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.

Consider this:

A Tomb King, Vampire Lord, Chaos Hero/Lord, etc all come with base STR 5. A War Hydra, which is supposed to be a MONSTER, also runs at STR 5. According to the rulebook, the standard man is the equivalent of STR 3, so STR4 represents elite men, and STR5 would represent those who possess unmatched power.

Here's my point:

Give a hero/lord a halberd, great weapon, STR-based magic weapon and you suddenly can run up to STR 8. This seems excessive when you consider the most powerful of monsters rarely, if any, go beyond base STR 7. This just seems to trivialize the threat of "monsters" and makes characters much scarier.

My solution:

Modify Halberds/Great Weapons etc. Instead of providing a bonus to strength, provide a bonus +To Wound roll. Such as Great Swords provide a +2 bonus to wound, meaning that you almost can never wound on anything worse than a 4+. I think that is more reasonable than making a single person more powerful than legendary monsters that are capable of destroying ships (see Charybdis @ STR7).

Conclusion:

It effectively handles the fluff issue but it presents a mechanic issue. The biggest flaw I see is that you will struggle against heavily armored foes. It just seems silly to me that heroes with weapons/armor are a bigger threat, and are capable of taking more damage than large monsters. I think it would tone down Herohammer a bit, and also give monsters a more prominent role on the battlefield to deal with Tough targets.

---

Am I way off base, or do you think that is a fair approach towards enhancing weaponry's role in Warhammer?

I think Chaos Lords and such are meant to be near Herculean levels of strength, able to tie up Hydras and beat down foes like Cerberus.

Especially after reading the various Warhammer novels, I think its working as intended. After all, if these generals weren't strong enough to whip up on these monsters, how do they secure their loyalty in the army?

I respectfully disagree. I think there's a significant difference between a general being capable of killing a monster opposed to making a monster appear as if it posed no more of a threat than a skaven slave.

The power creep on heroes is a bit much. I understand heroes can help turn the tide of battle, but a hero shouldn't be capable of single-handedly dispatching the enemy's entire army while the rest of his own army is simply there to provide moral support.

Okay, str3 with great weapon is str5, wounding t6 on 5+. Str3 with your rules for great weapons now wounds t6 on 4+ so that wouldn't work. Not to mention increasing str gives the ability to actually harm higher t values, suddenly str3 with your rules harms t6 on 4+, but is useless against t7 as the actual str wasn't modified.

I think there should be man sized characters with comparable hitting power to monsters, I would imagine a 250 lb guy with a great sword to hit like a ton of bricks, let alone if he was infused with the power of the Dark Gods.

The Base STR of these superheroes are comparable to monsters without the need for weapons to boost STR. Anything added on top of that just seems like overkill.

This is where I struggle to accept how a Skaven/Elvan/Human/etc Warlord can grab a +3 STR sword and suddenly hit as hard as a legendary sea monster capable of destroying ships.

David shouldn't be able to beat Goliath in an arm wrestling contest.

I don't know, maybe the weapons are really really magical?

If you consider that a TK pays 80 pts for a Destroyer of Eternities, its basically saying that "this sword is more powerful than the might of 20 skeleton warriors!"

Give that sword to someone who is a resurrected King of days past, infused with un-natural strength and toughness..

wfr12n wrote:
I think it would tone down Herohammer a bit, and also give monsters a more prominent role on the battlefield to deal with Tough targets.

Disagree. You haven't removed the single biggest reason to not take monsters. Cannons.

alex87 wrote:

wfr12n wrote:
I think it would tone down Herohammer a bit, and also give monsters a more prominent role on the battlefield to deal with Tough targets.

Disagree. You haven't removed the single biggest reason to not take monsters. Cannons.

This again? Let's stay on-topic.

Magiiiic.

It's fine as is. A vampire lord is a supernatural beast fuelled by dark magics & possessed of unnatural strength & vitality.

In mythology mummies are possessed of super strength.

