New Beasts army book.

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

New Beasts army book.

Post  squalie on Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:59 pm

Hey all,

Just got the new army book today. I thiiiiiink I'm going to keep playing Beasts. There's part of me that wishes I didn't like the Beasts so much as it just pisses me off to no end that the army is now basically RnF. I will really miss the identity they had before. Now they have a different identity, but certainly no better in my opinion. I'm going to pour a drink or two, read it through and let you know tomorrow. *feet up*

I think there's a couple 8th edition rules hints in here....

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  Ironwoulf on Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:31 pm

picked up a book as well. Interesting reading at first glance but need to get deep into it and digest the very essence, lots of anti wizard stuff and anti magical item things. I will be taking lots of tuskgor chariots (nascar ) and maybe a pumba death machine.

Ironwoulf

Posts : 348
Join date : 2008-06-19
Age : 55
Location : Dalmeny SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  Carson on Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:00 pm

havn't seen the new book yet but I did see a new pic of a minotaur on the GW site and a nicely done minotaur on CMON. I was a bit skeptical at first but they are actually very nice models once you see them with softer highlighting and transition. I'll be picking up some for sure.

Beastmen have always intrigued me and it might be fun to paint a few up and then see where it goes.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  Carson on Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:57 pm

I've got the book now too and I'm actually impressed. Its definitely gonna take some thought as to the actual build but I like the options available. Love the army-wide rules.

Characters will be quite nasty. Favourite models have to be the new ungor raiders.

Its definitly gonna be a finesse army instead of the point and click armies that have recently come out. Good book!

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:02 pm

Really? I see it as having the least finesse.

Take as many chariots/Minotaurs as possible, and hope to have a couple left when you reach the enemy lines!

No shooting to speak of, only scouting harpies (which are admittedly pretty good) to deal with enemy war machines, very little in the way of magic defence except low Ld wizards, the worst Rare choice selection ever all wrapped up with the worst average Ld in an army since OnG.

The army has to point and click, because every turn it's not rushing towards the enemy is a turn it is getting the crap kicked out of it by all those pesky other phases of the game besides movement and combat.

The problem, as I see it, is that the army can't do enough as a whole in a regular sized game.

To counter all the weaknesses in the list, this is what I think a Beastmen army needs:

Half a dozen units of dogs to help with redirecting/Frenzy control
Magic Defence
Something to deal with artillery
A couple decent hammers
Something to deal with Hydras/Bloodthirsters/HPAs
Some sort of psychology control and Panic/Fear/Terror mitigation

Pick 3, because that's all you can fit in 2200 points. Hope no enemy can exploit the glaring weaknesses that the 3 you give up on leave you with.

By the way, 275 points for the Beastmen Rare choice large targets with 5 or 6 wounds and no save of any kind at all is really a raw deal.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  Carson on Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:29 pm

By finesse I mean your actually gonna have to think to build your army and think when you play. I believe they took alot of the thinking out of the equation in the last few books.....too many obvious choices that are really, really good.

Actually it has some shooting with the ungor raiders unit which is also skirmished. Armies like Warriors and now the Beastmen that rely on combat with some magic support to win the game require alot more gameing skills that alot of people think. I don't know how many times I've heard people say "Ah chaos, you just line up and charge, not alot of thinking involved there". Winning by combat alone is the hardest thing to do in warhammer, and to actually win games with it you've got to be planning ahead and have some game plan involved.

One of the great traps of warhammer is comparing the cost of units between books......it's not valid. The points cost of units are only comparable to the book as a whole that they come from, otherwise a person could scream at the imbalance of every single unit in warhammer. Say for example the Orc Warrior and the Empire Swordsmen, or the high elf and dark elf spearmen. The points cost of units when taken as a whole make the book work together as a whole.

I've heard this same argument just a few short months ago about the warriors and behold........their just fine! After 2 leagues I have a winning record with them, they are challenging to win with which equals fun in my book. I'd wager with my present build that I could win a few tournaments with them also. I've played some pretty power hungry armies out there with them and have done just fine.

