PDA

View Full Version : Is beasts worst then O&G??



fishound7
13-01-2009, 02:41
Title says it give me your opinion

fishound7
13-01-2009, 02:42
oh this is from purely a competitive standpoint

WhiteKnight
13-01-2009, 04:22
Well Beasts of Chaos aren't as bad as everyone says they are. Ambush is crazy good when using Khazrak the One Eye, our only good general. They can completely destroy with ambush and raiders is an excellent rule. And the cheasiest armies are with morghur. Skirmishers FTW!

sulla
13-01-2009, 06:52
Beasts are weak vs fear causing enemies and heavy cav armies. In my opinion this doesn't mean they are worse (or better) than O&G, but they are far less competitive vs those particular opponents (who also happen to be the most powerful types of armies in the game at the moment).

Beasts are still pretty good vs the older books, especially the infantry based ones.

GodlessM
13-01-2009, 06:53
OnG are the worst army there is competitively without a doubt. The inability to fully control your army says it all.

W0lf
13-01-2009, 11:12
Beasts are fine.

Im currently trying to build a beasts army and mantain a <50% win ratio (in a power-gaming enviroment) to prove my player-skill.

See my list in the army list section for more info (shamless plug-in).

O&G likewise are not all that bad as people make out.

Ive had success with 24 orc boys + Black orc hero + Boar chariot (repeat 3 times but only 2 chariots overall) . These operate as independant blocks and can do fine., add 2 stone throwers and its all good.

PARTYCHICORITA
13-01-2009, 11:28
Either of them are worst at competitive play that OK?

Neknoh
13-01-2009, 12:03
I would say no, they are not worse off than the Orcs and Gobblins.

Beasts can combat most of their weaknesses with the use of different marks, a Khornate Beastlord or Wargor can, for instance, be put into a herd and kept at the back, preventing him from being drawn out from the front. But when the herd charges, he is catapulted to the front because he is a character, and as such, the unit will always have something rather nasty in store for combating enemies.

Fear can be beaten easely, the old nurgle, is, for once, a useful Mark. Four characters with the Mark of Nurgle inside one herd each will make said herds immune to fear... and you'll get access to Nurglotaurs.

Tzeentch still have their superherds despite loosing out on the Staff of Change

Slaanesh is probably the worst of the marks, if you want competitive, don't go Slaanesh here

Storak
13-01-2009, 12:43
i took a look at the GT HEAT stats some weeks ago, when this question came up.

the result was simple:

O&G and beast are pretty similar in a competitive environment.
so they are on par with a 6th edition rulebook that lost over half its choices lately.

this should tell you a lot.....

Ward.
13-01-2009, 12:56
They're definitly worse off then O&G.

theunwantedbeing
13-01-2009, 12:56
The O&G army isnt half as bad as people think it is.
GT results?
Is your local gaming club a GT, if so then the GT results do indeed mean that the O&G army is not the army to use if your absolutely have to win all the time.
If your store is not a GT and is a little more relaxed than a GT is then he O&G army is infact not particularly weak at all.

There are multiple powerful builds.

As for beasts of chaos being weak...
85pt core chariots that are markable? (ie. Tzeentch)
Character's are still very cheap
Troops are still dirt cheap
Minotaurs still work fine(especially nurgle minotaurs)
You still have access to dragon ogres
The magical item selection is a little limited but usually a great weapon is all you need.

Sure you(beastherds) dont rank up 5 wide against things less than 75mm, so?
Most things are 100mm wide
You still get the ambush rule where you can re-appear behind enmey lines to catch troops fleeing towards table edges.

Neither army is as bad a you think it is.
Although neither army is Vampires or Daemons and as a result you cant just throw any troops at the board and do whatever you feel like and win.
So some people take this to mean they suck.

Storak
13-01-2009, 13:13
The O&G army isnt half as bad as people think it is.
GT results?
Is your local gaming club a GT, if so then the GT results do indeed mean that the O&G army is not the army to use if your absolutely have to win all the time.
If your store is not a GT and is a little more relaxed than a GT is then he O&G army is infact not particularly weak at all.

well, the main advantage of looking at GT heat results is, that we get FACTS there. it is simply impossible to get real FACTS from "your local store".
though i think it is obvious, that daemons will win slighly more games there, than either beasts or O&G do.


