PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Warriors, Beast, Demons, All One



Ealdwulf
01-09-2011, 15:34
I remember when I first started playing Fantasy back in 6th ed Chaos was all one army.

Now, many years later I feel like it's been watered down in each perspective force. With limited models and army list options.

Before Chaos was extremely robust, with lots of collecting and thematic options. Now, it seems like each army is very limited. They might be effective on the battlefield, but I personally wouldn't want to collect any of these armies dude to the limited nature of them.

I really loved the days when a group of Chaos Warriors would be lead by a Tzeentch demon and blue horrors at their flanks! That was quite a sight!

Any of you guy feel this way? Especially you old school Chaos players?

- Ealdwulf

Odin
01-09-2011, 15:40
A quick look around the forums will show that yes, a lot of people miss the Chaos army, and struggle to get enthused about the 3 rather dull armies that have replaced it. I'm one of them.

One day, hopefully my army will be put back together. In the meantime I'm having to rely on house rules.

Grimmeth
01-09-2011, 15:45
I still fondly remember the old system where you'd pick a character and then have to pick equal or more points of their 'entourage' from the relevant section (so a 300 point Beastmen character has to have 300 points of Beastmen troops, for example).
Apparently Tamurkhan from Warhammer Forge is going to have rules for mixed armies again,and animosity.

Ealdwulf
01-09-2011, 15:46
A quick look around the forums will show that yes, a lot of people miss the Chaos army, and struggle to get enthused about the 3 rather dull armies that have replaced it. I'm one of them.

One day, hopefully my army will be put back together. In the meantime I'm having to rely on house rules.

I know it's been discussed before, it's just sad to me. I don't even play Chaos, but when they split them up, with 3 mediocre army books (opinion) it just spoiled a bit of fantasy over all.

Too me Chaos was a sort of staple army, like Empire & Orcs.

Now if they were to fill them all out to be more robust I guess I'd be okay with it, however I still don't see why (fluff wise) demons and warriors and beast wouldn't be in the same force. It makes sense to me.

colonel kane trine
01-09-2011, 15:50
I sold my 30k chaos army when it became 3 armies
Chaos just didnt have the appeal to me anymore

Jolly Puggles
01-09-2011, 16:09
Too me Chaos was a sort of staple army, like Empire & Orcs.

When were Empire & Orcs in one army book? I'd never have thought they'd be in one book...what's next? Wood Elves and Lizardmen? Skaven and Goblins? Bretonnians and Chaos Dwarves? The (old) world's gone crazy!!!!!

:p

[actually, Skaven and Goblins would make a fairly decent combined/allied army...at least thematically...]

OT: I'm totally in the "3 Chaos books is silly" camp. I don't even play Chaos (never have) and I died a little inside when the split happened. The same as when the Undead became Vampires and Tomb Kings. What next? Individual clans of Skaven? Army books for each province of Bretonnia or regions of Ulthuan? How far will it all go!?! Arrgh!

...[mutter mutter mutter]...

kyussinchains
01-09-2011, 16:09
I spent a lot of money (to a 15 year old with a paper round...) on my 4th edition chaos army which had a nice mixture of mortals, beasts and daemons

it needed a few tweaks for 5th edition rules (retinues and warbands was a nice idea but ruined by awful execution)

when they split the armies up in 6th edition I focused on beastmen and warriors, but couldn't keep up and eventually sold off everything but my 4th edition army, that is currently gathering dust in some boxes under my painting table and it makes me sad knowing it will never get used again :(

Tarliyn
01-09-2011, 16:12
It feels more 'right' to me that warriors would mix with daemons and beasts would mix with daemons but warriors wouldn't mix with beasts except in uncommon situations.

I wish each army had a way to take daemons. Fluff wise though it seems like it would be more common to see a non-mixed force.

dragonet111
01-09-2011, 16:13
I started with Realm of Chaos. I waiting for its return. I like playing Daemons but Realm of Chaos was so much fun.

Summoning a greater daemon, warband, ...... miss it so much.

Ealdwulf
01-09-2011, 16:17
When were Empire & Orcs in one army book? I'd never have thought they'd be in one book...what's next? Wood Elves and Lizardmen? Skaven and Goblins? Bretonnians and Chaos Dwarves? The (old) world's gone crazy!!!!!

:p


...[mutter mutter mutter]...

I actually laughed out loud at this. You know what I meant! The Orcs & Goblins, as well as Empire :-p

Also I wonder if the new books could put in a section about taking the others as allies in a way that makes more sense within the rules. I'm not just talking about house rules, but there should absolutely be some cross-over between those forces.