As I said before I like the beastmen book and look forward to seeing them on the field.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  squalie on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:22 pm

Well.....

...I'm not really sure what to say. I certainly don't hate the book, but I just don't feel the passion for them that I used to. If you would have asked me a year ago what army I'll play until I DIE!!, it would have been Beastmen. I went through the previous book in comparison and there just seemed to be so much more 'heart' than in this new book, that I even found myself smiling with nostalgia. I really, actually want that book back -- flaws and all. The fact they took away the skirmishing army, I think has done it in for me. Was the previous Beast book flawed? Oh God, yes -- but it was still fun. This just seems bland. Now keep in mind that these are obviously my own opinions (who else's could they be?), and that I've never actually played a game with them. But that's the thing...I don't even feel that I want to!

I'll go through the book:

Cover: looks stupid. I know that sounds childish, but it looks like they just plopped a costume head on a man and called it a day -- ala 'Time Bandits' Minotaur.

Inside book art: If I see one more drunken John Blanche sketch I may actually quit this game. This is sooooo just my opinion, but I may actually buy a plane ticket just to go punch him in the face. *Deep breath* Most of the other art is just re-used, which is actually ok as most of it's really well done, but it just shows laziness.

The fluff: I actually like the fluff....but that's not why I buy an army book. I buy it for the rules and good stories are just a bonus. For the guys that REALLY like background? Go buy a novel (full of fluff).

Painted section: They couldn't even paint new figs. They just repainted parts of the figs shown in the previous book! I also have no doubt that a marketing test group (2 drunk Brits) chose the lighter paint scheme of the Mino's and army to show that they're Beastmen. Paint them in pale English flesh tones so the consumer can relate!

Models: You can pelt me with rocks and garbage, but I like the Mino's. I do not like the Ungors; the Bestigors I like enough to be bothered that I couldn't use them as core and put 3 units of 20 on the table -- and the Razorgor I truly believe that I could do something with (challenge from Eric). The best figs are either old, or are only in my head because they didn't make a model for it, but hoo hoo!, I sure have ideas!!! Rolling Eyes

The actual rules: I just don't get it. People would previously complain that the Beasts of Chaos Book was pretty one-dimensional and that pisses me off. What kind of army did you want? Skirmishing, full of Magic? A true all Minotaur army? A Monster army? All of those could easily be accomplished. I can no longer make a skirmishing Magic army and I can no longer make a Minotaur army --and that ticks me off more than anything else I'll write. You know, I was one of the guys that never ever wanted Flyers. I justed wanted my skirmishing army, with Ambush rules that could be mostly relied upon. I never wanted a broken army, I just wanted to compete. I didn't want shooting, but I wanted a way to deal with shooting armies and the skirmishers went a step towards that. In my humble opinion the previous armybook just needed to be fleshed out, have a better magic selection and it would have been almost perfect. The core is a joke, the Specials plugged and the rares are a 'touch' too expensive, but I have also always felt this way:

One of the great traps of warhammer is comparing the cost of units between books......it's not valid. The points cost of units are only comparable to the book as a whole that they come from, otherwise a person could scream at the imbalance of every single unit in warhammer. Say for example the Orc Warrior and the Empire Swordsmen, or the high elf and dark elf spearmen. The points cost of units when taken as a whole make the book work together as a whole.

There isn't a math formula that exists that could truly balance this game, as it simply doesn't work that way. There is a intended synergy, successful or not, with each book that has to be taken into account.

I don't even have the energy, or inclination to write anymore. The armybook just doesn't do it for me. Maybe I should have a game with them and feel them out, but I just don't feel that I want to! I think I've had my day with them.

I sure don't really mean to sound sour, it's just for the last 6 months I was just revved for the new book to come out, and couldn't wait to keep waving the beasts banner, but I think those days are over. I've always wanted to pursue Ogre Kingdoms, so I think this is a good time to play the army I've always wanted to.

