Beast Pack Uses

TeenageAngst wrote:

I'll do a proper write up later. Lemme just say flocks are so good I put Cult units in my lists specifically to have access to them. The amount of real estate they can clog up for the points cannot be argued once demonstrated but it is hard to prove in mathhammer because it involves movement and tactical flexibility.

I'm intrigued... Looking forward to your write up.

Quote :

For a grot bomb I can definitely see their use. This is difficult to achieve with an obsession-focused list, since you’re having to bring all three subfactions. I can see why the new list building frustrates you so.

Building a list feels like rolling a stone up an endless hill this edition. And I'm still waiting for one of the play testers who presumably had some say in the matter to lend a hand in that respect, because I can only assume they think this is a fine state of affairs.

I was a big fan of razorwings in the index, used them largely in the same manner as TeenageAngst as board control and tie up units. My opponent's absolutely hated them, sure they are weak but that many wounds to chew through is annoying for them and whenever they can tie up a tank or just prevent deep strikers from dropping by my ravagers it's a good day for me.

I haven't worked them into my new lists yet due to not owning a beastmaster, but I will do that eventually.

It is definitely annoying to chew through 4-wound bases if my opponent's nurgling swarms are any indication. Flying just makes them that much more annoying. Although the guy from that battle report is flying his DE again, and not finding Cult particularly useful at all. The tax of a Cult HQ, a beastmaster, and then whatever Mandrakes/Wyches/Reavers you need for a patrol or spearhead or outrider or whatever, makes it a tall order to get to the point where you are buying the razorwing flocks "cheaply".

Regarding the endless salt about playtesters, this codex took an unusual approach, but it makes some sense given the background, and given the results people are getting with this army so far, allowing us to build brigades with full bonuses would put us way over the top. *shrug*

A succubus and wyches/mandrakes/reavers are a tax? I think not, they are all solid units I would happily take to unlock razorwing flocks. The only tax is really the beastmaster and he's more expensive than I'd like but it's a tax I can accept.

Quote :

Regarding the endless salt about playtesters, this codex took an unusual approach, but it makes some sense given the background, and given the results people are getting with this army so far, allowing us to build brigades with full bonuses would put us way over the top. *shrug*

Or how about just taking the Obsession for the Brigade of just one of the involved factions, like Guard does with their Tempestus mix, which was already suggested in a previous topic, has a precedent in the game, and makes sense. But no this is fine because it's an "unusual" army somehow that doesn't get to play like an actual army.

Most people run the same thing over and over. 3 Ravagers and an Archon, blaster Kabalites, sometimes in Raiders, sometimes in Venoms, all Black Heart. Red Grief Reavers. Prophets of Flesh Grotesques, maybe, if someone actually decides to go Covens. I have not seen people experimenting beyond what works on auto-pilot and falls apart the minute they hit a hard counter. Just look at the Army List forum right now:

Black Heart Ravagers and Red Grief
Warriors in Raiders with Blasters and Ravagers
Ravagers with Warriors with Blasters, but also Alaitoc.
Prophets of Flesh Grotesques with Black Heart Archon with Ravagers

Say what you will about my lists and tactics but at least I'm trying to do something different.

Quote :

A succubus and wyches/mandrakes/reavers are a tax? I think not, they are all solid units I would happily take to unlock razorwing flocks. The only tax is really the beastmaster and he's more expensive than I'd like but it's a tax I can accept.

The Succubus is a cheap HQ with a 2+ BS and that is her only benefit. She is too weak to solo stuff in melee combat and too flimsy to tank. Her job is to get stuck in combat with a character and Dirty Harry them the next shooting phase, she isn't a tax so much as a utility unit. Reavers are a tax, I refuse to take them unless I have to. They've never done a job I couldn't get something else to do better. Mandrakes are another utility unit, I usually spot fill an elite slot with a squad of 5, bring them on to hold an objective or harass characters, they find their uses.

I wouldn't call a 3++/6+++ flimsy. Granted the T3 will result in more saves having to be taken, but she's far from flimsy.
You can get her to T5 if you need to. Or give her Trip relic +1A drug, +1A trait and she's dishing out a lot of attacks. She's a phenomenal HQ for the price in my opinion.

I strongly disagree on the succubus. Red grief succubus with the blood glaive has a solid damage output, just run her with some wyches so she isn't stuck all on her own. 50pts for 4 s6 (or even 7) attacks with ap-3 d3 damage? Pretty good deal. There's also the blood dancer/triptych whip cult of strike build which is solid. Disagree on reavers being a tax as well but I don't want do derail the topic too much from beast packs, which I still need to figure out how I will put back into my lists.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Most people run the same thing over and over.

Because there's zero flexibility in our Codex if you want to take advantage of Obsessions, and most of us do. There's an average of one choice per detachment slot in each of the Kabals, Cults and Covens.

