PDA

View Full Version : Are Beastmen a decent army?



Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2011, 06:27
I am looking at potentially getting into WH, and want to avoid the 40K themes I already play, namely WoC, and Daemons.

That said, I have a personality which seems to lean to those factions, and beastmen fit the bill from what I have read. Essentially looking at it from an angle of a force that philosophically just 'wants to watch the world burn'.

So are they an effective force? I am not looking for the end-all be all of WAAC armies, but I dont dump money into things that suck either, if I cannot be competitive then I'll just look into something else. :]

If they are effective, what units are good? How expensive would they rate in terms of getting a decent sized force together? Are their units that they require that dont have official releases yet?

Any info would be appreciated.

(Note: The sticky thread in this forum has a broken link that may be pertinent to my interests, so I did kind of look...:p)

EDIT: And another thing, how would they do in Storm of Magic? Just curious.

Jack of Blades
15-07-2011, 06:28
In short, you can be competitive with them and they can be effective - it just means you'll be restricting your choices (ie. cookie-cutting) to a heavy degree, AFAIK. By no means is Beastmen a weak army as the soon-to-come Beastmen players will explain to you in detail.

Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2011, 07:09
I'm fine with a bit of internal balance issues necessitating some cookie cutter action, and would approach the army with a bit of an open mind, which is why im not doing WoC, I would feel compelled to go mono-khorne. ;)

zuriel45
15-07-2011, 07:25
google herdstone for the beastmen specific set of forums.

As far as i know beastmen can be quite good, but again limiting if you want them to be good. An example are the minotaurs, who i find the coolest of their book, but many find them to be disapointing in game. In addition to my knowledge there are a few of their models that haven't yet been released (though since they appear in the storm of magic book my moneys on them showing up soon).

Jind_Singh
15-07-2011, 07:42
Beastmen are just fine - and actually have a few builds that work out well for them, of course some are better than others.

Having said that, unless the local gaming scene is hardcore competitive then pretty much any build you pick will work - to a lesser extent - as with more friendly local games not everyone brings their A game to the table.

They look good too - best looking infantry range perhaps in the game with Gors, Beastigors, and Ungors.

They are missing a few units, but looks like they are coming soon (from various rumor sources), and they can only get better as time goes on.

Only downside is you'll be waiting for a long time for a new book - as the current one is fairly new (for a Warhammer book), I personally love the book, the army - and have seen good players do some amazing things with them - I say if you like the models/feel of the army DO IT!

Lowmans
15-07-2011, 07:57
Seconding what Jind said:

Goodish but pricyish infantry on the face of it. Primal Hatred is your friend.
Bestigors are excellent but will be very much on most peoples shoot or avoid list.
Ungor raiders are very handy.
Minotaurs have great models but if you're playing a tough crowd the Razorgors are strictly better.
Can field a disturbing number of chariots if you wish. This can be very good or very bad!

They're far from the strongest armies magically but they're not bad. I'd be inclined to go for multiple low levels than a four if going down that road. I'm not a big fan of the lore of the wild, I think the book lores are better and almost always have a beasts in there.

I don't personally play special characters so I'll leave that to others.

I'm not a fan of the big monsters, personally. 8th gimped all monsters and the beasts ones were already a bit pricey. I do like a giant though, they look cool and draw fire from your other actually dangerous stuff.

I use harpies quite a lot but this appears to be a rarity. They're about 50/50 successful and often depend on the opposing army/luck! I like the models tho, so hey!

Anyway I've run out of time! Check out the herdstone and I'm sure there'll be mightier Beastlords here to help soon!

They are fun btw. Different and IMHO not quite so much fun as the old book but definitely fun!

Lordy
15-07-2011, 08:01
I disagree with Jind myself, they're a ok army and can be competative but they really only have one build for tournaments thought.