Anyone interested in a painted Beastmen army? Book's in mint shape! Very Happy

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:36 pm

One of the great traps of warhammer is comparing the cost of units between books......it's not valid. The points cost of units are only comparable to the book as a whole that they come from, otherwise a person could scream at the imbalance of every single unit in warhammer. Say for example the Orc Warrior and the Empire Swordsmen, or the high elf and dark elf spearmen. The points cost of units when taken as a whole make the book work together as a whole.

I hate it when people say this. Of course it is valid to compare the cost of units across books. The entire game is built around the principle that you can compare units from different books. That's what happens every single time you play a game. In 2000 points, an army should have the same amount of STUFF as any other army. When one army has STUFF that is vastly over or under priced that system breaks down, and that's how we end up with Daemons or Ogres.

Beastmen seem a lot like Ogres to me.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  squalie on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:48 pm

In 2000 points, an army should have the same amount of STUFF as any other army.

Not sure exactly what you mean. Define stuff.

squalie

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  ScottRadom on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:53 pm

I disagree with you Eric, I think points cost should have some place based on the context of the army as opposed to just trying to make something universally cost points value whatever. The army books have the core/special/rare values to try and rationalize some choices. For example Fast cav in an O&G army to me is not near as valuable as it would be for a dwarf army. I think it should be reflected a little in points costs. I think they do that in some books, but not in others. I think that's part of the problem with GW army books is they change army philosophy and points costs several times during the same revision.

I don't think a sword that gives you a bonus to attacks based on the units rank bonus should cost the same in an army like Ogres as it would in O&G as a further example. Just stuff like that.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:06 am

The entire game is based on the premise that 2000 points of army A can fight 2000 points of army B.

Now we all know that's a bit of a fiction, but that's at least a theoretical goal that makes playing the game, in any sort of competitive way, possible.

If you break it down a little, then 1000 points of army A should be able to fight 1000 points of army B. Or 500 A and 500 B. Or 275.

And of course there are combinations and possibilities that some armies have that make some choices a little better, or some a little worse, but let's be honest with ourselves here. There's no way that a Hydra is worth 100 points less than a Ghorgon, Cygor or Jabberslythe. If you made the 3 stupid Beastmen rare choices 175 and made the Hydra 275, don't you think that in the context, everything would be priced better?

I mean the Dark Elf army, as a whole, is probably the single most capable army out there, better than Daemons by a margin. It can compete effectively, easily and cheaply in every single phase, so why should "context" dictate that they have an incredibly powerful, Regenerating monster with 7 Attacks that skirmishes and breathes fire for 175 points, while Beastmen have a selection of equally awful crap monsters for 100 points more?

It's unjustifiable.

The game forms a context whereby you compare units to each other. If you can do it on the battlefield by smashing units into each other and rolling dice, then you can do it with paper by looking at things and saying "WTF are they thinking? 35 points for a Flamer?!" or "WTF are they thinking? 275 points for a T5 5W Large Target with no save!?"

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  ScottRadom on Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:43 am

Sure Eric, but I think the examples of the Hydra are from the one extreme end. Certainly the Hydra is WAY underpointed for what it can do on it's own, and it'd be ano brainer pick in ANY army at those points. I'll use an example I always thought was a little underpointed, the Giant in the O&G book. At 205 points (Sure, no save) it bypasses the chief deficiency of the army by being LD 10, basically immune to panic, terror, and no animosity. It's the most reliable thing by a mile in the army book, it's fast, and can do amazing things in combat and being stubborn can charge near anything to hold it up. All amazing things in the context of the army and I'd pay probably 275 points for it in the context of the O&G. But if I had the option for the same dude in a dwarf army I wouldn't pay half that, as it's not really doing much for the army proper. I think a lot of the choices in the army books sort of contextually modify the points cost of things. Sometimes good, sometimes really, really bad.

My guess is GW decided that the hydra was fast, but DE already have speed. Reduce the cost. Same for the shooting, DE already have shooting, so let's cost it down. Poor choices all, for sure.

