PDA

View Full Version : Wood elves vs Beastmen- A rivalry ruined?



Malorian
04-02-2010, 18:35
So just like high elves vs dark elves, or dwarfs vs orcs, one of the classic match-ups is wood elves vs beastmen.

In actual game play the wood elves would out shoot the beastmen but their skimish made up for it and the battle became one of jungle warfare.

However now that general skirmish is gone, and the only skirmishing units are very weak, wood elves can treat them like any other army and run circles around them while they shoot them up.

Sure the ungors can shoot back with their short bows, and the cygor can chuck rocks, but neather is going to last long if the wood elves simply concentrate their shooting on them for a turn, thus allowing them to run free for the rest of the game.


So is this classic rivalry ruined? What are your thoughts?

Eric.Miller
04-02-2010, 18:38
Yes it is. The new Beastmen book is pretty bad for anyone who wants to actually play the game.

Look for them to end up just below Ogres in terms of power. At least Ogres have the Tenderizer. Beastmen have literally 0 options in the entire book to deal with a Dragon.

Wood Elves will blow them away, but then I think every other army in the game will blow them away.

So rivalry ruined, but the Wood Elves dominating them is just the tip of the "Beastmen getting dominated" iceberg.

Malorian
04-02-2010, 18:41
Yes it is. The new Beastmen book is pretty bad for anyone who wants to actually play the game.

Look to them to be just below Ogres in terms of power. At least Ogres have the Tenderizer. Beastmen have literally 0 options in the entire book to deal with a Dragon.

Wood Elves will blow them away, but then I think every other army in the game will blow them away.

So rivalry ruined, but the Wood Elves dominating them is just the tip of the "Beastmen getting dominated" iceberg.

Well I just played against them and I didn't think they were that bad.

A razorgor or minotaur charge will do as much damage to a dragon as a tenderizer weiding ogre (and both will be as hard to line up) but the beastmen can still check rocks as them with cygors and shoot them with ungor archers.


Anyway, I want this thread to be about the change in play style rather than anything to do with change in 'power ranking'.

Drakcore Bloodtear
04-02-2010, 18:41
I agree that it is ruined the rivalry

If there was one thing I hated about the new Beastmen book is the loss of their core being skirmish

Hrokka `Eadsplitter
04-02-2010, 18:43
That depends what kind of game it is, huh? For a friendly match the WE player maybe wouldn't bother to take as many a$$kickin' skirmish units, more focusing on fun than win... For a competetive match, tourney etc.etc Who cares about that Beast dude that you never while face again, and then it might be fun just crushing him... Sajonara, Beastmen! That rivalry is fine, it don't say that both sides have to win sometimes...

EDIT: Just realized how mean my post sounded against the beast dudes... maybe the rivalry is destroyed if both sides can't win... For a good rivalry there should be a 'dödläge' as we say in sweden, where neither force could win, just skulldashing eachother to da death...

Leogun_91
04-02-2010, 18:46
Sure the ungors can shoot back with their short bows, and the cygor can chuck rocks, but neather is going to last long if the wood elves simply concentrate their shooting on them for a turn, thus allowing them to run free for the rest of the game.Well you can always make a ungor skirmisher horde, base the whole army on ungor skirmishers.

But yes it has been lost somewhat. It's a pitty really.

Ultimate Life Form
04-02-2010, 18:48
Brown Orcs for the loss. :(

I actually go a step further and say 'an army ruined'. Where are the Chaos Lores, the Chaos Marks and so on?

I said it before and will say it again: I was interested in Beasts before, but no more. They took everything from the army that made it unique and interesting and replaced it with generic Monster spam. Thumbs down GW.

Eric.Miller
04-02-2010, 18:54
Well I just played against them and I didn't think they were that bad.

A razorgor or minotaur charge will do as much damage to a dragon as a tenderizer weiding ogre (and both will be as hard to line up) but the beastmen can still check rocks as them with cygors and shoot them with ungor archers.


Anyway, I want this thread to be about the change in play style rather than anything to do with change in 'power ranking'.

If you get to charge the Dragon with anything in the Beast or Ogre list, the Dragon player is quite foolish. It's not that the Tenderizer was an offensive threat, but that an Ogre player could at least protect one unit from being destroyed by placing the Tenderizer Tyrant in said unit.

The playstyle for Beastmen will suck. There are hardly any useful units in the entire book. The entire collection of Rares are overpriced pieces of trash.

Minotaurs and Razorgors are practically the same. Razorgor chariots are practically the same as regular chariots. Bestigors are practically useless.

There's nothing interesting in the list, nothing that pops, just a bunch of unreliable infantry, some hard hitting bigger stuff and some really incredibly overpriced rare choices.

Malorian
04-02-2010, 18:58
If you get to charge the Dragon with anything in the Beast or Ogre list, the Dragon player is quite foolish. It's not that the Tenderizer was an offensive threat, but that an Ogre player could at least protect one unit from being destroyed by placing the Tenderizer Tyrant in said unit.

As I said both would be hard to setup.


I think people are not giving enough respect to the new bestial fury hatred and the new tacitcal options of the book.


Against the WE one thing that does help is that new general spell that lets you move a unit in the magic phase.

Lord Malorne
04-02-2010, 19:01
You still get harpies right :).

BigbyWolf
04-02-2010, 19:31
If you get to charge the Dragon with anything in the Beast or Ogre list, the Dragon player is quite foolish. It's not that the Tenderizer was an offensive threat, but that an Ogre player could at least protect one unit from being destroyed by placing the Tenderizer Tyrant in said unit.