If GW would fix the rare choices the book would be pretty sweet with loads of different lists instead of seeing the same ones at tours and such.

wascloud
15-07-2011, 08:41
I'm still just getting started with beastmen, but so far it seems that 8th edition has done wonders for them, and all the outcry about how terrible they were in 7th has been (mostly) resolved. The only thing that bugs me is none of the rare choices appear that brilliant. Apart from that they seem fun to play and if you want to be competitive certainly not a terrible choice

mrtn
15-07-2011, 11:04
If you want the army for the rank and file beastmen then they're brilliant and have some great builds with bestigors, gors with beast-banner BSB and good use of the BRB spell lores.

If you want the army for the monsters and minotaurs it's much more difficult to use, most people think the Rare choices are overcosted, and personally I don't use any of them.

I play infantry and character heavy beastmen and have great fun, Primal Fury is an amazing rule, nothing better than getting to reroll "to hit" almost every time, and with a magically boosted unit you're a terror.

The best way to start the army, assuming you buy new models and not used, is to get a couple of battalion boxes and buy/convert some characters.

There's a link to the Herdstone forum in my signature, you're welcome over. :cool:

Fafa
15-07-2011, 11:16
In my opinion Beastmen are ok - neither strong nor weak. Be prepared to play offensive horde close combat army without any shooting power (effectively) and which takes a lot of casulties on their way towards enemy lines though it has means to limit and absorb them. Gors and Bestigors will be your best friends (and Primal Fury rulez!) with Ungors, Chariots and Razorgors quite close (good harasement units). Minotaurs are sometimes real killers but in general have tendency to become "fire magnet" of your army (and they die too easily). Rares... Well, here is a weak point of Bestmen - standard giant and everything else terribly overpriced... ("catapult" for 275 pts?!? non-armored monster for 275?!? 275 pts monster forcing LD test in game where BSB alows reroll on all LD test?!?) But Lords&Heroes section is cool - nice stats, some cool items / mutations (though nothing really fancy and lack of double mutations). Here you can make up for lack of monsters (fully equiped Doombull IS a monster :) ). Magic is not expensive with possible offensive potential (thou magic defence isn't your strong point) but it really shines in support role for the rest of the army - Beastmen have even one of basic lores "prepared" for them (+1 cast & basic spell in combination with cheap mages :) ).

To sum up:
- cc oriented
- rather horde style
- lack of shooting
- ok magic (mainly support)

Chainaxe07
15-07-2011, 11:38
The only warhammer armies that can honestly be considered "weak" are those whose special rules overtly punish them, without conferring any true benefit in exchange. VCs and their F.V.E.P. (fast vampire extinction program) fit the bill (we are thinking of having a "can you keep your vamp alive" contest, but there are hardly any vc players left in our area. A shame, as the models and the whole idea behind the army is not that bad), beastmen are more of an average army: not as forgiving to play with as WoC but still rather competitive.
I agree with most posters about the solidity of their core infantry (though a 5 plus save option for gors would have been a good thing imho) and they have pretty decent characters, while their monsters can hardly compete against supreme horrors like hell pit abominations and the like, and are overcosted when compared to others (like the hydra). The most viable monster is, probably, the giant, a pretty average one i'd say.
Still its a good list, and you can add different flavours (like minotaurs, centigors etc etc) in small amounts without losing anything in terms of overall effectiveness.
I guess that, if you like the theme of "hunted going hunters", or you feel like avenging the slights made against poor goats/bulls etc, bestmen might be the army for you.

Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2011, 16:28
Thanks for the thoughts folks, I'll check out the Herdstone for sure.

sasheep
15-07-2011, 16:49
The word to describe them is brutal. Their book is probably the most well balanced book out imo. The core choices are great. Gors can dish out a lot of hurt, raiders are good annoyances for your opponent and chariots are pretty fun to use in numbers. Bestigors are probably the best special choice and form a solid unit to build the army around. I have only used mino's once but they more than paid for themselves although I could have just been rather lucky. Razorgors are also pretty usefull. I havent tried any of the other unit entries yet as I am still just starting out myself. I have seen a list featuring ghorros and plenty of centigors doing rather well. As for the rares, I think the SoM book has given them a price drop so they may be slightly more viable *shrugs*.
To start off with get like 2 or 3 battalions, convert a bsb and a shaman and you will have a really good core army. I would recommend getting a box of orc boar boyz and use the boars as razorgor (adding spikes and what not so they look a bit more chaosy), the rest is up to you (well I spose all of it up to you ;).
I highly recommend checking the herdstone out, there is bunch of really friendly and helpfull people and some of the conversions and painting is really inspiring.