There are multiple powerful builds.

this claim is obviously false for O&G. i also seriously doubt that it is true for beasts.
winning O&G armies look incredibly similar.


Neither army is as bad a you think it is.
Although neither army is Vampires or Daemons and as a result you cant just throw any troops at the board and do whatever you feel like and win.
So some people take this to mean they suck.

the problem is with your interpretation of "competitive". if one army can be played successfully by nearly every BEGINNER, while really hardcore players of the other army struggle to win a game, then there is a problem.

with DE (and to lesser extend HE, and even certain empire builds) we have a majority of 7th edition books belonging to that one category.

O&G on the other hand struggle against beasts, a book from 6th edition that is in really bad shape since the chaos revision...

Harwammer
13-01-2009, 13:17
I like both armies. I can't really say which is less competative. One is very specialised, where as the other is a quirky all rounder. Its hard to compare.

I do think warseer tends to overplay the downsides of animosity. A few blocks of orcs, lead by black orcs, supported by a couple of giants, backed up by warmachines is a decent start to a 2k army, with spare points for some fast cav and magic defense. An army like this won't be too badly affected by animosity.

Overall they have a good range of tools, and have solutions to most problems.


Both armies suffer because neither has any real access to killing blow or fire attacks to deal with regen blocks. Both armies can have problems controlling their units (animosity/unruly). Both armies suffer from mediocre (orcs/minotaurs) to poor (goblins/gors) leadership, which can be aggrevating against fear and panic. However, both armies do have ways to mitigate this (frenzy, marks, etc.)

Beastmen are not without their advantages, though. Cheap core chariots, fighty wizards and some of very decent large infantry (minotaurs and dragon ogres). Sure, skirmishers have been made worse with 7th ed ( and seemingly made worse with each FAQ released too), but raiders and ambush can still be helpful tools.

With both armies you are required to use your force as a whole, rather than cherry picking the best offensive/defensive units to be used individually.

Now, time for my question:
Howcome you posed us your question?

Halelel
13-01-2009, 23:00
The answer is : depends on the situation and list

Overall, Beasts are in bad shape at the moment simply because their army book is outdated and a lot of unit/item choices are no longer valid. However, their units (for the most part) are still cheap and useable in most lists. Minotaurs, chariots are staples of most Beast armies and perform pretty well with marks. Beast herds are mediocre, but ambush is still useful on occassion (rank issues still need to be resolved).
Beasts can be powerful if they take specialized lists, such as a Morghur spawn list, Khazrak the One Eye, or the super-chariot list. The overall prevalence that Beasts are weak, however, is driven due to the lack of seeing the army. It is one of the most expensive armies to collect as everything is still metal, only beast herds are plastic.

O&G on the other hand have problems in competitive environments, but are perfectly fine in friendly / non-WAAC environments. I think people still don't understand that O&G simply can NOT be a tourney dominant army as Animosity is too random and potentially crippling for well-laid out plans. However, that does not mean O&G can't win, it's just that their potential for winning is more reliant on lucky/good dice rolls than any other army, which does not translate well into the tourney environment.

Once Beasts receive their new book in a few months or year or whenever, they should be a solid list once again with a full compliment of new units and new magic items.

stonehorse
13-01-2009, 23:28
Beasts are a very good list, I got my Dark Elf force ripped apart by them on the weekend... that Raider mixed with AMbush is very nasty.

They do struggle a lot against Fear and Terror, and even more so against Monsters... which seems a bit strange to me, given what they are.

Still Chariots as a Core choice is very good!

Lord Dan
14-01-2009, 00:40
The inability to fully control your army says it all.

Not that I disagree with the initial statement you're supporting here, but by this logic Khorne Daemons are not powerful because of your inability to "fully" control them.

Likewise anything with stupidity, anything that has the impetuous rule, and anything that rolls randomly for movement or attacks is equally useless.

Just a thought.

studderigdave
14-01-2009, 00:56
in my area we have an OnG player who always gets the top or close to the top in our little fantasy tourneys. on the other hand ive never seen anyone take beasts in my area and do well with them.