The playstyle for Beastmen will suck. There are hardly any useful units in the entire book. The entire collection of Rares are overpriced pieces of trash.

Minotaurs and Razorgors are practically the same. Razorgor chariots are practically the same as regular chariots. Bestigors are practically useless.

There's nothing interesting in the list, nothing that pops, just a bunch of unreliable infantry, some hard hitting bigger stuff and some really incredibly overpriced rare choices.

I take it you've played quite a few games with/ against the new Beastmen to formulate your opinions then?

For a start you could always give the Bonecrusher Mace to a Doombull 6+ attacks at S8/9 compare fairly well against a tenderizer-wielding Tyrant, not to mention that the Doombull will probably have a couple of S7, multi-attack minos backing him up.

Minotaurs will end up having more attacks and a higher strength (assuming great weapons) then Razorgors, but less movement. Razorgors can be fielded in units of 2 as pretty useful flankers. Razorgor Chariots will hit harder that standard ones, and will make a nice addition to a character. IMO Bestigors have always been a poor choice.

I highly doubt that all other armies will blow them away.

I will just add that I have not played with them yet, and will only make my decision once I have the new book in my hands and have tried them out a few times.

LaurentleBete
04-02-2010, 19:36
IMHO, it has ruined it for now. But I think the Wood Elves will almost definately be loosing their skirmish in their next book.

I look into my crystal ball and predict that dryads will become ranked! And thats all the skirmishers they actually have, right? 'Cept for scouts and waywatchers as one of those is limited to glade guard units, and the other is a rare choice.

Lord Malorne
04-02-2010, 19:37
Wardancers.

More importantly is the fast cav, including the awesome wild riders.

LaurentleBete
04-02-2010, 19:39
Wardancers.

More importantly is the fast cav, including the awesome wild riders.

Ah yeah those dratted wardancers. They may well be ranked too. My crystal ball of speculation and guesswork tells me so.

The SkaerKrow
04-02-2010, 19:41
I'm not sure the majority of GW's design team ever considered Beasts of Chaos vs. Wood Elves to be a "classic match-up." Both in the army lore and in its design, that seems to have been lost. Then again, as Beastmen have always been centered heavily around the Drakwald Forest, it doesn't surprise me that their focus has shifted to battling the Empire as opposed to the Asrai.

Anyone making hard assertions about the army's power level, before the book is even out, has revealed themselves to be a fool. Over time, the Warhammer community always finds new strategies/combinations/builds in books that were not readily apparent just after release, let alone before the army reaches the general population.

Gromdal
04-02-2010, 19:44
Nah i think the rivalry is still there, its a fluff thing.

And beastmen are fine powerwise, they are not under ogres in power.

Eric.Miller
04-02-2010, 19:55
Anyone making hard assertions about the army's power level, before the book is even out, has revealed themselves to be a fool. Over time, the Warhammer community always finds new strategies/combinations/builds in books that were not readily apparent just after release, let alone before the army reaches the general population.

I disagree. Name one combination from any of the last 5 books that wasn't immediately apparent to the online community.

Everyone saw WoC and recognized Horses and magic. Everyone saw Lizardmen and saw Engine spam. Everyone saw Skaven and recognized Hellpit Abominations.

More importantly, the community also immediately recognized the ridiculous weaknesses - the combinations that won't work.

Call me a fool all you like, but I am willing to bet that Beastmen are a crappy book, and they were better off with the half of a book they had last edition. They had better models then too.

Sure someone will take them to high rank in a tournament somewhere sometime. Geniuses have been doing that with Ogres every now and then too. I am just worried that it won't be any fun to play regular games against them because they won't put up any kind of fight.

Jack of Blades
04-02-2010, 19:57
That the rivalry has been dropped makes a fair bit of sense, seeing as the Lorien Forest is pretty damn small compared to the rest of the Beastman battlegrounds. You can always theme your Beastmen with Wood Elven head-poles and such if you want to. It makes sense that the Beastmen would have periodic incursions into Lorien but take a look at this map: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammeronline/images/4/46/OldWorldMap_Render.jpg

See the Wood Elves there? you probably won't unless you already know where they are. That's because they're mostly confined to the two small-texted grey names inbetween two white Bretonnian names, just west of a bunch of mountain chains. That patch of forest is pretty much where the bulk of the Wood Elves are located. I would guess that they occasionally raid outside of that, but I don't know how interventionist the Wood Elves actually are.

Malorian
04-02-2010, 19:58
Call me a fool all you like, but I am willing to bet that Beastmen are a crappy book, and they were better off with the half of a book they had last edition. They had better models then too.

Chaos troll and dragon ogre vs razorgor and minotaur...

Seems even to me ;)



but I don't know how interventionist the Wood Elves actually are.

That's because us wood elves are sneaky, and if you ever knew the waywatchers would already be at your home ;)

willowdark
04-02-2010, 20:11
Athel Loren had to be purged of Beastmen, which is why they are a classic rivalry while the current fluff emphasizes the conflict with the Empire. Beastmen encroachments into Loren are met with immediate engagement.

And Morghur's home is Athel Loren, where he is imprisoned and where he will be a continual threat to the Asrai.

zak
04-02-2010, 20:14
I also think that it is too early to write off this book. You haven't factored in that the new version of Warhammer is allegedly out in 4-5 months and may then place Beastmen armies very favourably. Currently their ability to skirmish has diminished, but I don't think they can be written off. Having played a couple of games I have found them to be competetive (thankfully not broken), although admittedly I have not faced a WE army. The background in the book does stray away from the WE's and really centres upon the Beasts hatred of man and introduces the new rivalry of Beast versus Man.