The most overpointed unit I can think of is Carrion for Tomb Kings. I think they're 40 points a bird. Stat line is ass awful, and I think it's identical to the stat line of Vampire Bats from VC, which are 1/2 the points. I think that Carrion are more useful in the TK book with the incantation of urgency being so easy to use though, so I can see the increase in cost to coincide with their more effectiveness in the TK book. I think.

Short version - I think an identical unit entry from one book to another is OK to be costed out differently in order to maintain balance. More than just 2000 points vs. 2000 points being equal measure for stat lines and stuff I think it's important to realize that some abilities, stats, spells etc. are just way more valuable from one army to the next.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  nathanr on Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:56 am

The way I see it, most armies at 2000 points or even 2200 points are going to have to have weaknesses as you can't be strong in all phases of the game for that many points. Its always a balancing game, you have to pick what you want your strengths to be and more importantly, what you are willing to sacrifice. Its one of those things that makes army-building so fun for me. I will work on an army list for hours, trying to fit in a unit or a magic item, thinking about what I could face with that army and how to counter it. In the end I can never cover every possibility and every list I make has some glaring weaknesses but if you go into the game with a plan in mind, knowing that your army has that weakness you can usually minimize the risks. I don't think thats anything new and I would be surprised to see the Beastmen book being any different.

That said, the book was undoubtedly written with 8th edition in mind and rumours seem to be saying that GW is trying to make higher point games more common. If thats the case then maybe it isn't even an issue. You can fit a lot more STUFF into a 3000 point army.

The one thing I'm NOT a fan of is the loss of the skirmishing units. I'm worried what that change means for the future of my wood elf army as I see the two armies as being fairly similar. If the wood elves lose their skirmishing army I will be really upset.

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  Carson on Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:54 am

good posts Scott.

If I could better convey my thoughts into the written form thats what I would have said.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2783
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:44 am

Short version - I think an identical unit entry from one book to another is OK to be costed out differently in order to maintain balance. More than just 2000 points vs. 2000 points being equal measure for stat lines and stuff I think it's important to realize that some abilities, stats, spells etc. are just way more valuable from one army to the next.

I think you are inflating the effects of context. Context should mean a tiny percent, not hundreds of points. And of course I am picking the extremes, because the Beastmen rare choices are extremely overpriced.

I also think your examples are ass backwards. An army with a lot of capabilities, like Dark Elves with lots of fast moving hard hitting elements should not get YET ANOTHER fast moving hard hitting element for less points. Rather all of their elements should be more expensive because they are so strong, so capable and so versatile.

Your second example is ass backwards as well. Orcs and Goblins suffer by having a crappy unreliable army. So any choices that actually provide some sort of reliability should be underpriced to try and make up for the shittiness of the rest of the army. A Giant should be less points in an OnG army than a Dark Elf army because the rest of the OnG army is so shitty and needs the help more than Dark Elves.

If the argument for context is going to make any sense at all then it has to at least be strong army context + strong individual unit = higher cost.

Not shitty army context + strong individual unit = higher cost.

The 275 point OnG Giant, the 275 point Beastmen rare choices are definitely the latter. I mean you are arguing that synergy makes some choices better. That is saying that other elements in the army makes a monster a better choice, but your examples are of weak army elements making a choice LOOK better but in actuality, the actual effectiveness of the monster is greatly decreased. An OnG army is not going to be able to get as much use out of a Giant, or a Hydra as a Dark Elf army, because it has less synergy with it (or anything). Good choices in bad armies should be priced significantly lower - not higher!

That said, the book was undoubtedly written with 8th edition in mind and rumours seem to be saying that GW is trying to make higher point games more common. If thats the case then maybe it isn't even an issue. You can fit a lot more STUFF into a 3000 point army.

I think you are giving them too much credit. Bear in mind that Andy Hoare quit 3/4 of the way through due to undisclosed difficulties with management, and the project was taken over by Phil Kelly. I think what we really have is an unfinished project that was rushed to print by a second team that had no idea what they were doing or what Andy Hoare was trying to accomplish.


