View Full Version : Tomb Kings or Beasts of Slaanesh

01-07-2009, 09:32

I've decided to start a new list, as you can guess from the title it's between TKs and BoC (Slaanesh). Reason for this is, they are both slightly different armies to the norm and not many people at my local gw use them (none for BoC and 1 for TK). The current rules are rubbish for both but, can I get input from current players? What are they like?


big squig
01-07-2009, 09:33
Aren't beast getting a new army book sometime soon?

01-07-2009, 09:41
Aren't beast getting a new army book sometime soon?

In theory after the Skaven, but even the Skaven aren't that close... Beasts will prolly be early next year sometime.

I would go with TK, I always liked the way they look, Ubshati (sp) are just awesome models, as are Tomb Guards and Carrion in my opinion.

01-07-2009, 10:10
Both Beasts and TK are supposed to be renewed (relatively soon - if you feel next year is soon).

As always, try both of them out by borrowing or proxying models and see if either suits you, before you invest in something that may change in the not too distant future.

Caine Mangakahia
01-07-2009, 20:11
TKs are currently more competitive than BoC at the moment. Still very difficult to play, they are the chess army of Warhammer, every move has to be carefully planned and executed. Also tend to favour a gunline approach.
BoC are too vulnerable to Psycology in current edition.

01-07-2009, 21:34
Have never played against TK, but our local BoC player has been one of the best in the area for a long time (he doesn't currently play a lot, as real life issues interfered); basically, playing against him, I saw that his style of playing is really all about combined forces and co-ordinated strikes to the weakest spots in the enemy's army (all the while trying to create such weak spots by threats to different places of the army [which beasts, being a horde army, can afford]). It's not really a vote, but from what I've seen, it's an army that really demands finesse - so if you are up to a challenge, beasts are definitely a very good choice (I believe, even after they are re-made, they will remain a finesse army; it's like it happened with new Dark Elves - unless you use some of the cheesiest combinations, you still have to use your skills to win with low-armour T3 models - but both DE and BoC players have the needed skill, which they gained from the times of being 'the weak armies out there')

02-07-2009, 08:34
There are players using Slaanesh Beastmen to good effect, their magic is very good. For example there's Beastlord Karankawa over on The Herdstone (http://z2.invisionfree.com/herdstone/index.php?act=idx).

02-07-2009, 09:12
mmm, it is a tough one, think I'll end up going Beasts, seems fewer people play them and they are a very interesting army to play as (also their book comes sooner). I play DEs already (have for many many years) so I'm used to the finesse army style, in fact I'm probably overly cautious.

BoC - Slaanesh it is! (plus I love the BoC fighty char models)

Thanks guys.

02-07-2009, 18:10
Beasts of Chaos with marks of slaanesh have no worries about leadership checks, which is the beastmen's bane. Beastmen can be great but you have to pick your fights carefully but mess with your opponent as well.

02-07-2009, 18:28
alright Astro, Beasts does definatly sound cooler, as tomb kings to me look a rubbish.