@Tarliyn: you say fluff wise it seems to make more sense that they would take a non-mixed force?! How do you figure, this is CHAOS, they consort with dark gods and do their bidding, it would make absolute sense to see mixed armies. Why wouldn't a Chaos Sorcerer summon up demons to advance his warband of maruaders?

kafrique
01-09-2011, 16:20
My 6th ed Chaos playing friend uses gor/ungor mixed units as marauders, minos as ogres, pestigors as a gw warrior unit, plaguebearers as chosen, and occasionally GUO as a Daemon Prince. It's not the best solution, but it's a perfectly fun army which you generally will be able to use anywhere outside of certain tournaments (at least if your models are all thematically modeled, my friend is mononurgle. I can imagine some people would call you a "proxyer" if you used randomly marked beast/daemon units in as counts-as, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. Just make sure your pestigors/khorgors/daemons have the appropriate mark.)

Tarliyn
01-09-2011, 16:26
I actually laughed out loud at this. You know what I meant! The Orcs & Goblins, as well as Empire :-p

Also I wonder if the new books could put in a section about taking the others as allies in a way that makes more sense within the rules. I'm not just talking about house rules, but there should absolutely be some cross-over between those forces.

@Tarliyn: you say fluff wise it seems to make more sense that they would take a non-mixed force?! How do you figure, this is CHAOS, they consort with dark gods and do their bidding, it would make absolute sense to see mixed armies. Why wouldn't a Chaos Sorcerer summon up demons to advance his warband of maruaders?

I think daemons SHOULD mix. I just don't see beasts and warriors being capable of enough back and fourth communication to work together unless you lower the value of beasts and say they just tag along to pick up warriors scraps.

Jolly Puggles
01-09-2011, 16:29
Fluff wise though it seems like it would be more common to see a non-mixed force.

I disagree. At least to an extent. Beasts have developed a long way from their origins. They used to be mutants. A very common variety of mutant, to be sure, but mutants none-the-less. Now they're a race unto themselves, which makes things a little different to the way things used to be when Chaos was one big book.

Under the Big Book 'o' Chaos (hereafter to be referred to as the BB'o'C), having a bunch of mutants following a Chaos Lord was pretty par for the course. That meant Beastmen following a Chaos Lord was quite normal and even common. Even Beastmen with a Mark of Chaos was not unusual, especially for character-choice Beastmen. Just read any of the older fluff and you'll find examples of Beastmen devoted to one cause or another (especially Khorne...he likes their ferocity). You'll also find beastmen that weren't the goat-man beastmen we know today...there were bull-men, crocodile-men, eagle-men and so on and so forth. They were the true children of chaos in all their wonderful variety. "Mixed" armies, as we'd call them today, were not really considered "mixed"...whether it was Beastmen, Mortals or Daemons, it was all just "Chaos". A "mixed" warband, back in the day, was one that had units from different Chaos powers; Khorne Chaos Warriors and Nurglish Plaguebearers in one army, for example.

Since the days of the BB'o'C, however, Beastmen have become something quite different. More akin to the Skaven race...chaotic by nature, but not creatures of Chaos. This makes them less akin to WoC than they once were and thus, less likely to ally/follow. This is where any point of contention can really slip in; because Beastmen have changed since 'the old days', I think most of those that would see a return to the BB'o'C would also see Beastmen returned, at least in part, to the Beastmen of old.

ashc
01-09-2011, 16:35
I miss it, they are still cool and it wouldn't push me away from chaos, but I do miss the variety.

Leogun_91
01-09-2011, 16:52
The split helped to make single book armies work well and have more options. They should have a way to take the rest as allies though, having the basic units (marauders, warhounds, marauder horsemen, chaos warriors, ungor herd, ungor raiders, gor herd, Plaguebearers, Pink Horrors, Bloodletters, Daemonettes, Chaos Furies) with a DoW like rule that allows them as rare-choices in other chaos armies or something would help to make mixed themes possible, tie the chaos armies closer togheter, reflect the fluff and still not ruin the balance too much.
Then for the cataclysmic events where there aren't just some warriors, beasts or daemons tagging along you use allied rules and large battles.

gormaster
01-09-2011, 17:06
It took me a long time to get over it, but I`m over it, sort of. Yes it was (the BBoC) the coolest army in the game. It has lost some of that but I still love chaos. I have my preference of course. Beastmen, Warriors, Daemons in that order. I get whines from my friends when I play Beastmen because they are under powered and Daemons because they say they are over powered.

