Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think Monsters need a little love in 8th. Proposed are a few rules to slightly help them out.

NEED A BIGGER BOAT: Monsters are big and difficult to hurt, especially with (multiple) snapping jaws and arms the size of boulders distracting you. All non-magic missile attacks originating from from its front receive a 6+ ward save or +1 to an existing ward save, if any. Attacks to the monster's flank or rear presumably can be made with more precision and the monster does not receive the ward save.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR--EXCEPT THAT: Monsters are scary, best handled by heroes with years (centuries) of training. Your drinking budies might provide courage when engaging an opposing band of drinking buddies, but it's little comfort knowing you will all be smushed together. Any units within 6" of an enemy Monster lose any steadfast bonus they would have received from having more ranks than the enemy.

HURRAY FOR GODZILLA!: Monsters are scary. Unless they're yours. Any units within 6" of an friendly Monster gain any steadfast bonus they would have normally lost by being within 6" of an enemy Monster. This does not grant steadfast to units that would not have had it otherwise.

IF THE BOSS CAN TAME THAT...: Monsters are awe-inspiring, visible for all around to wonder at. If a General can force one into service, it truly it shows he is great. If a friendly monster is in a General's normal Inspiring Presence radius, that radius is extended another 6" from the Monster. If the Monster wanders too far away, it's presumed the Monster begins to act more like itself and is a whole lot less inspiring. If the Monster is too close to the General, this will obviously have no effect as the General's normal radius is already greater than the Monster's.

Ok, so a bloodthrister would get a 3+ armor and 4+ ward in the way in, then strip steadfast, do 7 S7 attacks (with re-rolls) and then stomp for another D6 S6 hits; along with +1 for charging (and a possible flank).
You'd have to keep other monsters in the area just so he doesn't rape whole units at a time, and that only means he'd need to kill the monster first.
I like the idea, but I think the execution would result in too much hero hammer.
Also, the +6" of inspiring is pretty crazy. That would mean a general on a dragon would have a 24" radius, as you already gain 6" for being on a large target.

I think what might work better is that units fighting monsters do not get inspiring presence or the BSB re-rolls.
Still steadfast, but only on their own (or attached characters) leadership. I'd skip all the other rules; maybe keep the +1 ward save idea at most.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:Ok, so a bloodthrister would get a 3+ armor and 4+ ward in the way in, then strip steadfast, do 7 S7 attacks (with re-rolls) and then stomp for another D6 S6 hits; along with +1 for charging (and a possible flank).

Bloodthirster has 5+ armor armor save. So...+1 ward in the front, and steadfast removal only within 6" on units that have steadfast from horde, which I supsect will happen, what, 10% of the time if that? All the other stuff already exists, not sure why you retyped it, but I've never heard anyone remotely say a Bloodthirster was OP for a 450 base point model. Mostly because it's not. It's lousy, which is why this thread is here. And you're not evaluating the dozens of monsters with no save whatsoever, which makes up the vast bulk of them.

You'd have to keep other monsters in the area just so he doesn't rape whole units at a time

I think that's a pretty overblown exaggeration. It's a slight change. Spend the same points from monsters on base infantry and watch the infantry do VASTLY better. In your super scary Bloodthirster example above, you could get Bloodletters, who instead of doing 10.5 attacks would do 37 Killing Blow attacks at very close to the same stats.

Also, the +6" of inspiring is pretty crazy. That would mean a general on a dragon would have a 24" radius, as you already gain 6" for being on a large target.

No, it means it has no effect whatsoever. Because the Monster has a 6" inspiring presence radius and the General is 18". 18 > 6. The Monster has no effect. It's not additive to the entire presence. Put it this way, if a monster is at the exact edge of his General's inpsiring pressence of 12", around that Monster, JUST that monster, is another 6" bubble. But you figure half of that is lost because it overlaps with the General's. So most of the time it's only going to add about a <6" distance to a specific side, as the monster itself has to be within the General's bubble. As shown:



If the Monster is within 6" of the General he has no effect. If he's within 7" he would add a 1" bubble to a few inches to whatever side he was on, which will probably be useless. Unless you're perfectly positioning your monster to be a multi-hundred point Inspiring Presence buff, which isn't very cost-effective.

