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.

Monstrous Creatures always start with Smash, which mean they have AP2 on their close combat attack. Why? Why make MC even more powerful when they already have high Strength, Toughness and a bunch of wounds? Even Terminators will fall to generic MC unless you give them Storm Shield or have GK Terminators with Force Weapons. This rule is ridiculous.

I feel like Smash should be AP3 or even AP4. To compensate, the one blow at double Strength should be AP1. The reason for this is to make people invest in wargears for MC that actually give them AP2 or AP1. Anyone agree?

Smash being a blanket rule for MCs has always felt extremely lazy to me (among a long list of other rules...).

When a riptide can squish terminators and explode dreadnoughts, something's a bit off here. It reduces the importance of wargear choices, and makes some downright hilarious (Tyranid MCs having Ap6 as the only benefit for their Scything Talons, for instance), and continues the divide between Walkers and MCs being hilariously one-sided. Better than before, however, when you could have a fair number of specific "Smash" attacks, and just wreck any vehicle without qualm, but it remains one more example of GW being a bit special when designing rules, and is a debate that goes back as far as Walkers and MCs become functionally different entities with wildly different power/durability.

On the flip side does it really make sense for a scything talon 1 foot long with sub 100 Ibs to be the same as one 6-10 feet long with several thousands of Ibs behind it. Honestly if you get hit by a buss a flak jacket is not saving you, despite the fact the buss failed to penetrate the armour.

Personally I would prefer a fantasy style armour modification system but I definitely think that MC should have differences in their melee attacks than a gaunt.

BTW smash is supposed to represent the fact that a MC can literally squash you like a bug. Or in the case of vehicles it can body slam the vehicle possibly flipping it. It works off of the same reasoning why a 40+ Ibs split between two fighters is a mismatch. If you have ever fought someone 100+ Ibs heavier then you would know you are better off without padding (ie armour) weighing you down as when you get hit you fly. I can only imagine 1000+ Ibs difference would essentially squash you inside your armour.

Why? Because MCs used to ignore armour outright, so they were effectively AP2 without being AP2. The only buff Smash gives MCs (other than the 1 attack at double strength), is +1 on vehicle damage.

Of course they can squish termis. Termis cost 40pts. Which is noticably far less than the majority of MCs. If you invested 150-200pts into an MC and it couldn't even deal with 1 termi, you'd feel a touch cheated.
5 termis on the other hand can very easily do massive damage, if not outright kill an MC, as its only killing a couple of them before they attack anyway.

bibotot wrote:
Monstrous Creatures always start with Smash, which mean they have AP2 on their close combat attack. Why? Why make MC even more powerful when they already have high Strength, Toughness and a bunch of wounds? Even Terminators will fall to generic MC unless you give them Storm Shield or have GK Terminators with Force Weapons. This rule is ridiculous.

I feel like Smash should be AP3 or even AP4. To compensate, the one blow at double Strength should be AP1. The reason for this is to make people invest in wargears for MC that actually give them AP2 or AP1. Anyone agree?

Are you new to 40k? Monstrous creatures have been like that since...well, ever. In fact, they were even more powerful back in the day when all of their regular attacks had armorbane and thus there was no real need for smash at all.


So no, the rule is not ridiculous. A monstrous creature can grab a terminator like a tin can and smash him to a pulp. Heck, even genestealers routinely rip terminators to shreads with their adamantine claws.

The question you should be asking yourself is, why are powerfists so stronk? Little energized fists that can wound a towering hive tyrant on a 2+? Really????? Should be more like 3+ or 4+

 Sir Arun wrote:

bibotot wrote:
Monstrous Creatures always start with Smash, which mean they have AP2 on their close combat attack. Why? Why make MC even more powerful when they already have high Strength, Toughness and a bunch of wounds? Even Terminators will fall to generic MC unless you give them Storm Shield or have GK Terminators with Force Weapons. This rule is ridiculous.

I feel like Smash should be AP3 or even AP4. To compensate, the one blow at double Strength should be AP1. The reason for this is to make people invest in wargears for MC that actually give them AP2 or AP1. Anyone agree?

Are you new to 40k? Monstrous creatures have been like that since...well, ever. In fact, they were even more powerful back in the day when all of their regular attacks had armorbane and thus there was no real need for smash at all.


So no, the rule is not ridiculous. A monstrous creature can grab a terminator like a tin can and smash him to a pulp. Heck, even genestealers routinely rip terminators to shreads with their adamantine claws.

The question you should be asking yourself is, why are powerfists so stronk? Little energized fists that can wound a towering hive tyrant on a 2+? Really????? Should be more like 3+ or 4+

I always found Power weapons to sort of be oddly GOOD. I'm admittedly not as up to snuff on the lore of 40K. I don't own many novels or source bookss (Just my Ork codecies). I could see them being super effective on equal sized foes, but having a bit of trouble fully cleaving through a large monster with total ease. Even cleaving through thick metal like on tanks like it's butter is pretty damn powerful. I guess the description is they use a force field or power field of some kind to achieve such easy cutting or something? Pretty good gak to have equal effectiveness on flesh, bone, wood, and metal :p

All smash really gained them is +1 on the vehicle damage chart(most MCs don't need or want to trade all but one attack for double strength)

They've ignored armor saves since forever.

MCs needed a buff as they've historically been lackluster in their performance.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All smash really gained them is +1 on the vehicle damage chart(most MCs don't need or want to trade all but one attack for double strength)

They've ignored armor saves since forever.

MCs needed a buff as they've historically been lackluster in their performance.

Really? I mean the only issue in 5th was that whole 5+ to hit a moving vehicle thing, I mean even then you still had double Prince's, whatever CD used to avoid the pain of turn 1 deepstrike issues, Tyranids using Hive Tyrants and those other beasties, and it was less that there was an issue with them and more that Vehicle Armor was Ridiculously strong.

And in 4th you had Daemon Princes and the uber Carnifex, and a couple others, where Ordnance could outright kill troops in Transports and all that.

I agree with the OP. Just because MCs used to have an even stronger rule doesn't mean it has to continue. I think many MCs would make more sense at AP3. And a lot more wargear options would make sense too.

But then, I'm all for anything that reduces the number of armies fielding five giant models and returns people to battlefields covered in infantry...


Edited to add:
And surely it would mean suddenly Terminators were a heck of a lot more appealing! After all, people currently think they are worthless because of all the AP2 in the game. Wouldn't less AP2 be a good start?

Terminators aren't worthless because of AP2. They're bad because a 2+ save means jack squat in the face of tons and tons of attacks.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I agree with the OP. Just because MCs used to have an even stronger rule doesn't mean it has to continue. I think many MCs would make more sense at AP3. And a lot more wargear options would make sense too.

But then, I'm all for anything that reduces the number of armies fielding five giant models and returns people to battlefields covered in infantry...


Edited to add:
And surely it would mean suddenly Terminators were a heck of a lot more appealing! After all, people currently think they are worthless because of all the AP2 in the game. Wouldn't less AP2 be a good start?

Few to any armies can field that many MCs. Just about the only army you'll see with five is nids, and they -should- have a bunch of Godzillas walking around...

So far as Terminators go. Termies aren't weak because of MCs (they're actually super effective at killing them - it's one of their biggest strengths). Termies are weak because of the abundance of cheap AP2 / rending which has made its way into the game. Eldar and Tau are the biggest offenders in this department.

I play against a Death Wing player very regularly with my Tyranids and let me tell you, it isn't my MC's doing most of the work. Terminators suffer because of the amount of AP2 shooting in this game, not the amount of MCs in the game. If a group of Terminators is in CC with a Hive Tyrant then yes, they will probably lose but at the same time they will take a decent amount of wounds off of the Tyrant. A group of Terminators against a Carnifex are likely to kill the Carnifex, it has at most 5 attacks, hitting 2.5 times, about 2 wounds and the Terminators have either a 3++ or a 5++.

Further nerfing MCs abilities, the nerf to smash was huge for Tyranids at least, isn't going to help anything out except make vehicles even more unkillable. Making weapon upgrades that give AP2 isn't going to help either, it is just suggesting that we increase the price on MCs across the board because NO ONE is going to run an MC without AP 2 because for most armies a MC is their best or only anti-tank unit.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I agree with the OP. Just because MCs used to have an even stronger rule doesn't mean it has to continue. I think many MCs would make more sense at AP3. And a lot more wargear options would make sense too.

But then, I'm all for anything that reduces the number of armies fielding five giant models and returns people to battlefields covered in infantry...


Edited to add:
And surely it would mean suddenly Terminators were a heck of a lot more appealing! After all, people currently think they are worthless because of all the AP2 in the game. Wouldn't less AP2 be a good start?

I think there's an issue with AP2 being so easily obtained. I think Monstrous Creatures are just fine for rules in melee, but Walkers should ignore armor altogether as well, along with there being so much AP2 ranged options that the second best armor in the game is blech.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I play against a Death Wing player very regularly with my Tyranids and let me tell you, it isn't my MC's doing most of the work. Terminators suffer because of the amount of AP2 shooting in this game, not the amount of MCs in the game. If a group of Terminators is in CC with a Hive Tyrant then yes, they will probably lose but at the same time they will take a decent amount of wounds off of the Tyrant. A group of Terminators against a Carnifex are likely to kill the Carnifex, it has at most 5 attacks, hitting 2.5 times, about 2 wounds and the Terminators have either a 3++ or a 5++.

Further nerfing MCs abilities, the nerf to smash was huge for Tyranids at least, isn't going to help anything out except make vehicles even more unkillable. Making weapon upgrades that give AP2 isn't going to help either, it is just suggesting that we increase the price on MCs across the board because NO ONE is going to run an MC without AP 2 because for most armies a MC is their best or only anti-tank unit.

As. DE player, my Taloi are definitely my anti-armor workhorses.

I wish people would stop trying to apply "realistic" scenarios in the game or the rules.

bibotot wrote:
Monstrous Creatures always start with Smash, which mean they have AP2 on their close combat attack. Why? Why make MC even more powerful when they already have high Strength, Toughness and a bunch of wounds? Even Terminators will fall to generic MC unless you give them Storm Shield or have GK Terminators with Force Weapons. This rule is ridiculous.

I feel like Smash should be AP3 or even AP4. To compensate, the one blow at double Strength should be AP1. The reason for this is to make people invest in wargears for MC that actually give them AP2 or AP1. Anyone agree?

I can see why some MC's who aren't built for crushing things in CC should probably have less... but most I think are fine with AP2. All the TMC's I think are fine with AP2.

Your Termie argument is strange. When a 200pt Terminator unit gets in CC with a 200pt MC built primarily for CC what do you think should happen? I think it'd be pretty crap if the MC attacked and did absolutely nothing. What actually does happens is what I think is fair, which is that the MC will kill a couple of Termies and then the Termies will strike back and take a couple of wounds off the MC. That's what should happen when 2 expensive elite smash in to each other, so I'm fine with the way it works now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I agree with the OP. Just because MCs used to have an even stronger rule doesn't mean it has to continue. I think many MCs would make more sense at AP3. And a lot more wargear options would make sense too.

But then, I'm all for anything that reduces the number of armies fielding five giant models and returns people to battlefields covered in infantry...


Edited to add:
And surely it would mean suddenly Terminators were a heck of a lot more appealing! After all, people currently think they are worthless because of all the AP2 in the game. Wouldn't less AP2 be a good start?

I think there's an issue with AP2 being so easily obtained. I think Monstrous Creatures are just fine for rules in melee, but Walkers should ignore armor altogether as well, along with there being so much AP2 ranged options that the second best armor in the game is blech.

Most Dreadnought weapons are AP2. If Walkers were flat AP2 all the time, armless Dreadnoughts, Sentinels, and War Walkers could punt Terminators to death.

The Blood Angel furioso dread isnt AP2 so he cant scratch terminators

I know that Smash is really nothing new (at least in terms of AP2), but I do think it's strange that all MCs have AP2 as standard.

Or, more precisely, I think it's strange that MCs get this and walkers don't. Surely the walkers would also have a lot power behind their attacks?

It represents that MC are so massive, they can kill you even without penetrating your armor and tearing flesh. Just like when cars crash people don't die from outer wounds. They die from inner ones.

 koooaei wrote:
It represents that MC are so massive, they can kill you even without penetrating your armor and tearing flesh. Just like when cars crash people don't die from outer wounds. They die from inner ones.

MC are already presented by high Strength, high Toughness, loads of attacks and multiple wounds. Why AP2 as well?

bibotot wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
It represents that MC are so massive, they can kill you even without penetrating your armor and tearing flesh. Just like when cars crash people don't die from outer wounds. They die from inner ones.

MC are already presented by high Strength, high Toughness, loads of attacks and multiple wounds. Why AP2 as well?

Yeah they should be AP-. Nothing says incredible strength by being stopped by a T-shirt.

bibotot wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
It represents that MC are so massive, they can kill you even without penetrating your armor and tearing flesh. Just like when cars crash people don't die from outer wounds. They die from inner ones.

MC are already presented by high Strength, high Toughness, loads of attacks and multiple wounds. Why AP2 as well?

The game designers felt that Monstrous Creature attacks should ignore armor saves. It's really that simple. You may agree or disagree, but that's what they decided to do.

 koooaei wrote:
It represents that MC are so massive, they can kill you even without penetrating your armor and tearing flesh. Just like when cars crash people don't die from outer wounds. They die from inner ones.

But then shouldn't that be the same for Walkers?

Why do they need special weapons to get better than AP-?

 vipoid wrote:
But then shouldn't that be the same for Walkers?

Why do they need special weapons to get better than AP-?

The difference between walkers and MC is flexibility. Walkers cannot drop kick, body slam, or pin an opponent to the ground so they can crush the opponent's head. Just look at the walkers, their joints don't allow that level of articulation. Now look at the MCs models. Their joints allow for high leverage attacks such as bear hugs, biting a head off, stomping on a head, etc. This is the difference between MC and walkers. One has full motion range articulation so they can use a full range of movements and the other is legs attached to weapons where they are lucky to have a single joint per limb (the most obvious loss of articulation is a large solid torso for most of the walkers versus an articulated or shrunken torso for the MC). Walkers can only attack by bumping into things unless they have a dreadnought close combat weapon...which provides the articulation that every MC has.

You can try it yourself. Take an balloon and swat it...it flies away but is unharmed. Now use leverage, such as pinching it between your arm and chest...it popped didn't it.

Hrm, I'd argue that dreadnoughts look perfectly capable of stuff like that, and have been shown to do such things in games like Dawn of War. Maulerfiends certainly look like they're capable of biting off heads, bear hugs, etc. Decimators and Contemptor dreads look every bit as flexible as most MC's. The Helbrute models don't look particularly inarticulate, certainly not any less so than something like a Carnifex.

I mean, Sentinels and War Walkers and Reaver Titans don't look particularly capable in that regard, but many other walkers look very articulate.

 vipoid wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
It represents that MC are so massive, they can kill you even without penetrating your armor and tearing flesh. Just like when cars crash people don't die from outer wounds. They die from inner ones.

But then shouldn't that be the same for Walkers?

Why do they need special weapons to get better than AP-?

it makes sense as long as "monstrous creatures" only includes creatures that are monstrous, as pretty much any creature the is monstrous is capable of putting a lot of weight and muscle behind an attack. Walkers, however, includes any sort of mechanical walking device, many of which arent designed to hit hard in CC, things like eldar war walkers.

So I think it's fine, the problem only comes when you label things as being "monstrous creatures" when they aren't creatures that are monstrous.

But I'd be fine if smash were not automatically linked to MC, but I'd say most MC's should still have smash anyway even if the MC rule doesn't automatically confer the smash rule.

bibotot wrote:
Monstrous Creatures always start with Smash, which mean they have AP2 on their close combat attack. Why? Why make MC even more powerful when they already have high Strength, Toughness and a bunch of wounds? Even Terminators will fall to generic MC unless you give them Storm Shield or have GK Terminators with Force Weapons. This rule is ridiculous.

I feel like Smash should be AP3 or even AP4. To compensate, the one blow at double Strength should be AP1. The reason for this is to make people invest in wargears for MC that actually give them AP2 or AP1. Anyone agree?

Perhaps you forget that MC's have ALWAYS ignored armor. So this smash thing really seems like an odd subject to broach. They are Godzillas. If you think normal armor is of any use against them, you're wrong. But thats fluff talking. From a gameplay standpoint they've always torn armor apart.

carnifex brood = super smash bros