Last edited by RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  nathanr on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:01 pm

I guess time will tell, as it has with all the army books that have come out. There's no sense blowing everything out of proportion before any of us have played games either with or against the army.

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  ScottRadom on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:39 pm

I totally disagree with you Eric. Using the OnG army (as it's one I am most familiar with) the entire context of the army is one that has cheaper and less reliable units. Theory being that taking two units to do the job one unit could do in other armies makes up for it. Giving me an option to include -at a bargain I still maintain - a unit that does not correspond to the built in liabilities of the rest of the army makes it extremely valuable. More so than any type of formula based on stat line and special abilities would likely cost it out as. Assuming that's how GW comes to their points cost. I will get more use out of that Giant in the OnG army because I don't need to use two units, and the table space etc. to make it work like I would with every single other option in the OnG book.

But my stance is based way more on feel than it is on any fact I can find for you. I've been out of the loop too long but I remember thinking about this very subject some time ago. It's just the way I feel. If you gave me a 150 point Lance of Bret Knights in the context of an OnG book, I think I am getting much better value for my points. Some units and such are just much better when put into other context, and I think the points should reflect that.

Now, I don't want to make it sound like I am defending anything from the latest batch of books. My example of the Hyrda was meant to point out a possible, and flawed, argument GW might make while playtesting. I have seen way too much crap that seems to have a random points cost associated with it. And some stuff in the books is just plain unplayable. The Hellstorm rocket thing is something that I think just CAN'T be used. Never mind the points. The Hydra is retarded. For the damage I've seen it do regularly and the sheer firepower needed to stop it I think it needs to be closer to the 300 mark. So in NO way am I saying GW is doing a great job in recent days, I just mean to say that I still maintain that one unit should potentially cost more from one army book to the next based on what it does in that army. That's it.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:56 pm

It can't work like that though.

The total cost of the unit should represent:
a.) its individual capabilities
b.) the capability it gains from advantages in the rest of the army

So a good unit in a good army has to cost more. A good unit in a bad army has to cost less.

Your argument would make sense if Orc and Goblin was the only army book ever published and every player had to always play Orc and Goblin, because it's good for internal balance.

But there is more than one army book. So that means that to have a fair game against any of the other army books, the unit's price has to match the actual effect it will have on the game, and these effects will be based on the two above factors.

Look at it this way, take the Hydra and Giant away from Dark Elves and OnG. Build an army with each of them.
Which army is better?
Dark Elves, obviously - by a huge margin.

To make the two armies more even to EACH OTHER you have to give the better, cheaper monster to OnG, and the worse, more expensive monster to Dark Elves.

That way you can have:
worse army + good cheap monster
better army + expensive worse monster

If you have:
worse army + expensive worse monster
better army + good cheap monster

then you have just driven the two armies FURTHER apart in terms of balance. You've just made Dark Elves better and OnG worse.

That's because the Dark Elves, by already having a better army, present more synergetic possibilities, while the OnG army presents far less.

Edit:
Note that "monster" in my examples can stand in for any unit, magic item, spell or any other rule in the game that has an impact on the outcome.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  nathanr on Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:04 pm

[quote="RickyDMMontoya"]It can't work like that though.

The total cost of the unit should represent:
a.) its individual capabilities
b.) the capability it gains from advantages in the rest of the army

So a good unit in a good army has to cost more. A good unit in a bad army has to cost less.

Your argument would make sense if Orc and Goblin was the only army book ever published and every player had to always play Orc and Goblin, because it's good for internal balance.

But there is more than one army book. So that means that to have a fair game against any of the other army books, the unit's price has to match the actual effect it will have on the game, and these effects will be based on the two above factors.