Pacorko
04-02-2010, 20:16
As per the newset ruling, yes. It's lost a big part of its in game wonderful dynamics. I will not tire of saying this: It's rather dull and IDIOTIC to have all armie's infantry fighting in blocks. But it's outright IMBECILLIC to have Beastmen fighting in such an orderly manner.

Thankfully, we as a group use the best elements of past army books and incorporate them to the new ones. In this case it's going to be the reverse: we (especially I) will be using the past BoC and incorparate really few things from the new one.

It's not that bad, but it took away many of the best things the Beastmen had going for them.

P.S.: I own and play both Woodies and Goats because I luv their enmity, and always fantasized about their battles in close quarters amidst dense and unforgiving forests ever since the stand alone book for Beastmen came out.

So, yes. I feel a bit let down by the most recent developments.

Keystone
04-02-2010, 20:48
im about to start a beastman army and all this shouting about them being bad is making me feel sad :(

to be honest i like new models and i never played the last army book as i was waiting for an update so i guess im not feeling the loss vet beast players are feeling.

Vazalaar
04-02-2010, 20:52
im about to start a beastman army and all this shouting about them being bad is making me feel sad :(

to be honest i like new models and i never played the last army book as i was waiting for an update so i guess im not feeling the loss vet beast players are feeling.

Buy the book, it's good.
And if you like the new mini's why shouldn't you start a beastmen army?

w3rm
04-02-2010, 20:59
Way to go guys... Malorian asks a simple question and it has degenerated into another whining moaning bitchfest about how Beastmen suck.


Personally I have yet to read the new book but from what I hear beastmen are still fairly mobile. They all have m5 and harpies and other big beasties and ambush. I wouldnt call it yet but to me Beasts seem to be fairly mobile and still can have a fluffy rivally game agaisnt woodies.

Shadow_Steed
04-02-2010, 21:36
im about to start a beastman army and all this shouting about them being bad is making me feel sad :(

to be honest i like new models and i never played the last army book as i was waiting for an update so i guess im not feeling the loss vet beast players are feeling.

This goes for me too:).

Furthermore I really like their new indigenous people theme that they got now and I think that is much cooler than some matchmaking with the Wood Elves.

Beastmen vs all!

W0lf 1990
04-02-2010, 21:45
The rivalry and fun of the game is completly ruined imo.

The new beasts book is more powerful game-play wise then the old one but does this at the sacrifice of character.

Bazzal
04-02-2010, 21:53
iv played a few games with beasts so far and i think that a WE Vs Beast would always be a very close match and the storylines that can be made (invaders of the forest etc) and u have 2 extremly mobile armies one tougher yes but the other shooty so by time combat hits the tougher one will be slightly weakened.

but as i said these 2 clashing will be a good thought out battle for both players.

noticed someone said beasts have no way to deal with dragons i think they can cope very well imo. posible S9 lord (not using ld weapon) plenty of atks and above avg strength can be done :-).

but until wood elves are redone i think beasts will have advantage. but woodies can be tough just depends on lists, players and the dice lol

Malorian
04-02-2010, 22:02
but until wood elves are redone i think beasts will have advantage. but woodies can be tough just depends on lists, players and the dice lol

You think beastmen have the advantage?

I guess it depends on the build, but the typical WE lists I was thinking about are the 'ha ha you can't catch me while I run around and shoot' builds, so now that the beastmen lost their skirmishers it's much easier for the wood elves to run circles around them.

Devil Tree
04-02-2010, 22:42
I wouldn’t say that the new book ruined the rivalry between Beasts and Woodies; so much as it put the last nail in its coffin. To be fair, their rivalry was always a little lopsided to begin with.

Everything in the WE could move though woods without penalty and was often as fast or faster than their Beast equivalents. The Beast list wasn’t so lucky however; Giants, Shaggoth, mid-sized monsters, Bestigors, Spawn and Hounds would all get bogged down if they ventured into the woods. Chariots couldn’t be moved into woods at all.

Sure Beast Herds and Centigors could move though woods without any penalties, but that was just 2 units and they had to cope with unruly or stupidity/frenzy. While Centigors were a pretty good match, Beast Herds had a tough time with WE staples like dryads, who were tougher, stronger, caused fear and since they were both skirmishers, formed long conga lines in CC and preventing the herds from getting a rank bonus. I'm not saying that Beasts couldn't win, just that they were usually at a disadvantage.

While I do miss skirmishers, I would overall put the new book in the win column. While it does have less flexibility, it also has lot more power and should be able to do a lot better overall. Hopefully GW will fix the situation with WE by bringing them more inline with the other armies. They lived something of a charmed life since their army book and need to play more like WHFB and less like 40K.

Harwammer
04-02-2010, 22:55
There really wasn't that much on beastmen vs wood elves rivalry in the 6th ed book, mainly a mention in Morghur's entry if I recall correctly. Indeed the 'secret war' in the forest is something that seems to be something that only the Wood Elves themselves care about. Beastmen are just too busy hating on the human civilisations to worry about wicked elf swine.

Ultimate Life Form
04-02-2010, 23:01
Hopefully GW will fix the situation with WE by bringing them more inline with the other armies. They lived something of a charmed life since their army book and need to play more like WHFB and less like 40K.

