Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Anyone likes the Underdog races?

DarizukaDarizuka Junior MemberPosts: 521Registered Users
anyone here likes to play the races that doesnt get much attention?

i mean Wood Elves has the LEAST updates or new units to fill their ranks or LL.
and then we have the Beastmen.


i cant help but feel they are fun to play due to being soo... ignored by CA which adds a little more challenge to them..

Comments

  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Posts: 3,235Registered Users
    Beastmen was actually a fun playthrough for me in WH1, but I can't imagine playing them on ME for any great length of time. It'd just be a huge slog of sieges, replenishing, sieges, replenishing. I'd have to set myself my own goals to avoid playing too long and getting sick of the grind. Maybe just conquer the Empire or take Ulthuan or something interesting.
    I demand monogods!! Or not, whatever. I don't care that much.
  • BoombastekBoombastek Posts: 494Registered Users
    edited March 14
    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,544Registered Users
    edited March 14

    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns

    GS having it as bad as Beastmen? Bwahahah :lol:
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • Theo91Theo91 Posts: 504Registered Users

    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns

    GS having it as bad as Beastmen? Bwahahah :lol:
    Let agree neither have it good and hope both get an update ;)
  • DarizukaDarizuka Junior Member Posts: 521Registered Users
    Theo91 said:

    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns

    GS having it as bad as Beastmen? Bwahahah :lol:
    Let agree neither have it good and hope both get an update ;)
    yeah Greenskins and Goblins need more stuff to em.
  • BoombastekBoombastek Posts: 494Registered Users

    Beastmen was actually a fun playthrough for me in WH1, but I can't imagine playing them on ME for any great length of time. It'd just be a huge slog of sieges, replenishing, sieges, replenishing. I'd have to set myself my own goals to avoid playing too long and getting sick of the grind. Maybe just conquer the Empire or take Ulthuan or something interesting.

    Repleshment, they had constant 13%, plus with every moon you chose only repleshment one. And ofc Khazrak 1 turn recruit Bestigors. So no, Beastmen are not bad race.
  • BoombastekBoombastek Posts: 494Registered Users
    edited March 15

    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns

    GS having it as bad as Beastmen? Bwahahah :lol:
    No a lot worster
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,544Registered Users
    edited March 15
    Theo91 said:

    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns

    GS having it as bad as Beastmen? Bwahahah :lol:
    Let agree neither have it good and hope both get an update ;)
    No, Beastmen are definitely worse off by a longshot, don't try to compare the two.
    I hope everyone gets updates to their fav factions, but no one could deny who is the most fudged up. Beastmen take the crown. And they should get the first.

    Why are beastmen the winner of the "Who is worse off?" you might ask. 4 simple reasons which when combined make them the dreadful boring monotonous monstrosity that they are. And many more that I'm too lazy to go on and on and on about.

    Horde gameplay alone make Beastmen undeniable winner.
    Then the Beastmen wins round 2 in the crappy roster catagory.
    If we go for a third round, GS even has more legendary lord choices too.
    And who else but beastmen has only 1 lord choice with only 2 hero choices.

    So, say again, how is it that GS has it so bad compared to Beastmen?
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • kitekazekitekaze Posts: 155Registered Users
    edited March 15
    Darizuka said:

    anyone here likes to play the races that doesnt get much attention?

    i mean Wood Elves has the LEAST updates or new units to fill their ranks or LL.
    and then we have the Beastmen.


    i cant help but feel they are fun to play due to being soo... ignored by CA which adds a little more challenge to them..

    At least Welves have two start positions, Empire's office mechanic and "unique" amber mechanic (albeit a bit clunky) and world tree mechanic. Otherwise, they have full roster available.
    The only thing they would ever need is new start positions in Eye of the Forest and Laurelorn Forest.

    The priority of faction revamp is as follow:
    1/Empire (No unique postion, no free LL choice despite being core race, Lots of missing TT units, no special mechanic)
    2/Chaos Warrior (No unique position, 3 LLs only, missing some TT unit and Chaos's variants, only special mechanic is end game)
    3/Greenskin (Azhag's position and starting units, missing some TT units and variants, only special mechanic is skarnik with K8P, need stats adjustment)
    4/Beastmen (3 LLs only, missing some TT unit and Chaos's variants)
    5/Wood Elves (2LLs only, bad amber require on unit)

    Because Empire's players follow code of Hope and Endurance of the Empire, they don't rant frequently. (or did they lose all hope already?)
    Chaos's players look forward to TWW3, you see lots of their topics in this forum.
    The remaining are Greenskin and Beastmen's players. They rant. a. lots.
  • RazmirthRazmirth Posts: 1,895Registered Users
    edited March 15
    Beastmen are one of my favs actually. Campaign is a little boring with raze/sack and end turn, but in battle they are by far one of the most fun.

