PDA

View Full Version : People bashing Beastmen already?



Coyote81
05-02-2010, 03:46
I've been reading several different posts, and I already see people bashing the new Beastmen army book, and it's not even offically out, yet alone tested on the field of battle.
I took a look at the changes myself and decided look at the good changes and bad changes. But I'm not making a set in stone opinion since I have only played one game with the new army book. (Won by a massacre for those who were wondering)

Good changes:

-We have are own stand alone book! For all those long time beastmen players, this is huge. Probably the most important thing of all.

-Unruly out, Primal Fury in: This is a very nice change IMO. What does a hard hitting army based around offense need? To hit there target with high strength attacks a lots of them. This new armywide rule lends to that nicely.

-Hero Minotaurs: I think this is amazing.

-Core chariots: I know this isn't a change, but do you realize who many armies have core chariots? TK and now Beastmen. Core chariots is a very unique options and I think a smart beastmen general is going to use them to his advantage.

-Ungor Skirmishers: Even thought they separated the gor/ungor units instead of fixing the beast herd Raider rule, I'm still glad the let us keep a core skirmishing unit, and one with ranger weapons at that. I think these will be in every army and have a variety of uses.

-Upgraded Minotaurs: This was a much needed element, and how it stands now, a 3 model unit of minotaurs with a standard has a fair chance of winning combat against your average block of infantry on the turn they charge. To me that is just great. It's like having a big mean block of guys packed into ogre size models. (And in the case of the new minotaur models, literally packs all those people under the skin)

-Harpies: OMG, Beastmen needed scouts so badly, they needed non-ITP flyers as well. 2-1 Special!

-Upgraded Centigors: The changes to the centigors are very nice IMO, they are usable and possibly dangerous.

Razorgores: Great new unit, love the chariot version too, althought I'll probably save that for character mounts. Hope the model doesn't turn out to be as bad as first glance.

-Loss of Trolls, Ogres, and Dragon Ogres: I for one am glad that we only have one orge sized model to choose from and that the new minotaurs are better then any of the old choices.

-Rare Choices: Just putting them all together to save space. Wow, the variety of roles and coolness of the new units under the rare choices is amazing. I even love the slight change to the giant. I think this is a very nice addition, and I'll gladly trade the loos of dragon orges for those.

-Magic items: Despite people's complaints, it's amazing to have a full list of magic items. For me at least (Between my woodelves ravening horde list I had to use forever) the loss of the other two chaos books for such a long period of time made playing beastmen progressively harder and harder.

-I love the new fluff and the variety of fluff(y) special character they added.

Bad Changes:

-Beast herd: This is probably the biggest blow, I too wish they would have just fixed the rule. It was a very fluff and unique rule for the army.

-Core Bestigors: I don't think the addition of the bestigor stand capturing ability and the loss of the ability to take marks, warrants them becoming a special choice. They should have been buffed some to become special. The option for shields would be nice too.

-Lore of the Wild: I'm still up in the air if this is good or bad. It's bad as of right now, because it's not on the same level as the better armies out there, thus it makes me want to take a fighty character in a already heavy fighty army. I'll have to try it out this weekend to make a real decision.


So from the quick list I made above. Seem like lots of good changes and very few bad ones. This is why I don't think people should be bashing them yet, and wait for people to find the power combos and power lists. Then feel free to judge them.

Rosstifer
05-02-2010, 05:20
I agree. I think the new Beastmen book will be balanced and interesting. It really gets under my skin when a new army book comes out and everyon egoes "Whine, whine whine, they changed this one thing......" Get over it. If you don't like the rules don't play the game, or don't play that army. Whinging about it isn't going to make GW go " oh! We are very, very sorry. We will go back to the drawing board. We will just make every armybook exactly how everyone wants". Rant over.

Dwarf Longbeard
05-02-2010, 05:37
I've got to say that I think the beastman book is really good and I can't find anything to really bash about it - apart from everything seems to have Gor in its name, I was expecting minotaurs to be renamed minogors :D

Odd as it may sound but I'm impressed to see a chaos army with quite a lot of ranged attacks which gives the army a different style of playing as opposed to warriors or daemons of chaos.
To be honest I'm not to fussed about the loss of the beast herds, I usually play armies around a 5000 point mark or ally for bigger battles (10.000 opint games take forever but are great fun :) ) but 5000 points of a skirmishing army could look a bit of a mess on the tabletop.
However I think GW could maybe have fitted them in as a special ambushing only unit or something like that?

The new rare choices - Cygors - Ghorgon and Jabberslythe are far more intresting and better options for the army in terms of playstyle than the dragon ogres, ogres, trolls and shaggoth were.

Lore of the Wild is quite an intresting one, its not your typical destructive chaos lore but does have some intresting uses, as well as the spell which lets you summon a free monster

All in all I'm impressed with the book and the army

Harwammer
05-02-2010, 08:34
I think my biggest whine is the loss of the beastherd/raiders rule it was very characterful, losing this to me was (hyperbole) like undead losing crumble.

Many are upset at the loss of marks, but that wasn't really a huge part of the 6th ed army and was much more limited than it was for, say, 6th ed mortals. I miss the customisation on spawn though.

My other whine is the minotaurs (hyperbole) nerf. Marks were really nice on them before and it is a shame their Ld got worse. I'll try not to complain about I getting worse.

I think the reason people aren't too grateful for primal fury is because 1) it is something beast players never asked for and 2) even ignoring the broken raiders rule in 7th gors/ungors were not particularly good.

The book looks okay, but for me once again boils down to minotaur/chariot/hound spam. Sad times.

Jind_Singh
05-02-2010, 08:56
yeah its not a bad book - but my only thoughts are the core choices are so good who needs the specials and rares! dont get wrong here, the specials and rares are fine too (though besitogrs seem overpriced for what they do) but an army of ambushers, skirmishers, and chariots.....woah! 80pts is a nice price point for the chariots

Moans....

core troops expensive!! cant play a horde army with them, they are expensive!
no plastic kits for centigors or chariots - big boooo hisss on that one

Ultimate Life Form
05-02-2010, 09:49
I would really feel pranked if I was a Beast player, especially one with huge amounts of no-longer Core Minos and marked regiments (oh, and the need to rebase/replace 200 Ungor models).

The power level may be okay, but the fun level ranges somewhere near zero.

Tony
05-02-2010, 10:19
Although it may well be true that we did get something of a boost in this latest army book, I think that many beast generals are ticked off for two main reasons. First, and by far any away the most important, is that our army lost a lot of character. We used to be a fast and maneuverable army with really unique unit types, but then we lost raiders, and so, at least in our core choices, have become a pretty standard army, although we lack the fast cavalry that most armies have. The second problem is that, as the bottom of the bottom tier army most people were expecting more of a boost than what we got. Granted, we did get some interesting new units like Razorgors and Minotaurs, which are undoubtedly better, though with a more than adequate price hike), and some funky special rules, but we also got:
1) really quite expensive RnF troops in the form of NU+2 Gors.
2) less cost-efficient centigors
3) special Bestigors with an all but pointless special rule
4) less effective chariots
5) some of the most expensive monsters in the game with fewer special rules than others
and most importantly
6) a nerf to our already tissue-paper fragile psychology.

Sorry to introduce whining into your thread, but I have spent several thousand dollars, and many many hours on my Beastmen, and not being a modeler or a painter, nor a competitive tournament player, the loss of flavour from my army means that I'm putting it on ebay as soon as the new book comes out. You'll forgive me if I'm a little cranky.

Darkmaw
05-02-2010, 10:54
Well trying to address some of the points raised.

1) really quite expensive RnF troops in the form of NU+2 Gors.

I agree on the Gors being expensive but i think the Ungor Skirmishers are good for their points and added to that the benefit of Ambush (whether you choose to use the rule or not).

2) less cost-efficient centigors

Actually 2 Centigors is about the same cost as 1 Minotaur. Comparing both, the 2X Centigors will equal the number of attacks of a Frenzied Mino. The Centigor however has Primal Fury as well as ability to carry GW (S6!). So i don't see them being bad; just over-shadowed by the hype of Minos.


3) special Bestigors with an all but pointless special rule

Agree on this.

4) less effective chariots

Why are chariots in effective? The Tuskgor chariots are average priced while the Razogor chariot is almost the same cost as a Lion chariot.

Razogor chariot is once again subject to Primal fury. With Hatred on-board, the chariot will totally smash most things (not to mention the S5 impact hits too).

So no..in fact i think the Razogor Chariot will be the winner of the list!

5) some of the most expensive monsters in the game with fewer special rules than others

Yes the monsters are a slightly bit overpriced but they do provide the stubborn (anvil of some sorts) for the rest of the army.

6) a nerf to our already tissue-paper fragile psychology.

Which is why you should consider a Beastlord. The rest of the leaders Doombull and Bray Shaman have an above average LD.


Granted this book is not of the same power level as DOC/VC/DE or even Skaven or LM. But really is a BOC book which surpassed DOC in power your expectation of the new book?

Wakerofgods
05-02-2010, 10:58
Harpies arn't two for one special. Unfortunatley.

EdFireborn
05-02-2010, 12:28
My only gripe is goldgors... The unit itself would appear to be central to a majority of strategies that I would employ...

Sadly, they are far far far too expensive for me to consider.

Apart from that, the rules look good, its not a daemons book, but it can give everything else a run for its money

Dai-Mongar
05-02-2010, 13:06
Harpies arn't two for one special. Unfortunatley.

I think he just meant that they're scouts and non-ITP flyers in one, not that you can get two units for one special choice.

xragg
05-02-2010, 13:10
I've been reading several different posts, and I already see people bashing the new Beastmen army book, and it's not even offically out, yet alone tested on the field of battle.
I took a look at the changes myself and decided look at the good changes and bad changes. But I'm not making a set in stone opinion since I have only played one game with the new army book. (Won by a massacre for those who were wondering)



Really doesnt mean much as new armies can sometimes be the most difficult to face since people arent familiar with them. I am fairly certain of exactly what to do when I play armies I am familiar with, but against TK, bret, and ogres for me, I can still make mistakes as I rarely ever get a game against them.

Anyway, didnt notice anyone state 2 other huge weaknesses: horrible change to ambush rules and overpriced, squishy rare choice monsters.

BigbyWolf
05-02-2010, 13:40
I think it's a shame that so many people are saying that they're selling their armies already. Surely the best idea would be to hang on to them, get the book, play with the new rules for a while and then make a decision on whether you want to keep it or not.

If they turn out to be fine I can see a lot of people kicking themselves for not waiting...

Urgat
05-02-2010, 13:52
I think it's a shame that so many people are saying that they're selling their armies already.

I am not sure the word I would employ is "shame"... But I don't wanna be banned yet :p

innerwolf
05-02-2010, 14:00
The Centigor however has Primal Fury as well as ability to carry GW (S6!)

The rules say they are treated like cavalry, so great weapons should be +1 St( S6). It's like with Empire Knights. You can buy GW for the same(or less) strength but keeping it beyond the first turn f combat.

Seth the Dark
05-02-2010, 14:02
I've played 4 games with the new book and I love the play style. Sure we have lost so much in the way of skirmishing but that's what 40k is for!

DeeKay
05-02-2010, 14:08
My personal gripe is that they have done away with the old fluff for beastmen almost altogether. Although this I can trace back to DoC when they split the Chaos books, it is rather annoying. It would have been nice to have models you could still use (yes, the Ungor base thing really annoyed me). It's all very well saying "well you can still use them as Gors" but really should we have to?

On the flipside, there are plenty of good points about the list. For one, you do have some clarity over the kinda-like-skirmish-but-not, by virtue of them binning it entirely. Some of the special characters are also rather good, the Ungrol Four-Horn being my personal favourite and the spell list seems reasonable enough to include but not to build an army around, which is a refreshing change in direction from GW. If only they didn't change development direction so often...

In all, my problem is with the fluff and the way they have chosen to re-represent the beastmen with their own culture and the like. Yes they had a culture before, but now it's not revolving around the Chaos Gods. Considering that these guys are the children of Chaos, that seems really wierd. Rules-wise, I think the book will work if future productions are made with the apparent design of this one in mind, which IMO are...

1) An interesting but not overwhelming spell list
2) A use for everything in the book. Indeed I haven't looked at anything in the new book and said "this is useless" or "this must be taken in a competitive list."
3) Making the fluff of the unit fit the rules of the unit. This is most important IMO but given GW's track record I won't hold my breath.

With regards,
Dan.

Zarroc
05-02-2010, 14:10
I think its sad so many people are bitching already, lol no one has really tried and tested the new book!!!

When a new book is release everyone should expect a nerf on pretty much any good unit/list build from the previous edition, nerfing already purchased and overly used units in old editions and boosting the new stuff, pushers up sales, as people rush out to get the new good stuff, a very smart sales strategy

Malorian
05-02-2010, 14:17
The comparision I like is with WoC...

When the new WoC book came out all you heard was:

"They ruined the army!"
"They ruined the fluff!"
"The army sucks now!"
"I've played Chaos for X years and now I'm going to shelf/sell it!"

Fast forward to now and you have the warriors of chaos as being one of the most dangerous armies out there (knight heavy nurgle with nurgle mages mess you up BIG time) unless you are facing dragons.


People need to sit back, know that change happens and they need to accept it, and look at the book for the new strengths rather than dwell on the weaknesses.

Midevil216
05-02-2010, 14:33
The comparision I like is with WoC...

When the new WoC book came out all you heard was:

"They ruined the army!"
"They ruined the fluff!"
"The army sucks now!"
"I've played Chaos for X years and now I'm going to shelf/sell it!"

Fast forward to now and you have the warriors of chaos as being one of the most dangerous armies out there (knight heavy nurgle with nurgle mages mess you up BIG time) unless you are facing dragons.


People need to sit back, know that change happens and they need to accept it, and look at the book for the new strengths rather than dwell on the weaknesses.


I agree but the problem with that is that these people can't just mindlessly walk across the board and kill everything so now the army is ruined. God forbid you might have to come up with some stratedgy.

Man do I hate cry babies.

