't be sniped out easily. This often means a behemoth is the best choice. Aside from that, they are usually an important source of high rend/mortal wounds. If your army can achieve those two things without a behemoth, then they aren't necessary.