minionboy
15-07-2011, 23:19
Here is the thing with Beastmen. Even if they aren't the best, they're definitely an army you can be passionate about. Their background is well written, and after reading through it, it is easy to empathize with them. They are loud, stinking, brutal and humorous, without being goofy. They are the redheaded step children of the chaos gods and deeply jealous of the races who can tie two sticks together.

Not being a top tier army isn't a bad thing. Usually, my opponents greatly underestimate the ability of the Beastmen, and due to most people's unfamiliarity with them, you can pull off some mean tricks.

There are some cookie cutter builds which are effective, which are mainly based around 3 large blocks of gors/ungors, or a Herdstone, but to me, those serve more as starting points for a list, instead of the end all of lists. Personally, i'm not a fan of the herdstone and I tend to use the jagged dagger instead.

If you like how the army looks, I would suggest playing them.

Chainaxe07
16-07-2011, 12:00
Hi,
well what i said is based on my gaming experience, rather than the internet.
But, actually, i reckon in my gaming group we killed vampires early on in the game, even under 7th edition rules (piece of cake), while most posters used to say (back at the time) they were even too powerful. I guess it depends on several factors, mostly local. If you can taylor your list to kill characters (ie: you know you'll be facing an army that will crumble without its general) it takes a pretty bad player to lose a game against vampires, no matter how well they hide/protect their general and how skilled (or lucky) the vamp player actually is. Perhaps, when making "generic lists" they are a tad better off, but, again, 8th edition really lessened all of their strenghts (both comparatively and in regard to the rules themselves) and did absolutely nothing about their weaknesses. Saying they are among the best armies nowadays sounds a bit irrational, both on paper and based on playing experience. Of course this is all IMHO and i aint saying anyone else is naive/fool or plain wrong. Perhaps an unnecessary note, but hey, repetita juvant :)

fruitystu
16-07-2011, 12:10
In Fantasy, generally speaking, the character of the army defines it's strengths, which is one of the reasons I remain hooked!

Beastmen get Ambush, by which, although fairly random, can see your units popping up where your opponent least expects them. Embrace the randomness in your own strategy, and be prepared for it to fail spectularly, and you're in with a shout. Seriously, especially in 8th Edition, being hit in the flank hurts, a lot. And with Ungor in particular being dirt cheap for what you actually get, your opponent is less likely to remain steadfast, especially elite armies.

I'd reccomend that if you want to go down the ambush route, do so with both hooves. Two or three decet sized units, or even a horde if you're feeling especially brave will wreak absolute havoc. Once you've got a handle on the manoeuvres involved, you can get your opponent in a pickle where he has to redress his line to avoid a flank being rolled up in a catastrophic manner.

For instance, your ambushing units cannot charge on the turn they arrive. This is a bit of a bugger to some. But, make no mistake that having a fresh, unmauled unit of even low quality troops suddenly threaten a flank is a matter of serious concern. Compound your opponents worries by ensuring each flank has a decent sized unit on it, read to move straight up. With a bit timing (this is learned) and a smidge of luck (yeah, it's luck, not skill) your opponent will have to go some to ensure his flanks are protected.

Then this is where your chariots come in. Cheap and cheerful, yet packing a decent wallop, they are above all manouevrable. Once your opponent is trying to react to the ambush, these little beauties, again with some skill, are used to punch through weakened areas, and if your opponent is particularly careless, run over the odd lone character or poorly positioned artillery piece.

Beastmen ARE a good army. They just take a bit more thought, and have less obviously potent combinations. I say go for it, and see where they take you!