Chaos lords are just that lords of chaos. Have you read what happens in the northern wastes? Only the strong survive let alone rise to become a LORD amongst the survivors.

I mean if 3 is a man, and 4 is an elite man, why can't 5 be an elite man fueled by powerful magics / the blessings of dark gods?

wfr12n wrote:
David shouldn't be able to beat Goliath in an arm wrestling contest.

It did make me smile reading that, towering over the small david, until he slams a 80kg bicep on the table and thunder crunches Goliath into a stupour!

Your mechanic is a clever idea, but I agree with the majority here, Strength 5 for a Chaos lord is what I would expect as a minimum, they are brutal hardend men that have earnt the right to be that strong, especailly with the price tag attached, 210 for a chaos lord (if memory serves me) and a thundertusk is 250.... pt for pt they should definatly be able to fight each other on the northern wastes and it be an equal match....


...until the will of chaos taints the thundertusk....and the chaos lord rides him to battle dripping his nurgle blessing all over him, trampling friend and foe alike!

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

alex87 wrote:

wfr12n wrote:
I think it would tone down Herohammer a bit, and also give monsters a more prominent role on the battlefield to deal with Tough targets.

Disagree. You haven't removed the single biggest reason to not take monsters. Cannons.

This again? Let's stay on-topic.

How is this not on-topic?
I'm not whinging about the rules for cannons, I'm pointing out that monsters are still hard-countered by cannons (and a number of other war-machines). Given that Cannons are reasonably commonplace in the game currently, it is hard to justify a monster over a large combat unit or character that can be customized and protected.

alex87 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

alex87 wrote:

wfr12n wrote:
I think it would tone down Herohammer a bit, and also give monsters a more prominent role on the battlefield to deal with Tough targets.

Disagree. You haven't removed the single biggest reason to not take monsters. Cannons.

This again? Let's stay on-topic.

How is this not on-topic?
I'm not whinging about the rules for cannons, I'm pointing out that monsters are still hard-countered by cannons (and a number of other war-machines). Given that Cannons are reasonably commonplace in the game currently, it is hard to justify a monster over a large combat unit or character that can be customized and protected.

Because the thread is about comparing the strength of characters with that of monsters, and finding a way to balance it in a fluffy way. It has nothing to do with the viability of monsters in the overall game, or even as a counter to characters.

So basically you're point here is that being able to take protective items/ward saves and Look-Out-Sir by means of hiding in a units is somehow not a strength that Characters have over Monsters.
You are incorrect.

You're still missing the point, Alex. If you actually read the original post, the original poster's concern is solely about comparative strength scores between characters and monsters. The post has nothing to do with either category of models' ability to survive being shot with a cannon, or even either category's utility in the overall perspective of the game. It was a very narrow consideration that you attempted to drag into an unrelated discussion, and frankly I'm done taking your bait.

I personally love this idea. It has immense potential to be abused. Especially with ET:K magic. Oh. Cool. My executioners are now flaming sword-ed. I win.

Relax, not baiting. Seems I did misinterpret.

In that case it's just another unnecessary modifier. Besides, why would a weapon be capable of penetrating armour, but not wounding effectively? So from a fluff perspective it has limited merit anyway.

The org post has an odd view point.
Characters shouldn't be as strong as monsters, because monsters are tough enough to take a hit from characters.
The examples have nothing to do with the strength of the monster, and more to do with toughness of the monster.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if a character spend 60 points on +3 strength, it would leave him pretty open on the defense side of things.

From a fluff perspective, magic items are really rare and extremely powerful. This isn't D&D with magic sword +1 floating around everywhere.

In the balance match up, sure a 350 point chaos lord on foot (with magic items, mark, and daemon gifts) hits harder and is more durable than a 175 point hydra, but pair up up against 2 hydras (or 2 khrybdiss for that matter) and include the thunder stomps when he doesn't kill either, and it all works out fine.

It might also be worth noting that the hydra is pretty bad for the cost, and the vampire lord, chaos lord and tomb king are all top dogs.

