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.

As the title suggests I want to talk about the current to wound table, and how I feel that it is unnecessarily generous to the weak of arm (S3 or less). I play two armies where monsters are a big deal, Tomb Kings with T8 sphinxes, daemons with bloodthirsters etc...and I feel that 8th edition has completely shafted the big guys. Not only has 8th edition given blocks steadfast, and step up, but now even the lowliest warrior can wound my statue of doom. Awesome. On top of this, GW decided that giving people spells like purple sun, pit of shades, and dwellers below would counter the blocks, sure they do, but most monsters happen to be I1 or I2 so they get boned by those spells too. Yes monsters got thunderstomp, which is great! But it's ASL and when a block is already striking first you don't always even get to stomp.

In order to give monsters a better chance in this edition I'd like to see this:
- if my toughness is double your strength, you wound on 7's. (a roll of a 6+ followed by a roll of a 4+)
- if I'd be slain outright by a spell, I'll take D6+1 wounds instead.

Now, I understand this means S2 wounds t4 on 7s, but that actually makes sense! Ogres should shrug off such blows.
I think that these rules better represent realism, for example, a rhino is likely T4, if I shoot a rhino with a bow, unless I hit it in the tiniest little spot (eyes etc...) it won't care. This is better represented by the 7 than 6 because often times you can throw buckets of S3 attacks at a monster and kill it pretty quickly due to monsters often having a 5+ save at best (stegadons are an exception as are GDs)

The second rule is less of a big deal, and really doesn't matter much to me now that the power scroll was fixed, because at least I can use a dispel scroll most of the time.

I don't think that wounding on 7's is too unfair because every army either has warmachines that can snipe monsters, magic that can smash them, poisoned shooting to kill them, or characters that can paste them. All this really does is make monsters have a better chance at doing what they should be doing, smashing the little guys.

What do you think?

This seems like something at least worth considering. However, i just have a small question, do you mean 7s as in 6 and flaming sword of ruin? or 6+/4+? I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page here.

Ah I see how that could be confusing. I meant on a roll of 6+ followed by a 4+ just as in the shooting instances where a roll of a seven is required. I'll edit this into my original post just to make sure it's clear as well.

This is one idea that I like. My signature reflects my thoughts on WHFB's new "improved" To Wound chart.

That was the biggest difference I found, back when I played 40k religiously, and more recently got into Fantasy. I remember in 40k (I don't know if this has changed) HAVING to take anti-tank because Spinegant fire (though twin-linked) was NOT going to do ANYTHING to a tank, no matter how many times you peppered it with those little needles. With Fantasy, mass attacks can be enough to kill tougher monster troops. Though admittedly, anti-monster units like cannons, etc. are more reliable, the point is, it can be done. In 40k, that was impossible. With this, a "lucky shot" from a Skink poking a Necrosphinx in a tiny weak crack in the beast's jewel-hard hide is a 16.6% chance. Sure, it could be spun like that in 40k too. Massing Lasgun fire at a tank, somehow a shot slips through a vent and hits a control wire, etc. but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

At least in my humble opinion, a 16% chance for something that weak to Wound a massive monster doesn't make a lot of sense. Not to mention, people will probably justify it by saying that the Monster can just Armor Save it, but Necrosphinx has what? 5+ AS, I believe? Even the feared Hellpit has no AS, just a 4+ Regenerate. 50% failure rate on those Wounds from Str. 2 or 3. Honestly, not that good, comparatively.

Sure, if the monsters hit back with Stomp/Thunderstomp/Breath/etc. they can utterly destroy infantry units, but like you said, a monster is usually a low Initiative, lone unit so you have to deal with that Steadfast. I've seen a good-sized unit of Corsairs w/ additional Hand Weapons and Frenzy (and their Hatred) chew through things they shouldn't have stood a chance against with sheer number of Attacks. Same with Skaven Plague Monks (then you proc the Plague Banner and then it's pretty scary, even for a monster!)

Your solution seems like a fair one.

By the way, I've brought this up before, and people flamed me bad for criticizing a game I just learned, saying I was wrong, it wasn't that easy, etc etc. So, you should probably prepare to be flamed.

One reason I hate 40K is because it can be so completely rock/scissors/paper. A paper will never beat a rock.

Likewise, a land raider can run over a million billion trillion space marines if they don't have the proper missiles. I think military history has shown us that nothing is impossible. Think Saving Private Ryan where they concocted those (yes, farfetched) sticky bombs. But real war is filled with "impossible" odds.

But actually making them impossible, is bad. Because then you will see what happens with 40K where you have to have so much of your army devoted to rock/scissor/paper. Or you will have no chance.

I think there's ways to buff monsters besides making them impossible for lowlies to injure at all.

OH, and I understand it's not a literal 7, but it's a big jump. Not to mention it slows down the game.

There is a big difference between making little un's wound the big boys on a 7 and not being able to wound them at all. Recently I saw all the hate for the new Chaos Dwarf K'Daai Destroyer, where S1-S4 couldn't ever, ever, ever wound it unless they had magical attacks, i don't like that, not at all, because as you said Duke, "impossible, is bad", I agree. Of course there is a chance that your puny sword got into the vital regions of my bloodthirster and wounded him, i just don't think that it should be anything close to a 16% chance.

The current problem with monsters is that literally everything can handle them. Artillery pastes them, magic pastes them, characters paste them, elite infantry paste them (wouding on fours mostly, except the sphinx), all of that makes sense to me because those things should be able to paste a monster, because that's what they do. This is not true for State Troops, skaven slaves, clan rats, gobbos, skeletons, zombies, dwarf warriors etc...S3 just should not be able to bring down T6+ especially if GW insists on giving most monsters either a crap armor save or a regen save that a ten point banner negates, it's just not fair.

It just does not make any sense at all for a S6 Dwarf Hammerer to wound a Warsphinx on a 6 just like an Empire Halberdier, it should be a 6 for the dwarf (he's quite a bit stronger), and a 7 for the Human (significantly weaker).

Despite this, I understand where the opposite argument is coming from, having a monster run into your unit and eat it sucks, i get it. But every single army has something that can stop that from happening, cannons, trebuchets, magic, poisoned shooting, high S characters, poisoned attacks, the list goes on. I simply think that with all the added anti-monster tools in 8th, S3 does not need to be wounding T6+ on 6's.

Well, it's not really 16%. Wussy stuff going up against a Bloodthirster will likely need to roll 2 sixes (to hit/wound). I think where we've seen the wacky stuff is ranged and poison.

Despite this, I understand where the opposite argument is coming from, having a monster run into your unit and eat it sucks, i get it. But every single army has something that can stop that from happening, cannons, trebuchets, magic, poisoned shooting, high S characters, poisoned attacks, the list goes on.

But this is rock/paper/scissors again. To put it simply, what if players don't want to use them? And not EVERY army has Str 10 war machines. As I said, in 40K, they had a designated % of your army they recommended for AV (aka, high toughness). That's kind of lame.

The sticks that fodder troops wield isn't always just sticks. Just like they aren't walking around on plastic trays in perfect formation. I was just watching Return of the Jedi and the stupid Ewoks were making trip ropes and traps and collapsing trees to take out armored vehicles literally (tens of) thousands of years ahead of them technologically. So when a mass of slaves scores a wound, you can always think of it something like that.

True not o all armies have access to a S10 warmachine, but there are many alternatives, such as the amber spear spell, any of the characterisitc test spells, okkams mindrazor, the gobbo spell that grants poison, and just plain ole' great weapons, which are well balanced against monsters because at least the monsters get chance to strike first, and often are wounded on a 4+ or high so their death isn't even guaranteed.

Even heavy cavalry have a really good shot at taking out monsters, and i know lots of people are looking for an excuse to field those guys again, so if blocks couldn't hack it (pun intended!) then maybe more people would bring little knight units to hunt monsters (just like in the movies).

You're point about the sticks and ewoks is interestin, but i feel that it is already represented by things like poison, and gnoblar traps, and just because not every unit has merely swords and boards, the same is true in that not every unit would have ready access to complex machinery such as pit traps, swinging logs etc...

Again. I am NOT saying that wounding needs to be IMPOSSIBLE, just far less probable considering the points that i invest in so few wounds. 5 T6-8 wounds deserves a little more protection from the average joes of warhammer than they are getting as of now. So, those same slaves COULD still drag down a warsphinx, it'd just take them a lot more luck to do it, i beleive that this is a fair compromise between monsters getting gibbed by puny little elveses and monsters rampaging all over the board like the K'Daai.

I'll agree that a bloodthirster is possibly the worst example because of his WS10 3+ 5++, especially if we are just talking about close combat, but you are indeed correct when you say that ranged poison gets....funky. Blowpipes are strangely lethal to "steel-skinned" Daemons and statues alike. very odd...

BS attacks in general, while sucky, I always thought it was weird they basically are a test against themselves. If you're shooting at a super ninja Skaven or a sludge monster, your to-hit will be static, depending on your conditions. But I think that's okay because BS really isn't that great.

Saying people need to take counters is something I don't like to hear. Already people need to invest in counters for war machines. If every competitive army has to do X to stay competitive, I consider that a problem.

So if this causes another X, in that if an enemy brings out 5 mega monsters and you have no hope because you didn't purchase X counter, we've just broken the game (in a new way).

There have been lots of posts about stuff like this. I think like a 5+ armor for large targets + monster that don't have it already helps against small arms. But I believe this is too much.

A 5+ scaly skin save will reduce incoming wounds of S3 or less by 30%. This 7+ to Wound concept would decrease wounds by 50% against sufficiently low S models.

I see what you're saying, but it feels like an unnecessary addition. Those 7+ To Hit volleys already feel like they take way more time than other shooting phases, so doing the same in CC would produce the same results, I'd wager.

5+ scaly skin save, minimum. Simple, all-encompassing. That I could get behind (in fact, I'd go as far as saying I came up with the idea, at least in my little circle).

