Maddpainting

Getting closer will be a huge problem, you would just ambush everything and always charge. Thats not tactical or fun. Ambushing should be used to forgo a turn on the table to protect you, to get into a position to apply pressure, and make your opponent have harder choices as to where to move, what to shoot/magic, etc.. Ambush does just that. What is a problem is we do not have units that are strong enough to really want to Ambush, so for me Ambushing is great, the units are not tough enough to warrant it most the time. Example: Imagine a unit of 6 Dragon Ogres, but pretend they are same points as now, 3+ save and a 6+++, with rule that lightning strikes the turn they are or did charge (like Morrsarr Eels) now they are a serious threat, you don't want to charge them but next turn they are getting a D6 move + 8" move so they will be in charge range. Do you attack them with magic or the 6 Bullgors coming closer from the front. Or if Hounds where cheaper and had traits for our Monsters to Ambush also and able to Run and Charge, imagine Ambushing 20 wounds for cheap as a 6pts a model. Now that unit poses as a serious tarpit threat, 16" move on a flank and charge. (though I would make them battleline if I could also if you had a Monster hero).

I like our Ambushing rules personally. For its its mostly Warscrolls, battalions, Monsters allegiance abilities and Monsters has zero support in our book. PS our Summoning points are all off now that points has changed so much.

My Beastmen currently don't play like this at all. So its not every army.

We had a 1.0 version of it up until 2018 when our book was released. I honestly really miss the old Battalion "Wildstalker" I seriously would play this every game if we kept it lol. Though I mean the Primal Fury part and what you take, Ambush being a core rule is amazing.

Looks the same to me, doesn't mean we will not get some love soon (I fully think we will) but i don't see this model as a hint to anything.

Post this to the StD page >

It seems players went down the "XYZ is bad so the core needs to change" when really its the warscrolls and points that needs ot change. The Core rules for the most part are fine and we are not neglected as a whole. Also some armies might feel neglected right now but we all have to take turns. there were times SCE had release after release, after release with full armies without rules. It happens, GW can not release everything at once as it hurts the local businesses in doing so.

lol 1 spell and you call it magic? Go ask CoS, Nagash, Lumineth, Seraphon, etc.. what magic really is, also that spell was nerfed, and yes they have melee but not like most melee armies, again go ask FS, DoK, IDK, etc.. what melee is. Sure you can auto cast that spell, but many armies has ways to auto unbind the next turn. If you set up to get wreck by 1 spell then you did something wrong.

So you are talking about KO? As its the only army that actually is shooting focus, well give them ore defense, more movement, and some tricks, why do they have to be only shooting? They have no Magic, lack melee, they are the Tau of AOS, its bad for the game to be only good in 1 or 2 phases of the game.

Or just make all shooting units cost a little more so you don't want to take full armies of shooting.

Yeah, but thats b.c power creep has run its course for the most part. Really some armies are a bit too powerful, but others are too weak, and both are newer armies, so there really isn't power creep as much as newer armies are just made better with learned mechanics, some older armies needs an update because of that. Look at SoB, not really an amazing army and its one of the newer ones.

Dude... my main army is BoC and i have no problems with Seraphon, Lumineth, KO, or DoT. Bans from TTS is stupid b.c that means the meta never shifts or players don't learn. Its TTS FFS you can build w/e army you want, try new things, learn to play new styles. Old meta lists won't work if the game shifts a bit to heavy shooting. Shooting meta has been a thing for a long time, IMO its not as strong now compare to a year ago, you are just now seeing it b.c you are playing against people that "can" build those lists. PS; thats also not a problem with 2.0, but points and unit problems. Something a GH can fix (you know, the purpose of it). EDIT: Spelling,

For me and my group the arguments was "I remember it this way, well I remember it that way" then spend 10min reading the rule on it. Then when i would just pick up 25-30% of my army turn 1, then 20-30% turn 2, and give up on turn 3 to reset up and play again b.c I was Beastmen.

No, its b.c they wrote rules in a more clear way, but there were broken rules that ruined editions and games b.c they had no FAQs to fix them. Some books were godly strong for YEARS, some units where godly strong for YEARS, some armies had a 5-10% win rate for YEARS.

What? lol, no its not at all. 2 new armies, broken realms, Slaanesh army 2.0 within 1.5yrs, etc... We don't "need" a 3.0 book right now so why rush it? I can understand if you are playing an army that isn't getting some love right now, but AOS is constantly getting stuff.

Give the double turn a real tactical choice, if a player takes the double turn, the opponent will win the roll off automatically for them to choose a double turn or not.

You can add taller terrain, the Major GT's i go to has LoS terrain, maybe its a problem with your local?

But the problems it creates outside of it are even worst. Lets take my tournament army, 15 Scourgerunners and 2 Hurricanium with 40 bodies for screens. If I knew every game there was no double turns I would not have to hold back turn one ever and you would get my full force of shooting every turn rather than for 2-3 turns. Those double turns are keeping full alpha strikes in check, which can be A LOT. You would also know the outcome of almost every game for the most part by the end of turn 1.

The idea and play style of our army is fine, we are just rules light compare to everyone else. Ghorgons should be doing large amounts of damage, Cygors need to be more anti magic, etc.... We are really close to being where we need, a few rewrites of 8 ish warscrollsand I feel we will be in a really good spot. Personally i want the Brayherd and Warherd to stay about the same (just buff Gors, Centigors, Chariots, Ghorgons, Cygors and better battalion buffs) and I want a full rewrite to all of our "Monsters of Chaos" and be basically 2 books into 1. DO/Shaggoths/Hounds as the core of the Monsters, let us take unlimited Behemoths in it (Chimeras and Jabberclythes) Hounds of battalion with Shaggoth/Jabber leader, etc..

Honestly the Double turn is needed right now. But when players don't even want to try to use it as a mechanic and think/hope it goes their way, then yeah its going to be very bad. Also I understand a few books can not handle it as well as other books but that is a balancing issue and not a core mechanic issue. So house ruling something that might be good for the game b.c you don't like it? yeah that's bad.

Beastmen defense is speed and numbers lol.

The mechanic isn't bad, its how they implemented it that is bad, having a unit with fight first is not bad, heck having a full army with it is not either if it was balanced to doing that. FeC fight first double fight on a giant damaging monsters with insane speed is a good example of it being bad, but if it say was on BoC chariots "if a chariot charges they always fight first" well no one would care and I can 100% guaranteed you it would not be good b.c that unit is not very strong. GWs bad balance doesn't make a rule bad.

Well depends, you can have Fight first and still not be on a strong unit, giving a unit Fight first is a good way to show its specialty and gives the game more tactical thought. Some units should always hit first and some should always hit last. Just b.c its not balanced on some units doesn't mean its a bad mechanic.

I was thinking of using them for a unit of Slaanesh Bullgors. I have very little intreset to use them even if they have the Beast of Chaos Keyword, i like our book, i like gors and such, i want to play with our aesthetics. This is the 2nd update Slaanesh has gotten and a new book, which GW would give updates to other factions.

Just going by points, equal closely to 300pts to keep it easy (299.7pts for 9 on foot and 300pts for 5 on Disks) 1 Disk is 60pts, 1 on Foot is 33.3pts 9 on foot = 27 wounds 5 on Disks = 20 wounds 9 on Foot damage vs 5+ save unit, 1 Leader, within Shaman range; W/rr's = 39.2 Wo/rr's = 26.9 5 on Disk damage vs 5+ save unit, 1 Leader, within Shaman range; W/rr's = 44.5 Wo/rr's = 26.5 On foot is more wounds and more damage without Re-rolls (aka fighting first) and more models. On Disk moves faster and more damage with re-rolls.