-Matt

A few things:

1. the three characters listed in the original post are not mortal creatures.
S3 is an average human soldier. So...what about a 200-year-old vampire or mummy, or war-born viking, mutated by ancient gods, with a pot-belly stove welded to his skin? S5 sounds reasonable to me.

2. A bonus to Wound is not worse than a bonus to Strength. It's worse against armour, and it's better against higher Toughness.
So...the suggested system makes super-high bonuses, like from the Giant Blade, mostly redundant. But now a block of Dwarf Warriors wound everything in the game on a 4+ or better. So if the monster has a 5+ armour save, the Warriors are laying the same smack down. Against monsters with a 6+ or less, they're doing better.

3. Characters are not necessarily capable of taking more punishment than Monsters. T5 is about as high as most Characters can hope to go. T6 is fairly common for Monsters. The General and BSB can be expected to have a 4+ Ward. Armour's all over the place. Monsters usually have a 4 or 5+ Scaly Skin save and/or Regeneration.
Monsters can usually take more middle-of-the-road attacks (WS4 S4 sort of thing), and Characters can tank more powerful attacks better, thanks to Ward saves. Both of them take tons of little attacks to drag down.

4. What Herohammer are you talking about? Tomb Kings? Chaos Lords? These characters are not ruling the game.
The Vampire Lord, with the right toys, will carve through rank-and-file, but he's the only one people take with the expectation that he'll make his points back.
But beyond the Counts, no one takes big smashy characters. They take really tough ones, and then they take Wizards.

5. I just don't see a problem that this is solving. Monsters should be strong? They are.
The issue is the 1-10 value. Rat swarms are S2. A man with a sword and the horse he rides on are S3. Crossbow bolts and Ogres are S4.
I mean, seriously. An Ogre is, what, a 500lb 8ft. tall guy? And his Strength and Toughness are 1 higher than a regular guy's?
Like HawaiiMatt said, this isn't D&D. You don't have a huge range to work with. So there's going to be some weird comparisons.

And, more importantly, what mechanical issue is this trying to resolve? We can't just make an addendum to every rule because "that's not how it would really work".

All of the characters you mentioned are well beyond superhuman strength.

That isn't what cheapens monsters. They'll still squish piddly Str3 humans but, surprise surprise, they die to heroes(just like the movies!)

What really makes monsters underwhelming is that they have too few wounds and die to warmachines too easily. If a Giant had 12 wounds it would actually be viable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What really makes monsters underwhelming is that they have too few wounds and die to warmachines too easily.

Whoa, careful! I made the same point earlier and had my head bitten off for going off-topic!

Agreed. Monsters have too few wounds, and most don't have an appropriate T or armor save value that represents their ability to sustain damage.

I'm not convinced that a S5 general wielding a great weapon (or any mundane equipment that enhances STR value) should be able to hit as hard, or even harder, than dragons/giants/etc.

I'm willing to forego the STR argument when it comes to magical equipment, but take almost any standard or elite infantry, slap halberds/great weapons on.. .and they match the hitting power of a monster?

Lances I can somewhat understand because you're powered by a horse charging in, and the buff only lasts during the turn you charged.

wfr12n wrote:
I'm not convinced that a S5 general wielding a great weapon (or any mundane equipment that enhances STR value) should be able to hit as hard, or even harder, than dragons/giants/etc.

I believe I may have found the issue:

Gigantic, muscle-bound behemoths such as dragons and giants should do more damage than even especially powerful man-sized characters.
And: they do!
That Chaos Lord may be S6 with his halberd, but that Dragon has more attacks, more wounds, usually a higher Toughness, and Thunderstomp. So, on average, that dragon is indeed wreaking more carnage.

Consider this-- an Ogre has 3 attacks. Why? He's certainly not faster than the average human soldier. In fact, he's slower! But he's got 3 attacks because he's BIG. One swing of his club may well kill two halberdiers. Monsters are an even more extreme example.

wfr12n wrote:
I'm willing to forego the STR argument when it comes to magical equipment, but take almost any standard or elite infantry, slap halberds/great weapons on.. .and they match the hitting power of a monster?