Late
01-09-2011, 17:25
Having played since 3rd ed, I have to say that the split makes for extremely awkward and boring armies, especially the daemons. But hey, that's GW of late, oversimplify everything for a buck. Compared to 40k, FB is in a pretty good state though.

AlphariusOmegon20
01-09-2011, 18:17
I apparently am in the minority.


Yes I started back when all 3 were part of the same army, but I don't mind that they separated them. In fact, I rather like that they did for Fantasy. It's the 40K separation I disagree with.

That being said, separating Undead may have seemed stupid at the time, and I don't mind that one either. Each is distinct, unit and fluff wise, to the other. I don't think it was a bad move in the long run.

Now separating O&G would be stupid......

Jolly Puggles
01-09-2011, 18:37
Now separating O&G would be stupid......

Funnily enough, I've always thought that there was room for a separate Goblin book...I mean there's Night Goblins, Forest Goblins and Everday Goblins. Gnoblars are also a variety of Goblin and Hobgoblins could be crammed in there too. Don't forget the Goblins on Wolves and Goblins on Squigs, too. Who knows, there could also be Mountain Goblins (which have a furry pelt), River Goblins (with scaly skin) and Desert Goblins (which breathe fire)!

On the Orc side, there's already Orcs, Black Orcs and Savage Orcs, not to mention Big'Uns. There's Orcs on Boars already, so why not have Orcs on Bulls? Whilst we're at it, Sea Orc Pirates, Chaos Orcs and Cave Orcs could be added to the list.

...:shifty: :rolleyes:

Seriously, there's about as much precedent for having separate Orc and Goblin books as there is to have separate Chaos or Undead books.

Beastlord
01-09-2011, 18:49
I disagree. At least to an extent. Beasts have developed a long way from their origins. They used to be mutants. A very common variety of mutant, to be sure, but mutants none-the-less. Now they're a race unto themselves, which makes things a little different to the way things used to be when Chaos was one big book.

Under the Big Book 'o' Chaos (hereafter to be referred to as the BB'o'C), having a bunch of mutants following a Chaos Lord was pretty par for the course. That meant Beastmen following a Chaos Lord was quite normal and even common. Even Beastmen with a Mark of Chaos was not unusual, especially for character-choice Beastmen. Just read any of the older fluff and you'll find examples of Beastmen devoted to one cause or another (especially Khorne...he likes their ferocity). You'll also find beastmen that weren't the goat-man beastmen we know today...there were bull-men, crocodile-men, eagle-men and so on and so forth. They were the true children of chaos in all their wonderful variety. "Mixed" armies, as we'd call them today, were not really considered "mixed"...whether it was Beastmen, Mortals or Daemons, it was all just "Chaos". A "mixed" warband, back in the day, was one that had units from different Chaos powers; Khorne Chaos Warriors and Nurglish Plaguebearers in one army, for example.

Since the days of the BB'o'C, however, Beastmen have become something quite different. More akin to the Skaven race...chaotic by nature, but not creatures of Chaos. This makes them less akin to WoC than they once were and thus, less likely to ally/follow. This is where any point of contention can really slip in; because Beastmen have changed since 'the old days', I think most of those that would see a return to the BB'o'C would also see Beastmen returned, at least in part, to the Beastmen of old.

Wait a minute, can beastmen not get marks anymore? You'll be telling me they dont even worship the chaos gods anymore next...
Not remotely a fan of the split - for me chaos armies should be chaotic - men in arcane armour enslaved to mad gods, alongside psychopathic demons and the true children of chaos, the beastmen. The lists people post up here these days look really boring to me... I miss inter-god animosity too - couldn't believe it when people started mixing marks and units and stuff allover. Disgusting :D Also miss the minotaurs as lone gaurdians of shrines to the chaos gods, sounds like their fluff is much less interesting now...

ashc
01-09-2011, 19:24
They are still guardians of the Shrines, Beastlord, they just come out to play a bit more. :)

Ealdwulf
01-09-2011, 19:40
I apparently am in the minority.


Yes I started back when all 3 were part of the same army, but I don't mind that they separated them. In fact, I rather like that they did for Fantasy. It's the 40K separation I disagree with.

That being said, separating Undead may have seemed stupid at the time, and I don't mind that one either. Each is distinct, unit and fluff wise, to the other. I don't think it was a bad move in the long run.

Now separating O&G would be stupid......