Look at it this way, take the Hydra and Giant away from Dark Elves and OnG. Build an army with each of them.
Which army is better?
Dark Elves, obviously - by a huge margin.
quote]

I don't think I've ever seen a Dark Elf army without a hydra in it since the new book has come out so your point is purely theoretical! Instead of focusing on the Dark Elf army and the hydra in particular which everyone has agreed is under-pointed and over-powered lets compare say the wood elf army and the new beasts. Are the new beastman rare choices on par with a treeman for 285 points?

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  ScottRadom on Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:24 pm

Still disagree with you Eric, mostly because what you talk about doing, pulling the giant and hydra out of the context of the book and building an army consisting of each of the models CAN'T happen due to the fact that the rare choice for each means that there will be a minimum of three other units from that respective book to provide some sort of check and balance to the points cost.

The hydra is a bad example, because it is retarded. NOBODY will argue that ________ vs. Hydra is better because the Hydra is the best example on hand of how badly a unit is underpointed.

Also trying to formulize this arguement is impossible due to the subjective nature of terms like good and bad in respect to different armies. Plus, I have a hunch we may actually agree here.

Or, do you think there should be zero alteration for points values from army book to army book for units that are statistically equal? I really think it's a good idea for some armies to payt more/less for things than other armies. I also think that each army should defo have strengths and weaknesses built in, and that units and items should not be made available to correct these deficiencies on a broad basis.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2160
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:38 pm

No. Not even close.

The Treeman
Statline:
M5, WS5, S6, T6, W6 A5, Ld8

Advantages
move through forests without penalty
3+ armour save
5+ ward save (against non magical attacks)
has a bound spell
Strangle Root Attack
Stubborn

Disadvantages
Flammable

Ghorgon
Statline:
M7, WS4, S6, T6, W6, A6, Ld10

Advantages:
a silly special attack that gives it 1 attack with Killing Blow on a 4+
Gains +1A for each round of combat it wins
Stubborn

Disadvantages:
No save of any kind at all
Frenzy on a Large Target

Cygor
Statline:
M7, WS2, S6, T5, W5, A5, Ld8

Advantages:
Move and shoot stonethrower
can re-roll to hit in combat against things with magical attacks, ward saves and undead
Stubborn
Magic Resistance 2
Silly rule that makes Wizards miscast if they fail to cast a spell after failing a Ld test if they are within 24" at the start of the magic phase

Disadvantages:
No save of any kind at all

Jabberslythe
Statline:
M8, WS4, S5, T5, W5, Ld9

Advantages:
Aura that hurts non-ItP troops if they fail Ld tests
A single S5 shooting attack
Fly
Poison Attacks
each wound it suffers in close combat inflicts a S5 hit on the attacking unit

Disadvantages:
No save of any kind at all


So on a simple 1:1 comparison, I would rather have a Treeman than any of these monsters.

As to how they perform in the army:
The Treeman can move through forests without penalty and comes with his own bound 3 Treesinging spell, letting your rare choice bolster your magic phase. The Treeman is a reliable monster that is hard to kill that is practically unbreakable with a Battle standard and lets a Wood Elf player hold the line against nearly anything while the rest of his army dances into position. The Strangleroot attack is not to be underestimated, and makes an insane stand and shoot reaction. The Treeman fits perfectly with the Wood Elf playstyle and is adequately costed. Two Treemen is considered cheesy in many places. The magic attacks mean the Treeman has nothing to fear from Ethereal units.

The Cygor is Ld8 and Stubborn, just like the Treeman. Unlike the Treeman, he has no save of any kind and only T5. The Cygor also can't just hide in a forest and surf his way to the enemy lines unscathed. I figure enemies will kill a Cygor with shooting about two to three times faster than a Treeman. Once it's in combat, it's underwhelming compared to a Treeman and its lower T and no save means it will again die much faster. Giants are easy to kill and this thing only has 5 wounds! The Beastmen book is calling out for a Stonethrower, but not at 275 points. 275 points is too much to pay for a Stonethrower, and it's too much to pay for the monster's combat stats. It's compromised because it is trying to do both and so it accomplishes neither.