Malorian
05-02-2010, 14:35
I agree but the problem with that is that these people can't just mindlessly walk across the board and kill everything so now the army is ruined. God forbid you might have to come up with some stratedgy.

Man do I hate cry babies.

Me thinks knights heavy screened by cheep dogs, and minotaur/razorgor heavy screened by skirmishing ungors, will play out roughly the same ;)


(I make my warseer career out of dealing with warhammer cry babies. If they stopped I'd have nothing to do ;))

mrtn
05-02-2010, 14:48
People need to sit back, know that change happens and they need to accept it, and look at the book for the new strengths rather than dwell on the weaknesses.
Embrace change! Praise Tzeentch! :D

I'm disappointed in some of the changes, but I don't think the army is ruined in any way.

Sygerrik
05-02-2010, 14:50
The comparision I like is with WoC...

When the new WoC book came out all you heard was:

"They ruined the army!"
"They ruined the fluff!"
"The army sucks now!"
"I've played Chaos for X years and now I'm going to shelf/sell it!"

Fast forward to now and you have the warriors of chaos as being one of the most dangerous armies out there (knight heavy nurgle with nurgle mages mess you up BIG time) unless you are facing dragons.


People need to sit back, know that change happens and they need to accept it, and look at the book for the new strengths rather than dwell on the weaknesses.

Well, we ARE on whineseer... it's a little annoying but the amount of crow(father) that will be eaten on this forum in a few weeks makes it all worth it to me :). I've got my first game against Beastmen soon and I can't wait!

explorator
05-02-2010, 15:32
I would really feel pranked if I was a Beast player, especially one with huge amounts of no-longer Core Minos and marked regiments (oh, and the need to rebase/replace 200 Ungor models).

The power level may be okay, but the fun level ranges somewhere near zero.

I don't feel pranked at all, and I have 25 minotaurs, (about 12 conversions). I am happy with the book for all the reasons the OP gave. Most people are angry because they either wanted an upgrade to their own Beast army (not a rewrite), or they wanted an uber-powerful book with an obvious "I Win" button included.

Beasts look to be a competitive force for Generals willing to adjust their lists and embrace new tactics. All the new possibilities of combining Harpies and fast, hard-hitting chargers is enough to make me wonderfully anxious to try a game or two.

The Lore in the book is weak, but we still have access to several good lores from the BRB. DoC in my area often take a caster with all the spells from a lore, and shadow is chosen almost exclusively. Hardly ever see a DoC player use a lore from the Demon book, actually.

Desert Rain
05-02-2010, 15:40
It's a little sad that people whine so much before the book is even out. At least have a few games with it before proclaiming the end of the world.

zak
05-02-2010, 15:55
I really shouldn't be surprised about the whning, but even now I have a little smirk at all the Doom and Gloom being spread about this book. What we have is not a point and click army and it will need some thought to win with, but thats what I want. Otherwise I would go for DoC and click my auto win button!

BigbyWolf
05-02-2010, 15:57
All the new "Beast-hate" is good for me- I'm setting up a sanctuary for any abused/ abandoned Minos and Gors! So, if they're down, depressed or lonely, there's a place where they can go...Me!

Phazael
05-02-2010, 16:22
I won't be ebaying army, but I won't be playing it either. The new models are underwhelming and my (tournament) view of the book pretty much puts it below Ogres. If I want to play a ranked up army with psych issues and no saves I will bust out my Night Goblins; they are better at it. I also do not feel like rebasing 60 ungors to 40mm, FU Very Much GW. Its disheartening because I actually have as many or more tournament honors with my beasts as I do my DoC.

BigbyWolf
05-02-2010, 16:38
I won't be ebaying army, but I won't be playing it either. The new models are underwhelming and my (tournament) view of the book pretty much puts it below Ogres. If I want to play a ranked up army with psych issues and no saves I will bust out my Night Goblins; they are better at it. I also do not feel like rebasing 60 ungors to 40mm, FU Very Much GW. Its disheartening because I actually have as many or more tournament honors with my beasts as I do my DoC.

:rolleyes:

GIVE...IT...A...CHANCE!

In the words of the late Axl Rose...all we need is just a little patience...

UberBeast
05-02-2010, 16:52
I've had a good read through the beastman book, and without playing against a list I have to say I like it overall. My biggest complaint is that they changed the beastman fluff so much, but I like many of the rule changes.

It really looks like a solid list, and I'm sure players will soon discover the best combos and it will be considered one of the powerhouses of fantasy.

Lordsaradain
05-02-2010, 17:38
I just dont understand why marks and all the godspecific fluff was removed. :/

Souppilgrim
05-02-2010, 17:52
I don't know why beasts ever had god specific marks. They are wild animals...beasts...they shouldn't have the lore and specific knowledge of each chaos gods teachings and intentions. They should have a primal chaotic spirituality that fits the tribe theme better than theological study theme.

It's a great time to be a beastmen player. Capitalize on the people who are crying and get some cheap mini's.

Bac5665
05-02-2010, 18:03
For me, the army is probably going to be pretty playable, and I'll wait for a few games to comment of that. My dissapointment is, as many people have said, about the loss of fluff and character. Beast Herds were one of the coolest ideas GW ever had and now their gone. That saddens me.

Similarly, the lack of marks and customizability in army theme is a big blow to me. I'd really like to be able to field Tzeentch beasts rather than undivided beasts and have it reflected in the rules, like it has been in years past.

Are the Beasts a bad army? hell if I know. We'll have to see. But the fluff, background and feel of the book have been changed dramatically, and my initial reaction is that they changed for the worse.

Midevil216
05-02-2010, 19:53
I don't know why beasts ever had god specific marks. They are wild animals...beasts...they shouldn't have the lore and specific knowledge of each chaos gods teachings and intentions. They should have a primal chaotic spirituality that fits the tribe theme better than theological study theme.

It's a great time to be a beastmen player. Capitalize on the people who are crying and get some cheap mini's.

Amen brother or sister, I always thought the marks for beasts was rather stupid but thats the way it was. I like the way they are now much better.

willowdark
05-02-2010, 20:32
Cattle get branded all the time. Why the hell wouldn't the Chaos Gods mark their livestock?

artisturn
05-02-2010, 21:18
Skimmed through my Friends copy of the book last week.
I don't play Beastmen so I can't comment on the changes made in the new book but as a VC player I see some stuff in your new book that I am not looking forward to facing.

Primal Fury -- if this is anything like Infinite Hated then I am in for a world of hurt.

chariots as a core choice -- these are going go tear through my Zombies and skellies like a fat guy eating a double stack cheeseburger.

Your Bray Shaman also looked pretty powerful and the spell that lets you conjure up a monster this might be the reason I start using dispel scrolls.

But what I dread is having to face some of your new monster choices especially the one that gets the bonus against Undead.

I am looking forward to having to face the new Beastmen on the table top.

Tyranno1
05-02-2010, 21:25
Cattle get branded all the time. Why the hell wouldn't the Chaos Gods mark their livestock?

Because like farmers, they are worried of it lashing out and kicking them in the nads :).


Primal Fury -- if this is anything like Infinite Hated then I am in for a world of hurt

Pass a leadership test every turn and yes it is infinite hatred. Fun with a LD9 beastlord hanging around.

scarletsquig
05-02-2010, 21:25
Well, we ARE on whineseer...
When exactly did that term stop being used as an insult by users on other forums and start being proudly declared by members of this forum?

innerwolf
05-02-2010, 21:33
When exactly did that term stop being used as an insult by users on other forums and start being proudly declared by members of this forum?

I agree. Each time I read a warseerite using that word, I add +1 to my rage bar.

The Red Scourge
05-02-2010, 21:51
When exactly did that term stop being used as an insult by users on other forums and start being proudly declared by members of this forum?


I agree. Each time I read a warseerite using that word, I add +1 to my rage bar.

And not only can we whine over GW, but also over the forum itself. This is indeed whineseer :p

Condottiere
05-02-2010, 22:12
You need an outlet for your frustrations somewhere.

Sygerrik
05-02-2010, 22:21
Cattle get branded all the time. Why the hell wouldn't the Chaos Gods mark their livestock?

Because a Chaos Mark implies a bargain made by the markee with the God in question for power? You can brand your beasts with the Mark of Tzeentch, if you want to run Tzeentch beasts, which makes sense. Tzeentch is marking his ownership of them. But cattle ranchers don't give their herds amazing powers. The brand is superficial only, to show ownership.


When exactly did that term stop being used as an insult by users on other forums and start being proudly declared by members of this forum?

I wouldn't say I'm "proud" but baseless complaints are a fact of life on this forum. It's not exactly unexpected when people BAWWWW over GW's latest decision.

dirach.
05-02-2010, 22:41
I was shocked to read the heards are gone, so I ran to the shelf and looked the rule up in the 6th edition book, and it was still there! It wasn't gone! I can still use the whole list the way I want! Of course I don't play tournaments, but maybe that makes me a happier person? Looking forward to the new book as it gives me another option to use my miniatures!

Shadowsinner
06-02-2010, 06:34
As intrigued as I am by the new list, I too must admit that I am sad to see chaos marks go. One would figure that if not directly associated with the gods, that the taint of their worshipers would warp and mold certain tribes. I think just adding the four options like WoC would have given them TONS of added strategy

Condottiere
06-02-2010, 10:00
They seem to need to differentiate their army books, and the Marks were probably dropped because of that; that may actually have been a sound decision, depending on what replaced it.

Dai-Mongar
06-02-2010, 10:09
I think it does set them apart from the other Chaos armies, gives them a bit more of an identity. Kind of like when they decided to downplay the connection between Skaven and Chaos (don't think that Beasts should get their own god or anything though). The attentions of various gods are represented by mutations, anyway.

Kholdaimon
06-02-2010, 11:52
Marks arent anything special in WoC anyways. They might aswell have made Marauder Cavalry Immune to Panic, Fear and Terror, Wizards get Tzeentch lore and +1 to cast, Knights be frenzied, etc...

Yes not everyone plays them like that but it is clear that that is the most optimal configuration... So marks hardly increased the differentiation between armies...

This Beastmen book will require hard work to win, you need to get the charge, reduce shooting/magic damage to your main hitters and you need to have synergy between units...

Christiaan

Fredrik
06-02-2010, 19:35
I agree it is fun with a new book, finally. But put me in the crowd of not to overwhelmed.

The book has alot of fun options, but thats just it FUN options. Lots of stuff are to expensive making it hard to purchase a whole. A low ld army that hits like a glass hammer with a bit to many random things Ambush, primal fury and expensive troops will have problems in tournyes.

Sure it is a fun list and I will likely spank most people at the gamingclub in casual play. But when in a highly competitive enviornment with no hold bar competent generals I belive I will have an uphill battle. I, like most beast generals will ofcourse try to play to thier good sides but with the low Ld an expensive troops good generals will know where it hurts us. The randomness aslo contributes to it being hard to get a stable winningstreak.

This not saying the book is aweful, it has some good things in it but not at the current level of recent armies.

This is an analasys, an assesment of how I belive the army will play out. Sure you can call it whining but then you are a *****. To many people say whining as soon as someone says anything negative regardless if it is mindless bantering or constructive negative analasys.

As for making early analasys based on the rumors, the rumors where darn close to the real thing. But sure some things will get tossed on its head and new things will become apparent, but Iīm not holding my breath.

Finally (you all agree ;)) as for WoC, they did ruin that book. That is by far the most uninspiering armybook in any gamesystem i have played. (God i hate maurauders, everybody knows that beastmen is the true cannonfodder of chaos)

Cherrystone
06-02-2010, 21:56
Like the book but two minor things annoy me

* The Primeval Club aint worth 100pts especially when the Stonecrusher mace is 65pts, the latter gives +3 strength which is enough in almost all cases (and S10 against warmachines), the former gives the user strength of opponents Ld which is far worse. ?

* The cost of additional handweapons for the shamans (4pts / 2pts), at this cost and with no disbenefit from having them (no other weapon option and no need for having a free hand) they would always be bought so they might as well be in the profile.
Feel the same about armour options for the beastlord and wargor, with only a difference of 3 and 2 pts between light and heavy then heavy armour would be chosen every time.

After so many years of designing armylists like this i don't get why they continue to do stuff (admittedly minor) like this!

LaurentleBete
06-02-2010, 21:57
I've been reading several different posts, and I already see people bashing the new Beastmen army book, and it's not even offically out, yet alone tested on the field of battle.
I took a look at the changes myself and decided look at the good changes and bad changes. But I'm not making a set in stone opinion since I have only played one game with the new army book. (Won by a massacre for those who were wondering)

Good changes:

-We have are own stand alone book! For all those long time beastmen players, this is huge. Probably the most important thing of all.

-Unruly out, Primal Fury in: This is a very nice change IMO. What does a hard hitting army based around offense need? To hit there target with high strength attacks a lots of them. This new armywide rule lends to that nicely.

-Hero Minotaurs: I think this is amazing.

-Core chariots: I know this isn't a change, but do you realize who many armies have core chariots? TK and now Beastmen. Core chariots is a very unique options and I think a smart beastmen general is going to use them to his advantage.

-Ungor Skirmishers: Even thought they separated the gor/ungor units instead of fixing the beast herd Raider rule, I'm still glad the let us keep a core skirmishing unit, and one with ranger weapons at that. I think these will be in every army and have a variety of uses.

-Upgraded Minotaurs: This was a much needed element, and how it stands now, a 3 model unit of minotaurs with a standard has a fair chance of winning combat against your average block of infantry on the turn they charge. To me that is just great. It's like having a big mean block of guys packed into ogre size models. (And in the case of the new minotaur models, literally packs all those people under the skin)

-Harpies: OMG, Beastmen needed scouts so badly, they needed non-ITP flyers as well. 2-1 Special!

-Upgraded Centigors: The changes to the centigors are very nice IMO, they are usable and possibly dangerous.

Razorgores: Great new unit, love the chariot version too, althought I'll probably save that for character mounts. Hope the model doesn't turn out to be as bad as first glance.

-Loss of Trolls, Ogres, and Dragon Ogres: I for one am glad that we only have one orge sized model to choose from and that the new minotaurs are better then any of the old choices.