I guess I should say, I don't mind that they separated them, I love the idea of new armies! My issue was that they all seem to be rather thin on the model selection and army build variety.

I love new armies, new artwork and models always excites me, but I'd like to at least see those 3 have more of a connection than from name alone, and have some way for them to ally up in a way that makes them more closely related.

Rosstifer
01-09-2011, 20:17
I apparently am in the minority.


Yes I started back when all 3 were part of the same army, but I don't mind that they separated them. In fact, I rather like that they did for Fantasy. It's the 40K separation I disagree with.



I agree. I wouldn't mind the option to include Daemons or my Beasts, but I rarely would, except in games so big I can use the allies rule anyway.

I love the Warriors book, even though Hordes got me into Fantasy. I love everything about the Warriors, fluff, models, playstyle. Couldn't be more happy.
I don't think Beasts would bring anything to Warriors, and I wouldn't feild Daemons,
is it just me, or does most of the range look like Aliens instead of Daemons?

On that note, anyone have any of the old metal Bloodletters they want to sell off to me? :D

Doommasters
01-09-2011, 20:34
I would love to see the big Chaos book come back, would even be happy to pay twice as much given it would take a significant amount of resources to balance and build the book compared to smaller armies!

popisdead
01-09-2011, 20:43
Storm of Magic allows this a little. Playing slightly modified rules for pick up games is likely something you could look into.

One thing to remember is how collosal the task of balancing 3 books would be both for internal balance (are all units fairly pointed and ruled appropriately to each other or are we all taking Khrone Marauders and Tzeentch Chosen w/ Halberds?) and then external balance. Now throw that all out the window as suddenly you can take a few choice units from each book for power gaming overload.

I would love to see a massive chaos tome but I much more like that these armies now have thier individuality and uniqueness.

There are rumours in Taumarken for an army made up of a mix of the three Chaos books.

sulla
01-09-2011, 21:05
I remember when I first started playing Fantasy back in 6th ed Chaos was all one army.

...edit...

Any of you guy feel this way? Especially you old school Chaos players?

- EaldwulfYes and no. 6th edition chaos was both free to include anything and everything, which was good from a thematic POV, but also constraining because of the limitations on marks (which were as poorly balanced back then as they are now). Also, there was no need for an army to make 'sense'.

I still fondly remember the old system where you'd pick a character and then have to pick equal or more points of their 'entourage' from the relevant section (so a 300 point Beastmen character has to have 300 points of Beastmen troops, for example).
Apparently Tamurkhan from Warhammer Forge is going to have rules for mixed armies again,and animosity.

This; 5th edition with it's warbands made the most sense to me. Any character unlocked units who were his warband. Beastdude and mutant minions, Daemon and daemonlings. I didn't play fantasy back then but it seemed like a unique and characterful solution to building chaos armies and it would fit really well in the 8th edition armybuilding framework. Much like regiments of reknown, where the cost of the characters were supposed to balance the abilities of the unit (whether it worked or not is irrelevant), requiring a character to get the troops, or requiring core to justify the character is a good balance for an army with so many potential comboes as chaos combined. You could reintroduce some kind of animosity and call it Chaos Unbound'... or leave it as is in the WoC book right now and call it 'Superfriends of Chaos'. :p

Halelel
02-09-2011, 00:11
I can see why they separated the Chaos forces, trying to balance out all of the current units in the three armies would have been almost impossible. Its not all bad, they have managed to make all three armies playable and unique in a sense. The undead split was also a good one as there is not only fluff justification, but also vastly different aesthetic and thematic differences as well. Although, Nagash being turned into an afterthought is a great disservice to the world of Warhammer, :D

The one thing I dislike, however, is the pull of Beastmen away from Chaos and trying to make them more "unique" in fluff terms. It takes away some of the character of the Beasts themselves, from going from servants of Chaos to now just crazy beasts who slaughter and fling feces. Its, quite literally, the dumbing down of Beastmen and reminds me of them being "brown furry orcs" (since orcs also fight to slaughter things and have a thing for building effigies with feces) more than an army of Chaos.

zoggin-eck
02-09-2011, 00:39
Hey, I only started with 4th edition, but I'm actually happy with the way it is now. Splitting up the books got them to add new stuff/reintroduce units for each army so I'm happy. An all Daemon army by the 6th edition book was pretty lacking, whereas a Beastmen army back in 4th edition was barely possible (two wounds was nice, though :)) If I want to mix units, I'll just ask my opponent, use allies or whatever. I like the idea of mixed armies in huge multi-army battles more anyway.