The Ghorgon is strong, tough, fast - and Frenzied. Again, a total lack of save means that although it is Stubborn on Ld10, it will die before it breaks. There are a few targets that it could fight pretty well. Good luck getting it there. You might as well include the cost of 3 units of Chaos Hounds in the Ghorgon's price. You can use it as a tarpit against S3 and S4 enemies, but S5+ will kill it quickly.

Like the Cygor, the Jabberslythe is a T5, 5W monster with no save. It's not stubborn, but it's a flying, Terror causing, rank buster. It's simply too fragile to use effectively and its main ability doesn't work on troops that are immune to psychology. Yes it flies, but anywhere it flies itself to it is in danger...

I can't see how any of these monsters are able to compete with a Treeman one on one. I can't see how any of these monsters is more useful to their own army than a Treeman is to a Wood Elf force.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:44 pm

ScottRadom wrote:Still disagree with you Eric, mostly because what you talk about doing, pulling the giant and hydra out of the context of the book and building an army consisting of each of the models CAN'T happen due to the fact that the rare choice for each means that there will be a minimum of three other units from that respective book to provide some sort of check and balance to the points cost.
Of course you can pull it out of the context. I could just copy and paste the two units, one from the other, into each other's books. I can also imagine how many points I think would be appropriate for a S10, A10, T10 flying monster in either of the books. This is what a games designer has to do. They have to imagine how many points would be appropriate for unit X with rules A, B and C in any given army. And then they have to make sure the unit is priced fairly and that the army can function. Doing it your way may succeed in finding internal balance, but it fails completely when compared book to book.

Edit: Oh, I wasn't talking about building an entire army out of those choices, but rather build an army without them, compare and then build an army that includes them (or two of them) and then compare.


Or, do you think there should be zero alteration for points values from army book to army book for units that are statistically equal? I really think it's a good idea for some armies to payt more/less for things than other armies. I also think that each army should defo have strengths and weaknesses built in, and that units and items should not be made available to correct these deficiencies on a broad basis.
No, I agree that context is important. But the synergies have to be priced so that when 1+1=3 the army bloody well pays for 3. Similarly when 1+1=0 the army gets a break.

Dark Elves and Hydra is a 3
Skaven and a Doomwheel is 3.
Daemons and Flamers are a 3.
Wood Elves and a Treeman are a 3.
High Elves and Eagles are a 3.

Orcs and Goblins and a Giant are a 0.
Ogre Kingdoms and a Slave Giant are a 0.
Beastmen and any of their rare choices are a 0.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  nathanr on Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:52 pm

I hear what you're saying Eric but I think I interpret the army book differently than you. The way I see it, Beastmen get all kinds of choice as to what kind of army to take and its reflected in their rare choices. Sure you say the treeman is one for one better than any of the three, but the treeman is the only choice for a large monster in a wood elf army while the beastmen have 3 choices. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses and are in some area better than a treeman:

Ghorgon = faster, Much better in close combat, higher stubborn LD, Killing blow on 4+? Are you serious?
Cygor = long range power - seriously its a moving war machine, faster, much better antimagic
Jaberslyth = way faster, fly, really good at supporting combats

Of the three, I think the Jaberslyth is the weak choice but it still has certain uses. Plus you seem to be pretty hung up on the lack of saves. If each of those monsters had an armour save of 3+ would they suddenly be viable? Because anything that can wound T5 or 6 consistantly negates that armour save anyway and most war machines negate armour completely. I think ward saves on large monsters are rediculous (I know my treeman has one) and the points that it would cost to give them regeneration on top of all their other cool abilities would make it way too expensive (again, never mind the hydra). The lack of save IS a weakness, but I don't think it is such a glaring weakness that it makes any of them useless.

Basically you have to decide what you want to take and which areas to build your strengths on, much like any other army but in an exaggerated way. A balanced Beastman army that is competitive in every phase of the game (which it seems like you want) does not seem to exist in this army book.

Call me an optimist if you want but I think the army will surprise some people, hopefully you included.

