In a nutshell: Competes with the Bloodcrushers for an elite slot and is only 5 points cheaper. It's still a decent unit, sadly it really can't compete with the Bloodcrushers for effectiveness. Random attacks, slow and purposeful movement...and they aren't even real beasts! Just infantry. Given how the Daemon list's generally 'best' troops are Plaguebearers...these guys are a little lost for purpose in 40k.
Pros: So, the Pros of a subpar unit. They are T5, 2 wounds, FNP...their best feature is they do have random attacks, so when there are a few of them running into you, they tend to hurt. Unless you have armor, then...different story! So, end of Pros and on to Cons.
Cons: They are identical to 2 Plaguebearers but cost +5 points for the honor of random attacks being added. Not exactly imaginative game design at work. Sure, when powered by a fully charged up Epidemius, they can be quite scary. Sadly, basic Plaguebearers do the job better: They are scoring, they are virtually identical in combat, and I just don't understand what role this unit is supposed to play. The ability to field that stupid box of 10 spawn from apocalypse?? Yay. =/
Tactics: Much like Plaguebearers, you can use these units to tie people up in CC. Don't try it on anyone with all power weapons. They'll cut you to pieces. Granted those units were rare but now quite a few armies have them. Doom-boosted Howling Banshees, Terminators, Dark Eldar Incubi, Nob Bikers, Acid Maw Nids, even the Seer Council will get through your 5+/4+.
Final word: If they had been cavalry as advocated when playtesting this list, then sure they'd have a place. Sadly, they aren't. Thus, they suck big donkey balls. If you have an extra elite slot and want to run some spawn models because you like them, then go crazy. If you don't own any spawn, don't rush out to buy any unless you are going to buy a nurgle themed army. It's the only place they have a use...and even that is pushing the boundaries of reality quite a bit.
Beasts of Nurgle
Labels: Elites
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
DemonGuy said...
Hey Stelek,
I disagree with your statement RE: Beasts of Nurgle;
"They are survivable and more dangerous by far than Plaguebearers. The worst they can do (1 in 6 chance) is be as 'good' as they are. They are better the other 5 times."
BON cost two Plaguebearers and change (5 pts). Two PlagueBearers = two attacks, which means you must roll a 3+ to be better than the alternative. So, 66% of the time they are better, 16% the same, 16% worse.
This doesn't factor in the charge either, as the BON only receives +1 for charging while two PBs will receive a +2. So, in comparing charges, a BON must roll a 3+ to equal the PBs and a 4+ to come out ahead. Granted, Nurgle units don't often charge...but considering other units previously tied up it does happen.
Correct.
Now let's look at the comments I made about the Beasts of Nurgle.
Right, I made mention of what you did in the 'cons' section.
So, while I agree that plaguebearers are better on the charge than beasts of nurgle...
Why are you charging with your valuable troops and not letting him waste his time beating up on beasts of nurgle?
See, as elite choices they are not great and as I note several times they aren't very good, but in a all-nurgle army...when the Tally is up, and your 3 very expensive demon princes that got your Tally up are dead...what's gonna kill stuff? You only get one charge, but beasts of nurgle in numbers get lots of attacks every turn.
See, here's how you really work the math and come to appreciate them for what they are:
6 Beasts of Nurgle is roughly 14 plaguebearers.
14 plaguebearers in 3 rounds of combat (with no losses) get:
28 attacks, 14 attacks, and 14 attacks.
The beasts of nurgle get:
1,2,3,4,5,6=19.
So they get 25 attacks, 19 attacks, and 19 attacks.
So really, what is better?
56 attacks or 63 attacks?
Now imagine the possibility of rolling not way below average, for a crappy 6 attacks a round...but for 30+ attacks a round.
That wound on 2+ and are power weapons?
Plaguebearers can't seal the deal on an enemy army because they can't torrent anyone to death without being able to charge repeatedly. Unlikely. Beasts of Nurgle...they have the possibility of rolling well, and of course poorly, but in tournament play it's the mental game you need to consider. People will charge beasts of nurgle because they don't want you rolling really well and getting 42 attacks. More than enough to wipe out 2 squads of tactical marines.
When was the last time plaguebearers managed that one?
If Beasts of Nurgle were troops, everyone would field them and not plaguebearers. Paying the extra 5 points for more attacks WHEN STANDING AROUND LIKE NURGLE ALWAYS DOES IE NOT CHARGING is always worth it as on average it happens far more than it doesn't.
Since 40K is a game of percentages, knowing this is key to success within the game system.
Now you understand the reasoning, whether you believe or not depends entirely on whether you play an all nurgle army. Once the DP and flame heralds are gone...what unit do you possess that's going to crush the enemy without exposing your troops to destruction or outmaneuvering?
Right, it's the beasts of nurgle that will do it and plaguebearers won't.
Hey Stelek,
I don't disagree that BON have a potential home in a Tally list. I was disagreeing with your statement;
"The worst they can do (1 in 6 chance) is be as 'good' as they are. They are better the other 5 times."
The worst they can do is actually be worse than 2 PBs. They will be equal to or worse than equal PBs 33% of the time and better 66% of the time (Which I assume the designers thought 5 pts more was worth that risk.) This is after the charge of course, as you pointed out PBs are better on the charge. Your math also assumes being stuck in over multiple combatants, which after a round of tally grabbing doesn't typically happen.
"Once the DP and flame heralds are gone...what unit do you possess that's going to crush the enemy without exposing your troops to destruction or outmaneuvering?"
I don't understand this logic. If I take 4 Troop choices and some BON, I have 4 'non-exposed' scoring. If I take 6 Troop choices and no BON, I have 4 'non-exposed' scoring and two aggressive scoring. I've risked no more, yet possibly gained another objective.
I actually play an all Nurgle list and while BON are enjoyable (and I do use them!), once you get tally PBs are quite killy/survivable enough...and score.
6 Beasts of Nurgle dropping late with tally up is killy...but 14 Plague Bearers dropping late with tally up is killy....and more survivable!
The trick is getting tally in the first place. Most armies will crush your DP's the turn they drop. It's not like it's very difficult you know.
That leaves you the GUO, who is slow as shit and can't get it done.
Who's going to get the tally going? Your other troops that don't include epidemius, unless you are going to risk him being killed before the tally is complete.
Just because you can take a slow ass army and beat down non-mech forces that are only rapid fire shooty does not mean you've got a lock on how all-nurgle works.
Quite the contrary it seems like you don't really understand the concept of diversionary tactics.
If you have 6 troops of equal size, with epidemius attached to one; and nothing else...won't all fire just go to the nearest PB unit until it's dead?
Having some non-scoring units sitting in midfield and driving them forward to his objectives can make your opponent have to actually think about what he wants to kill--your 'worthless' contest units or your 'scoring' troops units. In standard missions, how many objectives do you really need?
I also seriously question your judgement when you make blanket statements like 14 PB are more survivable than 6 beasts. The truth is, they are LESS survivable. Do you play anyone with tactical ability or what? People love large amounts of plaguebearers, sure it's a bitch to drag them down but you can tank shock them all together and blast/template the hell out of them. 14 hits from a battlecannon, or 6 hits. Flamers in a tank shocked formation, who is more survivable? Beasts of Nurgle are, not stupid Plaguebearers. Get hit with a Vindicator round and see how many bunched up plaguebearers walk away. The beasts? Lose one.
Beasts of Nurgle give cover saves to Plaguebearers almost always, where Plaguebearers usually do not give cover saves to other Plaguebearer units without risking blast/template friendly formations.
I also note that you can run Beasts in a congo line and not be vulnerable to blasts or templates but plaguebearers cannot, even a sideways plasma cannon shot will clip 3 bearers. There's an advantage to being on big bases, it makes small blasts particularly ineffective especially if you are spread out at max coherency distance. Remember if you interweave two Beasts units you can force the other player to hit one beast from each squad with small blasts and only 1/2 hit from templates; and large blasts also only get 1/2 hit--even with scatter. Since those are what hurt plaguebearers so badly, you should field them.