As for steadfast, it just doesn't make much sense to me. People throw tarpits at monsters, but unless said tarpit is made up of non-intelligent ants, they can see they are a tarpit. It would have an anti-steadfast effect if anything. If me and 50 other out of shape guys were given broomsticks and told to go attack some giant slime monster, while the elite forces went off to do something important, it'd be pretty clear my job was to die. Just because other dudes are also going to die isn't going to make me happy about it. Watch some youtube videos of guys with sticks trying to tame elephants that suddenly decide to rampage. The guys with sticks don't get all gung ho just because there are lots of them--when the elephant gets sufficiently pissed, the stick boys run.

Steadfast removal from horde isn't what you wrote.
You wrote: Any units within 6" of an enemy Monster lose any steadfast bonus they would have received from having more ranks than the enemy.
Removing steadfast just for being near a monster is stupidly overpowered. Monsters have a speed advantage over infantry, much more so with flying monsters.

Bloodthristers have 5+ armor? Not true. I've never seen one hit the table that didn't spend 10 to 50 points on 3+, or super 3+ armor. In your bloodletter example, the big guy is better. He closes range much faster, he has the speed and the flying to pick his fights, and most important of all, he strips steadfast, which hordes of bloodletters don't do. It isn't that he kills more, it is that he kills enough to always break anything without steadfast.
Ld9 infantry (with full ranks and standard) are looking at losing combat by 5, and needing a 4 to hold.
Did you play much in 7th edition?
That's why you didn't see lots of infantry blocks.

As for the inspiring presence, you're correct, that picture cleared up what you were saying; though you'll run into problems with the wording. General + monstrous mount is 1 model, and the phase "extended another six inches" may lead people to the same conclusion I reached.

As for untrained guys with broom sticks, I don't think that's a fair comparison. How about guys with sharp broom sticks who will have their families killed if they don't attack the elephant?
I've seen mobs of unarmed rioters throwing rocks at tanks, and I think that's about as close as you can get to real world psychology of peon vs monster.
Also, in the warhammer world, I can't think of a single unit that is untrained. Even skaven slaves have some degree a training, and are a lot better armed than broom sticks.

I think giving monsters a boost is a good idea.
I even think something related to steadfast is good, but a blanket "strip steadfast" is bad.

-Matt

I love playing big models myself, but they are not great in 8th. I would like new rules for them too, like thus:

I wish they were unbreakable in close combat IF they took no wounds (empahsis on the "if"). I mean why do ranks affect their break tests? Oh good, more food is coming!!!!! If they are unhurt, I think they would be more confident. (for example whether 5 toddlers or 15 toddlers attacked me, I would not be more scared of 15. If it turned out that they had feces in their palms and wiped some of it on me, then I would need to take a break test)

Of course, I also think that infantry should be able to get more attacks vs. Large targets (attack in another rank).

What do you think about those ideas?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh I wanted to add about the orignial poster, first of all I like the names of your rules, but I don't think that I Need a Bigger Boat works. I understand the 6+ ward save would be nice, but when missile troops feel threatened(like during a stand and shoot action) they get a -1 to hit (not give a ward save). I think that maybe a -1 to hit with ranged attacks within the charge range of the monster might work better

I think one of the greatest reasons to not take a monster is a war machine that costs 25% as much and can likely take it out and still do some impact the rest of the match. The ward save was to to at least have SOME doubt to save it. But ward saves are very powerful.

No, I did mean removal of steadfast due to greater ranks. I think it is powerful. I don't think it's stupid powerful. I think steadfast is stupid powerful. Especially the way leadership modifiers happen this addition. I don't it's so powerful for the monster as it is a force multiplier for infantry. I.e., a reason to have monsters, whereas there is very little now. Count the number of monsters that appear in competitive armies now. They just aren't there.

There are plenty of very slow monsters, please don't cherry pick 1 and tailor worst case scenarios around it. A Giant is probably the most common monster in the game. Think of the changes applied to it.

It's like, yes, Hydras got very powerful with the addition of Thunderstomp, but it made all the other monsters at least not a complete joke. That trade-off happens when you make a rule that affects so many units.

As for more infantry more attacks, I'm really against more deathstar love.

@ DukeRustfield, The more I think about it, the more I think you are right that monsters should have some sort of ward save. The thing that usually kills monsters is warmachines, which as you pointed out cost considerably less and can do more damage after the monster is slain.

That does not seem right. Sure the warmachine enthusiast will point out that their warmachine is inaccurate, and can blow itself up, BUT I think that it is balanced by the fact that it does not need to move to work. THe monster does.

I would like a rule that gave monsters a ward save against warmachines, it is silly that my 325 dragon is slain by a 100 point cannon so easily that I stop playing said dragon. Or maybe the fix is that they remove d6 wounds. Who's genius idea is that? if nothing could kill a dragon in one hit, maybe people would start playing monsters again, because let's face it they look cool.

DukeRustfield wrote:I think one of the greatest reasons to not take a monster is a war machine that costs 25% as much and can likely take it out and still do some impact the rest of the match. The ward save was to to at least have SOME doubt to save it. But ward saves are very powerful.

No, I did mean removal of steadfast due to greater ranks. I think it is powerful. I don't think it's stupid powerful. I think steadfast is stupid powerful. Especially the way leadership modifiers happen this addition. I don't it's so powerful for the monster as it is a force multiplier for infantry. I.e., a reason to have monsters, whereas there is very little now. Count the number of monsters that appear in competitive armies now. They just aren't there.

There are plenty of very slow monsters, please don't cherry pick 1 and tailor worst case scenarios around it. A Giant is probably the most common monster in the game. Think of the changes applied to it.

It's like, yes, Hydras got very powerful with the addition of Thunderstomp, but it made all the other monsters at least not a complete joke. That trade-off happens when you make a rule that affects so many units.

As for more infantry more attacks, I'm really against more deathstar love.

IMHO, the giant is one of the least played monsters in the game, as other monsters have more armor or more speed. Take blood Thirster, and then add High Elf dragons, dark elf dragons, chaos dragons, warrior daemon princes, hydras, Aboms, keeper of secrets. Steggadons become awesome if they strip steadfast, and Vargulfs are a steal at their points. "Slow" monsters are the exception, not the rule.
So the problem is cannons (empire/dwarf only, both lists have no monsters), so the solution is add more infantry killing?

If the problem is multiple wounding warmachines, then adjust for that. As is, monsters can kick ass, just by supporting in a flank, or going corner to corner in the front.
Have warmachines roll twice for number of wounds, and take the lower of the dice.

-Matt

Stripping steadfast, and granting it, is an insane ability... and would make monsters pretty over powered, imho.

I'd love to see them get a bit of a boost, but it will probably come slowly and in the traditional sense (i.e. the giant spider has 8 wounds...). I think this kind of rule would swing it too far back the other way.

All of a sudden now your lord-riding-dragon CAN chew through unit after unit of non-steadfast troops... and I was rather glad to see that go away in 8th edition.

Giants are available to I think 3 or 4 races. The monsters you listed are extremely rare because they are lousy compared to their rank-and-file. Even Daemons are usually taking Heralds before the big guys.

The newest monsters in the game are the Arachnarok Spider and Ork version of the Giant. The Giant can get a 6+ ward save for 20pts. Or a 10% premium. Which tells me GW recognizes there's a need for that. But their Giant is also relatively cheap compared to the 300-500 monsters. The Spider has...so many abilities it's not funny. In addition to its 4+ armor save and 8 wounds on 6T.

The Hell Pit Abomination is also pretty new and it has T5 W6 with Regenerate. And it's only 235 pts. It seems clear that they are leaning to making Monsters hardier. But there's still a bunch with nothing but Toughness and Wounds.

I thought about Monsters simply taking away all multi-wound attacks and making them single. But I think that's vastly too powerful. 6+ ward save isn't a deal breaker. Again, it's a 10% cost on the newest Giants.

I also thought about instead of the steadfast, restricting what you said, the BSB and/or general's pressence. Not sure.

Monsters stripping steadfast is a horrible, horrible idea.

I would be willing to bet monsters are 90% of the reason steadfast was put in the game to begin with.

Also yes bloodthirsters are "that good". My thirster can normally grind down a block of 30ish infantry in 3ish turns already, he doesnt lose combat. Removing steadfast you would be looking at 7th edition all over again. Bloodthirster charges X unit, does 8-10 wounds on average, breaks unit, and runs it down cause he is faster.

I too wish monsters were more fun to take, but your proposed rules are incredibly overpowered.... On strips steadfast, which was put in the game to prevent the outcome that you want to achieve.

The other grants steadfast, quite possible the most broken rule in 8th edition.

I think there should be a way to break steadfast on units, and personally I think it should be cavalry hitting them in the rear/flank.

Kills two birds with one stone. Makes cavalry actually usuable, and gives a way to break steadfast, which is sorely needed.

ShivanAngel wrote:Monsters stripping steadfast is a horrible, horrible idea.


I think there should be a way to break steadfast on units, and personally I think it should be cavalry hitting them in the rear/flank.
Kills two birds with one stone. Makes cavalry actually usuable, and gives a way to break steadfast, which is sorely needed.

I think anytime you lose your ranks, you should lose steadfast. Cav would have the advantage of being faster than support infantry, and I think monsters would find a home in the roll of support unit killing.

8th edition needs more love on the flanks, not more monsters in the face.

-Matt

ShivanAngel wrote:I think there should be a way to break steadfast on units, and personally I think it should be cavalry hitting them in the rear/flank.

Not everyone has calvalry. But just hitting in flank/rear in general would be a shadow buff to calvalry and charriots and such because they are faster and thus more able to hit at flanks. But yeah, there's got to be "some" way to take it away.

8th edition needs more love on the flanks, not more monsters in the face.

No, it also needs more Monsters in the face. I rarely see them. They suck ass. You're a broken record talking about one unit. Roll up with your Jabberslythes and Giants and Shaggoths or the other 80% of Monsters that are just huge point sinks. I'll roll up with my Skaven Slaves or poison-Skinks or Cannons et al, let's see who comes out ahead--and like 300% ahead.

Take a look at the 'Ard Boy lists people are posting.
They have plenty of monsters in the mix.
Monsters are still awesome, because they can go corner to corner with a unit during a combined charge, racking up huge combat res with ~2 models only able to fight back.

That's what I do with my hydras. Block of 50 spearmen (~300 points), supported by a hydra. Spearmen hold, or make the charge, hydra supports.

-Matt

I like the fact that you think monsters need more love: they do, however your proposed rules are a bit to OTT. I think a good soloution is to say mosters count as having a rank bonus of 3 for counting the purposes of steadfast.

Everyone knows hydras are (more than) fine. Hydras aren't all monsters. Thunderstop was included even though it made Hydras uber, because it helped all the others which aren't uber.

I hadn't intended for monsters to go raping mass of infantry. I just wanted to weaken tarpits, which make no sense. The rank bonus would mean even elite units would get smeared by monsters, which is what should be fighting monsters in the "fantasy-correct" sense. A bunch of knights riding after a dragon. Not a thousand slaves. Japan flees from Godzilla, they don't go run screaming at him.

Monsters already have as hard counters, magic and war machines. Medium counters are heroes and monsters and tarpits and deathstars (i.e., buffed tarpits).

IMO the Japanese running from Godzilla is failed terror check from the charge . . .

I don't have a problem with tarpits possibly holding up a monster; I have a problem with infantry breaking monsters that that cannot even hurt.

I think monsters should not have to take break tests at the end of a combat in which they took no wounds. What do you all think about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and back to the Godzilla analogy, what if units could not use the BSB's re-roll vs. terror checks caused by monsters?

This thread...there are so many things going on here. So...I'm only going to respond to some of it:

- monsters are not as awesome as they used to be due to two facts:

1. cannons got more accurate.

I don't think we can do much about this, really. I mean, I'm sort of grateful that my a-bomb can sometimes get shot and not die. What would happen if you got hit with a baseball-sized iron sphere traveling hundreds of feet per second?
Some units are well-rounded. Others have greater strengths and greater weaknesses. Cannons and monsters are in that second category. Rock-paper-scissors.

But this shouldn't always be a terrible issue. You play with d6+4 pieces of terrain. If they're not all forests and rivers, there should be some place to hide the big guy while your scouts/fliers/assassins take out the artillery.

Poison is a similar problem, to which I respond: every monster should have at least a 5+ scaly skin save. This'll make them even harder for swarms of dudes to take down but...it's not like they were going to anyway.

Oh, and one more thing on this point: a cannon needs a 5 or a 6 to kill most monsters. That's not great. Now, granted, it's pretty good. But you aren't getting sniped all the time.

2. infantry got Steadfast.

I have to say, there seems to be a lot of problems here stemming from how, exactly, this mechanic would work in reality.

First, it's not like a random dude in rank 7 column C knows where they're going, much less whether or not the general has sent them to die.
If they were told to march ahead while the whole army stayed behind, sure, but that's not what's going on.

Once you're in combat, you want to run. I mean, that's what a Break Test is. But you know that if you do, you might die. This horrible thing might just catch you and eat you. Better to try and hold it off than to take your chances like that.
...until there aren't enough other soldiers there to protect you with their numbers, of course.

Anyone ever kick a hornet's nest? They're not going to kill you, but man, they're everywhere, they hurt, and no matter how many you crush and squish and stomp, they just keep coming. Eff this. See what I mean?

Monsters are absolutely amazing, but not on their own. If a lone dragon charged into...an ARMY, I'd be able to predict the outcome pretty well. What Warhammer seems to be going for is that very, very little is actually capable all by itself. Synergy and whatnot.
If you bring a lot of monsters, Steadfast will frustrate you. But if these rules as written were implemented, the situation would be reversed, and that's no good either, right? Right.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is: Steadfast is an ability that helps out the crappy fighters (i.e.: there's more of them). If you're fewer in number, you're better than they are. And if you're better, you'll grind them down. But it'll take a while.
One-on-one, I'll take the dragon or even the giant over a unit of Skavenslaves or Spearmen any day. It's the flank-charges and so on that come up in extended combats that upsets everyone. So build the rest of the army to work with that.

Warpsolution wrote:One-on-one, I'll take the dragon or even the giant over a unit of Skavenslaves or Spearmen any day.

You had me until here. Phrase it another way, what is more useful:
1 giant or 66 goblins?
1 cygor or 39 gors?

I think those aren't even close.

Maybe a simpler thing is just to reduce the cost of some monsters. Right now it's a tremendous gamble taking them. If you take 66 goblins, your very survival doesn't hinge on finding terrain to hide behind while the rest of your army does something meaningful.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:One-on-one, I'll take the dragon or even the giant over a unit of Skavenslaves or Spearmen any day.

You had me until here. Phrase it another way, what is more useful:
1 giant or 66 goblins?
1 cygor or 39 gors?

I think those aren't even close.

Maybe a simpler thing is just to reduce the cost of some monsters. Right now it's a tremendous gamble taking them. If you take 66 goblins, your very survival doesn't hinge on finding terrain to hide behind while the rest of your army does something meaningful.

Right, with goblins, your very survival hinges on being within 12" of the general, and possibly within range of the BSB as well. One on one, the goblins flee 60% of the time just from the terror; slaves even more often.

Cannons only got more accurate for people who couldn't guess ranges. The process is still the same, it's the guessing that's gone. Since my group was dropping stones dead on 20mm bases from across the table, getting rid of guessing hasn't improved the accuracy, it's only sped up the game.
With improved scouting rules, and larger charge ranges, I've seen warmachines having less of an impact in 8th than in 7th.
Better LoS helps the machines, but terrain not slowing helps the monsters.

-Matt

Those goblins will, generally, last longer, but against a monster, they'll just make one Steadfast test after another, until the goblins fail and run, or the monster kills them all. They could poke so many hopes in him that they win but...that's pretty unlikely. Especially if the said monster (...dragon) has good armour.

Most players were that good at guessing ranges, but I see what you mean.
I think war machines' role as monster-killers stands out more now, since monsters struggle to go in solo. It doesn't make much sense on paper.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Right, with goblins, your very survival hinges on being within 12" of the general, and possibly within range of the BSB as well. One on one, the goblins flee 60% of the time just from the terror; slaves even more often.

-Matt

I said which is more beneficial. The goblins also do 10x the dmg and have 10x the health. That's pretty fantastical. I don't know who would win vs. a monster, but in nearly every other situation, the mass of troops is better. Which is the point.

BTW, you don't need to sign your name, we can move our eyeballs and see to the left. Like you don't have to put a date and time at the top of the post or put a Dear DukeRustfield, or repeat the title. But smilies still need love

DukeRustfield wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:Right, with goblins, your very survival hinges on being within 12" of the general, and possibly within range of the BSB as well. One on one, the goblins flee 60% of the time just from the terror; slaves even more often.

-Matt

I said which is more beneficial. The goblins also do 10x the dmg and have 10x the health. That's pretty fantastical. I don't know who would win vs. a monster, but in nearly every other situation, the mass of troops is better. Which is the point.

BTW, you don't need to sign your name, we can move our eyeballs and see to the left. Like you don't have to put a date and time at the top of the post or put a Dear DukeRustfield, or repeat the title. But smilies still need love

10x the damage? Mathhammer says that auto winning by 2 with no attacks back (yell and bawl), or jumping up and down (2D6 hits + thunder stomp) does a lot more damage that 8-10 S3 attacks, that more often than not need 5's to hit.
On average, it takes goblins ~11+ turns to kill a giant; most likely losing combat every one of those rounds. Odds of passing 11 break tests on Ld6 goblins is 1 in ~15,000.
Safest place for a giant is in melee with S3 low leadership opponents (where fear helps out too).
Goblins get a lot better with a lord, BSB and supporting hammer.
Likewise, giants get a lot better with screening trolls (cannon blockers), and supporting horde.
Of course infantry look better when you factor in command, generals and BSB's; monsters don't need those.


My name is in the sig; my sig is just much shorting than most peoples.


-Matt

You keep having them fight each other but I said which is more efficient. Them fighting each other is one of the thousands of encounters they could hit. Which is better in more? I think it's pretty clearly the infantry blocks, which are vastly more versatile and in many many situations even do more monstery stuff better, like sponging war machines, distracting spells, tarpitting, and laying down lots of dmg.

I personally dont like giants because skaven and lizardmen are so prevalent in my area..

Units of gutter runners or chameleon skinks do horrible horrible things to high toughness no armor monsters...(and now, a huge block of goblins with the spider banner)

Yeah, that's one of the big points. Toughness/wounds aren't the same as a resist. Siege weapons ignore it. Mass pin pricks ignore it.

It's not like 40K where if you got a land raider you can literally run over a hundred thousand heretics because they can't possibly hurt you. Anything in WHFB can hurt anything if given enough attempts.

A scaly skin save would be best. 5+ minimum.

As for which unit is more efficient...well, um, yes. Infantry is more versatile and more useful in a wider variety of situations than monsters. That's sort of the way of things. Monsters obviously can't be overall better than infantry, since that creates the same problem in reverse.
And the challenge with balancing such one-sided units like monsters or artillery is that the balance comes down to a few die rolls, versus a whole mess of dice for infantry.
The more dice you roll, the more the average will resemble the mathematical one. The less dice, the greater the chance for extreme outliers.

Infantry, by the way, is obviously intended to be better at soaking enemy fire and holding down units. They're a bunch of guys, versus one (albeit very big and tough) thing.
Infantry does more damage than monsters? Show me a unit that can do more damage than a monster of the same point value. The results are few and far between- smallish units of, say, Chaos Warriors or Swordmasters. But those are probably more vulnerable to shooting than monsters, due to the drop in T without a substantial raise in wounds.

All in all, I think a scaly skin save would suffice. They can't break units all on their own. Tough. They occasionally sit down to a second helping of cannonball. Deal. They get poisoned to death with needles that aren't actually long enough to reach their blood vessels? Lame.

Hey, since when do blowpipes and slings have "multiple shots" anyway? You ever tried to use those things? It takes a while. A lot more than say, a bow.

Warpsolution wrote:As for which unit is more efficient...well, um, yes. Infantry is more versatile and more useful in a wider variety of situations than monsters. That's sort of the way of things.
Monsters obviously can't be overall better than infantry, since that creates the same problem in reverse.

Uh, no it doesn't. One is Rare and one is Core. If Core is nearly always better than Rare, why take Rare? Which is generally what you see happening now.

And the challenge with balancing such one-sided units like monsters or artillery is that the balance comes down to a few die rolls, versus a whole mess of dice for infantry.
The more dice you roll, the more the average will resemble the mathematical one. The less dice, the greater the chance for extreme outliers.

Monsters don't really fit into that category. Spells do. If you miscast it's bad, if you get some super duper puprple poop of doodieness that kills half the units on the table...that's balance.

Well, you're right on monsters being Rare versus Core. But I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind Core. It's "the bulk of your army". The most versatile.
A cannon or chariot or giant is good at that thing it does. A block of infantry can do any of those things, but with less success than the specialists that, as luck would have it, are called Special and Rare unit choices.

Monsters don't fit into this category? What about cannons? I thought that was your main complaint: that monsters get shot down in the first turn way too often.
Roll for drift, roll for bounce. Roll to wound, roll to multiply. Four dice. And one of those dice decides if your monster lives or dies.
So, you could say that it's the problem with artillery, and I do, but since the only units to really get hurt by this are monsters, and it's their one main weakness besides poison, I say it's their problem too.

Y'know, if you're not fighting...Brettonia, Dark Elves, Dwarfs, Empire, Lizardmen, or Skaven, these threats to monsters aren't really that big of a deal.
How do monsters fair against armies without these things, like Daemons of Chaos, High Elves, Ogre Kingdoms, Warriors of Chaos, Wood Elves, etc.?

And for the record: the giant may appear the most often in army books, and may be the most "common" monster seen about in the Warhammer world, but it's not the most common on the battlefield. And while that's partly because of the problems they have with certain ranged attacks, it's largely in part due to their unpredictable nature. If the giant needs to be better, I'd suggest modifying his rules first, and then giving him new ones.