Oh, and worth pointing out that Warhammer Forge are promising/threatening a united Chaos army in the first book, so might be worth checking that out whenever they get round to releasing it!

jesusjohn
16-07-2011, 20:45
They are a great army. What i mean by that is that they are fun. They have huge modeling potential and great to paint (the paint jobs GW did do not do them justice.)
And look amazing on the battle field.

Their background is great (if you can ignore the pop throwing and over doing the adjectives when discribing gore and blood that got added in the latest edition! Really GW some of us are over 5 years old!)

They are challenging to play with, which for me is good. You are constantly looking for that tipping point and having to think about how you are going to win rather than press the win button.
They have great (if over costed) monsters and i disagree with common thought as my minotors rip anything you put in front of them apart (well most things if they don't get nuked, but hey who dosn't love it when your opponet is so scared of a unit they really go all out!). The monsters are characterfull and fun, my Cygor is a terror against Daemons and undead (yum yum horrors!).

Beastmen i have always felt is one of those armies that rewards what you put into it. You will love em.

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2011, 23:47
Well you guys have me convinced to give it a deeper look for sure. I've got a Lord/Hero with 2H Axe in Simplegreen at the moment, I had given it to my son to paint a few years ago, and I will probably pick up the Army book tomorrow and see if it grabs my interest enough to get a battalion box.

sigur
19-07-2011, 00:41
I don't play Beastmen any more (don't play much Fantasy at all and my Beastmen army is rather small by today's standards). That said, they have great miniatures and really cool background. You can do a lot of fun things with a Beastmen army and as others said, it's really an army you can be passionate about. I really like the change back to proper regiments instead of the "all skirmishers" approach of the last army book too. :)

The Low King
19-07-2011, 00:55
from what ive seen (i think two battles involving them) they can be very strong if used right (like woodelves in my opinion) but if you dont play well you get mauled.

Also, why do people see VC as so weak? ive seen them be very strong

oCoYoRoAoKo
19-07-2011, 12:07
I started Beastmen a few months ago with the intention to bring them to the next Throne of Skulls so maybe i can shed some light on a few points:

So are they an effective force? I am not looking for the end-all be all of WAAC armies, but I dont dump money into things that suck either, if I cannot be competitive then I'll just look into something else. :]

They are effective but can struggle against some Armies/Unit Combos. Personally I see them as a challenge to make me a better player. They suffer from slightly too expensive troops but make up for it with their primal fury and decent WS/Toughness.

If they are effective, what units are good?
Beastlords/Shamans (of All types)
Gors/Ungors/Bestigors
Razorgors
Harpies

How expensive would they rate in terms of getting a decent sized force together?
3 Batallion Boxed Sets +1 Ungor Box +1 Bestigor Box gives pretty much the standard core Beastmen force (40 Gors (Horde), 40 Ungors (5x8), 30 Bestigors (6x5))

Are their units that they require that dont have official releases yet?
Unless you count a good razorgor model then no.

EDIT: And another thing, how would they do in Storm of Magic? Just curious.
Quite good. They have Tough Wizards that can actually hold out in a fight when equipped well.

Aside from your questions, nothing else is really set in stone when it comes to beastmen. Some people swear by Bestigors but i personally dont find them too hot. Also, there is a general concensus that the rare choices are bad. From my exp this is usually the case but recently i have been using a Ghorgon to run with the razorgor and support the main blocks. He is quite expensive but with the chalice of dark rain helping me out he is doing OK so far.

macdaddy_o
19-07-2011, 20:25
I played beasts throughout almost all of 7th edition. I stopped when the new book came out at the end of 7th. Why? Because it sucked badly. The point cost of EVERYTHING in the book was too high, many of the units were worthless, there was very little in the book that was any good. I was so frustrated and pissed at GW, I walked away picked up my lizardman army and didn't look back. Griping about it for the next year.

I picked them up again about 3 months ago to give them another run before officially retiring them until something like 10th edition....

Imagine my surprise, and that of my opponents, when I not only did well, but dominated with them, trashing high powered lists (Skaven, HE, and DE) along the way. Beastmen are very underrated because the book was sooooo bad when it initially came out and most people will underestimate them. Classic Moment: After beating an opponents high powered skaven army of doom(HPA, 2 WLC, etc al), he insisted that he now had to sell his skaven army, because he was obviously unfit to play it after loosing to beasts....

