Tournament Beastclaw Raiders

[Sangfroid]

In matched play technically you cannot use the old Beastclaw Avalanche formation anymore as the keywords no longer match 

stonehorn is now stonehorn beastriders

mournfang cavalry is now mournfang packs 

thundertusk is now thundertusk beastriders 

its worth asking a TO if you are playing a tourney I have the same problem with Ironjaws big mob as black orcs are now Ardboyz and Giants Gargants 

[Nico]

I'd check the FB page as this may have been answered somewhere (or possibly on this forum someone cited an answer). This is back to the old compound keywords ("Chaos" plus "Wizard" = "Chaos Wizard" issue).

Judging from the rule on the one of the heroes that is count the nearby Thundertusks I'm pretty sure they wanted "Thundertusk Beast rider" = "Thundertusk".

At the very least they can take the filth formation with the hero  Stonehorn and Thundertusk which do have the shorter keywords (which is worse as they have 3+ saves).

[Sangfroid]

It would be nice @Nico and that we could have all the formations 

 

the difference with the chaos wizard is its 2 words separated by a comma the new key word for Thundertusks is "thundertusk beastriders" all one keyword so it might make a difference, not splitting hairs by the way 

[Sadysaneto]

On 06/08/2016 at 0:46 AM, LordDrakonus said:

Yeah thats sick but I like the stonehorn and morunfangs and HATE yeti mins rofl!

Can we get an amen?

[Nico]

Well if X, + Y, = XY,

Then XY, = both X, and Y,

As I've said elsewhere - for a few Warscrolls (out of 900) they have been less than careful with Keywords. 

[Cowboy Boots Matt]

Beastclaw Avalanche needs to go, it's total win button filth. I cannot see any argument that allows you to use the formation even with the 'Keyword argument'.

I've found the new book and formations really make you choose which models/abilities you want to use (or miss out on) a lot of different combos to build on, for me, tough choices is a sign of a good book.

[LordDrakonus]

17 minutes ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

Beastclaw Avalanche needs to go, it's total win button filth. I cannot see any argument that allows you to use the formation even with the 'Keyword argument'.

I've found the new book and formations really make you choose which models/abilities you want to use (or miss out on) a lot of different combos to build on, for me, tough choices is a sign of a good book.

I agree it's the reason I haven't built any list with it in mind. It also under the old ogres and not beastclaws.

[Chris Tomlin]

I personally would not allow Beastclaw Avalanche with the Beastclaw Raiders book at my events, as @Sangfroid says the Keywords are now different. It does however raise the question of why it is pointed within the General's Handbook though to be honest.. Hmmm..

Out of interest, @ChippyRick was allowed to use it at RoS with the GH points for the relevant models as he was still using the old scrolls (BCR released that day, so not legal).

[ChippyRick]

I dont think the beastclaw avalanche formation is filth or win button, but i do agree it shouldnt be used in conjunction with the beastclaw raiders book/units. the new book has clearly re-named the key words and fits in with all the new formations.

I have used the beastclaw avalanche formation a lot, but with the new book/rules/formations now available in the beastclaw raiders battletome, its now longer a choice for me personally. Enjoy and embrace the fact these units have their own battletome with some decent options and variety and some really theme/fluff to go with it. much of which many other factions/armies are crying out for.

[Chris Tomlin]

Nicely said @ChippyRick - Interested to see what you come up with from the new book.

[thediceabide]

7 hours ago, Nico said:

I'd check the FB page as this may have been answered somewhere (or possibly on this forum someone cited an answer). This is back to the old compound keywords ("Chaos" plus "Wizard" = "Chaos Wizard" issue).

Judging from the rule on the one of the heroes that is count the nearby Thundertusks I'm pretty sure they wanted "Thundertusk Beast rider" = "Thundertusk".

At the very least they can take the filth formation with the hero  Stonehorn and Thundertusk which do have the shorter keywords (which is worse as they have 3+ saves).

I asked about this exact thing last week on their FB page, they said that "Thundertusk Beastriders" counts for having the keyword "Thundertusk".

[Cowboy Boots Matt]

Quote

I asked about this exact thing last week on their FB page, they said that "Thundertusk Beastriders" counts for having the keyword "Thundertusk".

I put as much weight behind a GW facebook post as I did behind the statement 'At the ETC we ...'

The Thundertusk keyword does still exist however the 'Mournfang' one does not, they are now specifically named, and keyworded 'Mournfang Pack'

[Nico]

One point is that if you take the Beastclaw Avalanche, you will lose the Beastclaw Allegiance (as the formation doesn't have that allegiance) so you have to take other Battleline units; and you lose the Beastclaw traits and artefacts in the pack - stuck with the Destruction ones (still good).

[Chris Tomlin]

51 minutes ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

I put as much weight behind a GW facebook post as I did behind the statement 'At the ETC we ...'

I'll have to remember to "Like" this next week. Apparently I've used up my "Likes" for the day!!

[thediceabide]

1 hour ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

I put as much weight behind a GW facebook post as I did behind the statement 'At the ETC we ...'

Haha, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with this statement, but if you don't say "Mournfang" keyword works for "Mournfang Pack" and "Thundertusk" doesn't work for "Thundertusk Beastriders" then you're saying they purposely added points for something that they don't intend you to use... Much like how the CHAOS WIZARD keyword doesn't exist, both portions in isolation do exist on single models, it's not a big stretch that it works in reverse as well.