So long as we're wishing anyway, one huge flippin' book for all three, allowing a mix of all three (I like the whole warbands of 5th ed book) while not losing any units or options would be sweet. Done properly I'd be happy to pay Warhammer big book price even, so long as it's pretty! Would be a hug gamble. I fear if people got their wish of all three together, we'd get a pretty crummmy bare bones book.

I also don't see them going back to different, but linked books again. Look how they lost momentum with the 'hunters books in 40k, never getting around to xenos/alien hunters even after so many mentions.

Only thing I have an iss with is the painfully boring Beastmen fluff. From Realm of Chaos books, WD articles, 4th ed, 5th ed and 6th ed armies books, source books etc. they can be pretty cool! Here's a case where I would have been happy if they just reprinted old material with new rules :)

Okuto
02-09-2011, 01:19
I miss having the big chaos army......now I have three unplayable warbands......even those who played pure beasts back then are kicking themselves at why WoC stole their monsters.....

mrtn
02-09-2011, 08:50
While I don't really mind the changes rules-wise (it means I can have pestigors and khorngors in the same unit, just because they both look cool, and there's only one rule for bestigors) I do prefer the old look of things. Thus I try to include non-goat beastmen as much as possible and I use gors and centigors as counts-as marauders with my WoC. I can also use bloodletters and plaguebearers with my bestigors, and demonic dogs instead of pigs.

DaemonReign
02-09-2011, 11:10
Really glad Daemons arn't some odd extras to lessers. For me (and my 30k Daemon Army) it's all about fielding a purebred non-mortal manifestation from the Warp.

Back in the days when there was just one book I wasn't attracted to Chaos at all.

It seems like people complaining about this could largely be described as Warrior-players who can't get over that they no longer have it all. Mortals, Daemons and Beasts squeezed into one book was obviously too much - so many things simply had to be marginalized in those lists for the sake of balance.

Of course, I am sympathetic to people who had 30k of "mixed" Chaos armies that suddenly got these splits thrown in their face. That must have been godawfull. Having gone through that yourselves, though, I find it sort of 'in bad taste' that you're now effectively wishing the same fate on players like - for example - me.

Oh.. and the books are not that bland or boring (as some of you are saying) either. Sure Beasts have some overcosted units, that hurts them from what I understand. Warriors have loads and loads of choices and a sprawl of aesthetic appearances thanks to the Four Marks, and truth be told the Daemon book has an elegance beneath its seeming simplicity that only dawns on you after you seriously sit down and take it apart.

Oh well.. I don't think they will re-unite these 3 armies. I could live with Warriors and Daemons in the same book, Beasts don't belong though IMO. If GW went this way I guess I'd be stuck using Mat Ward's version forever. :shifty:

Lord Zarkov
02-09-2011, 14:29
Of course, I am sympathetic to people who had 30k of "mixed" Chaos armies that suddenly got these splits thrown in their face. That must have been godawfull. Having gone through that yourselves, though, I find it sort of 'in bad taste' that you're now effectively wishing the same fate on players like - for example - me.

Surely though anyone with 30k mixed is going to have 5-15k of each section? So can still play games? (now with three armies!).

And there's still the possibility for house rules/opponents consent, which to my mind would be quite likely to be given for larger games (3-4k+), no one really plays 4K as a pick-up game!

AlphariusOmegon20
02-09-2011, 20:38
Surely though anyone with 30k mixed is going to have 5-15k of each section? So can still play games? (now with three armies!).

And there's still the possibility for house rules/opponents consent, which to my mind would be quite likely to be given for larger games (3-4k+), no one really plays 4K as a pick-up game!

That's what happened with my army, I ended up with 3 armies at approximately 6k each after the split.

Also, we do play larger games as pickups sometimes in my store. I just played in a 12k pickup a few weeks ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lord Zarkov
02-09-2011, 21:52
Also, we do play larger games as pickups sometimes in my store. I just played in a 12k pickup a few weeks ago.

How on earth did two people just happen to have 12K with them?
And I thought I'm excessive lugging 5k around between two systems!

AlphariusOmegon20
02-09-2011, 23:00
How on earth did two people just happen to have 12K with them?
And I thought I'm excessive lugging 5k around between two systems!

It was by luck really.


I normally carry anywhere between 6 and 15k with me when I go into my store (that day I had about 20k with me, as I was still working on painting a good number of the models.)

I was asked by one of the store staff if I wanted to play a game with someone that just moved in the area, so I said sure.