Chicago Slim
14-01-2009, 01:54
I can EASILY put together a 2K beasts army with 8-10 different spells, and 20+ power dice per phase, with considerable hand-to-hand power behind it.

Then, too, I can EASILY put together a 2K O&G army with just units that can suffer animosity, with huge hand-to-hand killing power, backed up by 6d6 @ S5 when you try to charge me, and 6-10 artillery pieces if you try to stay out at range instead...

So, sure-- call those about equal. ;P

GodlessM
14-01-2009, 02:01
Not that I disagree with the initial statement you're supporting here, but by this logic Khorne Daemons are not powerful because of your inability to "fully" control them.

Likewise anything with stupidity, anything that has the impetuous rule, and anything that rolls randomly for movement or attacks is equally useless.

Just a thought.

Khorne Daemons are fully controllable. Might I remind you that they don't have frenzy anymore.

And when you are talking about one or two units at most with a rule like stupidity, it's affordable, and blunders beyond your control can be mad up for by the rest of the army.

When most of the army is susceptible to going against your will, it's a whole different ball game.

Surgency
14-01-2009, 02:08
Beasts are weak vs ...... and heavy cav armies

I dunno if I'd go that far. Brettonians (the classic, and only real heavy cav army, IMO) tend to suffer against beasts a bit, because of the whole skirmish thing. They almost all skirmish, they move through woods, and they're decent in a fight. The worst position I've ever been in with my Brets was preparing a double charge on a large unit of pestigors, only to have 2 beast herds pop up, one to my flank, one to my rear. If I charged the Pestigors, I'd be charged in the flank. If I didn't charge, I'd be charged in the rear. It was pretty ugly, and my only hope of getting out of it was to break the Pestigors first round.


Needless to say, that didn't happen :(

Malorian
14-01-2009, 03:51
Actually I'd say beasts suffer greatly against brets because they are forced to rank up 4 wide (large base is slightly wider than the cav base)so they don't get any rank bonus.

So pretty much if a lance hits a herd it's toast.

They can hide in the forest, but herds coming in from your flank have pegasus knights to deal with.

decker_cky
14-01-2009, 04:43
They rank 5 wide against brets. 3 models wide, then corner to corner. If beasts are suffering against cav armies...may I suggest more hounds?

GodlessM
14-01-2009, 05:01
Does the fact that the Beasts rulebook specifically says they get ranks for being 4 wide not override the BRB?

Malorian
14-01-2009, 05:32
Nope, they rank five wide but they don't gt rank bonus's until 5 wide.

Decker_cky, go try and line them up. You can only get 4 in base because as I said their bases are wider than the cav bases.

darkmarkus
14-01-2009, 05:43
Yes, Beastmen bases are 25mm long, with Cavalry being only 22.5mm long. so linging them up, only 4 Beastmen bases could touch Bretonian cavalry ranked 3 wide.

Lord Dan
14-01-2009, 05:50
I see an absurdly small difference- less even than 2.5mm. Even so, don't cavalry "count" as having a 25mm frontage?

Malorian
14-01-2009, 05:53
The difference gets bigger once you multiply that by three (when they are actually matched up) and just by looking at it you can easily see that they don't match up.

Anyway, because of this a herd can't stand up to a bret charge while an orc one can.


I'm known as a fanboy when it comes to GW, but that herd ranking up rule is one I really hate and I can't believe it wasn't FAQ'd (and when it was faq'd they left it the same).

Kerill
14-01-2009, 06:48
I'm pretty sure the cavalry bases I have are 25mm wide (albeit all from 10 years ago), did that get changed at some point?

Cambion Daystar
14-01-2009, 09:22
Yes, GW's own cavalrybases do not follow their own rules...

Nice work GW (y)

Chicago Slim
14-01-2009, 11:59
A brief survey of my own cavalry bases measure up at 25 mm, which is what I had expected, since I've noticed them being exactly the same width as large infantry bases.