-Rare Choices: Just putting them all together to save space. Wow, the variety of roles and coolness of the new units under the rare choices is amazing. I even love the slight change to the giant. I think this is a very nice addition, and I'll gladly trade the loos of dragon orges for those.

-Magic items: Despite people's complaints, it's amazing to have a full list of magic items. For me at least (Between my woodelves ravening horde list I had to use forever) the loss of the other two chaos books for such a long period of time made playing beastmen progressively harder and harder.

-I love the new fluff and the variety of fluff(y) special character they added.

Bad Changes:

-Beast herd: This is probably the biggest blow, I too wish they would have just fixed the rule. It was a very fluff and unique rule for the army.

-Core Bestigors: I don't think the addition of the bestigor stand capturing ability and the loss of the ability to take marks, warrants them becoming a special choice. They should have been buffed some to become special. The option for shields would be nice too.

-Lore of the Wild: I'm still up in the air if this is good or bad. It's bad as of right now, because it's not on the same level as the better armies out there, thus it makes me want to take a fighty character in a already heavy fighty army. I'll have to try it out this weekend to make a real decision.


So from the quick list I made above. Seem like lots of good changes and very few bad ones. This is why I don't think people should be bashing them yet, and wait for people to find the power combos and power lists. Then feel free to judge them.

Sorry about the mass quote, but all I can say is I agree with you completely.

People are just jumping on the hate wagon imo, trying to be cool when they're just not :P

urien
06-02-2010, 22:13
The comparision I like is with WoC...

When the new WoC book came out all you heard was:

"They ruined the army!"
"They ruined the fluff!"
"The army sucks now!"
"I've played Chaos for X years and now I'm going to shelf/sell it!"

Fast forward to now and you have the warriors of chaos as being one of the most dangerous armies out there (knight heavy nurgle with nurgle mages mess you up BIG time) unless you are facing dragons.


People need to sit back, know that change happens and they need to accept it, and look at the book for the new strengths rather than dwell on the weaknesses.

3 things... wait 4 things...

1- "warriors of chaos as being one of the most dangerous armies out there (knight heavy nurgle with nurgle mages mess you up BIG time)" -- gowno prawda, when did you go to a big tournament last time?

2- ppl , me including said that this army sucks at tournament level before ab came into store- and it is true to this day
3- ppl put woc into freezers/sold this army because things you listed where happening are happening and will be happening- this army is D.E.A.D tournament whise- only for friendly games and for ppl who give a s...t about points in a league or tournaments....
4- ppl said what you said about change, about new tactics- there is none of it in woc army- this army is straight as a measure tape, no choice, no other hidden tactics...

but i have to admit - beasts are way better written than warriors, many choices make this army fun and all but...weak army is a weak army, and to repeat after myself - atleast theyre better than woc..

Sygerrik
06-02-2010, 22:46
3 things... wait 4 things...

1- "warriors of chaos as being one of the most dangerous armies out there (knight heavy nurgle with nurgle mages mess you up BIG time)" -- gowno prawda, when did you go to a big tournament last time?

2- ppl , me including said that this army sucks at tournament level before ab came into store- and it is true to this day
3- ppl put woc into freezers/sold this army because things you listed where happening are happening and will be happening- this army is D.E.A.D tournament whise- only for friendly games and for ppl who give a s...t about points in a league or tournaments....
4- ppl said what you said about change, about new tactics- there is none of it in woc army- this army is straight as a measure tape, no choice, no other hidden tactics...

but i have to admit - beasts are way better written than warriors, but this doesn't make them strong army, its a weak army with many choices- which is fun and an army that surely is better than woc...

Are you seriously saying that WoC is dead as a tournament army?

Are you high?

They're not Daemons or Dark Elves but WoC are absolutely competitive with one of a number of powerful builds.

zak
07-02-2010, 00:08
How many tournaments have the new beasts participated in. I would guess none. When they have and fail miserably then you may have a point. Currently you are speculating.

Astafas
07-02-2010, 00:09
Why has noone mentioned the ungors with short bows of doom? Got to be one of the best changes... and they can have eternal hatred with just a few leadership tests as well. Surely the addition of some missile ability helps? Why the complaints about loosing the "my entire army takes 3hrs to move because it skirmishes" ability when yeah your manueverability has gone down but now there is an effective screen that can take off a rank or two and is pretty bloody cheap???

Beasts looks like an awesome book. I have played with my friend with my empire (have shelved the vamps out of a desire to be a real general) and yeah gors / ungors struggle with knights but SMASH t3 as4+ infantry... with his beast lord in there it was hatred every turn and ouch did that hurt. This will probably drop in effectiveness against t4 but even then without a good armour save a line of gors with 2hw is still putting out a world of hurt with FULL RANK BONUS.

Minos and razorgors will do a number on my knights if they ever reach them (cannons and outriders seem to stop that...) and draw fire fantastically as it is. Dont even get me started on how I feel about the idea of some minos stuck into a unit of graveguard and getting nastier and nastier...

Oh sorry no marks though I dont like that the book is NERF. So NERF. Oh noes. I take it all back and surely they will FAQ minos being able to be S7 with great weapons when they took that from lizards.

(insert additional whines even though we havent played with the book because its the interwebs)

Rhamag
07-02-2010, 01:10
Regarding the new Bestigor models...

Cost Ģ0.50 less each than the old metal models
Can be built in more than 3 poses
Easier to paint/carry/convert
Look shed-loads better than old models
Loads of bitz

They are a special choice in a niche army, and economies of scale dictate they won't be as cheap as say chaos warriors or black orcs or stormvermin, as GW won't sell as many, but still have the same initial set-up costs.

Spiney Norman
07-02-2010, 01:21
Razorgores: Great new unit, love the chariot version too, althought I'll probably save that for character mounts. Hope the model doesn't turn out to be as bad as first glance.


It is, I've seen a store model, even the normally nauseatingly pro-company staff at the local GW hobby centre now refer to the Razorgor as the "Chaos pumba", its rapidly becoming a standing joke wherever warhammer players gather. Kinda sad really.

I'm slightly disappointed that they didn't make models for ANY of the new big rare monsters, I mean you'd have thought they'd make some effort in that department, like a multi-part plastic set that could have been assembled as one of two of the rare monsters. Its just very hard luck on people like me with little experience of scratch building monsters. it wouldn't be so bad if, like the Skaven book, they left one model out, but spawns are the only rare choice in the book which actually have a model. In a sense I don't care because I'm not bothered about building a beast army, but if I did care about them, I be very miffed.

For example, if they redo Tomb Kings next, add in a Sphynx, a giant Carrion bird monster and a new, fancy-kitted out bone giant with loads of great options, and don't make a model for any of them, this will make me very unhappy.

As far as the army design and the rest of the model range go, I think they've done an excellent job. Early indications point towards a balanced army, not some daemon/VC-esque monstrosity that is going to exacerbate the already horrendous level of rule-creep present in 7th Ed.

Eric.Miller
07-02-2010, 01:23
spawns are the only rare choice in the book which actually have a model.
Don't forget the GIANT!

Eric.Miller
07-02-2010, 01:26
Are you seriously saying that WoC is dead as a tournament army?

Are you high?

They're not Daemons or Dark Elves but WoC are absolutely competitive with one of a number of powerful builds.

Warriors aren't.

Gateway with horses is. The WoC book is still rubbish.

I guess "1" is technically a number...

Souppilgrim
07-02-2010, 01:35
Are you seriously saying that WoC is dead as a tournament army?

Are you high?

They're not Daemons or Dark Elves but WoC are absolutely competitive with one of a number of powerful builds.

I was going to say the same thing, if WoC are dead as a tournament army, then everyone but the power trio is dead as a power army....and although the other armies are behind almost none of them are dead dead.

willowdark
07-02-2010, 01:55
If Warriors is a trash army and worthless at the Tournament level, then tell me, what besides the VC, Daemons and DE aren't?

My DE loose to Warriors all the time. They have everything they need to deal with DE, in the hands of a good player.

Bac5665
07-02-2010, 04:59
The WoC book is terrible and only a very specific build is competitive, although it is very competitive.

An army book where 70% of the unit entries are wasted ink, where the best build is just craps with models (go go gateway spam!) and the core unit (Chaos Warriors) are a sub optimal choice is a failed book. No matter how well that one competitive build does, the problems I've listed above make the book a failure.

I think the DoC book was a terrible mistake from a design and balance standpoint. But the WoC book is just terribly badly conceived. There is not one well executed idea in the book. Not one. (Ok, maybe the warshrine.) Everything else is either way too good or way too bad. Nothing is just right.

Eric.Miller
07-02-2010, 05:00
An army book where 70% of the unit entries are wasted ink, where the best build is just craps with models (go go gateway spam!) and the core unit (Chaos Warriors) are a sub optimal choice is a failed book. No matter how well that one competitive build does, the problems I've listed above make the book a failure.
Hear him! Hear him!

Beasts are about the same.

Vermin-thing
07-02-2010, 07:12
Hear him! Hear him!

Beasts are about the same.

Don't put WoC, and beastmen in the same pot, and stir it. :mad:


Wile not optimal, the WoC is still playable, but in the same state as OK, in the sense that if you don't take dogs or knights it's a uphill battle. I really can't wait to get my hands on the Beastmen book so I can do a proper hordes of chaos army.

From a model standpoint I could do a full counts as army.

Marauders= Ungors, Bow ungors are still ungors.

Warriors= Gors with 2 hand waeapons/ shields. Bestigors for warriors with great weapons/halaberds.

Ogres= Minotaurs with 2 hand weapons.

Dragon Ogres= minotaurs with great weapons/Razorgors.

Trolls= minotaurs with hand weapon, and shield.

Shaggoth= Gorgon.

Giant= Giant/Cygor.

Warshrine= Jabbersythe.

Spawn= Spawn.

So I could mix, and match the models so long as my opponent knows what's what.

So my point is it's a great book, from an army stand point, and I hate to see it being bashed by silly people.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
07-02-2010, 07:34
I don't dislike the new Beastmen book [just got it and read it today], but am bothered by the inconsistencies- why do Minotaurs get Str 5, but Ogres and Krox don't for example? Some of the models are very good, but the new Minos and the Razorgor are really terrible. Finally, all the big gribblies would be cool, and could be the beastmen's unique trait, if only big gribblies weren't already so common in the new army books [Hydras, Stegadons, HPA]. Speaking of gribblies, why oh why, is the Ghorgon just a big minotaur? That's simply boring- Here the true children of Chaos in many repeated forms.

And Slugtongue may just be my most hated special character. First, he is obviously a Nurgle follower, but has taken everything cool about Nurgle [my favorite of the Chaos gods] and gotten rid of it for a background that is so cliche and boring. Where is the gentleness and humour of the plaguefather? In addition, his special rules just aren't fun. They may be an attempt to get people to move away from expensive, small units of uber killyness [imagine your Blood Knights or Chaos knights being wiped out between deployment and the first turn], but it does it in a way that doesn't add anything to the game [there is no real meaningful choice for a player to make here] while being upsetting to the victimized player [and I play a 190+ model Empire army so the character doesn't really effect me personally, but still].

urien
07-02-2010, 07:35
the book is out for about a month and there were i think 2-3 locals, around where i live, with it, and much more friendly games to guess the level of this army not to mention number of games on a whole country scale.

you havent been to jupiter have you? but still you know it exists, he?

so why do you play being stupid and call ppl names for abbility to predict what will happen out of there experience, which is obviously much greater than yours, he?

Vermin-thing
07-02-2010, 08:00
yeah right ...

the book is out for about a month and there were i think 2-3 locals, around where i live, with it, and much more friendly games to guess the level of this army not to mention number of games on a whole country scale.

you havent been to jupiter have you? but still you know it exists, he?

so why do you play being stupid and call ppl names for abbility to predict what will happen out of there experience, which is obviously much greater than yours, he?

Don't jump the gun. ;)

It's like saying the game is broken (broken as in unplayable) before even opening the cover. And no, it's three months to early to make that judgement. Punctuation, take it for granted.

Geese.

PS: Directly from GW; sorry we took out D. ogres, Shaggoths, and herds, but they were out of place to begin with. What's changed is changed, deal with it. I'm fed up with this senseless bashing.

Play the army for a sensible amount of time before you say it's crap. It took some time for people to realize that the WoC list was one dimensional.

Darkmaw
07-02-2010, 09:11
Just like to share this...

Look at the Banners listed in the 3 Chaos themed army books..

WOC: Banner of Rage. ( No skirmisher!?!?)
BOC: Banner of Outrage (WTF Beastmen LD!)
DOC: Banner of Outrageous ( Standard of Chaos Glory! :evilgrin:)

Condottiere
07-02-2010, 09:38
Play the army for a sensible amount of time before you say it's crap. It took some time for people to realize that the WoC list was one dimensional.
Our WoC player is quite happy with the new book, as he used to complain about Hordes; it seems he's quite enamoured with the Special Characters, though he borrows my cannons occasionally. I'd say that for certain personalities, a book might be well suited for.

Fredrik
07-02-2010, 10:31
Well if he borrows your cannons hes no real chaos player to begin with ;).

I play chaos, have played it for 16 years, this gives one atleast some experianse with the game and how things will play out. I donīt give a flying c*** aobut people who just say it good just shut up, because that is the song of the ***** (also often crappy generals).

Firstly WoC boring, one dimentional and not on par with DE, VC or Demons because they have fewer (competitive) builds and less tactical options in the long run. Iīm not happy with this book as it lack stuff that easely could have been fixed. (skirmish forsaken anyone?)

Beastmen: Accurate rumors have been out for months and some people have even played alot with them.

As for maiking estimates based on the rules rather then playing the list, ofcourse it works , how the hell to you think everything else regarding to experiance works??? I can say not I think the book is cool but i promise you that the analasys that they will not measure up to the other armies will stand.

Look at the phases.

Movement: Beastmen have some good movement not the fastest but still have som fast build options. Thier hard hitter the minos are not ma7 + and that can and probably will hurt. A bit to much inf based (counting all <7 ma inf) unless you go freaky.