    I also enjoy skarsnik. It takes a little bit to get your gobbo army up to snuff, but once you do? They are a fun army, and skarsniks ability to make units stalk around him can’t be underestimated. I’ve wracked up many a kill with nasty skulkers with that ability!!

    And while he’s not a huge underdog, queek headtakers campaign is a challenge at the start. And he’s a great struggle to power, surrounded by lizards, undead, and dwarfs to the north!

    Iam currently doing a Nagrythe game. Different for sure. Much more vulnerable and challenging than high elves!

  • FungusHoundFungusHound Posts: 1,377Registered Users

    Theo91 said:

    Trust me Beastmen and WE are OK if you match them with GS.

    And I played 0 campaign as GS in game 2. With total a quiet a lot campaigns

    GS having it as bad as Beastmen? Bwahahah :lol:
    Let agree neither have it good and hope both get an update ;)
    No, Beastmen are definitely worse off by a longshot, don't try to compare the two.
    I hope everyone gets updates to their fav factions, but no one could deny who is the most fudged up. Beastmen take the crown. And they should get the first.

    Why are beastmen the winner of the "Who is worse off?" you might ask. 4 simple reasons which when combined make them the dreadful boring monotonous monstrosity that they are. And many more that I'm too lazy to go on and on and on about.

    Horde gameplay alone make Beastmen undeniable winner.
    Then the Beastmen wins round 2 in the crappy roster catagory.
    If we go for a third round, GS even has more legendary lord choices too.
    And who else but beastmen has only 1 lord choice with only 2 hero choices.

    So, say again, how is it that GS has it so bad compared to Beastmen?
    I would kill for the Beastmen to be Game 2 Campaign Pack quality! We might have even gotten some new units. I would kill even more for Moonclaw even though he is the second least likely of the living Beastmen characters.
  • NinjipplesNinjipples Posts: 538Registered Users
    I've played alot of WE games, their roster is perectly fine and ever since the last update to amber; most units don't even need it anymore. Where they are lacking is in LLs. That being said, an overhaul of their amber/campaign mechanics would not go amiss.

    As for Beastmen... I played them when they came out for WH1 and hated them so much that I have never played them since. I will likely not do so again until they undergo a major update.

    As for core underdog races... Greenskins need an overhaul to their entire campaign. They need better mechanics (waaghs are a s**t show) and also to their units (weapon variants, missing heroes/lords, replenishment options etc.). I played them in WH1 & WH2 and found them pretty much the same in both... boring to play.

    Empire badly needs a better faction mechanic as offices has been used for so many factions that it's almost like a generic feature. They need something unique to them. They also really really need a better tech tree. Every faction should have a tech tree at least as big as the one for Lizardmen. Apart from those gripes they need another LL with a new start position.
  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 11,734Registered Users, Moderators
    Wood Elves and Empire both play well in battle. Empire have very few worthwhile mechanics. Wood Elves have mechanics that need tweaking to reach their full potential, and as it stands kinda hurt them. These two are about equal in my eyes. Both could use some new things added to them in terms of units and/or hero/lord types, sure, but their battles are fun. Both need LLs though. That being said, I like em.

    Beastmen are missing some impressive set piece units, sure, but their battles are at least entertaining much of the time. Their mechanics do show their age too, though. I'd say they're worse off than the Empire and Wood Elves generally speaking. Yes, they have one more LL than the Wood Elves (and more varied start positions than both), but their roster is noticeably missing more things. Most importantly, with them though, is that I feel a lot of their mechanics can't always be used well. What do I mean? Vanguard. I think one of the best possible improvements that could be made to the Beastmen is to give them a Wargor hero with Vanguard that can support vanguarding troops. Give him the Gorebull's unit buffs (I mean why did it get those in the first place?) and leave the Gorebull as the pure pain wagon while making the Wargor the buffwagon. Basically, while their battles are sometimes fun, they do feel the absence of their units more often and I don't feel like their roster always synergizes well. Plus old mechanics. However... it has been a long time since I've played them so I presume they have improved somewhat.

    Warriors of Chaos... seem better than they used to be, but they're still kinda showing their age in the "DLC stuff" department. Though their roster may be more fun than the Beastman one, I'm not sure. I know I've actually finished a Beastmen Campaign, but never a Warriors of Chaos one.

    Greenskins. I've never played them and I don't want to. It isn't just their flavour, its... them. I don't even know if it is their roster or their mechanics that is the problem, I just know I don't care for them. They're certainly fun to kill though.

    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • Gilgamesh1Gilgamesh1 Posts: 254Registered Users
    BM campaign is a terrible experience. they are fun in battle but this is due to their speed and cool units like Minotaurs ,Centigor that AI is too dumb to focus fire properly. in campaign,horde mechanic is just bad as a whole ans BM have the worst horde mechanic of all. they are the only horde that don't replenish on raid for example. meanwhile vampire coast have both horde and can settle aniwhere and they can build horde buildings even at 0% movement,while you need a specific stance to build as BM/chaos.

    that said,they have horde growth skill bonus loked in the second stage of blu-line skills so unlocking their higher tier unit is extremely slow. they can recruit Bestigor on 2 turn only since the last patch which is a good way to represent how CA forgot this faction for like 2 years.

    they have NOTHING unique

    the Moon event is not unique because it's the same as HE influence event where you have a good and a bad situation in every 4 options and you just have the choose the least bad of the 4. with the difference that some of the bad are utterly demolishing (like NO REPLENISHMENT or -50% movement on a horde....WTF is that??)

    ambush stance is used by both alith anar and skaven. so no unique at all

    brayherd is the same stuff of waaagh but worse because it ruins your hidden encampment.

    the hidden encampment is the only real unique feature but again,brayherd ruins it because AI is dumb.

    their LL have THE LEAST amount of legendary skills. Khazrak have 1(one!!), morghur have 3 but can choose only 2 because one gets looked. malagor has 3.

    both khazrak and malagor have terrible Legendary item. Malagor has no mount,which makes him extremely boring in campaign,and Khazrak has no unique abilities apart from vanguard which again,it's extremely boring.
    Malagor don't fly,which is okay. but has no mount to compensate and no unique spell list like he should have. he is just a bray-shaman with more wom with a not so good Lore.


    being a game 1 faction they have nothing cool like rites,pre-battle options,and vene less post battle options sometimes. you can replenish 10%+ HP after a random battle with a game 2 factions even from the start,while BM replenish at best 5% even with a major battle (on top of the fact that they replenish only in hidden encampment,leads to an extremely slow campaign)

    don't even make me start about missing units

    they are by far the worst campaign experience.
  • Infinite_MawInfinite_Maw Posts: 906Registered Users
    Canuovea said:



    Beastmen are missing some impressive set piece units, sure, but their battles are at least entertaining much of the time. Their mechanics do show their age too, though. I'd say they're worse off than the Empire and Wood Elves generally speaking. Yes, they have one more LL than the Wood Elves (and more varied start positions than both), but their roster is noticeably missing more things. Most importantly, with them though, is that I feel a lot of their mechanics can't always be used well. What do I mean? Vanguard. I think one of the best possible improvements that could be made to the Beastmen is to give them a Wargor hero with Vanguard that can support vanguarding troops. Give him the Gorebull's unit buffs (I mean why did it get those in the first place?) and leave the Gorebull as the pure pain wagon while making the Wargor the buffwagon. Basically, while their battles are sometimes fun, they do feel the absence of their units more often and I don't feel like their roster always synergizes well. Plus old mechanics. However... it has been a long time since I've played them so I presume they have improved somewhat.

    Greenskins. I've never played them and I don't want to. It isn't just their flavour, its... them. I don't even know if it is their roster or their mechanics that is the problem, I just know I don't care for them. They're certainly fun to kill though.

    I do support the Wargor character. However CA should first figure out how to make empire captains on foot, thanes and other similar units much better as buff wagons first. You would never see in MP someone buff their frontlines with captains. At best you might see a warrior priest giving fire damage buffs to cannons or travelling alongside cavalry. Otherwise thanes are the worst hero unit in the game.

    Overall, from a battle perspective, wood elves and beastmen are the most powerful factions in the hands of a good micro-heavy player.

    Greenskins can be really devastating if you let them do what they want. I watched an MP match where units of savage orc big-uns, combined with Wurzaggs buffs and spells, outright teared apart sisters of slaughter and Har Ganeth executioners (including the RoR variant) in less than 10 seconds after their Waaggghh was activated. Depending on the build, Greenskin infantry can be buffed to have the most brutal charges than any other infantry in the game. However against a smart player, greenskins can be hard to use.
  • Gilgamesh1Gilgamesh1 Posts: 254Registered Users
    Canuovea said:

    Wood Elves and Empire both play well in battle. Empire have very few worthwhile mechanics. Wood Elves have mechanics that need tweaking to reach their full potential, and as it stands kinda hurt them. These two are about equal in my eyes. Both could use some new things added to them in terms of units and/or hero/lord types, sure, but their battles are fun. Both need LLs though. That being said, I like em.