That is exactly my fear; I already foresee loss of lots of mobility, fighting in R&F and Monster spam. :(

Why would I collect more than one army if they're all the same?

Malorian
04-02-2010, 23:01
wicked elf swine.

*Draws back bow-string*

*Sees moderator*

*Lowers bow*


:p

StarFyreXXX
04-02-2010, 23:10
I hope WE don't lose skirmish. Whats the point if overall the armmies all become rank and file block armies? It's more fun when they are as different and have as many of their own rules as possible (to make them more unique).

But beastmen can get ungor skirmrishers so they still have the thematic ambush, just with different troops :)

Sanjay

Condottiere
04-02-2010, 23:32
Beastmen are just too busy hating on the human civilisations to worry about wicked elf swine.Since when do Elves get pumbaagor upgrades?

Commodus Leitdorf
04-02-2010, 23:39
Lose what Skirmish? Look at the book, Most of the units don't skirmish to begin with. Only 4 do that I can think of

-Scouting Glade Guard (which will probably be done away with next book like the way skinks don't skirmish anymore)
-Dryads
-Wardancers
-Waywatchers

I mean thats it, most of the army doesn't skirmish at all. The thing is is that the skirmishing stuff is so good and useful, people generally ignore the stuff that doesn't skirmish.

And to the poster original point. The tradition enemy of the Beastmen is the Empire. The wood elf bit last edition added a little flavour, but detracted from the fact the bulk of the trouble the Empre deals with comes from the Beastmen...the Empires REAL enemy.

Seth the Dark
04-02-2010, 23:51
I agree. And the Beastmen are not ruined so get over it.

LaurentleBete
05-02-2010, 00:11
I agree. And the Beastmen are not ruined so get over it.

QFT. Roll on saturday :)

Ivellis
05-02-2010, 00:25
(which will probably be done away with next book like the way skinks don't skirmish anymore)

Except when they do? ;)

Arguleon-veq
05-02-2010, 00:26
Gamewise I think Beasts can still compete with that style of Wood Elves. After all you can have quite a shooty Beasts force with 2 Stone Throwers with a possible extra D3 Stone Thrower shots. You have Skirmishing Harpies who will make a mess of almost any WE unit.

You also have the potential for a lot of powerdice in the magic phase with re-rolling wounds and using the lore of death or shadows which will be very handy against wood elves who really struggle against massed magic.

You also have Ambushers to try to help coral any pesky enemy WE units.

Fluffwise WE have never been Beasts main rivals, but Beasts are WE's main rivals. There is a difference. WE's do most of their fighting against Beasts. Beasts are everywhere fighting everything but mostly fighting men. Plus there is a decent bit in the book talking about WE hated Beasts and been a big enemy of them.

willowdark
05-02-2010, 00:39
Lose what Skirmish? Look at the book, Most of the units don't skirmish to begin with. Only 4 do that I can think of

-Scouting Glade Guard (which will probably be done away with next book like the way skinks don't skirmish anymore)
-Dryads
-Wardancers
-Waywatchers

I mean thats it, most of the army doesn't skirmish at all. The thing is is that the skirmishing stuff is so good and useful, people generally ignore the stuff that doesn't skirmish.



Leitdorf, that's 4 out of 6 total single wound infantry choices. The rest of the army is monsters and cav and a single Ogre class unit. When 2/3 of your available infantry choices are skirmishers, its fair to call the army a skirmishing force, and when the only other comparable skirmisher force in the game has it effectively removed from their tactics, its fair to be concerned about loosing it.

And nobody ignores the other choices. Nearly everyone takes Glade Guard, one of the remaining choices, and in comped environments the Eternal guard even make an appearance or two. After Wild Riders, the only real combat option for WE are their skirmishers. That's why you see them, because that's what WE have, though I personally bring 4 TKin to every game, but that's the exception.

Astafas
05-02-2010, 00:58
Oh noes you have lost skirmish on your main infantry blocks.

Hatred. EVERY TURN. Screens of ungors with SHORTBOWS so you can actually shoot back? Minotaurs that are uberkillers. CORE chariots still.

The new beasts are awesome. They hit like a tonne of bricks. Losing skirmishers on their main infantry blocks was the BEST thing ever as now they are an actual army and given the effects of their eternal hatred they can stand toe to toe with all but chaos warriors...

Stop crying because you dont have iDaemons of Chaos MkII. Learn to screen with ungor skirmishers and manuever like the rest of us. This is one of the better books BY A MILE in my opinion.

NB I agree there are too many skirmishers in the WE army. Take this as an indication that when they get their turn that will be corrected...

Commodus Leitdorf
05-02-2010, 01:06
Sorry I think I went off on a tangent there. What I meant was they dont have all that much in the way of Skirmishing to begin with. So the thought that they would lose it because of Beastmen is silly speculation. Up until 6th Edition, Beastmen didn't skirmish at all.

The next WE book will probably lose scouting Glade Guards (much like skinks lost their scouting so people would take Chameleons) so people will take Waywatchers as their primary scouting unit. The rest however will stay the same...whihc is still a bunch of stuff that play avoidance until It's JUUUUUSt right to strike.

willowdark
05-02-2010, 01:21
Raiders was a good rule though. It was unique and effective and gave Beasts an advantage, albeit small, against WE. Now, against Dryads, they just have less attacks and no Ward Save. It's a compare and contrast sort of thing, between the core guerrilla build of the two rivals. Beast herds had advantages and disadvantages when compared to Dryads, which made the rivalry interesting. Now Gors are stock-standard marauder style infantry with nothing to offer except +1T, While Dryads still skirmish, have two attacks, a Ward Save, cause fear and are immune to psychology.

Its about character. Dryads have it all and Gors have nothing, except ranks that won't stand up to wounds dealt and a standard that will just get captured and cost the Beasts more VPs.

Rael
05-02-2010, 03:09
Who cares about the rivalry with the Wood Elves. It was only a recent edition to the fluff anyway. I much prefer the hatred towards man than the elves of Athel Loren.

Raiders is also a recent addition.

Beastmen went back to how they used to play on the board and in the fluff.

Good riddance to 6th ed. Beasts I say!

Sygerrik
05-02-2010, 03:43
My guess is that most Fantasy Beastmen players play Tyranids as well in 40k. That would explain the inordinate amount of unfounded whining about two extremely well-balanced new books.

Pacorko
05-02-2010, 03:53
Did they, Rael? Back to the days of 3rd. edition, perhaps? Those of silly blocks of beastmen stopping enemy units while the harpies and magic users tried hard to kill the heavy hitters and pull a win? Back to the days when they were part of the Chaos Armies along with humans and daemons?

Back to how they played those rank/block-filler days?

Well, they have more power, no one has denied that. It's just they lack a bit of the character added by 6th. edition that made them cooler than the previous incarnations. But of course, if someone doesn't go "OMFG the Minoaturs rock and will spam every game", then that someone is whining about a "bad" book. C'mon!

If most people reading this are a competitive players, they will love the Beastmen. Not stupidly overpowered and crazily undercosted as DoC, not too spam-prone as VCs, but quite solid on their own.

But to me, they now lack a bit of "spirit" and flexibilty. That's what let me down, and even then I bought the book.

P.S.: I have also recently acquired Codex: Tyranids and a nifty "past Codex" army to go with it. I'm not whining... Not at all! :p

willowdark
05-02-2010, 04:09
I never said the book wasn't good. In fact, I think it's got a lot of potential. I think Bestial Surge has a very promising synergy with Ambush that I'd like to see explored. I think they'll prove to be one of the mid tier, hyper-tactical armies like Ogres, and yes even WE.

But let's not pretend there isn't reason to be disappointed. Gors as Raiders would just simply be better. They'd have all the CR capability they have now but could maneuver _through woods_. It's absurd that they can't anymore - plain and simple. 360 degree LoS and no movement penalty is what a woodland beast marauder should have. Instead we have regular marauders with hooves. It's a bad move. It's not the end of the world, but it's counter intuitive in a very disappointing way.

But yes, as a balanced competitive list Beasts will ultimately shine in the hands of an advanced general. I am very interested in the book and hope that it gets picked up by a few people in my area. I'm really very anxious to see it in action.

someone2040
05-02-2010, 05:02
I never said the book wasn't good. In fact, I think it's got a lot of potential. I think Bestial Surge has a very promising synergy with Ambush that I'd like to see explored. I think they'll prove to be one of the mid tier, hyper-tactical armies like Ogres, and yes even WE.

But let's not pretend there isn't reason to be disappointed. Gors as Raiders would just simply be better. They'd have all the CR capability they have now but could maneuver _through woods_. It's absurd that they can't anymore - plain and simple. 360 degree LoS and no movement penalty is what a woodland beast marauder should have. Instead we have regular marauders with hooves. It's a bad move. It's not the end of the world, but it's counter intuitive in a very disappointing way.

But yes, as a balanced competitive list Beasts will ultimately shine in the hands of an advanced general. I am very interested in the book and hope that it gets picked up by a few people in my area. I'm really very anxious to see it in action.
One could argue, that Saurus and ranked Skinks should do this too. I mean, they have to fight in the jungles of Lustria. Yet you don't see rules on them to allow that.

Armies are different to skirmishing warbands, and GW obviously said we're fighting an army of Beastmen, not a warband raiding a village.

willowdark
05-02-2010, 05:20
Skinks and Sallies are aquatic and Terradons fly into and out of woods freely.

Bad example. Sorry buddy.

Wood elves move freely through woods. GW is developing a bad habit of reinventing the wheel. 8th edition? That way lies madness.

Edit: Movement rules are some of the most effective ways to make an army unique. The above-mentioned LM, Undead never marching, Dwarfs always marching, Skaven get +1 to flee - there's real character in that. Dropping Raiders just watered down the new Beasts, that's more than fair to argue.

willowdark
05-02-2010, 05:35
And why aren't we a warband raiding a village?

Most things that are broke don't get fixed, and the things that aren't do.

PARTYCHICORITA
05-02-2010, 05:48
I disagree. Name one combination from any of the last 5 books that wasn't immediately apparent to the online community.

Everyone saw WoC and recognized Horses and magic. Everyone saw Lizardmen and saw Engine spam. Everyone saw Skaven and recognized Hellpit Abominations.

More importantly, the community also immediately recognized the ridiculous weaknesses - the combinations that won't work.

Call me a fool all you like, but I am willing to bet that Beastmen are a crappy book, and they were better off with the half of a book they had last edition. They had better models then too.

Sure someone will take them to high rank in a tournament somewhere sometime. Geniuses have been doing that with Ogres every now and then too. I am just worried that it won't be any fun to play regular games against them because they won't put up any kind of fight.

Actually these boards were full of "QQ the new DE/LM/WoC/etc,etc suck" when the books were initially release, time ended up showing those claims were far from true. So I'll wait a lil longer before placing my judgment on the new beast's book.

Back to topic; what about magic? It would be silly to have the beastmen have an even shooting match vs the WE but then again, the asrai have rather useless magic so couldn't the beastmen get an edge going in that direction?

ChaosVC
05-02-2010, 05:53
If only you can combine the 6th ed version of BOC with the 7th version. Suddenly a mob of beast man become more discipline and learn to form up in ranks. Must be some advancement in organisation among the goat and cow people.

decker_cky
05-02-2010, 05:59
Beasts have a pretty awesome boost to their magic missiles, making lore of death pretty potent. Lore of beasts is great as always. Lore of shadows is the great in the right circumstances. Ignore lore of the wild for comparison...it's not very good at all.

snurl
05-02-2010, 07:14
Y'know... with all this talk about different armies losing skirmish ability, (skinks, beastmen).. I wonder if GW isn't going to change the formation rules for 8th edition...Maybe we'll be able to have any unit adopt a skirmish formation or an open order ???

Off topic, I know, but it just occured to me.

Cap'n Facebeard
05-02-2010, 08:03
Interesting how quickly this became a power argument.

I have to agree with Malorian on this issue, because I think that loss of game flavour is much more important than loss of power level. The entertainment of warhammer compared to say, chess, is partly the variations of the armies and their individual character. Beastmen were a highly characterful army - by which I mean, they had a very individual feel compared to the other forces. This was only compounded fluffwise by giving them an arch-nemesis other than the 'usual' Order guys. The character of this rivalry was enriched by the interaction of the two armies' rules. To quote Gav Thorpe:

"With the different troop types and special rules of the two armies interacting together, the result is a much more fluid, skirmish-like affair than the set piece 'line up and fight' battles you get with other armies. This is a great representation of the ongoing war between these two races." White Dwarf 285

IMO power level doesn't come into this argument. Its not about whether Beastmen can beat Wood Elves, but instead whether or not a very unique, fun army has had some of its special shine rubbed off.

Harwammer
05-02-2010, 08:26
"With the different troop types and special rules of the two armies interacting together, the result is a much more fluid, skirmish-like affair than the set piece 'line up and fight' battles you get with other armies. This is a great representation of the ongoing war between these two races." White Dwarf 285

A fascinating quote! Its always interesting to hear the dev's reasons behind changes to an army. Part of the reason behind ditching raiders is given in this months white dwarf; they wanted to up the scale of beastmen, changing them from a raiding party picking off villages to a full-blown, threatening army.

I prefered them on the small scale, complete with skirmishes against woodelves and empire village garrisons.

@ whoever said skirmish was new to 6th ed, wasn't there ungor skirmishers in 5th? seems to me we've gone back to the 5th ed list. Maybe wood elves will get the same treatment and only wardancers + waywatchers will be able to skirmish in 7th/8th ed?

Gallock
05-02-2010, 08:39
Ive seen two games with the new Beastmen and they have wiped the floor both times (against WEs and HE).

I don't think you need to worry about them being weak.

Losing skirmish, I don't think it is that much of a big deal (they maybe should of given them move through forest). Ranking up doesnt make them regimented any more than it does savage orcs/giant rats.

Pacorko
05-02-2010, 08:51
And people still doesn't get it... :eyebrows:

This is not about Beastmen becoming less powerful.

It's about their lossing an interesting part of their CHARACTER/UNIQUENESS.

:rolleyes:

ChaosVC
05-02-2010, 08:56
And people still doesn't get it... :eyebrows:

This is not about Beastmen becoming less powerful.

It's about their lossing an interesting part of their CHARACTER/UNIQUENESS.

:rolleyes:

Spot on matey.

Halelel
05-02-2010, 09:18
Gav Thorpe:

"With the different troop types and special rules of the two armies interacting together, the result is a much more fluid, skirmish-like affair than the set piece 'line up and fight' battles you get with other armies. This is a great representation of the ongoing war between these two races." White Dwarf 285


That quote pretty much sums up why I think I have been disappointed with this newest incarnation of Beastmen. The premise always was to avoid turning them into just "Brown Orcs", but that seems to be the way they took this book. Maybe it's just a handful of us, but I liked the whole basis of the "Secret War" as it gave sole focus to two Warhammer forces that just seem to be bystanders in most major conflicts.

This leads to the question, what exactly are they planning to do with Wood Elves for this newest edition? I sincerely hope that this isn't an indication that skirmish is being phased out or overly minimalized in 8th edition, I just can't picture Wood Elves as being a rank and file army.

Condottiere
05-02-2010, 09:19
I rather liked the Raider rule, besides giving a unique movement capability, it allows a force to surge forward and still maintain coherency.

The Red Scourge
05-02-2010, 10:44
There never really were a rivalry between WE & BoC, both just happened to live in forests. The wood elf book draws a picture of beastmen being a grave danger to Athel Loren, while the BoC book barely mentioned the elves. Beasts are a much bigger player in the world (geographically), while the woodies with their insular nature are quite satisfied just hanging out in their favorite wood.

I also find it sad that they lost the raiders rule - something about ranked regiments and the children of chaos that just don't mix - though the BoC got a whole bunch of new tools, scouts, shooting, monsters with great functions and an interesting lore to boot. They might not eat daemons for breakfast, but they will provide great fun - and ain't that what its all about? :)

Cap'n Facebeard
05-02-2010, 11:02
They might not eat daemons for breakfast, but they will provide great fun - and ain't that what its all about? :)

I'm sure that they will be fun for those who collect and play them, my personal concern is that they have removed the unique aspect of the army. To illustrate, I was planning on collecting a range of Chaos-related armies, but now I find myself thinking "I have a WoC army with ranked troops, monsters and gribblies, so Beastmen don't sound that appealing any more". I'm not naive enough to assume that everyone's fun is the same, but surely more variety is best? At the mo' I can only think of a few reasons for removing Raiders:
1 - It was too hard to balance a skirmish-heavy force
2 - It would not have sold enough new kits
3 - There is some 8th ed. change that will make it necessary / better
4 - New design philosophy (ie the anti-cav philosophy circa Orcs & Gobbos)
Am I the only one who finds ambushing ranked units a bit off? Maybe I'm just too set in my ways...

Odin
05-02-2010, 12:20
Look for them to end up just below Ogres in terms of power. At least Ogres have the Tenderizer. Beastmen have literally 0 options in the entire book to deal with a Dragon.

Well, a good start would be to use Traitorkin - that should cause the rider a certain amount of distress! A good start. Plenty of things can harm a dragon, just need to use baiting units totry and get the charge on it. It's worth sacrificing a unit of Gor for the opportunity to charge the dragon with a unit of Minotaurs.

But I do agree that it's a shame to move the focus from Wood Elves to humans. They were the ideal nemesis for Wood Elves - Empire have more than enough nemesi / nemesisies(!?).

innerwolf
05-02-2010, 12:27
Worse than that. If the ignoring becomes mutual and Beastmen don't get featured on the WE book, who will WE fight against? Retarded kids entering Athel Loren? Once-each-century undead invasions?

Condottiere
05-02-2010, 12:28
Dwarves, hopefully hobbits.

Odin
05-02-2010, 12:39
That quote pretty much sums up why I think I have been disappointed with this newest incarnation of Beastmen. The premise always was to avoid turning them into just "Brown Orcs", but that seems to be the way they took this book. Maybe it's just a handful of us, but I liked the whole basis of the "Secret War" as it gave sole focus to two Warhammer forces that just seem to be bystanders in most major conflicts.

This leads to the question, what exactly are they planning to do with Wood Elves for this newest edition? I sincerely hope that this isn't an indication that skirmish is being phased out or overly minimalized in 8th edition, I just can't picture Wood Elves as being a rank and file army.

I would guess Dryads might become a ranked-up unit again. Which would be a shame, but if I'm honest might make them fit into WHFB a bit better. When I'm using my Wood Elves I want my opponent to enjoy the game, not just be frustrated as I run rings round him with nothing he can do about it. There should always be an element of that, but I would understand if they wanted to reduce it.

The other thing I was thinking was that a lot of Wood Elves battles are fought to defend something (usually part of the fores, such as a glade). It's all very well using hit and run tactics, but sometimes you need to draw the line and actually defend something. I think it would make sense for the new book to allow that kind of army as well - make the Eternal Guard more useful in the context of the army.

Malorian
05-02-2010, 13:40
The other thing I was thinking was that a lot of Wood Elves battles are fought to defend something (usually part of the fores, such as a glade). It's all very well using hit and run tactics, but sometimes you need to draw the line and actually defend something. I think it would make sense for the new book to allow that kind of army as well - make the Eternal Guard more useful in the context of the army.

Looking at the fluff (WE and from the dwarf book) the wood elves don't seem to do so well when they rank up and have to 'hold the line'...

Them losing out on skirmish is one thing, but really it's the glade riders, warhawks, and mounted characters that make the 'you can't catch me' list work.

And I also really don't see waywatchers losing skirmish any time soon.

mrtn
05-02-2010, 14:21
As has been said already the rivalry was really quite lopsided from the Wood Elf part, the beastmen only care a fraction as much about the elves, as the elves care about the beastmen.

I too think that the wood elves will lose a lot of their skirmishing in the future.

Odin
05-02-2010, 14:29
-Scouting Glade Guard (which will probably be done away with next book like the way skinks don't skirmish anymore)
-Dryads
-Wardancers
-Waywatchers


Those aren't Scouting Glade Guard, they are Scouts. And Wood Elf Scouts will always skirmish.

Avian
05-02-2010, 14:35
...one of the classic match-ups is wood elves vs beastmen.

<...>

So is this classic rivalry ruined? What are your thoughts?
Eh? They invented that "classic" rivalry last edition, which took people rather by surprise, because the Beastmen have no history whatsoever of hanging around Loren forest, being traditionally lurking around the forests of the Empire fighting against (surprise, surprise) the Empire.

But yes, the newly invented, artificial rivalry is "ruined" and I don't mind at all. :D

Malorian
05-02-2010, 14:39
Eh? They invented that "classic" rivalry last edition, which took people rather by surprise, because the Beastmen have no history whatsoever of hanging around Loren forest, being traditionally lurking around the forests of the Empire fighting against (surprise, surprise) the Empire.

But yes, the newly invented, artificial rivalry is "ruined" and I don't mind at all. :D

Is it really that new? :confused:

Well then... I guess classic is subjective then ;)

Odin
05-02-2010, 14:40
Eh? They invented that "classic" rivalry last edition, which took people rather by surprise, because the Beastmen have no history whatsoever of hanging around Loren forest, being traditionally lurking around the forests of the Empire fighting against (surprise, surprise) the Empire.