Don't know where you lot are getting the 22.5 mm wide bases from, but you have my sympathies!

theunwantedbeing
14-01-2009, 12:37
Cavalry bases are 25mm wide.
DoC book on Daemonic mounts, they are mounted on large monster bases rather than 25mm x 50mm cavalry bases.
That's official GW stating that a cavalry base is 25mm wide.

Or you can just go to page 7 in the rulebook where it quite clearly states that cavalry are mounted on 25mm x 50mm bases.

So that is the size you use in a battle regardless of whether the bases sizes are actually 25mm x 50mm.

Proof of these 22.5mm wide cavalry bases is needed otherwise we'll all just think you measured wrong.


Next time somebody says your beasts only rank up 4 wide vs 3 wide cavalry, if that is infact true you can have him banned from the tournament for using illegally small bases to gain an advantage.

Malorian
14-01-2009, 13:11
Next time somebody says your beasts only rank up 4 wide vs 3 wide cavalry, if that is infact true you can have him banned from the tournament for using illegally small bases to gain an advantage.

Well I'm just using the bases frmo the package.

My camera is in Edmonton, but I'lltake a picture on the weekend and post it early next week.

Storak
14-01-2009, 13:39
in my area we have an OnG player who always gets the top or close to the top in our little fantasy tourneys. on the other hand ive never seen anyone take beasts in my area and do well with them.

i prefer the hard data of GT tournaments. this anecdotal evidence is often simply false. people use their O&G when doing introduction games to beginners. they use them for the "funny" tournament. or they seriously dominate their group (they win with all their armies)

the GT stats give a clear picture: both armies performance is HORRIBLE. but: O&G are a 7th edition book.


I can EASILY put together a 2K beasts army with 8-10 different spells, and 20+ power dice per phase, with considerable hand-to-hand power behind it.

Then, too, I can EASILY put together a 2K O&G army with just units that can suffer animosity, with huge hand-to-hand killing power, backed up by 6d6 @ S5 when you try to charge me, and 6-10 artillery pieces if you try to stay out at range instead...

So, sure-- call those about equal. ;P

neither of those builds won any GT HEAT last year. they didn t show up in top tens either.

the most broken of their builds will struggle against other 7th edition lists. fact.

Storak
14-01-2009, 13:46
Well I'm just using the bases frmo the package.

My camera is in Edmonton, but I'lltake a picture on the weekend and post it early next week.

funny, mine are 2.4mm. weird.

we will continue to play them as 1 inch, same as large infantry bases.

decker_cky
14-01-2009, 18:13
The rules state them as 25 mm, and I'm pretty sure most are actually 25mm, so that's how the beast herds line up.

neXus6
15-01-2009, 15:43
I'm a very long time Greenskin player and a fairly long time Beast player.
I have to say both armies are great outside of competative environments.

What I will say was that back when the whole rank to 4 thing first cropped up I was one of the people saying it wouldn't matter at all because it would never happen...and true to form every game I played after saying that it happened multiple times. :D
It is a pain in the ****, it can be used and abused by a clever opponent but it isn't too hard to counter with other things. I was just very saddened by GWs disgraceful answer in the Beasts FAQ which made it sound like it wasn't their fault and that we should read the book better and do what it says.

With Greenskins having nearly every unit in your army on average do nothing one turn in EVERY 6 turn game is a very bad joke and a lot harder to work around than the rank to 4 of Beasts. You really just have to hope you get a little luck and you don't need the unit when it squabbles...and besides you should have a dozen other units kicking about anyway, it just means more contingency plans should everything go wrong. :D

Harwammer
15-01-2009, 16:52
Hmm, so both armies are uncompetative, with glaring weaknesses (4-wide, animosity).

I suppose it comes down to this, which disease would you most like to have, the rot or the clap?

:D

Storak
15-01-2009, 17:55
Hmm, so both armies are uncompetative, with glaring weaknesses (4-wide, animosity).

I suppose it comes down to this, which disease would you most like to have, the rot or the clap?

:D

well, there is a cure in sight:

beasts still will have their 7th edition update. O&G can only pray for a fix until 8th.....

(yes, they are rock bottom now. imagine the situation, when every army got to 7th.....)

Malorian
15-01-2009, 18:10
(yes, they are rock bottom now. imagine the situation, when every army got to 7th.....)

Oh Storak, will there ever be an end to your orc hate?


*I deleted the Storak stats thing because it was in bad taste*

Storak
15-01-2009, 20:42
Oh Storak, will there ever be an end to your orc hate?


*I deleted the Storak stats thing because it was in bad taste*

don t worry, i am not easily offended.

i m just telling the truth anyway...

sulla
15-01-2009, 21:12
Actually I'd say beasts suffer greatly against brets because they are forced to rank up 4 wide (large base is slightly wider than the cav base)so they don't get any rank bonus.

So pretty much if a lance hits a herd it's toast.


With a maximum of +4 static CR even if they could rank up properly, I can't see how they would withstand a bret charge anyway.

The bret unit will probably have equal or more ranks, a standard and quite possibly outnumber after the charge as well as massively outkilling the beasts in active CR.

Moral of the story; never accept a Bret charge with your beastherd (or pretty much anything else in the beasts army except dogs on a 45 degree angle).

Malorian
15-01-2009, 21:25
I've only ever seen a lance with 12 models in pictures. Units of 9 (2 ranks) are much more common.

9 KotR have 8 str 5 attacks and 7 str 3 attacks. Against orcs with shields that means:

Knights: 8*(2/3)*(2/3)*(5/6) = 2.96 dead orcs
Horses: 7*(1/2)*(1/3)(*1/2) = 0.58 dead orcs

So where's looking at between 3-4 dead orcs.

Now 9 KotR with full command are 240 points. 25 orcs with shields and full command are not even close to that (I never take champs so I don't know how much they are, but before the champ they are only 165 points).

So even if they kill 4 orcs, have the two ranks, and a banner, that's 7 CR.
The orcs have 3 ranks, a banner, and out number (21 vs 18), for 5 CR.

The brets win by 2 but as long as that block is in range of the general and the BSB they probably aren't going anywhere (you pass 83% of the time) and after the charge that bret lance is toast. If you only lost by one (so we rounded the wounds down rather than up) then there is 92% chance you aren't going anywhere.

If the lances try and multi charge then of course you flee and counter with your other units (and you WILL have more units than the brets), and if the brets set up their charges too close to try and counter that, you can always call your waaagh and have a chance of getting the jump on them!

Kahadras
15-01-2009, 22:48
Depends. If you're off to a GT then there's no point in taking any other army than a maxed out DoC or VC list. In regular games I'd say that I've found BoC harder to deal with due to their skirmishing nature. While being weak against psychology they do get really solid core choices in the form of Beastherds and Chariots. I'd find that my opponant could use his speed and 'move through cover' ability to cause me all sorts of problems.

On the other hand O&G were an easier prospect as they didn't have the army wide maneuverability of the Beastmen. I found that it was much easier to march block and slow the Orcs down giving my ranged stuff enough time to wear them down and allow my combat stuff to finnish then off. Against Beastmen I found that skirmishing Beastherds pretty much negated marchblocking and had extra protection against shooting to boot.

Kahadras

Malorian
15-01-2009, 22:54
If you're off to a GT then there's no point in taking any other army than a maxed out DoC or VC list.

Well that's a pretty negative view...

If we go by that then why don't we all agree on one 'best' list from the 'best' army, and we can all use it as there is no reason to use a inferior list... :rolleyes:

Kahadras
15-01-2009, 23:05
Well that's a pretty negative view...

If we go by that then why don't we all agree on one 'best' list from the 'best' army, and we can all use it as there is no reason to use a inferior list...

Well if all people are concerned with is winning then those two pretty much dominate at the moment. O&G and BoC are critisised for never doing very well at GT's but the sad fact is that very few army builds actualy WILL do well in a hyper competitive evironment. In a competitive evironment then neither is 'worse' than the other because they don't offer up one of the select builds that aparantly will win you the GT. On the other hand neither is worse than the other in a more relaxed environment because that sort of stuff shouldn't matter.

Kahadras

Malorian
19-01-2009, 05:56
Just to finsh this up I made a new thread about the base size difference including a picture that shows the difference:

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3213685#post3213685