    Beastmen are missing some impressive set piece units, sure, but their battles are at least entertaining much of the time. Their mechanics do show their age too, though. I'd say they're worse off than the Empire and Wood Elves generally speaking. Yes, they have one more LL than the Wood Elves (and more varied start positions than both), but their roster is noticeably missing more things. Most importantly, with them though, is that I feel a lot of their mechanics can't always be used well. What do I mean? Vanguard. I think one of the best possible improvements that could be made to the Beastmen is to give them a Wargor hero with Vanguard that can support vanguarding troops. Give him the Gorebull's unit buffs (I mean why did it get those in the first place?) and leave the Gorebull as the pure pain wagon while making the Wargor the buffwagon. Basically, while their battles are sometimes fun, they do feel the absence of their units more often and I don't feel like their roster always synergizes well. Plus old mechanics. However... it has been a long time since I've played them so I presume they have improved somewhat.

    Warriors of Chaos... seem better than they used to be, but they're still kinda showing their age in the "DLC stuff" department. Though their roster may be more fun than the Beastman one, I'm not sure. I know I've actually finished a Beastmen Campaign, but never a Warriors of Chaos one.

    Greenskins. I've never played them and I don't want to. It isn't just their flavour, its... them. I don't even know if it is their roster or their mechanics that is the problem, I just know I don't care for them. They're certainly fun to kill though.

    Currently the Gorebull buff is the only thing usefull of the Gorebull in MP. It's a completly bugged unit in terms of mass that cannot so anithing against large entities and is comically broken. He also has pitifull stats for a 1075 base cost and his abilities at least gives him respectable 40 MA.

    I agree on wargor but then CA should replace Gorebull ability with something else. As well as fixing his bugged mass and animations ,ad seeing how they Don't care about kazrak being useless with no unique abilities and a trash tier item like dark mail or malagor without a chariot/mount or some unique spell Despite having all 4 lore in TT i don't think it would be good.

    Seems to me that BM are least priority for CA since there are so much low hanging fruit here to take to make them better...
  • endurendur Posts: 2,698Registered Users
    Wood elves are missing some characters (LLs, lords, and heroes) and some units. For example, the TWW army list is lacking chariots and beast packs that the WE had on the table top.

    Beastmen could use some stuff. Jabberwock, Ghorgon, etc.

    Empire and Greenskins are missing lot of units, because they have a very large army list on the table top.

    Warriors of Chaos is probably missing the most stuff, as they also had a very large army list on the table top, and they are missing chaos magic lores and chaos rewards, and lots of missing mechanics.

  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 11,734Registered Users, Moderators
    Wargor should get the Gorebull's buffs.

    Gorebull should be given another skill/ability that makes it better at killing large. Sure.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • NinjipplesNinjipples Posts: 538Registered Users
    endur said:

    Wood elves are missing some characters (LLs, lords, and heroes) and some units. For example, the TWW army list is lacking chariots and beast packs that the WE had on the table top.

    GW permanently removed chariots from the WE roster at the tail end of 6th edition when they finally realized how stupid chariots are when you live in a giant forest.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 4,279Registered Users

    Beastmen was actually a fun playthrough for me in WH1, but I can't imagine playing them on ME for any great length of time. It'd just be a huge slog of sieges, replenishing, sieges, replenishing. I'd have to set myself my own goals to avoid playing too long and getting sick of the grind. Maybe just conquer the Empire or take Ulthuan or something interesting.

    Playing Beastmen in TWW1 was an eye opener. I had tried them in their own mini campaign but had autoresolved 95% of it because my old computer wasn’t really a gaming lap top and so suffered even with everything turned down.

    But later I had played Warriors of Chaos with played battles and a new computer so I ”knew” instictively that I hated hordes. A Beastmen Malagor campaign was then one of the last campaigns in TWW1. I only really did it to finish off some achievements. As stated I knew I hated hordes and besides everyone was always lamenting the butchered state of the roster.

    What I did find however was one of the most fun camapigns I had in TWW1 and I might be the minority but I really like the Beastmen roster as is. Malagor rocks.
    Lord of the Undermountain
  • DarizukaDarizuka Junior Member Posts: 521Registered Users
    Canuovea said:

    Wargor should get the Gorebull's buffs.

    Gorebull should be given another skill/ability that makes it better at killing large. Sure.

    or an evolution step which change their model; and boost all their stats when they reached the very end of the skill tree...
    called "Ascension to Doombull"

    oh my god...
Sign In or Register to comment.