But yes, the newly invented, artificial rivalry is "ruined" and I don't mind at all. :D

Yes, it was new, but I think it worked quite well and made sense (the beastmen are in all the forests, not just the Empire ones).

Still, fact is in WHFB, everyone is against everyone else, pretty much. So no big deal I guess.

Sygerrik
05-02-2010, 14:49
I don't think the Beastmen have lost any of their character. I think it's changed, certainly, but not lost. They're definitely not just furry Chaos Marauders now.

Old Beastmen character: An army of skirmishing, loosely organized raiders who maneuver fluidly and come from unexpected directions.

New Beastmen character: A ravening horde of mutated monstrosities pouring out of the forests in a nightmarish tide and bringing with them horrifying monsters from the darkest places.

I like the new one a lot more. They're a horde of horrible beasts, they're not furry commandos. They lose raiders but Minotaurs get a lot better and they get 4 new types of gribbly beast never seen in any book before, as well as access to Harpies.

Can't you picture a vanguard of Harpies and Ungors stalking a village, picking off its sentries and harrying its people before a war-horn sounds and the ground shakes under the hooves of a mighty army of beasts? Minotaurs break through the village's feeble defensive line, a Ghorgon eviscerates a line of defenders and screaming militia are gobbled up by the tongue of the loathsome Jabberslythe. These are terrifying creatures that most Empire soldiers were raised to believe were merely myths, stepped out of their nanny's tales and into horrible life right before their eyes!

Can't tell me that's not characterful. It's like the Nids: players are too upset that they can't do what they used to to see all of the new options available to them. Wargamers are the most change-phobic people alive.

Avian
05-02-2010, 15:09
Is it really that new? :confused:
Yes.

One of the fundamental problems with Warhammer is that the world is very static, especially for the good guys, who mostly just hang around in their homeland, waiting for the bad guys to invade. And the armies are all very unified in their attitudes towards other armies (ex: Army A likes Army B, but not Army C). It started around 4th edition, when they really started nailing down who was where and who was good or bad.

For the Wood Elves, being basically just stuck in a small corner out of the way of everyone else (apart from the Bretonnians*) made them a bit lacking in foes. A lot of things could have been done about this - for example they could have one WE faction being enemies of humans (in addition to Bretonnia, the Empire is fairly close), they could do more with WE bands other places, or they could do something with Skaven (who are just across the mountains).

Instead they invented an ancient rivalry with the Beastmen, who had up until they, had no particular relationship with the Wood Elves at all. You could tell, because the Beast book hardly mentioned elves (in fact, it is possible that they mention fighting Dark Elves more than Wood Elves).

As with a lot of the, shall we say, less impressive background changes added during 6th edition, this has now been reversed, or, to be more exact, the Beastmen continue to not have a great rivalry with the Wood Elves and when the WE book is rewritten I predict that they will no longer have a great rivalry with the Beastmen either.



* And the relationship between those two armies was also pushed into the "dull" category in the last Bret book by effectively placing the brets in the pockets of the Wood Elves. I blame Anthony Reynolds, I really do

Eric.Miller
05-02-2010, 17:32
Wood Elves are really quite a foolish army from a background perspective. There is no reason to suspect they would be fighting pretty much any of the other armies in the game.

Lordsaradain
05-02-2010, 21:32
The "classic rivalry" between WE and Beastmen is ruined.

On the other hand, the classic enemy of the Beastmen is Empire, not WE, and a Beastman army versus an Empire will make for a fluffy and interesting fight.

Condottiere
05-02-2010, 22:08
Isn't the Empire lucky to be the focus of so much interest - Bretonnian, Chaos, O&G, Vampires, internal interest groups.

Avian
06-02-2010, 09:02
Bretonnia and Empire don't have much of a rivalry outside the entirely hypothetical sphere - whenever the latter is in trouble, the former always come running to their aid.

It's a bit like High Elves and Dwarfs supposedly not liking each other, but both falling over themselves to help out the Empire against every little Chaos warlord who comes wandering out of the Chaos Wastes. :D

The part about Vampires is dull, though, and I resent the von Carstein centricity of the latest book. The previous one had vampires all over the place.

Papawolf
06-02-2010, 11:51
yeah i totally agree that it has been ruined.
and additionally, with the removal of the marks of chaos they dont seem as warped and crqazy either, the wood elves hated them because they didnt just enter the forests, bt they corrupted them and i think that aspect has been lost.
they no longer seem like a raving horde of crazed, mutated monsters crashing through the forests, they are literally too regimented.
they were without doubt my favourite army in the previous edition and i was looking forward to starting a new army as i hadn't played them for a couple of years. but i will not being doing a beastmen army with this book

Jack of Blades
06-02-2010, 12:07
with the removal of the marks of chaos they dont seem as warped and crqazy either

The marks would probably have received the same treatment as the WoC marks, ie. gone from being pretty thematic with every mark having its justification on each unit entry and significant effects, into generic upgrades worth taking only on a particular unit. For example Sorcerers get the mark of Tzeentch because it blatantly favors casters - Chaos Warriors have a 6+ ward save if they take MoT now whereas previously they would synergise with the army's characters. And nearly every lord is a Sorcerer Lord with the Mark of Tzeentch too, a real ruiner for anyone who cares about the army's character because well... a Chaos horde where nearly every lord is a Tzeentch sorcerer.....

If they could've kept the character of Chaos and just worked on that instead of doing what they've done...