Again: what do you want from a game with a spectrum of ability that ranges from 1 to 10? A swarm of rats is S2. A cannonball is S10. Where does a human fit in that equation? Where does a Giant fit? There's always going to be something a little off about it, because the game sacrificed realism for simplicity.

wfr12n wrote:
Lances I can somewhat understand because you're powered by a horse charging in, and the buff only lasts during the turn you charged.

...and great weapons are massive pieces of steel, and the "buff" comes with the drawback of the Always Strikes Last special rule. I watched a man chop through a bull's skull in two good whacks with a "great sword". I've seen footage of a kendo master cutting through 27 tatami mats (the equivalent of 27 human thighs) with one perfect swipe of his no dachi.
It's not just about how hard you swing. It's about what you're swinging with.

wfr12n wrote:
Agreed. Monsters have too few wounds, and most don't have an appropriate T or armor save value that represents their ability to sustain damage.

This seems to be the real issue here, honestly. I feel like this thread is all over the place, because your original post seems to be a complaint about how awesome characters are (...they're not), while this is more about how Monsters aren't good enough.
And if this latter point is your main one, I am sure you will have many a player rallying to your banner. Giving Monsters a much-needed overhaul is a popular thread topic.
But if you really are trying to claim that characters are too good...yeah. Not seeing it happen. There are a few specific builds from the Warriors and the Vampire books that are pretty nasty, but that's about it.

The thing that most people are missing in this thread is that Vampires and Mummies and Chaos Lords are Monsters, just not in the Unit Type sense.

Vampires are not just people who drink blood. They are supernatural beasts that happen to be human-shaped because of a quirk of their (un)life cycle. A Vampire is no more human than a manticore is!

Chaos Lords are not just people who worship Chaos and have a bit of charisma. Chaos Lords are post-human beasts that have been raised to supernatural levels of power by the influence of daemonic energy and pacts.

@Furyou Miko: that concept has been addressed several times. The OP's comment about those three characters seems to be one aspect of their issue, though.
The other aspects are that some rank-and-file troops are as strong as Monsters, and that Monsters aren't tough/good enough.

A regular human swinging a broadsword can exert quite a lot of force on the edge of the blade. More than all but the strongest of animals can with their natural weaponry.

Right.
I mean, with swords, it's barely a matter of strength at all. You don't flex your huge muscles and bring down your blade like you're splitting wood. You push or pull the blade along your opponent.
The Warhammer statistic "Strength" is not reflective purely of how much you can bench-press. Otherwise, Horses would be S4.

...but Chaos Horses are S4!

Warpsolution, your argument seems to imply that all swords should have the same damage value (ie S3) regardless of source since "flexing huge muscles" has little to no impact on the actual damage inflicted by the sword.

I think the biggest issue I see here is how the 1-10 values offers very little wiggle room and forces itself to find a delicate balance between gameplay and fluff.

I think he was implying that strength scores, particularly on characters, may also reflect skill as opposed to brute strength. For example, I doubt Karl Franz is 33% stronger than his soldiers.

- Exactly.
Master swordsmen were not the most athletic people by default. They simply studied their art harder than everyone else, and kept track of all the numbers in their head (the distance between the fighters and the number of moves it takes to close that distance, etc).
And you don't swing swords like baseball bats. I had a modern-day master explain it to me like this: when you sit down to a nice steak, do you bring your knife up over your head and smash it into your plate? No. You line up the blade with the meat, and you push...and pull. The same concept applies with swords. Except the meat is your opponent.

- Big swords had longer blades (deeper cuts) and longer reach (more opportunities to make those cuts).

- And yes, Chaos Steeds--Clydesdales imbued with the power of Chaos/mutated by foul magic/possessed by unclean spirits--are S4.

- As I said, the 1-10 scale has it's limitations. Trying to iron out one issue will invariably cause another. Case and point: once more, compare the Ogre to the Human.