[WM Beastmen]

[kyussinchains]

Placeholder thread for beastmen army discussion

[Alexander]

Anyone used the beastmen list yet? The list looks like it captured the theme quite well and is different enough from the other armies. The eureka miniatures look nice as well.

[Lex]

I proxied it with O&G during playtest.....  alternative playing style for the Green Army

[Alexander]

So how did the army go during playtest? Any pointers how to play that list?

[Alexander]

I have a question about Centigors:   Centigors are kind of cavalry but they are Infantry in the warmaster list. Attack 3/1  15cm range,    3 wounds, 6+ save and can pursue any enemy (cav+flyers). The unit can't be supported. The Unit cost 80 pts.

Pursuing  can be handy as it is the only unit that can do that in the list but how often will this unit fight cavalry/flyers? as they only have a move of 20cm and shoot only 15cm but can't give or be supported. The unit seems quite limited for the points.

Am I overlooking something? 

[Aquahog]

Seeing that it is the only unit that can pursue cavalry/flyers I'd say it will be more common than for other units. Bait the cavalry and then hit them in the flank preferably. The key is to get it to work of course.

[jchaos79]

Never played with beastfolk, but I think is as useful unit as rangers in dwarf list. And rangers are very useful.

[Alexander]

Correct, rangers are usefull but they have 4 wounds, 5+ save, can give and get support in close combat and shoot 30cm and cmd 10 from the dwarfs for only 30 point more. Getting and giving support is a huge deal for infantry.

Anyway.. the only way to find out is to try it out but would like to know what the reason is behind the infantry rule without support as it is obvious they are cavalry and should fluffwise be faster than infantry .

[jchaos79]

yep, centigors seem to satisfy cavalry type more than infantry.

[Lex]

Centigors ARE Cavalry, based on the long edge.....

[Bel]

Lex, no, they are infantry (to may enter woods) with ability to pursue all types of enemy.

[Alexander]

but without the ability to get/give support in close combat from/to other units. Something that infantry units need imo.

Making them cav based on the long side and that they can enter woods, would be inline with the fluff. The Ability to Attack flyers isn't a big thing imo. There are not many flyer units to begin with and with the new trial rules if cavalry hit flyers in the flank they can pursue flyers anyway. (and infantry attacking cav in the flanks can pursue cav)

When making centigors  cavalry based on the long side they still can't get support from other units as they are cav but are more usefull  to harras the enemy with their 30cm move. I don't see them winning any meaningfull close combat with 3 attacks, 3 hits and 6+ save at 80 pts  charging them into (supported)infantry units will be suicide and easy victory points. Only  1 or 2 centigor stand can fight
when they would charge a unit in the flank

Just some thoughts 
The rest of the beastmen list looks fine.

[Lex]

I meant, they "are" meant to be used like light skirmishing cavalry. No charging unless you have a ripe target.
The classification infantry is to allow them to move in forrest, in line with beastmen fluff.

  it has been a while since we playtested them, so input is welcome, alternatively, lets set up some games and come playtest them here or against other  players open to playing against counters/proxystands ?

[Alexander]

When do you have time to test these rules? I am playing the beastmen 

[Lex]

Reach me through the proper channels to discuss !