I would put them in the middle somewhere purely because of the rares and thier mobility otherwise i would actually put them in the lowe range of the middle. (if you move fast crap forward i dont count that as a fast build)

Magic: Beastmen have a weak magic phase. sure they have access to 4 lores and can pick depending on opponent but thier uniqe lore is expensive and not all that good. They also could do with some more boosting magic items here (ei spell familar etc).

Here I put Beastmen below average because of the lack of synergy between the lore the army and the wizard builds.

Shooting: (little to none) well this is as it should be, but im glad we have skirmish ungors they will be great. Cygor can be of help but is to expencive to count as just shooting.

So here we are at the bottom of the pack since donīt even have access to good MM.

CC: I think we can hit like a rock, but we fall appart like a card house. Everybody seems only to be looking at the output not the sustainabillity. I know that if i face beatmen i will put everything in to take out the minotaurs and/or razorgors. Because these things hurt but are not that though to hurt. The rest can more easely be rounded up after. This together with our low Ld for primal fury, breaktests and panic tests makes it a hard army to play with loads of suituational pro and cons.

I belive the army can be absolutely bloody murder against an oponent in CC but i belive it will take skill and some luck to actually set up good matchups for us, thus making it a hard army to play.

Therefor i will put it above average in CC but not at the very top, because i donīt get the feeling it will be a very forginging army and that Ld will play a huge part in what we get in to combat and what will leave us hanging because of panic roll (ex. Razorgors running away in shooting and or magic phases.).

This all i dare say even before I have played with the list. Based on pure experience and analasys.

innerwolf
07-02-2010, 11:11
Well if he borrows your cannons hes no real chaos player to begin with ;).

I play chaos, have played it for 16 years, this gives one atleast some experianse with the game and how things will play out. I donīt give a flying c*** aobut people who just say it good just shut up, because that is the song of the ***** (also often crappy generals).

Firstly WoC boring, one dimentional and not on par with DE, VC or Demons because they have fewer (competitive) builds and less tactical options in the long run. Iīm not happy with this book as it lack stuff that easely could have been fixed. (skirmish forsaken anyone?)

Beastmen: Accurate rumors have been out for months and some people have even played alot with them.

As for maiking estimates based on the rules rather then playing the list, ofcourse it works , how the hell to you think everything else regarding to experiance works??? I can say not I think the book is cool but i promise you that the analasys that they will not measure up to the other armies will stand.

Look at the phases.

Movement: Beastmen have some good movement not the fastest but still have som fast build options. Thier hard hitter the minos are not ma7 + and that can and probably will hurt. A bit to much inf based (counting all <7 ma inf) unless you go freaky.

I would put them in the middle somewhere purely because of the rares and thier mobility otherwise i would actually put them in the lowe range of the middle. (if you move fast crap forward i dont count that as a fast build)

Magic: Beastmen have a weak magic phase. sure they have access to 4 lores and can pick depending on opponent but thier uniqe lore is expensive and not all that good. They also could do with some more boosting magic items here (ei spell familar etc).

Here I put Beastmen below average because of the lack of synergy between the lore the army and the wizard builds.

Shooting: (little to none) well this is as it should be, but im glad we have skirmish ungors they will be great. Cygor can be of help but is to expencive to count as just shooting.

So here we are at the bottom of the pack since donīt even have access to good MM.

CC: I think we can hit like a rock, but we fall appart like a card house. Everybody seems only to be looking at the output not the sustainabillity. I know that if i face beatmen i will put everything in to take out the minotaurs and/or razorgors. Because these things hurt but are not that though to hurt. The rest can more easely be rounded up after. This together with our low Ld for primal fury, breaktests and panic tests makes it a hard army to play with loads of suituational pro and cons.

I belive the army can be absolutely bloody murder against an oponent in CC but i belive it will take skill and some luck to actually set up good matchups for us, thus making it a hard army to play.

Therefor i will put it above average in CC but not at the very top, because i donīt get the feeling it will be a very forginging army and that Ld will play a huge part in what we get in to combat and what will leave us hanging because of panic roll (ex. Razorgors running away in shooting and or magic phases.).

This all i dare say even before I have played with the list. Based on pure experience and analasys.


Perfect analysis, sir.

TheDarkDuke
07-02-2010, 14:14
I guess if the army is not uber powerful and has no weaknesses and actualy might require some thinking to play then people dont like it.

Or you know there could be some actual logical thinking behind it it instead of you thinking everyone needs to play a power build of an army:rolleyes:. Let me point out a few of the reasons

1 - people probably wanted new good models (that sure didnt happen)

2 - people had a all minotaur army or had a bunch of dragon ogres and trolls and now get the shaft because GW wants the $$$$

3 - (not sure if this one is as big any more but still implies for me personally)
they used to be able to mix bascially 3 armies which was a huge draw just for them to seperate all 3 books completely leaving many people with unusable armies. which i then hoped for at least 1 chaos army i actually would like using but sadly i now hate all the chaos armies books, so selling the army isnt that far fetched.

Then i bet there are a alot more options as well for why one would sell a army they no longer care about.

Rhamag
07-02-2010, 14:28
It is still possible to have 1910 pts of minotaurs in 2000 pts, with a choice of 2 Lords and the new Hero choice and new monster minotaurs in the form of the ghorgon. 3 x 5 warhounds or ungor raiders isn't such a bad deal to make up the core choices IMO.

Keystone
07-02-2010, 14:46
1 - people probably wanted new good models (that sure didnt happen)



this is down to personal taste, some people like the new models. i'm making some ungors and gors at the moment and i love them. i can understand why some people don't like them, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

zetaplus
07-02-2010, 14:49
Pricing is the biggest kick in the balls for me with Beastmen. $50 AUD used to buy you 12 Gors and 8 Ungors, now they are $41 for 10 of either, so for slightly worse performance you are paying $32 more per 20. Also, the new Minotards are several times more expensive than Ogres, which are similarly sized plastic models.

urien
07-02-2010, 18:20
Play the army for a sensible amount of time before you say it's crap. It took some time for people to realize that the WoC list was one dimensional.

yes it took one whole reading of the book to state how one dimentional and weak woc ab is....

Jack of Blades
07-02-2010, 18:55
yes it took one whole reading of the book to state how one dimentional and weak woc ab is....

WoC had so much potential... they could really have fixed Chaos Warriors, Lords etc. but instead we see all cavalry armies with Sorcerer Lords of Tzeentch. Forsaken without skirmish, DPs that still can't take magical items and got a worse gift list too, Exalted Daemons gone (come on! they would've been a really cool hero choice when taking up only a single slot), marks made into generic upgrades (but I do like that your general doesn't have to be undivided) and so on......

Anyway I think that Beasts will be a one-trick pony. They can do stuff but you'll always know where, when, how and with what they're going to do it because they'll rely on a few gribblies to do it. They are also a glass cannon in the true sense of the word. A challenging army for sure, like WoC I think it had good potential but that potential wasn't used to its fullest.

Warp-Juicer
07-02-2010, 19:19
Hey troll, I'm falling into your bait, ok?

You know what people call this forum Whineseer? GW staffers that we make look stupid when the rumours they know are months behind of ours and when our answer to rules questions are coherent instead of ******** made on the run. And players who fear an analytical, insightful approach to the hobby(because they can't do the same).
Not forgetting trolls and flamers wanting to shoot down one of the best 40k forums nowadays.

You can read an armybook and realize a good percentage of your models will have to be shelved because they no longer can be used.
You can read an armybook and realize a lot of flavour of the army has gone.
You can read an armybook and realize only one or two builds will work, and even then they won't play with a true Beastmen feel.
Worse yet, you can see the pictures for the new models and realize they are lackluster, half-assed or outrightly horrible and that's one of the least inspiring releases on years.

And all that before playing a single game.

If you dislike this forum with that strength, why don't you log out?





Perfect analysis, sir.

+1 awesome.

I've had pretty much the same experiences with Warriors. I'm starting up beasts despite my gut instinct about how it'll play out, but I'm sure eventually I'll play against people who don't insist on running I-Win armies.

Warp-Juicer
07-02-2010, 19:21
Oddly enough, there has been a general trend over the last few years where certain books get worse and worse, while certain others get unreasonably powerful.

As I've learned from some recent roleplaying games, Bad rules attract Bad players.

Chain
07-02-2010, 19:31
I can see how losing the uniqueness of the army is sad, but really looking at the options THe Army hardly look weak.

Some really nasty Magic items and many cheap ones along with many cheap gifts is pretty nice

Come on a Doombull with AS 1+ where every successful armor save sends a S6 hit back in the face on the attacker... then again no ward and no regeneration for that one


Slugtongue Is likely one of the meanest special characters i've seen simply for that one ability being able to potentially kill for more than his point value before the game even starts...

I mean seriously that's mean


The Lore looks ok, but a 7+ to cast as the lowest is very meh, but that's what he herdstone is for is it not?

Condottiere
07-02-2010, 20:41
Oddly enough, there has been a general trend over the last few years where certain books get worse and worse, while certain others get unreasonably powerful.

As I've learned from some recent roleplaying games, Bad rules attract Bad players.Dungeon Masters must keep bad players in check and mitigate unsuitable rules.

Vermin-thing
07-02-2010, 21:21
The thing that really hits me about the WoC book is that they took out the aspiring hero, the best character in the book.

S00N3R FR3AK
07-02-2010, 22:37
this is down to personal taste, some people like the new models. i'm making some ungors and gors at the moment and i love them. i can understand why some people don't like them, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Yeah the models are what is making me look into the army. At this point only a Incoming:Tomb Kings e-mail would make me wait.

Grimstonefire
07-02-2010, 23:15
I think the OP made a lot of good points. A lot of us seem to be experts at theoryhammer.

Nothing is perfect, so there is always something to complain about. Every army is broken in some way.

Häxjägare
08-02-2010, 00:03
I kinda like the new beastmen. Having had a 50% Warriors and a 50% Beast of Chaos army in the past and seeing them both got slapped I was keen to focus on the Warriors and leave the beasts behind. Now with the new book and my Warrior army standing tall on it's own, I'm really more excited by beastmen. The new ambush rule is something I really like, since it’s easier to use and it makes it less of a one trick-thing, you can get a few good ambushing units in but you have to have a solid battle-line.

Sure they will die in heaps against armys with fear and terror-bombs and they will be struggling with certain builds. But I still think they are a step-up both in power and in flavour compared to the old book. They lost some stuff, but they gained some stuff too. Minotaurs are pretty good, Stone of Spite is pretty nasty too. The Ghorgon I think is being a bit overlooked too, sure it has frenzy so you can bait it.. but 7 S6 attacks a round and it has bloodgreed as the minos and stubborn on top of that. And it’s harder to bait a single monster then it is to do with a unit of knights, in terms of mobility.

The magic lore is a bit weak, but it also has some tricks too it. And that’s basically where I feel they got the beastmen book right, they have little nasty tricks, like summoning a monster(although on 16+), ambush, movement magic, flyers, skirmishers, core chariots, flying terror monsters, crazy characters options etc. The book in my eyes is fun, it brings something to the table which I feel they missed with WoC: Fun. As long as the bestmen are as fun on paper as on the board in my eyes, I think it’s an army I’m really going to enjoy.

zak
08-02-2010, 00:07
The issue I have so far is that people are bashing the army because it won't compete in the tournies with the likes of DE, VC and DoC. I don't see this as a bad thing. These books were mistakes in balance. Take these 3 books out and the rest are pretty balanced. If Beasts had been released and cranked the power creep another notch I would then be moaning. Currently I have a book that is balanced and has a number of options.
In relation to the models and releases, just remember this is the first wave and more models will be made. Most armies have had 2 if not 3 waves of model releases. The current releases will be like marmite, some will love them others willl hate them. I am in the first category (except for the Razorgor).

Enfid
08-02-2010, 00:47
Not a Beastmen player here, but I'm a background and fluff enthusiast (for WH Fantasy anyway). From my understanding the Beastmen used to be a primal force that is attracted to Chaos and is considered the original Children of Chaos. Yet, from what I've read in the recent White Dwarf, they have now gained their own "cultures" and are now considered "victims" to the humans and other races usurping their rights to the lands.

What treachery is this? Have someone read the background of the book and confirm my fears (or dispel them, hopefully).

Sygerrik
08-02-2010, 02:13
So gw is much like Obama, made of epic phail?
Please don't get this thread closed and locked. Let's stay on topic. And the topic is: people are complaining that BoC (and WoC) are worthless because they're not at the level of VC/DE/DoC. Well, good. We need fewer broken armies, not more. WoC's power level is pitched pretty well-- right in the midfield. If BoC is at that power level, then all is well.

If you have to take a power-list to win a tourny with a book, that doesn't mean the book is bad. It means the meta is tilted towards a few powerful books-- it means that overall, the books aren't balanced.

ChaosVC
08-02-2010, 02:18
Its entertainment my friend. We are here to entertain ourselves with our free time.

That said, its is true that the Beastman is bad, with glaring widespread leadership issues (ld 7 elites) and low to no armour. Beastman is a tough army to play with, but I started Dark elves at 6th ed so I think its just another thing where the hobbyist will try their best to make what is worth of their collection while the powergamers will do their best to avoid touching it.

Tokugawa100
08-02-2010, 03:24
Not a Beastmen player here, but I'm a background and fluff enthusiast (for WH Fantasy anyway). From my understanding the Beastmen used to be a primal force that is attracted to Chaos and is considered the original Children of Chaos. Yet, from what I've read in the recent White Dwarf, they have now gained their own "cultures" and are now considered "victims" to the humans and other races usurping their rights to the lands.

What treachery is this? Have someone read the background of the book and confirm my fears (or dispel them, hopefully).

I seriously hope that isnt true, as a fellow fluff enthusiast:(

Beastmen shouldnt have cultures, they should be animalistic monsters who dwell in the forest without a structured herd.
They are the beasts of chaos afterall, should they not be chaotic.

The Beatmen being victims, no.
This is just like the Chaos Marine codex where they focus on what should be a small minority of a race and make it the whole damn thing, this is why we now have renegades rather then legions.
NOTE: Sorry to bring up 40k but I hope it makes my point.