That said, the Beastclaw Avalanche doesn't have the "Beastclaw Raiders" keyword, which is pretty significant for your allegiance, and that might actually be intentional as it doesn't show up in the Beastclaw Raiders section of the app, but instead is under Ogre Kingdoms.

[Emicus]

11 hours ago, Nico said:

One point is that if you take the Beastclaw Avalanche, you will lose the Beastclaw Allegiance (as the formation doesn't have that allegiance) so you have to take other Battleline units; and you lose the Beastclaw traits and artefacts in the pack - stuck with the Destruction ones (still good).

this.

Adding another 300 point battleline tax up top makes it expensive enough I reckon. Going to struggle to fit it all in

[LordDrakonus]

At 2k and wanting to take a frost lord I don't see myself taking any battalions. Maybe at 2.5k but even then damn points are tight.

[LordDrakonus]

Had a game today with the current list smash a mix stormcast,free peoples and Durin list. Was able to take 3 out of the 4 objectives in Border war on turn 1. Was able to smash most of his  Retributors  and a unit of Liberators in the shooting phase. Both stonehorns smashed into some dwarves. The beastrider hit a 10 man unit of warriors and wiped it from the face of the realms than the Frostlord took 28 our of 30 thunderers out with combined wounds and battleshock.  His t1 he did a few wounds with artillery and shooting on each stonehorn and than hit the beastrider with a unit of Liberators chiped off a few more wound. I got the turn roll healed some wounds on each stonehorn and procceded to take out most of what was left of his army and scoring 5 more points on objectives. At this point he conceded and the game was over. Some lessons learned, Beastclaw storm is almost useless and really I think you lads are right the destruction trait would of allowed my mournfangs to posssibly charge t1 as well and the extra movement on the thundertusks would be great for getting better shots out. Bloodvultures are amazing! chipping wounds off key units or even what your foe considers chaff is great!

[Nico]

I've literally been dreaming about how this faction is the worst matchup for my Order List and how to deal with it (obviously other than Clan Skryre autowin).

It's the massive range on the Thundercheese that is causing headaches.

Presumably you cannot use the Heraldor abuse (running and tooting) to run and shoot with the Breath as it's still listed as a shooting attack (unlike the toot). So it's an effective range of 26. Then it's another 6 or even 8 if they take Destruction allegiance. 

 

[rasmarog]

Hi.

I'm planning to build  2500PT beast claw army. As a former seraph player with no idea about any destruction armies, I want some tips on my idea:

Heroes:

Frostlord on Stonehorn

Huskard on Thundertusk 

Icebrow Hunter



Units:

3x Icefall Yhetees

4x Mournfang Pack

4x Frost sabres

6x Gore Gruntas



Monsters:

Thundertusk Bestriders



Formations:

Skal

Braggoth's Beast Hammer



Total: 2500pt

 

Is this army good for tournaments? I plan to get 1 Icewind Assault box + 2x goregruntas  + Huskard

[TalesOfSigmar]

I'm taking the Beastclaw to the Facehammer GT, wanted a new army and this is the fewest amount of models I need to paint in 6 weeks so going down the line of just putting them on the table and seeing what happens.

Hoping to get some practice games in the upcoming weeks but taking the following list;

- Frostlord on Thundertusk

- Huskard on Thundertusk

- 3 x Icefall Yhetees

- 4 x Mournfang Pack

- Thundertusk Beastrider

- Stonehorn Beastrider

I'm considering taking two Stonehorn Beastriders instead of the Thundertusk or taking a Huskard on Stonehorn instead supported by the Mournfang to allow them to pile in and attack straight away after the Stonehorn.

Still trying to decide what to equip my Mournfang with though, the Gargant Hackers seem the better with the increased damage and rend but having the extra attack and the mortal wound on a save of a 6+ also seems pretty good.

I'll be honest the allegiance traits for Beastclaw seem a little meh, the everwinter power seems situational at best and trying to roll a double 6 for D6 Mortal Wounds is pretty tough. I think I'll probably settle for the Destruction abilities to move D6+2 inches in the hero phase and also have the Battlebrew to hit and wound easier.

[Cowboy Boots Matt]

@TalesOfSigmar I'd deffo swap the Frostlord's mount to a Stonehorn, gives you the most bang for your buck in combat. The Huskard's ability is great however if you take the Frostlord on Stonehorn you will likely want him to attack first anyways as the Huskard is less potent in combat.

Personally I've gone for Gargant Hackers as the damage potential is much higher but I see the benefits of both.

[TalesOfSigmar]

@Cowboy Boots Matt cheers for the advice, I'll have a look at changing the Frostlord to being on a Stonehorn my thinking of having the lord on Thundertusk was it was another keyword for the Huskard to get a bonus on it's rolls.

Yeah think the Hackers are going to be the way to go, having that -1 Rend can definitely be the difference of getting something through and not causing any damage.

[Chris Tomlin]

37 minutes ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

Personally I've gone for Gargant Hackers as the damage potential is much higher but I see the benefits of both.

They also look cooler IMO!

Frostlord on Stonehorn is as near to an auto-include as this faction has IMO. Very strong for its points, especially with the battle brew (as me and @Cowboy Boots Matt have discussed elsewhere - work e-mail!)

[LordDrakonus]

Had a few more games over the weekend with my list but thus time under destruction traits. Battle brew is pretty op on Frostlord on StoneHorn he just murders.  The exTra moment was key in a few matches. I don't think I'll be going back to Beastclaw traits. Double thundertusks win games! Sniping out key units or laying into scary stuff like wrath mongers.