I asked him how many points he had to play with and he said he had enough to play 12k.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nurgle5
02-09-2011, 23:55
I still have mixed feelings over the break up of the Hordes of Chaos. Understandably, it was probably a bit unfair that two armies could pic'n'mix from each others army books. Maybe GW thought daemons would benefit from having their own armybook rather than remain in the shadows of Mortals and Beasts.

At the same time, I would've preferred if GW had at least left a unit of generic daemons or beasts in the WoC book, along the lines of CSM in 40k. I'm pretty annoyed over Beasts not having marks anymore, but I never really had a large Beasts army so I guess I can't complain too much.

At the moment, I plan on revamping my old Nurgle warband to fit the new WoC book but with the look of an Hordes of Chaos army (using beasts as marauders, daemons as forsaken and whatnot), so my old Hordes will live on :D.

manickze
03-09-2011, 03:19
i prefer it in 6thed where you could take mortal daemon or beastmen as specials in your other chaos force. right now I have 3 armies and it's not bad, Storm of chaos kind of makes up for it though. lots of chaosy additions. its great.

Doommasters
05-09-2011, 10:07
Storm of Magic allows this a little. Playing slightly modified rules for pick up games is likely something you could look into.

One thing to remember is how collosal the task of balancing 3 books would be both for internal balance (are all units fairly pointed and ruled appropriately to each other or are we all taking Khrone Marauders and Tzeentch Chosen w/ Halberds?) and then external balance. Now throw that all out the window as suddenly you can take a few choice units from each book for power gaming overload.

I would love to see a massive chaos tome but I much more like that these armies now have thier individuality and uniqueness.

There are rumours in Taumarken for an army made up of a mix of the three Chaos books.

/agree, would be so cool though if they did it right :)

Brother Alexos
05-09-2011, 17:44
Well, I've never played Chaos, and I wasn't around when the chaos armies were all in one book, so you'll have to take this with a grain of salt.

I think that the splitting of the Hordes book was both a blessing and a curse. I know that it diluted the armies alot, but then again, it did ADD to the backround of each army. No longer were Beasts just there to die by the millions, they started to have their own traditions and uniqueness. This really helped the three armies when it came to backround, but what they really need to do now is tie them all together. With the new models, the expanded fluff, and the old Hordes book, this army would be perfect. Sure, you'd have to drop a unit or two, here and there, but you could add so much to the army as a whole.

Like, maybe you could drop all of the different Chariots, and make one Chariot option in the book. It would have a crew of Chaos Marauders, and you could upgrade it with different riders and mounts. For example, Upgrade Marauders to Beastmen for 3 points apiece, or Warriors for 5 points, and a Daemonic Crew for 6 points a pop. That, and you could add weaker units that cost less for a horde sense to the army. Like Mutants. I don't know if there was an option like this before, but I think it would be cool to have, say, a Chaos Lord with around 30 Warriors as a retinue, but the rest would be like 4 pt. Mutants that are about as strong as a regular person, but have the toughness of a Zombie. It would be nice. But enough off topic ranting..

Well, those wouldn't be the actual points values, but you get what I'm trying to say, right?

Either way, I think that splitting them was good, but that keeping them apart is a mistake. Again, I didn't see the Hordes of Chaos armybook, so I could be entirely wrong.

ashc
05-09-2011, 18:09
Actually, I think Beastmen really struggle on their own, both in terms of background and on the tabletop.

There is not a lot that separates them from Orcs and Goblins or Ogre Kingdoms.

Brother Alexos
05-09-2011, 18:49
Well, yes, but the point is, they have their own culture. Well, as far as any Chaos-worshipping race can have a culture. Even if they do struggle, I think that giving them their own fluff, their own victories and defeats, adds a sense of why they join up so easily with the other Chaotics. I mean, with the new books, they do struggle, but it does show that they don't fight like the rest of Chaos fights. That's the good part about them being seperated. Now all GW needs to do is put them back together.

Lordsaradain
05-09-2011, 18:50
Any of you guy feel this way? Especially you old school Chaos players?


Yes I do! Daemons have no place being a standalone army IMO.

decker_cky
05-09-2011, 19:18
Yes I do! Daemons have no place being a standalone army IMO.

I don't mind them as standalone, but they should have some serious drawback. The old popping mechanic was perfect, not with the Hordes list, but with the SoC list. Strong army with a serious drawback. Daemons shouldn't be one of the most predictable lists...they should be one of the most random.

They should be included with beasts and warriors first and foremost though.