Some beastmen are abandoned as children yes, and some are even driven from their homelands by man.
And yes beastmen should resent all mankind, but rites to the land.

:wtf:

That almost sounds like Beastmen want to inhabit the villages they used to burn down or become squatters in the castles they overrun.

Beastmen should be the unfortunate children of chaos, shunned by society and reduced to utter drudgery, that is all.

Note Im looking forward to the new book, and Razorgor has a terrible model.

Codsticker
08-02-2010, 04:15
Please don't get this thread closed and locked. Let's stay on topic.

This is good advice here. I have deleted spam, trollery (new word!),off-topic posts and issued warnings where neccessary.

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

Volker the Mad Fiddler
08-02-2010, 05:58
SNIP

That almost sounds like Beastmen want to inhabit the villages they used to burn down or become squatters in the castles they overrun.

Beastmen should be the unfortunate children of chaos, shunned by society and reduced to utter drudgery, that is all.

Note Im looking forward to the new book, and Razorgor has a terrible model.

Not really. The beastmen more want to destroy all traces of civilization and progress. The world should be red in tooth and fang sort of thing. Almost like a cross between the noble savage 'myth' and survival of the fittest taken to an extreme level. Its not great, but not terrible either.

Slugtongue on the other hand is a piece of filth that should never have been printed and a classic example of terrible game design married to a cliche background.

Jack of Blades
08-02-2010, 06:48
Please don't get this thread closed and locked. Let's stay on topic. And the topic is: people are complaining that BoC (and WoC) are worthless because they're not at the level of VC/DE/DoC. Well, good. We need fewer broken armies, not more. WoC's power level is pitched pretty well-- right in the midfield. If BoC is at that power level, then all is well.

If you have to take a power-list to win a tourny with a book, that doesn't mean the book is bad. It means the meta is tilted towards a few powerful books-- it means that overall, the books aren't balanced.

:eyebrows: The power level of the new Beastmen isn't the only thing or even the thing that people complain about. It's their new feel, character and all of that put together as well as their power level in relation to this.

Deroga
08-02-2010, 06:49
The issue I have so far is that people are bashing the army because it won't compete in the tournies with the likes of DE, VC and DoC. I don't see this as a bad thing. These books were mistakes in balance. Take these 3 books out and the rest are pretty balanced. If Beasts had been released and cranked the power creep another notch I would then be moaning. Currently I have a book that is balanced and has a number of options.
In relation to the models and releases, just remember this is the first wave and more models will be made. Most armies have had 2 if not 3 waves of model releases. The current releases will be like marmite, some will love them others willl hate them. I am in the first category (except for the Razorgor).


Agreed. If you take vc, de, and daemons out the book is generally fine.

Enfid
08-02-2010, 07:49
Apparently the Beastmen dislike civilization........but they don't like nature either, and want to destroy everything out of bitter hatred and spite.

This is one page in the White Dwarf after Phil claims that the Beastmen are "....creatures with their own culture, history and strong motivation for coming into conflict with other races."

*Facepalm* HELLLOOOOOO!?!?!?!!?

And Beastmen gathering to go to war a "common occurrence"?? Do the Beastmen march to war every day? Do Orcs go on a WAAARGH everyday????

All the new background sounds like an excuse to make them feel like a proper army with "strong motivation" for going to war so people will be more attracted towards it.

Hopefully I'll get to read the book soon. Oh boy, I need tea.

AramilSairSianontel
08-02-2010, 07:59
Well this is whineseer indeed.
I've red the new book and from a fluff, artwork, atmosphere and charakter percpective its flawless.
There are people in here who have made their life purpose to promote hatred spam against the new beastmen. Take ULF for instance. You can find him in almost any new thread saying how much he hates the new beastmen.
I for one like them. They are an army i would gladly play in a friendly enviroment and have fun. So don't listen to those sad whinners just go ahead and play whatever you like. It's above all a game.

Condottiere
08-02-2010, 09:26
If they are based on the Germanic tribes, they do have a primitive culture; they might not want to destroy civilization so much as extend their territory, and civilized folks just happened to be in their way.

Enfid
08-02-2010, 09:35
I won't mind if it always had been like that, but the way the wording is in the White Dwarf, the Beastmen will also destroy a sandcastle you built just because he hates you. Because.

My main gripe, if you will, with the apparent background is how they turned from mindless beasts from the previous edition into what feels like the Germanic tribes, then back into mindless beasts who destroy stuff out of spite again in the same article.

That said I'm willing to give the full background a read and I'm sincerely hoping it'll prove my above whining wrong.

So I ask again; for people who have read the fluff, such as AramilSairSianontel, how is the beastmen portrayed compared to previous editions?

Sand
08-02-2010, 09:46
Well, they obviously have some sort of culture. That doesn't necessarily mean that they sit around sipping tea and discussing the socio-economic implications of Karl Franz new tax on Steam Tanks ;)
So, they have a culture that revolves around war, tribalism and chaos worship. They probably spend their days locking horns, peeing on herdstones, that sort of thing. That sounds fine and dandy to me.

I haven't read the new book (and I am not too impressed with the new minis at all), but what I read in the old book and the Liber Chaotica fluff-thingies seem to match up pretty well with what people are saying here.
Beastmen are victims in the sense that they're driven out of human society, hunted and killed. That is part of what fosters their hatred for civilization, but they'd be complete bastards either way, since they're chaos creatures. I think it's always been that way.

Rules-wise I can't comment at all, of course.

Valtiel
08-02-2010, 09:52
Having read the fluff I feel they are somewhat different from the older incarnations. They are said to have been the original rulers of the lands of the Old World but with the rise of Sigmar and the Men they were fought back and from that day they have had a great hate towards man, who they consider weaker prey. So they look forward to the times when they once again will be able to take over the Old World and restore "order".

Other than that I feel they are said to be really chaotic creatures, fighting amongst themselves and indulging in drinking, mating and killing lots of people that they attack. Sadly I feel the interesting fluff about the hierachy in Beastmen warbands has not been touched as much as it has in Liber Chaotica or the other books so I am slightly disappointed in that. However it does tell more about the hunting grounds of the Beastmen along with the secret paths they walk that only they can recognize. Interesting new stuff I think.

AramilSairSianontel
08-02-2010, 09:55
I won't mind if it always had been like that, but the way the wording is in the White Dwarf, the Beastmen will also destroy a sandcastle you built just because he hates you. Because.

My main gripe, if you will, with the apparent background is how they turned from mindless beasts from the previous edition into what feels like the Germanic tribes, then back into mindless beasts who destroy stuff out of spite again in the same article.

That said I'm willing to give the full background a read and I'm sincerely hoping it'll prove my above whining wrong.

So I ask again; for people who have read the fluff, such as AramilSairSianontel, how is the beastmen portrayed compared to previous editions?

You know mindless beasts do not feel spite.
I liked the beasts fluff and i think that when you read it you'll like it too.

It's true that they tried to make the beasts one stand-alone army and the impression and the biggest difference i saw was how they distanced them from their chaos heritage. It's like, It's true that they were the children of chaos for they were created when chaos entered the world, but now, they are more Beastmen than beasts of chaos. They worship the chaos gods but as i'm sure you know already there are no marks and their fluff is more concetrated on the hatred they feel towards men.

That i think are the new beastmen. A race of chaos-spawned creatures, sad resented and hated by all, even their kin, that lurk in the forests and the dark places of the world, hating, hating and hating all men and what they themselves are and wanting to tear down their castles and cities and burn their temples to the ground.

A good deal of chaos-brought madness and terrible mutation is also brought with the new book evident in the gorgon's or cygor's or jabber's background.

To be honest rather than germanic tribes they reminded me more of Norwegian satanists-you know burning churches and staff...
Not a bad thing for an evil army.

ashc
08-02-2010, 10:15
For those of you who *have actually read the book* (whineseer indeed) :rolleyes:

I really like the new background/twist to the beasts; they are now the bastard children of chaos, yes chaos has them but they do not increase the gods power in the same way as corrupting men. They are the unloved children vying for attention, full of hate and spite, and the fact that they desire to tear down everything is about as chaotic as it gets. Reading the book, it actually feels like GW took a step down the old dark path of the likes of Slaves to Darkness/The Lost and the Damned, it having been a while since I had actually read the term 'blood-gorged orgiastic rituals' in a GW army book :)

When I read the book it felt very dark, and conjured up to my mind two things; H.P. Lovecraft's Shub-Niggerath and her worshippers, and the artwork of Breugel and Bosch.

And I think that sums up perfectly what the Beastmen are, and what they should be.

General Squeek Squeek
08-02-2010, 10:20
Part of the new fluff that I really like about the beast men is how the dark gods pay them little favors. They don't get marks, because they truly belong to the gods from their birth till death. There is no need for the Chaos gods to offer the beastmen anything because they're owned by the god from the start. Humans on the other hand are given gifts to lead them down the path and join the gods. Daemons are manifestations of the gods themselves so marks do a great job of indicating which god they come from. Beastmen get no love from the gods and hate the world for it.

Sand
08-02-2010, 10:57
Good points ashc and GSS.

I actually also thought about the whole "true children of Chaos" thing. Beastmen may well regard themselves as worthy of the favors of the Gods, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Gods feel the same way.

Fluff-wise, Liber Chaotica (the Nurgle part) has a section on beastmen, which basically says that tehy have a society "organized" around roaming warbands and that they are "truly children of Chaos", but that it there are different theories as to whether the Gods hold them in higher or lower esteem than human worshipers.

So, what has been said about the new fluff seems to gel pretty well with the fluff dating back to (at least) 2003.

The sad thing is, now I find myself wanting to start a Beastman army :o

ashc
08-02-2010, 11:08
Yeah, lets be honest, those people saying 'I don't agree with Beastmen having a culture and civilisation!' haven't understood because they have not read the book. Just because they have a culture and civilisation definitely does not make them cultured and civilised ;) Their lives are still built on blood, fury, hatred and rage.

Sand
08-02-2010, 11:35
By the way, it is obviously meant to make us go "OMG AWSUHM" and buy a Beastman army, but here is some of the "new" fluff, straight from the horses mouth: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=cat1380000&aId=5800008a

I think it looks pretty cool, actually :)

Condottiere
08-02-2010, 11:43
Brown is the colour, fighting is the game
We're all together, and winning is our aim
So cheer us on through the sun and rain
'cause Beastmen , Beastmen is our name
Here at the Forest whether rain or fine
We can shine all the time
Home or away, come and see us play
You're welcome any day
Brown is the colour, fighting is the game
We're all together, and winning is our aim
So cheer us on through the sun and rain
'cause Beastmen, Beastmen is our name

Enfid
08-02-2010, 13:36
Thank god I was proved wrong. Though I still don't like the whole "they were there before civilization pushed them away" thing, it became justifiable after reading the rest.

After reading several posts here and that link Sand gave us, I'm relieved. I actually like the feel that is described, and I think that they advanced their background rather than turning it upside down as I initially feared.

I blame the Designer Notes article for being so poorly worded and misleading. So many unnecessary nerd rage XD

Fredrik
08-02-2010, 13:43
To the "everybody but me is a sissy whiner crowd" you cant say that people whine about the rules nad then go on saying th book is great from a fluff point of view. Those things are totally seperate.

Sure I think the fluff works (I liked the old unruly feral mobs pillaging and looting a little better) but this new version works fine for me, but the rules are a bigger part of the game for me then the fluff is even thoug i think that is an important part aswell.

And saying we canīt take DE, VC and Doc into account from a competetive point of view because these books are broken???? Well they will still be half of the armies I would face in a tourney so ofcourse I have to compare to them even if I like them or not. Besides I feel that Beastmen really isnīt even up to the LM, Skaven powerlevel from a stable army build point of view, and that is my biggest beef with it that is seem to have gotten nerfed to much by low Ld, high point cost and to much randomness.

Mulrak
08-02-2010, 13:58
This past Saturday I was fortunate to play the new Beastmen army against my Dwarfs. Now this was the first time my opponent used the new rules, so it was alittle slow going to try to figure out stuff, but quite enjoyable.

I think they have a very sound play style and seem to be alot of fun. My opponent used a giant model to represent the 'six armed mino', cant remember the name, and that thing is a beast! Though my Dwarfs still ran him off the board, with some lucky rolls on my part. Still a fun game and the new Beastmen will be a force to contend with.

Grimstonefire
08-02-2010, 21:02
@ashc

I'm surprised people were complaining about them having a culture and civilisation. They're not pure animals, they do have a relatively high level of social/communication skills so it would actually be surprising if they didn't have a culture imo.

Petey
08-02-2010, 21:07
I still wish they weren't all goats. Models with weird cat heads, or bird heads, or extra tentacles etc would have been really cool

ashc
08-02-2010, 21:39
@ashc

I'm surprised people were complaining about them having a culture and civilisation. They're not pure animals, they do have a relatively high level of social/communication skills so it would actually be surprising if they didn't have a culture imo.

Precisely. A group of warriors, an *army* of a race comprised of something completely different to others is going to have a culture and civilisation of sorts. Like I said, its not like the Gors and Ungors have teaparties whilst the Bray-shamen and Beastlords gather around maps and plans to devise grand warplans; their civilisation is what you would expect it to be.

General Squeek Squeek
09-02-2010, 00:09
I still wish they weren't all goats. Models with weird cat heads, or bird heads, or extra tentacles etc would have been really cool

If I remember it right, the kind of beasts your describing do exist. They even mention other forms of beastmen milling about the world. The just happen to focus on the goat kind, and I think that it is because thats is the kind of beasts that GW currently produces. It also kinda keeps in line with the farm animal theme, for better or worse.

ChaosVC
09-02-2010, 01:12
I still wish they weren't all goats. Models with weird cat heads, or bird heads, or extra tentacles etc would have been really cool

For a moment I thought you want extra testicles...

TheMav80
09-02-2010, 01:34
Can I bash it because the Doombull and Minos are better than my Ogres? *grumble grumble grumble*

And that it was just crazy and over powered that my Kroxigors had S7, but apparently it is no big deal that Minotaurs can have it...with more attacks.