I don't think that's necessarily a failing of the Codex, I think it just means list building for us takes a different form than other armies in the game. It certainly doesn't mean that we're not an "actual" army.

Me and the GT lists hardy disagree. We have a lot of flexibility!
An example? Outrider Prophets, Homo+3x5 Scourges+Talos

Seriously this is the best Codex of the 8th edition for his competitivity AND flexibility. .

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

A succubus and wyches/mandrakes/reavers are a tax? I think not, they are all solid units I would happily take to unlock razorwing flocks. The only tax is really the beastmaster and he's more expensive than I'd like but it's a tax I can accept.

I mean this in the context of the conversation, which involves using the birds as screens for Grotesques, the only unit they can really do that reliably for (given all my raiders/reavers would be zipping around 17-18").  If you just want some birds for your Grot and Talos bombs, you don't need/want all that other stuff.

I don't think in general that Cult and Coven make a great combo, since they are both melee-focused. Either works better with a shooty Kabal element IMO.

withershadow wrote:

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

A succubus and wyches/mandrakes/reavers are a tax? I think not, they are all solid units I would happily take to unlock razorwing flocks. The only tax is really the beastmaster and he's more expensive than I'd like but it's a tax I can accept.

I mean this in the context of the conversation, which involves using the birds as screens for Grotesques, the only unit they can really do that reliably for (given all my raiders/reavers would be zipping around 17-18").  If you just want some birds for your Grot and Talos bombs, you don't need/want all that other stuff.

I don't think in general that Cult and Coven make a great combo, since they are both melee-focused. Either works better with a shooty Kabal element IMO.

Agree on birds, I don't really like them.

But Cults and Coven works pretty good actually. Shardnet helps Grots to stay in Melee, then retreat, stratagem and charge again!

Cerve wrote:

Me and the GT lists hardy disagree. We have a lot of flexibility!
An example? Outrider Prophets, Homo+3x5 Scourges+Talos

Seriously this is the best Codex of the 8th edition for his competitivity AND flexibility. .

Sure, but this is actually an example of what I'm talking about. An Outrider Prophets detachment is always going to have a core of a Haemonculus/Urien and three units Scourges. It literally can't vary from that.

The flexibility and variation comes in choosing which detachments to pair with which sub-factions, in order to maximise the benefit that you can gain from Obsessions.

I think Raiding Party was a great boon for flexibility, until it was made suboptimal by the battalion buffs. 3 HQs and 3 troops for 4 CPs, vs 4 HQs and 6 troops for 6 was a no brainer, but now the latter gives 10.

Three detachment max is also another annoying factor. I would like to take 3 patrols and a battalion for some lists.

But basically what we can conclude from the discussion so far is that dogs and fiends are trash, and Razorwings flocks may be situationally useful screens. The beastmaster is also a nice place to dump the otherwise not very useful Splintermind.

Quote :

Because there's zero flexibility in our Codex if you want to take advantage of Obsessions, and most of us do. There's an average of one choice per detachment slot in each of the Kabals, Cults and Covens.

I want obsessions, but I don't want them enough to lose access to 2/3rds of the codex. I'd rather take a hit on Obsessions than take a hit on unit selection when variety is what wins games.

Quote :

I don't think that's necessarily a failing of the Codex, I think it just means list building for us takes a different form than other armies in the game. It certainly doesn't mean that we're not an "actual" army.

If by "very different" you mean "you lose all special rules or you build mandatory cookie cutter". Every other army can build within itself, Eldar, Space Marines, Guard, Tau, Necrons. We got the shaft in that regard. Yes, we are a powerful army, but only until people get used to playing against 3 Ravagers rerolling 1s, which is going to happen very, very soon.

Quote :

Seriously this is the best Codex of the 8th edition for his competitivity AND flexibility.

I disagree. I'm still waiting for someone to take up the gauntlet and help me make a GT capable list, because I'm currently struggling to get everything I need in under 2000 points. People are quick to shoot me down as a naysayer but I don't see anyone proving me wrong by putting their Battlescribe where their mouth is.

And on topic, beasts are 100% relevant to my needs in an army. I need a flock screen, without it I'm wasting points on other units being a screen that cost more and block less. I can't fit a flock screen in with obsessions unless I'm running a Vanguard or whatever which is a Succubus, 2 Mandrakes, and a Beastmaster + flocks for a whopping 1CP, or shove them in a Patrol which is 0CP, or throw them in my Brigade for 12CP and lose Obsessions on everything. And people wonder why I prefer the Brigade.

this sounds like the 'you should only run the mathematically best unit, everything else is trash' philosophy of list building, which leads to every single codex having no flexibility. It's not the codex, it's the philosophy.

^ This.

That’s basically my issue with your approach TA, it’s great you are trying different things, but the unbearably maudlin and defeatist attitude, combined with incessant jabs at playtesters (who have no authority) are severe detractors. Your “why take transports when mathematically dudes do more damage” thread is a specific example of what hexxen is talking about.

I mean, Space Marines can build within themselves? You mean Codex: Guilliman, Razorbacks and StormRaven? Oh wait, all of those got nerfed repeatedly, so it’s now Codex: Nothing.

I rather have a selection of mostly great stuff, with hoops to jump through for their inclusion, than a big pile of crap I can play with any way I want.

Burnage wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Me and the GT lists hardy disagree. We have a lot of flexibility!
An example? Outrider Prophets, Homo+3x5 Scourges+Talos

Seriously this is the best Codex of the 8th edition for his competitivity AND flexibility. .

Sure, but this is actually an example of what I'm talking about. An Outrider Prophets detachment is always going to have a core of a Haemonculus/Urien and three units Scourges. It literally can't vary from that.

The flexibility and variation comes in choosing which detachments to pair with which sub-factions, in order to maximise the benefit that you can gain from Obsessions.

uhm....as a Spearhead marine will never have Fast Attacks.

A lot of Codex do this anyway, and they do this between codexes. We can do it inside our Codex, where's the non-flexibility?

I mean, competitive:
Caos it's cultists+Obliterators.
BA is DeathCompany allied.
DG is Drones allied into an Outrider, or a lot of Pox
Thousands is some psykers allied to CSM
Daemons never play alone.
Space Marines are 3 Predators w/Killshot. Most of it Ultramarines. Otherwise, some Ravenguard/Whitescars allied.
ImperialGuard it's pretty difficult to see it alone. Otherwise is 3xTankCommanders and Mortars
Necrons: Wraiths and Destroyers.
Eldar it's 90% Ynnari, or Wavespam
etc


Honestly, this codex ROCKS! We have A LOT of valuable choice, assemblabe in A LOT of detatchments!

Kabal have: Brigades, Battalions, Spearhead. With Index, even Vanguard (but yes it's not common)
Wychcult have: Battalions, Outriders.
Coven have: Battalions, Vanguard, Outriders (because Scourges is so strong that you can't litterally consider them a Tax. We can argue with Mandrakes, but not Scourges), Spearhead.

All in the same Codex. We saw a lot of competitive lists in the GT, some plays on Kabals, some on Covens, some of them with a good amount of Cult inside. Where is the lack in flexibility?

So I've seen repeatedly that people say "beasts don't fill slots for brigade", but I see no rule for that. The beastmaster has a rule saying if he's included, then beasts no longer take up slots.

But if you're taking a kabal or coven list, with no beastmaster, I see nothing that says you can't take 20 point units of khymere to fill in the fast attack slots.
Or flocks as screens without breaking obsessions without the beastmaster.
Moral is a bit of an issue for the flocks, but for the khymere msu, if they kill exactly 1 you have a 50% chance of losing the other one in moral. For slot filling units I don't see that as an issuem.

hexxenwyrd wrote:

this sounds like the 'you should only run the mathematically best unit, everything else is trash' philosophy of list building, which leads to every single codex having no flexibility. It's not the codex, it's the philosophy.

Yeah but that philosophy doesn't work in a miniature game. A lot of people play with a calculator in hand, and lose.
They don't consider the threat level of a unit, how to move your army, how to engage a game, when you have to advance and when you need to be conservative, that one unit gets value in some circumstances where in others sucks, etc.

Yeah, sheeps just copy and play with math

hexxenwyrd wrote:

So I've seen repeatedly that people say "beasts don't fill slots for brigade", but I see no rule for that. The beastmaster has a rule saying if he's included, then beasts no longer take up slots.

B

It's on the matched play army-rules page.

Quote :

this sounds like the 'you should only run the mathematically best unit, everything else is trash' philosophy of list building, which leads to every single codex having no flexibility. It's not the codex, it's the philosophy.

In what topic have I said that this or that unit from our codex has no place on the table? Anything can be made to work if supported well. I said that at the highest levels of listbuilding min-maxing transports might be dropped in lieu of more dudes but I also said that if transports did cap out in effectiveness their cap was very, very high. My lists run virtually no duplicates, or if I use duplicate units none are equipped the same. I often use 3 units of Scourges for instances, but one has Dark Lances, one has Shredders, and one has something like Haywire or Heat Lances, same unit, very different uses and roles on the board. There is no mathematically "best" unit.

Quote :

That’s basically my issue with your approach TA, it’s great you are trying different things, but the unbearably maudlin and defeatist attitude, combined with incessant jabs at playtesters (who have no authority) are severe detractors. Your “why take transports when mathematically dudes do more damage” thread is a specific example of what hexxen is talking about.

I'm allowed to not like things.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I'm allowed to not like things.

Yes you are, but the fact you dont like the way the codex is made doesnt mean its poorly designed