What changed? Well, everything is still overpriced, and 8th edition only made the rares even MORE overpriced. There are still plenty of units that really are NOT worth taking. However, primal fury became much better (BSB allows LD based re-rolls). Magic phases generate random dice and bonus dice are at a premium. Beasts have access to two magic items that allow them to get bonus dice, one of which doesn't count against the 12 dice magic phase cap. Step up and attacking in ranks made bestigors pretty good.

An army based around Primal Fury and maximizing that special rule while taking advantage of the bonus PD that can be generated for the magic phase, can make the army pretty effective.

Maximizing Primal Fury is based on Synergy. That means making sure it goes off (Beastlord for LD9/10, and BSB for re-rolls), making the S of units with it higher (beastbanner in a gor unit, default Lore of Beast spell), and hexing enemy units (reducing their WS, T or S).

at 2500 points after 10 or so games, I have ended up with the following:
================================================== ======
Beastlord with Sword of Battle, Armor of Destiny, Crown of Command, SH OR Sword of Battle, Talisman of Endurance, Blackened Plate, Crown of command, SH

GBS, L4(beasts), Talisman of Preservation, Steel Claws, Jeweled Dagger

BSB, HA, SH, Gnarled Hide, Many Limbed Fiend, Beast Banner

Shaman, L1(Shadow), Herdstone
Shaman, L1(Shadow), Scroll

36 Gors, Xhw, Std/Mus
35 Gors, Xhw, Full Cmd
29 Bestigors, Full Cmd, Std of Discipline

2 x Tuskgor Chariots
2 x 1 Razorgor
2 x 5 Harpies
2 x 5 Ungor Raiders
1 x 5 Warhounds (will replace this and many limbed fiend with a 3rd Razorgor eventually).


You should see the look on peoples faces when they realize my L4 wizard is 3W, T5, 4+WS, WS5, with 3-5A at S5 and can be buffed up to 6-8A @ S8 with the savage beast spell and gets a PD for his next magic phase after every model killed. Or when the discover that 10 point flaming attacks banner just gave my beastlords unit a 4+WS. :) Good times.

And to make matters better for new entrants to the beast army, the Battalion box is probably the BEST deal for any army out there because you will use everything in it, unlike the Lizardman one. 3 Battlaion boxes gives you 60 Gors, 30 Bestigors, and 30 Ungors. A solid foundation on which to build.

Maoriboy007
19-07-2011, 21:57
from what ive seen (i think two battles involving them) they can be very strong if used right (like woodelves in my opinion) but if you dont play well you get mauled.

Also, why do people see VC as so weak? ive seen them be very strong

A lot of things that made VC strong in 7th was pretty much removed in 8th, a lot of what made them weak wasn't. They are also particularly vulnerable to all of the major doom spells in the game.
In context of this discussion however its because VC are particularly vulnerable to professional combat armies, especially ones that have ways to out magic them in some respects.
WoC and DE alway fell into this catagory, armies like LM and Skaven (and now Dwarves and pretty much everyone else) could effectivly mix it up with them as well, either through numbers, raw combat ability, by throwing shooting in the mix or a combination.VCs main power was that fear was brolken and could tip the odds in their favour if the opposition had no practical way around it.
Beastmen tend to fall into the raw power catagory, and the herdstone allows them to compete fairly against the VC magic.
With fear being nerfed and Hatred nearly every turn (thanks to BSB re-rolls) a Beastmen army can lay some serious hurt on undead , and unstable becomes a major disadvantage (as already being barely on a par with steadfast). VC dont have any real easy answers to Beasmen monsters that other armies can just shoot of the board or redirect, so you can usually get some real value out of them. VC and BM are a pretty good matchup really.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-07-2011, 22:07
To the OP: it depends in what you understand for "decent army". If decent means to you an army that can be competitive and win games, yes, it is. If decent means a good army book with a good internal balance and plenty of useful options, wich offer you a bazillion ways to play that army and keep having options to victory......no, it is not. In that sense, in fact, is one of the worse army books ever made (i'm looking at you rare units).