Stegadeth
09-02-2010, 01:45
Warriors aren't.

Gateway with horses is. The WoC book is still rubbish.

I guess "1" is technically a number...

Warriors of Chaos have a couple of pretty good builds. My balanced 2250 list got massacred this weekend. Of course, it was a friendly game and my friend was play-testing his build for a tournament so I let him skip a failed Stupidity check on his Chaos Lord on Chaos Dragon from the Helm of Many Eyes (or whatever the heck it is called).

ChaosVC
09-02-2010, 04:54
Can I bash it because the Doombull and Minos are better than my Ogres? *grumble grumble grumble*

And that it was just crazy and over powered that my Kroxigors had S7, but apparently it is no big deal that Minotaurs can have it...with more attacks.

Well they are not exactly better then ogres, for them to be fightier than Ogres, you have to lose control of them. And then they only havd d6 pursue and overun...doesn't that make you want to do things to them.:evilgrin:

DhaosAndy
09-02-2010, 05:38
Got a quick look at the book Saturday night, disappointed, no marks, :wtf: therefore no magic numbers, therefore not interested.

Given that the other books all managed to cheese me off one way or another (daemons - can't do mono god with sacred numbers, mortals - boring without daemons/beasts), that pretty much kills Warhammer for me :(

Condottiere
09-02-2010, 06:34
If I remember it right, the kind of beasts your describing do exist. They even mention other forms of beastmen milling about the world. The just happen to focus on the goat kind, and I think that it is because thats is the kind of beasts that GW currently produces. It also kinda keeps in line with the farm animal theme, for better or worse.If it were, Swinogors would be the leaders, and you'd have Equinogors and Sheepogors. The theme is Western mythological nature creatures, specifically Grecian, satyrs, minotaurs, gorgons, cyclops, harpies and the odd wild boar.

Seth the Dark
09-02-2010, 09:06
Read the Nurgle section of the Liber Chaotica to get lots of info on the the Beastmen. In it they mention that perhaps the Beastmen have their appearance in order to better terrify humans.

Fenrir
09-02-2010, 09:35
Read the Nurgle section of the Liber Chaotica to get lots of info on the the Beastmen. In it they mention that perhaps the Beastmen have their appearance in order to better terrify humans.

Liber Chaotica has tonnes of good info. All superseded by GW's new chaos background though.

Zarroc
09-02-2010, 10:44
Dont mind the new book, not the worst one out, some potential

For example, my up to 8 strenght 5 attack beast lord ^^

Some things were over looked, like i think the lack of any decent ward save is a downer, and also the cost of some units, bit expensive, and the magic lore isnt that great, be doing up an army list shortly and taken things from there

Sand
09-02-2010, 10:50
Liber Chaotica has tonnes of good info. All superseded by GW's new chaos background though.Really? That's sad :(

I haven't been following Chaos all that closely since, well, since the last Beasts book and Liber Chaotica. I didn't know that they'd made huge fluff changes (I just assumed that DoC basically ignored a lot of the fluff).

For what it's worth I really liked the "original" split into warriors and beasts. It gave each army a theme, but there was still the option of allies from the other book and Daemons. Now it just seems like there's 3 completely separate Chaos armies, which makes it a bit too "ordered" in my view.

That was a bit of a derail (sorry!), but what I wanted to ask was: where can I take a look at this new fluff?

Fenrir
09-02-2010, 10:52
In the three chaos army books (or is that two, as beastmen are no longer beast of chaos). It's all different now.

Malice&Mizery
09-02-2010, 18:49
I still read Liber Chaotica from time to time as it's a fatastic read. But, you know, Chaos is ever changing. ;)

Kholdaimon
09-02-2010, 19:22
Got a quick look at the book Saturday night, disappointed, no marks, :wtf: therefore no magic numbers, therefore not interested.

Given that the other books all managed to cheese me off one way or another (daemons - can't do mono god with sacred numbers, mortals - boring without daemons/beasts), that pretty much kills Warhammer for me :(

Sorry but this is the most silly reason EVER. Why do you need to put a mark on something to have the magic numbers make sense?! You can paint/convert them to look like they adhere to a certain god and then put them in multiples of that gods magic number...

The removal of marks is good, it justs shoehorns units in having an optimal mark like with WoC in competitive play.
The idea behind the name change to Beastmen is good and also the fluff behind the less obvious involvement of the Chaos Gods is good. Read the designer notes in the latest WD, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. (And there are some really nice painting guides in the issue aswell! :))

Sometimes I feel the people whining the most about the fluff of the army didnt actually read the fluff but just saw the removal of the skirmishing beast herds and marks and started screaming...

Christiaan

zak
09-02-2010, 19:23
And saying we canīt take DE, VC and Doc into account from a competetive point of view because these books are broken???? Well they will still be half of the armies I would face in a tourney so ofcourse I have to compare to them even if I like them or not. Besides I feel that Beastmen really isnīt even up to the LM, Skaven powerlevel from a stable army build point of view, and that is my biggest beef with it that is seem to have gotten nerfed to much by low Ld, high point cost and to much randomness

But how is this problem the failing of the beastmen book. There were two options after the release of the DE, VC and DoC book and GW seem have taken the toning down option rather than making each book more powerful than the next. Hopefully GW will incorporate this policy into the 8th edition books so you can see a more varied mix of armies winning rather than one of the top 3. One must also remember that the beasts book probably has been written with the 8th edition changes in mind.

Phazael
09-02-2010, 19:49
But how is this problem the failing of the beastmen book. There were two options after the release of the DE, VC and DoC book and GW seem have taken the toning down option rather than making each book more powerful than the next. Hopefully GW will incorporate this policy into the 8th edition books so you can see a more varied mix of armies winning rather than one of the top 3. One must also remember that the beasts book probably has been written with the 8th edition changes in mind.

How do you quantify the Skaven book into that view of things? Its obviously made with 8th in mind and is butt numbingly powerful, arguably holding major advantages over both DoC and DE. The book is weak and will struggle against moderate builds. Try it against even much older books, like WE, Bretts, Tomb Kings, or even Orcs. Against those mighty juggernaughts, the book falls way short (sarcasm, btw).

No one wanted the book to be DE,DoC, or VC levels of power, but something comperable to Lizards or even WoC would have been nice. Instead, we got Brown Orcs, with a side of nerfed core chariot. Minus the psych protection.

zak
09-02-2010, 20:03
I've played with the book on several occasions now against some good players and the army has done well. It has some flaws, but not as many as some of you are pointing out.

Logan_uc
09-02-2010, 20:10
IMHO this army book is a special case, where whining is natural for old beast players.

I like all the parts in the hobbie, and this book (in which i put my hopes on to get back to WHFB, im a chaos player:D), dosent cut it in any way.

From a modeler and painter point of view thers nothing remarkeble in beast model range, the best models are the old lords, and gor and centigors, are a repackage of the old ones, ungor got worst, but are not that bad, bestigors are a lot better but nothing remarkeble, the rest is just atrocious, so no fun in paintig them.
The good thing for modelers is that you have 3 monsters that you have to make from scratch, but you can do this with skaven abominations and the vampire abyssal terror, so i dont think its really worth it.

for those that like a army with some flavor that gets the fluff to the table, the army book got a lot worst, the lack of marks and raiders makes this army, look more like mutant Livestock army book, that the chaotic spawn of the gods. beast are the only army that gets chariots as core with no restriction, its just silly for a army from the forests to use a lot of chariots and big monsters. ambush got nerfed and the units that use it (the beastmen) suck.
on the bright side, primal fury isnt all that bad and as some fluff to add.

now from a gamers point o view, there are a lot of thing that are overpriced or nerfed, normaly the things that look good and bring fluff to the army.
the lore is just "bah", and im not a big fan of skiddish glass canons, and the lords that make them less likelly to run dont have a half decent unit to go in. they have lot of units that do a great job vs x unit and get trashed vs y unit.
But the lack of armour and the specialised units are a mixed blessing considering the meta game that uses a lot of magic, units that don run away and high str units.

overall i think this army book is a failure, some people will like it, but not the ones that really loved the old beasts. they may be good at tournis but i have my doubts, only time will tell if im wrong.

blackjack
09-02-2010, 20:12
I bashed Lizard men when they came out. I thought they were seriously nerfed in 7th. I was tottaly wrong. Give the new beasts a chance, I think they will grow on people.

brendel
09-02-2010, 20:17
The only thing I do not like about Games workshop is if they bring out a new army that you can't just use your old army with out remodeling or rebasing, or make unit types redundant, rules and points costs I can deal with, but a little thought to the players of there game, the time and money they have spent buying, making and painting there models should be on there mind when they re-write an army book.

I know they are a company that is trying to make money, but It the one asspect I do not like about them.

LaurentleBete
09-02-2010, 20:20
If it were, Swinogors would be the leaders, and you'd have Equinogors and Sheepogors. The theme is Western mythological nature creatures, specifically Grecian, satyrs, minotaurs, gorgons, cyclops, harpies and the odd wild boar.

And this is because the beastmen we see are the beastmen from the empire. I think the fluff goes something along the lines of they were created into the forms most feared by the local populations?

Leading to tiger-warriors in Ind, and I forget the rest... :confused:

Either way I love the new book, had my first battle with them on Sunday and they were awesome. So much fun to play.

I really don't care if people want to bash it. All the more beasties for me :)

lord mekri
09-02-2010, 22:14
i sold a 2000pt fully painted beast army shortly before the book came in, as i am moving a but away form the hobby, and didnt want to spend more money on GW product since they garenteed my army was no longer viable as is.

and having read the new army book, i do not regret my decision at all.
there is nothing weak about the book. but simply this...
the beast men are now completely hamperred by woods like all other armies.

wft?

cant wait to see what they do with the wood elves... *sigh*

i think i and my circle will stay in 7th, forget 8th ever is made, and maybe even go back to 6th.

just my 2 cents.

Souppilgrim
09-02-2010, 23:33
Why was the phil kelly thread closed? The guy who wrote the book can barely play them, so that might be why the book has a couple of holes.

fubukii
09-02-2010, 23:59
THe new beastmen seems like a very strong book i dont see how people think they are just brown orcs or gimpy.

First of all
-Doombull is a amazing lord choice, and the gorbul is a great hero choice
-The new magic lore is decent, sure its not OMG OPED! but its not a bad lore and it has plenty of uses.
-you can mount all your wargors/beastlords/shamans on tuskgor/razagor chariots for a free slot! Now you can spend slots on scouting harpies, and minotaurs and still fit in your hard hitting razogor chariots.
- scouting harpies? enough said
- cheap core chariots
- cheap redirectors
- CHeap core skirmishers with bows.
- ambush ( still really good)
- best anti doc/vc hammer units. Seriously minotaurs are beastly, and are one of the best hard hitting units in the game.
- Good rare slots. The cygor is pretty nasty vs the single dice spam magic armies, VC and doc which tons of people complain about. He is also a moving stone throwers. The jabber and gorgon are decent as well.

Herod
10-02-2010, 01:23
THe new beastmen seems like a very strong book i dont see how people think they are just brown orcs or gimpy.

First of all
-Doombull is a amazing lord choice, and the gorbul is a great hero choice
-The new magic lore is decent, sure its not OMG OPED! but its not a bad lore and it has plenty of uses.
-you can mount all your wargors/beastlords/shamans on tuskgor/razagor chariots for a free slot! Now you can spend slots on scouting harpies, and minotaurs and still fit in your hard hitting razogor chariots.
- scouting harpies? enough said
- cheap core chariots
- cheap redirectors
- CHeap core skirmishers with bows.
- ambush ( still really good)
- best anti doc/vc hammer units. Seriously minotaurs are beastly, and are one of the best hard hitting units in the game.
- Good rare slots. The cygor is pretty nasty vs the single dice spam magic armies, VC and doc which tons of people complain about. He is also a moving stone throwers. The jabber and gorgon are decent as well.

Well let's have a look :)

-Doombull is a amazing lord choice...

I agree - the Mino characters are good.

-The new magic lore is decent...

Disagree - The lore of the wild is easily the worst lore in the game. Extremely situational, short range and high casting costs nerf it to kingdom come.

-you can mount all your wargors/beastlords/shamans

Fair point, but mounting characters in chariots seems like a good idea only because the troops suck so hard and are over priced.

- cheap core chariots

Had this in the old book as well, and the chariots were -much- better. Now one terror bomb makes the chariots a liability while they go rumbling through your soft over-priced troops. While this could happen before, at least they got a re-roll.

- CHeap core skirmishers with bows.

Agree completely. Ungors with bows are great.

- ambush ( still really good)

Disagree. Having to buy a unit for every unit in ambush sucks the life from it.

- best anti doc/vc hammer units

Minotaurs are good but very expensive, and fairly easy to kill. Honestly I'd rather have the cheap ones back, especially if I could have the MoCU back. I won't even bother to mention the ridiculously low leadership.

- Good rare slots.

I'll disagree, even though I like the rares. They are wildly over priced in an army that should be priced 10-15% cheaper across the entire book.

I'm going to do my best to enjoy the book and make it work, but I will be genuinely surprised if Beastmen aren't widely regarded as one of weakest books in 6 months. That is pretty grim considering the next Beast book is many years away. Frankly I'd be glad if they just put Chaos all back together again. :)

H

Logan_uc
10-02-2010, 01:35
THe new beastmen seems like a very strong book i dont see how people think they are just brown orcs or gimpy.

First of all
-Doombull is a amazing lord choice, and the gorbul is a great hero choice
-The new magic lore is decent, sure its not OMG OPED! but its not a bad lore and it has plenty of uses.
-you can mount all your wargors/beastlords/shamans on tuskgor/razagor chariots for a free slot! Now you can spend slots on scouting harpies, and minotaurs and still fit in your hard hitting razogor chariots.
- scouting harpies? enough said
- cheap core chariots
- cheap redirectors
- CHeap core skirmishers with bows.
- ambush ( still really good)
- best anti doc/vc hammer units. Seriously minotaurs are beastly, and are one of the best hard hitting units in the game.
- Good rare slots. The cygor is pretty nasty vs the single dice spam magic armies, VC and doc which tons of people complain about. He is also a moving stone throwers. The jabber and gorgon are decent as well.