Just saying man, you can't theoryhammer the facts away. If it was really that simple, Beasts wouldn't be in the army. They have their place, and being tight little balls of 'fuck you and your template weapons' is the number one reason they should be in an army.
You can go on and on about how you view the percentages, in the end when you fight against a power weapon armed CC unit...Beasts will stay longer and do more damage where the Plaguebearers just die.
If you can show everyone how a all-nurgle army pops LRC full of LC furious charge terminators in a BT army, and how that unit doesn't just smoke every PB unit it touches...well, I'd sure like to see it, since that rock smashes the Nurgle scissors pretty much every single time.
Hey Stelek,
I didn't mean PBs are less likely to walk away from damage than BON, I simply phrased it wrong. I was attempting to say that each time you lose a BON, you lose D6 attack whereas two PBs are at most two attacks. One can't say that BON are better than 2 PBs 66% of the time (in attacks)....yet say that losing one BON isn't worse than 2 PBs 66% of the time.
Dragging other factors into the equation doesn't change the erroneous math in your initial post (Which stated that BON at worst are as good as equal PBs). They can be worse, equal or better. Further, we've shown they aren't 'that more' killy...7 hits I think over 3 rounds of combat? Which equates to roughly 5-6ish more saves over 3 rounds (After poison reroll). That's not that great.
Pointing out the weakness of the all Nurgle list (mech/fast) doesn't equate into taking BON...as they are neither fast or shooty.
All that said...as I stated before I still play with BON (Mostly for fun factor or if my troops FOC fills up...which can easily happen in pure Nurgle). Cheers,
My math was based on one thing only:
Standing around.
On a model for model basis, the Beasts are better.
Even in all-nurgle lists, you don't see people running 14 strong plaguebearer squads. You do see 6 beasts and 5-10 plaguebearers often.
It's all about reality, what's really on the tabletop. If you have 6 beasts and 6 plaguebearers standing around getting assaulted, the beasts do more damage.
Not talking about theoryhammer or bringing 14 plaguebearers and only 3 beasts in a list as your number of troops--who does that? It doesn't make sense.
All-nurgle lists look to beasts, if for nothing else, to break up the monotony.
I know from playing against both, I'm not scared of plaguebearers under full tally. I am scared shitless of beasts under full tally.
Not what can, not what might be, but what is.
Good luck getting that big ass PB squad into combat to actually get 28 attacks. Slow + slow = slow, even with counterattacks. I'd rather sit and fire at 13" than move forward and double tap near beasts because they MIGHT get into me. Plaguebearers, I'll move up and if they get into me so what? Even if say 4 of them reach me, that's still less than 4 power weapon hits and I get my full attacks back. With Beasts being on that big base, that's usually a minimum of 4 that can get in on me and 4D6+4 attacks is a hell of a lot more scary and can blow apart almost any squad.
Beasts are crap outside of a Nurgle army except as a cheap filler unit that's annoyingly hard to get rid of, everyone should know that. Anyone who has played a Nurgle list should also know that beasts have a place in a all-nurgle army for many reasons.
Saying mathematically PB are better in one situation when all of my statements are generalist ones is just pointless. I stand by what I said, that beasts are far more dangerous than PB are.
I will say it again--tally or not, I won't run from PB units. I will run from beast units.
Hey Stelek,
Well, I of course don't take PB units that large (I think you originally used 14 for math purposes). Two units of 7 would likely be better, with multitude of targets syndrome and the fact they don't bleed KPs very easily with tally.
Which brings me to the point I think we agree on; Beasts have a home once you start filling up FOC (1750/1850 mono-Nurgle). In smaller games however, I'm not so keen. However, this may be a sore spot as I know you don't count small games as including real lists either ;). Either way, great review and I appreciate the time it likely took!
What Demonguy said. Beasts of Nurgle don't receive a toughness or strength boost, are still slow, and have only two wounds. They're under-statted or over-costed. Still, I have two, maybe they'll do okay (low expectations help here).
Once you have 40 plague bearers and you want to keep increasing your force size, what do you add?
BoN!
Post a Comment