Scribe of Khorne
20-07-2011, 03:24
To the OP: it depends in what you understand for "decent army". If decent means to you an army that can be competitive and win games, yes, it is. If decent means a good army book with a good internal balance and plenty of useful options, wich offer you a bazillion ways to play that army and keep having options to victory......no, it is not. In that sense, in fact, is one of the worse army books ever made (i'm looking at you rare units).

I play CSM, I'm used to books with horrific internal balance. ;]

From what it sounds/reads like, an infantry heavy list is successful, and thats pretty much what I was going with anyway especially with the battalion box covering the bases so well. That said, should Ungors be used as Raiders, or with Spears?

sulla
20-07-2011, 04:05
Many players use a big block of ungors for something steadfast. Personally, I think of s5 templates taking off nearly 20 guys on a direct hit and I just can't bring myself to use a big block of t3 guys on small bases (the worst combination vs templates). But if your local opponents won't be spamming the big, broken high strength templates, they could well be worth a go. Spears are not worth it though. Go with shields only for the 6+ ward in cc.

Head over to Herdstone for advice from the players that do use big ungor blocks. I like gors myself. The only ungors I take are the bodyguard of raiders for my herdstone hugging shamans.

Walls
20-07-2011, 04:17
I will say, as a new player to Beasts... they are way better then people expect. Excellent, nearly unmatched combat units able to kill TONS of stuff. Great Lords and heroes. Excellent Magic. Lots of chaff units, allowing you to outdeploy nearly anyone. I absolutely love them right now.

sasheep
20-07-2011, 09:49
I play CSM, I'm used to books with horrific internal balance. ;]

From what it sounds/reads like, an infantry heavy list is successful, and thats pretty much what I was going with anyway especially with the battalion box covering the bases so well. That said, should Ungors be used as Raiders, or with Spears?

Personally I use raiders. They can be fairly affective warmachine hunters and a good bunker for shamans. But if I was to use them in big blocks, I would go with shields so they last longer. The unit will be there for steadfast so you want them to last as long as possible.

Harwammer
20-07-2011, 19:05
I converted my ungors to raiders when the most recent armybook came out (end of 7th). Consequently I typically use 4*6 raiders (each with musician) these days. 2 units in ambush and 2 as normal throw aways.

I think both ranked and skirmished ungors work, there's no need to chose between them if you don't want to.

AmaroK
23-07-2011, 00:02
Are Beastmen a decent army? Well, I played a tourney last week and I was the one and only beastmen player. People was giving me grats for being so brave even before starting, so I can say the general perception about them in my area is that they are kinda weak . Still, I scored a massacre (vs combat dwarfs), a tie (vs warrior of chaos) and got massacred (vs tomb kings). Last fight though, I lost because of 3 straight purple suns + character assassination spells, so I can´t consider it would have been different with other armies but elfs anyways (or even worse with my lizardmen/ogres ;))

My list was more or less similar to Mcdaddy´s one, and I can tell you it works wonders if you get your main units to close combat. But you have to play tactically with your screening units (razorgors, skirmish gors, arpies...), so the army is far from being autoplay or just point and click. But you can play other viable competitive list also, taking steadfast units of ungors with a minotaur character, going heavy on charriots, using msu centigor units (some players love this way), going monster heavy (doombull and gorghon/giant), minobus...

In any case, you have to be aware beastmen have big adventages (hard hitting units, primal fury (you can´t realize how good it is untill you use it) and access to the best lores (besides lore of the wild :(). On the other hand, you have also big dissadventages which balance the picture: low leadership on most troops, lack of armor save and overcosted rares.

All in all, in my opinion, it´s a fine army, it can be very competitive if you need it to be, and it is pretty rewarding from the tactic point of view (no autoplay units). Oh, and the basic plastic range (gor, ungor, bestigor) are really nice minis :p