-Mino lords and heros, are expensive, not great generals, and have blood greed, they arent bad but they are not amazing.
-bestmen characters, can go in chariots like all characters that have them in the army list, do you see people puting them in them?
-give me a lore worst that the lore of the dark forest.
-core chariots are nice, nothing new for beatmen, they are good but very un fluffy IMHO.
-scouting harpys are good, but they are more expencive, and i dont think they really need to scout, and furies where better.
-cheap redirectors? ungors they arent that cheap for what you get and they suck.
-cheap core skirmishers, ungors withe short bow, really not very impressive
-ambush, got nerfed, ant the units that get them are worst to.
- minotaurs are good vs stuborn and unbreakable, and thats it, blood greed and frenzy are a potent combinaton for disaster, thay are expencive and not very hard and have low Ld an I, any thing that can hit hard and fast will give them a very good fight.
-the monsters are a bit priceie, but have very good tricks up there sleeves.

LaurentleBete
10-02-2010, 02:00
-Mino lords and heros, are expensive, not great generals, and have blood greed, they arent bad but they are not amazing.

While I prefer a Beastlord for the bubble, theres not much a Doombull can't take on. Again though, it is very much just adding another hammer to an army which already has a lot of hammers.


-bestmen characters, can go in chariots like all characters that have them in the army list, do you see people puting them in them?

I put my Beastlord in a razor chariot. The extra movement for his Ld bubble is nice, plus razor chariots are awesome!


-give me a lore worst that the lore of the dark forest.

A few of the BRB ones in my opinion. Although I do actually agree here, I'd much rather take Beasts then Wild, not that I use magic anyway. It's far too fickle and expensive.


-core chariots are nice, nothing new for beatmen, they are good but very un fluffy IMHO.

I'm not gonna complain about core chariots.


-scouting harpys are good, but they are more expencive, and i dont think they really need to scout, and furies where better.

Scouting harpies is incredible, and they're not that expensive. Definately worth the points I'd say.


-cheap redirectors? ungors they arent that cheap for what you get and they suck.

Ungor Raiders are THE best unit in the book. Had 6 units of 5 last game I played and they won it for me.


-cheap core skirmishers, ungors withe short bow, really not very impressive

You don't get them for the short bow, skirmishing units of 5 are too good to not take just for the cheap non-panicing screens.


-ambush, got nerfed, ant the units that get them are worst to.

Ambush is actually quite good, the possibility for them to come on on the first turn is brilliant, and even when you're opponent chooses the side you still get to place them where you want on the side. So that 80 point 10 man unit of gors is still making a profit by capturing table quarters and points denial if nothing else. More often then not though, you'll have them coming out in a really useful place.


- minotaurs are good vs stuborn and unbreakable, and thats it, blood greed and frenzy are a potent combinaton for disaster, thay are expencive and not very hard and have low Ld an I, any thing that can hit hard and fast will give them a very good fight.

My minotaur bloodkine killed a saurus scar-vet, when I didn't have the charge. And I didn't even roll that well. They hit very very very hard, and if they can weather the initial onslaught/ get the charge theres not much gonna be left standing.


-the monsters are a bit priceie, but have very good tricks up there sleeves.
I do agree here, but unriddin US5 fliers are nothing to be scoffed at. Jabber would be worth it without the Aura imo.
The Ghorgon is stubborn leadership 10, and hits like a full unit of minos, and can regen wounds. Need I say more?
The Cygor is a walking stone thrower that makes magicians go insane and miscast. Not to mention it can hold it's own in a fight too!
Razorgors are unbeleivable, my second favourite unit after the raiders. Just make sure you keep your Beastlord nearby so their abysmal LD doesnt wreck them. However, they are so cheap for what they can do. Mine earnt their points back 3-4 times over by munching down on not only the Oldblood on carnosaur, but two saurus spear blocks too! All on their own. We also get some wicked new magic items, the Brass Cleaver, Stonecrusher Mace, Ramhorn Helm and Chalice of Dark Rain to name but a few.

I also really like the new models and what they've done with the fluff. But at the end of the day, it is just a matter of personal opinion.

neXus6
10-02-2010, 03:06
My views on the new army having read the book and seen the army in action are that power wise they are pretty good, probably stronger than their older version as a result of all the new monsters and especially the new mino rules, these things can get rediculous.

The biggest problem I have is the tearing up of the army's character as represented rules wise. I had no problem with the old book, I played an army with herds, and a mix of everything, not a chariot army or any other slightly cheap options. I had no problem being at a slight disadvantage because the army on the board played and acted like the background described them, even when the whole "rank to 5" thing kicked off I stuck by then cause they were so characterful.

All that is gone now, while things like the primal fury rule are nice it doesn't make up for losing unruly, raiders or even the old ambush which though I didn't often use it was a lot better than it is now, that's just my feeling on it though.

fubukii
10-02-2010, 03:49
-Mino lords and heros, are expensive, not great generals, and have blood greed, they arent bad but they are not amazing.
-bestmen characters, can go in chariots like all characters that have them in the army list, do you see people puting them in them?
-give me a lore worst that the lore of the dark forest.
-core chariots are nice, nothing new for beatmen, they are good but very un fluffy IMHO.
-scouting harpys are good, but they are more expencive, and i dont think they really need to scout, and furies where better.
-cheap redirectors? ungors they arent that cheap for what you get and they suck.
-cheap core skirmishers, ungors withe short bow, really not very impressive
-ambush, got nerfed, ant the units that get them are worst to.
- minotaurs are good vs stuborn and unbreakable, and thats it, blood greed and frenzy are a potent combinaton for disaster, thay are expencive and not very hard and have low Ld an I, any thing that can hit hard and fast will give them a very good fight.
-the monsters are a bit priceie, but have very good tricks up there sleeves.

Blood greed is great, frenzy for minotaurs is awesome, and makes them imune to panic. Sheild them with a token warhound unit and your good to go.
- I have seen lots of players put heroes on chariots!. Us5 chariots break ranks.
- core chariots while unfluffy are highly effective.
- you have skirmishing ungors, and warhounds are redirectors both very good.
- Skirmishing 5 man units are great, you can use them to take corners, and see where your enemy is putting his big pricey units . (since you will have more drops a big advantage)
- minotaurs are actually pretty good vs any unit they charge. With units such as the warhound, along with mv 6 getting the charge shouldnt be hard. Naturally i would avoid charging deathstar asf units like black guard with character spam, without support. or certain asf units with out support. But combo charge with a chariot, and the minos impacts combined should be enough to slaughter the front rank, then you go untouched. Synergy is the key factor.

jesterking
10-02-2010, 04:38
i tried playing the new beastmen against empire army yesterday, and here's what i find:

the ups:
- ambush rule is amazing.. small units of raiders popping behind enemy line on the first turn could really disrupt opponent's battle plan.
- combined charge of razorgor chariot is devastating.. they chewed through big block of swordsmen without retaliation, only rod of command could save the swordsmen from being overrun.
- minotaur unit with Doombull and BSB Gorebull just mowed everything in their path
- Primal Fury is very good
- chalice of dark rain really good for its point

the downs:
- beastmen has a very low armor save (in most cases, none at all), be ready to remove lots of your minis
- jabberslythe, being a large target with no armor save, really have a hard time against shooty unit
- Lore of the Wild is not that good ( i got devolve and bestial surge).. i'll take other lore next time
- apart from minotaurs, beastmen army don't have staying power in a long fight
- the leadership issue, with most of the units only have Ld.7 or less... but it's kinda hard for the general to be everywhere everytime :(

i have yet to try using centigors, or against different opponent, i think i'll play couple of more games before i reach my conclusion :)

Logan_uc
10-02-2010, 05:32
Blood greed is great, frenzy for minotaurs is awesome, and makes them imune to panic. Sheild them with a token warhound unit and your good to go.
- I have seen lots of players put heroes on chariots!. Us5 chariots break ranks.
- core chariots while unfluffy are highly effective.
- you have skirmishing ungors, and warhounds are redirectors both very good.
- Skirmishing 5 man units are great, you can use them to take corners, and see where your enemy is putting his big pricey units . (since you will have more drops a big advantage)
- minotaurs are actually pretty good vs any unit they charge. With units such as the warhound, along with mv 6 getting the charge shouldnt be hard. Naturally i would avoid charging deathstar asf units like black guard with character spam, without support. or certain asf units with out support. But combo charge with a chariot, and the minos impacts combined should be enough to slaughter the front rank, then you go untouched. Synergy is the key factor.

for the ungors didnt see that they can be 5 strong.
minos really dont cut it for me, thay are very easy to bait, just let them charge, run and flank charge them with a decent unit, if you think frenzy is great you dont play half decent players, if you cant run down any thing you get it worst, they are 10pts less then dragon ogres and they are worst in most cases, and dragon ogres arent that great.

jesterking
10-02-2010, 05:58
for the ungors didnt see that they can be 5 strong.

the ungor raiders is 5-10 models per unit


minos really dont cut it for me, thay are very easy to bait, just let them charge, run and flank charge them with a decent unit, if you think frenzy is great you dont play half decent players, if you cant run down any thing you get it worst, they are 10pts less then dragon ogres and they are worst in most cases, and dragon ogres arent that great

minos only get frenzy if there's doombull/ gorebull inside their unit.
i admit frenzy has its weakness, but beastmen has chariots to chase away the bait (or the countercharger unit) before the minos need to check for frenzy within their charge distance :)

Condottiere
10-02-2010, 06:23
While I prefer a Beastlord for the bubble, theres not much a Doombull can't take on. Again though, it is very much just adding another hammer to an army which already has a lot of hammers.
They may have been targeting a point count of 4000 points, when they wrote the book.

Vermin-thing
10-02-2010, 06:34
the ungor raiders is 5-10 models per unit



minos only get frenzy if there's doombull/ gorebull inside their unit.
i admit frenzy has its weakness, but beastmen has chariots to chase away the bait (or the countercharger unit) before the minos need to check for frenzy within their charge distance :)

They can still get frenzy from winning combat, and then additional attacks per additional round won.

Only thing I'm not sure about is if I would want to take great weapons, or an additional hand weapon.

jesterking
10-02-2010, 06:41
They can still get frenzy from winning combat, and then additional attacks per additional round won.

Only thing I'm not sure about is if I would want to take great weapons, or an additional hand weapon.

you're right, i forgot about the bloodgreed :D
i tried giving them shield yesterday, but turns out nobody even get a chance to hit them in CC.. they just trampled everything. i might try additional weapon next time :D

fubukii
10-02-2010, 06:54
for the ungors didnt see that they can be 5 strong.
minos really dont cut it for me, thay are very easy to bait, just let them charge, run and flank charge them with a decent unit, if you think frenzy is great you dont play half decent players, if you cant run down any thing you get it worst, they are 10pts less then dragon ogres and they are worst in most cases, and dragon ogres arent that great.

Interesting, deciding to insult the players i play a good way to get your point across. Frenzy with out support is as you say a liability. But with access to warhounds and 5 man skirmishers, how exactly are you getting frenzy baited? you also have harpies who can fill that role. You just have them in front of your minotaurs to block the charge path, then when you get into a good position to get a charge you like you can move the hounds out of the way to redirect a unit,or you can either dual charge, or sacrifice the hounds into another unit its not exactly rocket science.

i will also have you know i play most of the time in competitive tournament environments.

Vermin-thing
10-02-2010, 07:28
I think 2 hand weapons may be optimal for minotaurs has they have Str 5, which is huge. 4 attacks, and 1 impact hit can really do a number if it is above Str 4. Additional hand weapons are nearly useless on Chaos Ogres, all because of Str 4.

I'd take shields/great weapons in a block of 5 minotaurs, and a character.

Seth the Dark
10-02-2010, 07:38
I have played a couple of games with Minotaurs who had dual hand weapons. They are very good at what they do. Sure they can be baited but I can also screen them and make sure that they will get where I want them.

ChaosVC
10-02-2010, 08:10
I have played a couple of games with Minotaurs who had dual hand weapons. They are very good at what they do. Sure they can be baited but I can also screen them and make sure that they will get where I want them.

I guess its really require some thought when it comes to using Minos, you have to practice or think of plans to prevent baiting and release them when the time is ripe. Not impossible to pull of, just difficult and requries more thought.

DhaosAndy
10-02-2010, 08:28
Kholdaimon: "Sorry but this is the most silly reason EVER. Why do you need to put a mark on something to have the magic numbers make sense?! You can paint/convert them to look like they adhere to a certain god and then put them in multiples of that gods magic number..."

I could argue that since they cannot be marked they are not true servants of any one god and therefore would have no interest in sacred numbers. I won't though, because the abandonment of the RoC/LC background for this pathetic seperate armies stuff just leaves me past caring about chaos in warhammer and by extension past caring about warhammer.

Kholdaimon: "The removal of marks is good, it justs shoehorns units in having an optimal mark like with WoC in competitive play.
The idea behind the name change to Beastmen is good and also the fluff behind the less obvious involvement of the Chaos Gods is good. Read the designer notes in the latest WD, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. (And there are some really nice painting guides in the issue aswell! )"

You can have no idea how much I disagree.

Kholdaimon: "Sometimes I feel the people whining the most about the fluff of the army didnt actually read the fluff but just saw the removal of the skirmishing beast herds and marks and started screaming..."

About skirmishing beast herds I care nothing. About the marks I care a lot, basically this book was my last chance for a warhammer army that I cared sufficiently about to update my army and play again. The lack of marks means I just don't care enough to bother. :(

Cacodemon
10-02-2010, 09:45
What a great loss those marks were. They are great for themeing armies, just look at all those Tzeentch Sorcerer led WoC armies with Slaanesh followers.

Darkmaw
10-02-2010, 10:03
What a great loss those marks were. They are great for themeing armies, just look at all those Tzeentch Sorcerer led WoC armies with Slaanesh followers.

Yeah especially the Tzeentch Sorceror Lord with Collar of Khorne!! :shifty:

ashc
10-02-2010, 10:07
Yeah I have to be honest, what with the way marks have gone in the latest chaos books for fantasy and 40k (yay its my psychadelic chaos space marines, check out my slaanesh daemon princes, plaguemarines and berzerkers, themed ya? and Tzeentch sorcerors lead slaaneshii warriors and nurgle knights all the time ya?) I think I am far happier not seeing the marks at all.

DhaosAndy
10-02-2010, 10:57
Well then so much for that, I'll be sad (after twenty five years) to play no more warhammer, but better that than to become bitter about the current direction which seems to find so much support, yet leaves me cold.

Condottiere
10-02-2010, 11:06
It's possible that the Marks are actually too sophisticated for Beastmen theme; however, if you've made that large of an emotional investment in it's previous incarnation, no one can blame you for leaving.

Kholdaimon
10-02-2010, 11:12
Dhaosandy, if you read the Design Notes in the latest WD or the fluff in the book you would understand the removal of marks.
They dont get marks because they are Chaos Incarnate upon the Old World, they do not get recognition or rewards from the Gods because they do not need rewards to stay a force of Chaos, where as Humans do. If the Gods didnt offer rewards for the Humans devotion, Humans would not devote to the Gods.
So whilest a Beastman may devote his life to a particular God, the God sees no reason to reward him since his life allready belongs to Chaos. Thus Beastmen get no marks or rewards from the gods, this makes the Beastmen hatefull of other living beings.
Imagine your parents neglecting you completely and only caring about and rewarding animals or other people, wouldnt you resent your parents? And yet you are still a child of your parents and carry their DNA, however much you resent them, you will always be atleast partially like them. ;)

The breaking up of Chaos was/is sad for many people but doesnt wreck the fluff. Actually it reinforces it since the different forces of Chaos are seperated geographically and therefor only on rare occasions would band up. The removal of marks for Beastmen also made sense to my mind because I always thought of them as unaligned Chaotic power, which I think many people felt the same.
New fluff is created all the time to keep the world from stagnating. You may regret the changes but if you dont even read the new stuff but just reject something out of hand because of the removal of marks then you cant be taken seriously. If you have read the stuff and cant find any solace in it then this game indeed isnt for you. Sorry.

Christiaan

explorator
10-02-2010, 14:47
What a great loss those marks were. They are great for themeing armies, just look at all those Tzeentch Sorcerer led WoC armies with Slaanesh followers.


Yeah especially the Tzeentch Sorceror Lord with Collar of Khorne!! :shifty:

Spot on! Chaos Marks are just another way to get those tricky combos that seem to rule the Meta, and no longer have any bearing or significance on Warhammer's background or 'History'. I don't miss Chaos Marks as the whole concept has been turned into a joke.

LaurentleBete
10-02-2010, 19:52
Spot on! Chaos Marks are just another way to get those tricky combos that seem to rule the Meta, and no longer have any bearing or significance on Warhammer's background or 'History'. I don't miss Chaos Marks as the whole concept has been turned into a joke.

QFT. Anyway, you can theme your characters using the Chaos Gifts section anyway, for example Slug-skin for a nurgle character, gouge-tusks for a khorne character, many limbed fiend for slaanesh and shadow-hide for tzeentch.

To me, it sounds like you're just throwing your toys out of your pram about it. Did anybody actually take marks beyond undivided anyway? The reroll psych checks was far more use then any of the others imo.

Jack of Blades
10-02-2010, 20:46
Did anybody actually take marks beyond undivided anyway? The reroll psych checks was far more use then any of the others imo.

Well, imo they got marks wrong in both editions. First of all, what mark your general has shouldn't matter for the mark selection of other things, much like taking a High Sorceress won't disallow you from taking Assasins, they may not like eachother but they're still both Dark Elves working towards a common goal. But it should matter for what can carry and join what. Tzeentch's items would be aimed at sorcery, Khorne's toward melee offense, Nurgle's toward debilitating enemies and Slaanesh's to making enemies do stuff they don't want to. But the most expensive items (Daemonsword, Skinhidden Plate etc.) and generic (5+ ward save etc.) in each category would be Undivided items that anyone can take. The reason for them being Undivided is that no god is more powerful than the essence of Chaos itself in its undivided form. Second of all and imo:

- Tzeentch's mark is now radically different in its character, imo they should've made it more expensive but kept all of the old rules in addition to the new rules. The differences would be that Tzeentch Sorcerers get magic levels & +1 to cast, non-Sorcerers just get magic levels. Also, you could only generate a PD for every Wizard you have in your army and each dice would be assigned to a particular wizard at a max of 1 per wizard.

- Khorne's mark should confer MR2 along with frenzy. It would otherwise work in reverse of Tzeentch's dispel dice, ie. each wizard your enemy has lets each Khornate unit you have generate an extra dispel dice. Each unit cannot generate more than 1 dice.

- Nurgle's mark should be -1 to wound not its current effects, along with fear.

- Slaanesh's mark should be Immune to Psychology along with +1 initiative.

Slaanesh's mark should be the cheapest, then Khorne's, then Nurgle's and most expensive would be Tzeentch's.

________________________________

What I just described would be my vision of Chaos marks.

Sand
10-02-2010, 21:12
Well, imo they got marks wrong in both editions. First of all, what mark your general has shouldn't matter for the mark selection of other things, much like taking a High Sorceress won't disallow you from taking Assasins, they may not like eachother but they're still both Dark Elves working towards a common goal.I couldn't disagree more. I think the real tragedy and watering down of Chaos in WFB stems from the mixing and matching of Marks more than anything else (I still think Daemons should never have been an army in itself but be available as allies for Beasts/Warriors, but that's a whole other kettle of fish).

I also tend to think Tzeentch's mark shouldn't affect magic power all that much. There's bound to be something else that would fit and it's just a shame that a Tzeentch sorcerer is almost always the only choice that makes sense, Meta-game-wise.

But in fact I'm pretty happy with the loss of marks for Beasts. It seems reasonable to me.

willowdark
10-02-2010, 21:45
For +1 to cast? When Nurgle lore is better? Why is MoT the only mark that makes sense for a sorcerer?

Jack of Blades
10-02-2010, 22:23
I couldn't disagree more. I think the real tragedy and watering down of Chaos in WFB stems from the mixing and matching of Marks more than anything else (I still think Daemons should never have been an army in itself but be available as allies for Beasts/Warriors, but that's a whole other kettle of fish).

I also tend to think Tzeentch's mark shouldn't affect magic power all that much. There's bound to be something else that would fit and it's just a shame that a Tzeentch sorcerer is almost always the only choice that makes sense, Meta-game-wise.

But in fact I'm pretty happy with the loss of marks for Beasts. It seems reasonable to me.

I am of a balanced viewpoint on that. You cited only part of what I was on about when it comes to marks.

I want mark restricted items and that stuff with one mark cannot join units of another mark, what I don't want is armies that are made up of Khorne or Undivided just because the general is of Khorne. It's because that's just too restrictive and doesn't make anything unique, like that Khorne characters can take this or that Khorne item, so that's why you should take a Khorne character, instead it just restricts your army without adding anything.

Well I disagree on you there, imo Tzeentch should be the premier magic mark. That fits the fluff and is good from a gameplay perspective too as it lets you focus on magic. I do however agree that it's a shame Tzeentch sorcerer lords are so common while the others, along with Chaos lords, are rarely if ever seen. However I don't know what to do about it, it's not that Lores of Nurgle & Slaanesh are bad, it's that it's just easier to get spells off with +1 to cast and that ensures a safer investment, because more spells will go off.

Same here. Beastmen are considered below humans, whether those humans are now promoted to Daemons and thus also part of Chaos or not, and thus cannot be marked because they are expendable fodder to the Gods. They're like Warhounds, the Chaos player doesn't care what happens to them as long as they protect his valued Knights from those nasty Thunderers.

Zarroc
11-02-2010, 11:17
Is it me or are alot of beastman units over priced???

Gors should be cheaper/or come with shield extra hand weop free
Bestigors are not worth the point cost
ungors worse then clan rats, should maybe be same cost, or recive free spear upgrade..

Monsters are more expensive and not as good as others....

Cacodemon
11-02-2010, 12:34
My bet's a copy/paste error - They should've gone back to 2 Wounds for Gors and Bestigors, and T4 for Ungors but forgot to change it. :p

mrtn
11-02-2010, 13:34
But the most expensive items (Daemonsword, Skinhidden Plate etc.) and generic (5+ ward save etc.) in each category would be Undivided items that anyone can take. The reason for them being Undivided is that no god is more powerful than the essence of Chaos itself in its undivided form.

Chaos Undivided was a travesty. It was totally unfluffy and made up in 6th ed as a gaming tool, nothing else. I don't mind having psych rerolls, but claiming it's got any weight on the fluff is just wrong.

Bac5665
11-02-2010, 13:35
Is it me or are alot of beastman units over priced???

Gors should be cheaper/or come with shield extra hand weop free
Bestigors are not worth the point cost
ungors worse then clan rats, should maybe be same cost, or recive free spear upgrade..

Monsters are more expensive and not as good as others....

All of this is true.

Mostly the problem is that S3 infantry without 3+ Armor saves have basically no point in warhammer if they aren't undead. So that makes most of the "core" (in the thematic sense, not rules-wise) beastman units very confused as to how they fit into an army. Gors could do alright if you take two units; 1 to ambush and another to hold a brey-shaman. But otherwise, I just don't see a purpose for any of the ranked units in the book.

They'll all give up too much CR too often to be worth it, and bestigors aren't terrible as a core unit, but as a special choice competing with Minos, Razors, and such, there's just no way.My biggest gripe with the beatman book is the loss of marks. My second biggest is the (par for the course this edition) terrible internal balance.

ashc
11-02-2010, 13:41
Is this more a problem with core rules for 7th than beastmen in particular?

Jack of Blades
11-02-2010, 13:44
Chaos Undivided was a travesty. It was totally unfluffy and made up in 6th ed as a gaming tool, nothing else. I don't mind having psych rerolls, but claiming it's got any weight on the fluff is just wrong.

Really huh, I thought it was pretty cool. But then again I haven't seen the Chaos books before 6th edition. I don't like that Undivided is now basically just someone without a mark, I liked how the fluff said that Undivided worshippers didn't worship a particular god. They weren't just weaklings that didn't have their mark yet, they didn't want a mark. Undivided items being the most expensive ones imo fits better than having crappy Undivided items and reserving each useful item to a particular god, you don't need to worship Khorne to own a Daemonsword.

I also don't get how you can say that it has ''no basis in the fluff''. If you're going to use that kind of argument then nothing but what was originally printed has any basis in the fluff, unless you're willing to create a fallacy in your argument.

Bac5665
11-02-2010, 14:24
Is this more a problem with core rules for 7th than beastmen in particular?

Its a chicken and egg thing. Yes, it a problem with the core rules in this case. But if the players know that, then GW damn well should and should have an interest writing rules for units with the deficiencies of the current rules in mind. GW should know that the core rules make S3 infantry mostly useless and do something to fix that when writing the army book.

Now, 8E comes out this summer, so it may well be that the core rules will make S3 infantry more useful (by doing something to make SCR better). So the Beastmen book may be written with 8E in mind and that that will fix it. I hope so. But when I remember the travesty that was the 7E O&G book, I have no faith in GW to understand how their new core rules will impact the balance of the meta-game and then balance books accordingly.

mrtn
11-02-2010, 16:12
Really huh, I thought it was pretty cool. But then again I haven't seen the Chaos books before 6th edition. I don't like that Undivided is now basically just someone without a mark, I liked how the fluff said that Undivided worshippers didn't worship a particular god. They weren't just weaklings that didn't have their mark yet, they didn't want a mark. Undivided items being the most expensive ones imo fits better than having crappy Undivided items and reserving each useful item to a particular god, you don't need to worship Khorne to own a Daemonsword.

I also don't get how you can say that it has ''no basis in the fluff''. If you're going to use that kind of argument then nothing but what was originally printed has any basis in the fluff, unless you're willing to create a fallacy in your argument.
Maybe I should specify. Mark of Chaos Undivided was what I meant. You never see someone marked like that in the fluff. Of course someone can worship more than one god, but there was never a joint committee of chaos gods awarding a mark to him.

selone
11-02-2010, 16:24
The biggest problem with the WoC book is that the unit that actually gave the army book their name don't find themselves into my lists often :p

I think beasts look a fun, decent army but I dof eel sorry for thsoe that have to rebase ungors/ have khornigors :)

Scallat
12-02-2010, 00:57
Its a chicken and egg thing. Yes, it a problem with the core rules in this case. But if the players know that, then GW damn well should and should have an interest writing rules for units with the deficiencies of the current rules in mind. GW should know that the core rules make S3 infantry mostly useless and do something to fix that when writing the army book.

Now, 8E comes out this summer, so it may well be that the core rules will make S3 infantry more useful (by doing something to make SCR better). So the Beastmen book may be written with 8E in mind and that that will fix it. I hope so. But when I remember the travesty that was the 7E O&G book, I have no faith in GW to understand how their new core rules will impact the balance of the meta-game and then balance books accordingly.

I'm right there with you on this. GW need to hire ONE PERSON who is a games designer instead of an artist or a writer to take care of the game system. Right now it's very clear that they don't know or care even a tiny bit about thier own rules.

ChaosVC
12-02-2010, 01:19
I'm right there with you on this. GW need to hire ONE PERSON who is a games designer instead of an artist or a writer to take care of the game system. Right now it's very clear that they don't know or care even a tiny bit about thier own rules.

What if that one person is Matt Ward or Phill Kelly?! EPIC FAIL!!!:skull:

Souppilgrim
12-02-2010, 01:37
I'm right there with you on this. GW need to hire ONE PERSON who is a games designer instead of an artist or a writer to take care of the game system. Right now it's very clear that they don't know or care even a tiny bit about thier own rules.

I agree. It seems their criteria is someone who is good with using a word processing program and maybe GM'd a D&D game that someone else in the staff played in.