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:00 pm

Ghorgon = faster, Much better in close combat, higher stubborn LD, Killing blow on 4+? Are you serious?
Only better offensively, and only by a little bit. The Treeman is much better in close combat defensively. And the special attack is a single attack made in place of all of its regular attacks at I1. So it has to roll to hit with a single attack after enemies have attacked it.

Cygor = long range power - seriously its a moving war machine, faster, much better antimagic
Why would I want to move my war machine? If it's shooting it's not in combat, if it's in combat it's not using its stone thrower. It can't do both, yet it's priced as though it is. A stone thrower is worth 75 points. A crappy version of a giant is worth 180. Even if it could do both every turn they overpriced the bloody thing.

Jaberslyth = way faster, fly, really good at supporting combats
If it doesn't die before it can do anything.

Yeah, high strength will wound them easily and nullify their save.

But look at this:

Bowfire on treeman:
27 hits to do a single wound

Bowfire on Cygor/Ghorgon/Jabber
6 hits to do a single wound

Handguns on Treeman
13.5 hits to do a single wound

Handguns on Cygor/Jabber
3 hits to do a single wound

Handguns on Ghorgon
6 hits to do a single wound

If the enemy has 20 handgunners, it will take them 8 turns to kill a Treeman. It will take them 2.6 turns to kill a Ghorgon and 1.5 turns to kill a Jabber or Cygor.

So the Treeman is ~4 times as survivable against regular shooting as the Cygor/Jabber and ~3 times as survivable as a Ghorgon. That's what an armour (and ward save) save could do. Note that this also applies to low strength close combat attacks. A Treeman has no reason to ever be scared against a unit of clanrats. A unit of clanrats will slowly grind down any of the Beastman monsters. A Treeman can get into combat within 8 turns. I don't see how a Ghorgon, Jabber or Cygor can get into combat in under 2 turns. This is leaving aside the fact that the Treeman will be surfing up to the enemy inside a forest.

Don't even get me started on poisoned shooting/attacks. A Treeman can fight Skinks/Witch Elves if it has to. Good luck with your Ghorgon.

These monsters cost the same amount, are less flexible and are many, many times more fragile.

What large monster in the last 8 books hasn't had an armour save, ward save or Regeneration? Giants, Empire Griffon and Manticore are all I can think of. Now, the Griffon and Manticore suck for a variety of reasons and I've never seen either of them (except maybe a Griffon once in a mega battle...) in my 15 years of playing. I have seen a few giants, but I am never, ever, ever afraid of them.

Everything else has something.

Hell, these things are more expensive than Dragon Ogre Shaggoths (without equipment). Shaggoths have an armour save, and I have never seen anyone use them because they suck.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  nathanr on Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:41 pm

A unit of clanrats will not grind down a Ghorgon. 7 (6+1 for frenzy?) S6 attacks is enough to beat a unit of clanrats in combat. Thats 2 more attacks than a treeman has and they should be more than enough to make up for the one lucky wound the clanrats might get. After the first round of combat it gets even more lopsided as the Ghorgon continues to gain extra attacks, never mind the fact that the clanrats will probably be fleeing after the first round. Even if the clanrats do win combat (static resolution of 5 is nothing to sneeze at) they won't do much more than 1 wound a turn while the Ghorgon will be killing 4 or 5 rats a turn and not running away with a stubborn leadership of 10. The Ghorgon will grind down the clanrats a whole lot faster and thats just looking at a one-on one fight with no other factors which we all know only ever happens in theory-hammer. Plus, why in the hell would a Ghorgon be fighting a single unit of clanrats anyway? Has it slaughtered the rest of the army already?

With a march and charge move of 14" the Ghorgon and Cygor should be able to make it into combat by at least turn 2 and with a bit of luck they could be charging first turn. This means that they only have to survive 1 or 2 rounds of shooting. If nothing else the rest of the beastmen army should make it into combat relatively intact due to their opponents directing all ranged attacks at the big monsters.

nathanr

Posts : 4390
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 35
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New Beasts army book.

Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:40 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum