02-21-2010, 06:00 AM
02-21-2010, 07:00 AM
(02-21-2010 06:00 AM)TheBorderPrincessPrince Wrote: [ -> ]what do you guys think of the new beastmen?
They are ok.
Many people complain about the minotaurs but I see many usages for them. With a bit of GS and imagination you can make: chaos ogres (Khorne most likely), dragon ogres, grogers, kroxigors, ratogres, deamons or simply improve the minotaurs.
The gors and ungors are a bit improved with details.
Bestigors look like clones, but it probably can be fixed.
Razogor is the worst model from the new range.
02-21-2010, 08:17 AM
yeah, the pumbagor(razorgor) is really ugly, but u just can put a lot of boars of a 40mm-40mm base, much better 
02-21-2010, 05:27 PM
The pumbagor maybe can be used to make a hellpitabomination-conversion...
Besides that it's an ugly model.
I don't like the (anatomical incorrect???) minotaurs either.
Besides that it's ok I guess. Still the price issue bothers me. But I guess that's just my opinion.
Besides that it's an ugly model.
I don't like the (anatomical incorrect???) minotaurs either.
Besides that it's ok I guess. Still the price issue bothers me. But I guess that's just my opinion.
02-21-2010, 07:11 PM
The minotaurs have grown on me to be honest. Seeing them in person, and ideas of a Taurox, Minotaur and Ghorgon army have slowly been swarying me towards the Beastmen.
So yeah, I don't mind them.
I also think the Razorgor can probably be fixed, but it's definately butt-ugly how they've painted it. One can see I think the idea that was there, but the end product doesn't meet.
Other than that, the rest of the models seem fine to me. Bestigors maybe a bit similar looking, but they are supposed to have the longest horns of all the regular Beastmen. I just think people are a little unhappy that after some terrific looking skaven, the Beastmen models don't quite match up.
AS for the rules themselves, only time will tell. From my point of view (Not really knowing anything about Beasts prior), the rules seem fine to me. I don't feel there's any need for an army full of skirmishers in a game of fantasy battles - not fantasy skirmishes.
So yeah, I don't mind them.
I also think the Razorgor can probably be fixed, but it's definately butt-ugly how they've painted it. One can see I think the idea that was there, but the end product doesn't meet.
Other than that, the rest of the models seem fine to me. Bestigors maybe a bit similar looking, but they are supposed to have the longest horns of all the regular Beastmen. I just think people are a little unhappy that after some terrific looking skaven, the Beastmen models don't quite match up.
AS for the rules themselves, only time will tell. From my point of view (Not really knowing anything about Beasts prior), the rules seem fine to me. I don't feel there's any need for an army full of skirmishers in a game of fantasy battles - not fantasy skirmishes.
02-21-2010, 07:53 PM
Is it just me or does anyone else feel that GW just wishes they could go back in time and prevent some of the races they've made from ever being done? Obvious examples such as Chaos Dwarves and Dogs of War aside, I just feel that they spit out certain things for certain armies simply because they haven't done anything with them in two editions and don't want a riot on their hands from irate gamers.
They take all this time to make some really great new skaven models and an awesome new book to go along with it, and then they just shit out whatever they can for the beastmen in like a week so that the three guys in the world who play them don't get butt hurt. Don't get me wrong, I do like some of the new beastmen models, I just really feel like a lot of the people who work for GW nowadays don't give enough love to all the armies.
They take all this time to make some really great new skaven models and an awesome new book to go along with it, and then they just shit out whatever they can for the beastmen in like a week so that the three guys in the world who play them don't get butt hurt. Don't get me wrong, I do like some of the new beastmen models, I just really feel like a lot of the people who work for GW nowadays don't give enough love to all the armies.
02-22-2010, 12:01 PM
thats true, they will make a new armybook for orcs, but armies like brettonia need an update to
02-22-2010, 01:04 PM
There definitely seems to be a "flavor of the month" mentality, and it is not our month...
02-22-2010, 01:53 PM
(02-22-2010 01:04 PM)Sharkbelly Wrote: [ -> ]There definitely seems to be a "flavor of the month" mentality, and it is not our month...
.....year,....decade....?
There rarely seems to be any real logic to the order of new books/armies etc. - at least, in a game play sense.
I am sure that there are internal reasons - where will they make the most money (almost always the primary motivator!), how far along are the game developers on a particular book, what new models have been designed and how long will it take/how much will it cost to get them moulded, where does that army fit in their current thinking for the game, how much 'love' have the developers for that particular race, what will be 'nice and shiny' so the youngsters buy it?
A number of these can lead to updates for one race, or a new edition overall (8th?) being brought forward or put on the back burner, making no sense to us as we are not privy to the internal machinations.
Overall, however, I think that the Beastmen book and models do bring them out of the wilds and more to the core of the current game, which they sorely needed.
Fluffwise, it's beastmen that most human/wood elf armies should meet most often, so I am glad that this will see more of them on the table.