How long does it take Halberdiers or Clan Rats to bring down T6+, anyway? One in two attacks hit, one in six attacks wound. We're talking about 12 attacks to generate one wound. That's a minimum of 60 attacks, against W5 with no save. I'd say that's tough enough as it is.

If T8 monsters sucked, why do I see so many of them?

The biggest problem I have with your rule is that it would make the Slaan Life Star, that much better.

I would agree with you on the subject of counters, except that every army list I have seen on this forum already has within it the tools needed to take out a T6+ 5+ save monster. A wizard is one of these things, as well as any of the units used to destroy high armor save units such as great weapons, lances, artillery, and many have things that absolutely excel at slaying monsters, which are ironically the infantry models with huge numbers of low strength attacks each (warriors of chaos, witch elves, corsairs etc...). Because of this I just don't see wounding on sevens being that big of a deal, and if you wanted to make it a little safer, you could make this rule only extend to models classified as a "monster" so no T6 tyrant shenanigans where most things wound it on 7s. The logic being that the sheer size of the beast makes lesser attacks less dangerous, not just its innate toughness statistic.

My biggest issue with the current chart is that it doesn't have enough depth. It's just as easy for a S4 model to wound a giant as it is for a S4 model. That's just silly.

I think that there is some precedence for this as well because when you look at most monsters they have a crap save (with the exception of the HPA, hydra, and the stegadon) and only their toughness to protect them, which it really doesn't seem to be able to do. A giant doesn't need a 5+ if S3 wounds on 7s, because S4+ will already essentially (or entirely) negate a 5 up.

In my opinion, monsters absolutely should be the infantryman's worst nightmare. While they are dangerous to them now, they should be a little tougher especially in the presence of all the other things that can rip them apart with ease, S3 should not be on that list of threats.

I'm going to playtest this rule with my group, which for the most part thinks its a reasonable solution.

Also, if someone fields "5 mega monsters" it'll be a high point game, and I can guarantee you that you'll have plenty of units, characters, spells, and items to handle the situation unless you don't take wizards, warmachines, any S5+ troops, or monsters of your own. I'm not intending to be rude of it comes off that way I just find it odd that the "counters" to monsters are being considered unreasonable inclusions into lists when they are almost always there anyway.

We've spoken a lot about CC, but I'd like to bring up shooting as well.

I'm not talking cannons, WLC, etc., I'm talking basic Infantry shooting. I'll give you an example. Let's say a DE player takes a big unit or Repeater Xbowmen, marches them where they need to be, angles them towards the nearest big beastie, hunkers down, and starts firing away. Sure, they'll probably be hitting on 4+. (-1 for Multiple shots, -1 for long range, I'm talking if they didn't move that turn, and +1 for Large Target) But that's a 50% chance to hit, then a 16% chance to Wound, as stated before. When you're firing 40+ (10x10 gunline) shots, with armor piercing, that's a very good chance to kill a big beastie, rather effortlessly, if we can be serious here. If the Monster reaches them, yeah, they're toast. But then you have to deal with Stand and Shoot. The Repeater Xbowmen are a rather ideal choice, as probably the most efficient shooting unit in the game, I'll admit, but I thought they would make the best example. Not to mention, that unit costs 100 Skavenslaves - which is less than *most* Monsters (don't get me started on the Hydra).

This is one of the many reasons that more "fun" things aren't generally recommended in army lists. It's very common, as all of you know, to see a new player putting all kinds of "cool" monsters in his list, and one of the most common replies by more experienced players is "drop X, take more bodies. More basic troops, more basic troops." There are a lot of awesome looking, even powerful monsters that, IN GENERAL, (caps so I don't get flamed by people who use these units or will swear by them) don't get taken because they're just so easy to kill. Ushabti and Rat Ogres come to mind immediately, but I'm sure there are more examples.

I was mainly talking about CC because in my gaming group people tend to have most CC oriented armies, supported by the big guns, but you bring up a really good point. To be honest the reason we may be seeing the "cool" units being shoehorned into the subpar level of the game is because GW would much rather see us buying 3-4 $30 boxes of core troops than one $50 monster, even if it means sacrificing from the diversity of the game.

Another interesting thing to consider is what would actually happen if wounding on 7s was to become a reality, we might see much more diverse lists than we do now because taking a monster would become that much more viable, approximately 50% more viable as warpsolution mathed out. Monsters would still be extremely vulnerable to the things that are 'meant' to kill them, IMO, such as artillery, elite troops, knights, and 6th spells. I think that we would begin to see a more stratified game, because people would to be prepared for monsters, both in their list building and in their gameplay strategies. Some may see this as limiting, but I think that it in fact broadens the game by bringing large pieces of the fluff (monsters play a HUGE role in the written battles and legends) and units that are often considered sub-optimal into the mainstream while still keeping the current top choices quite good.

As i side note TheBrandedOne:
I use Ushabti sure they aren't the best, but stick em' in a forest with ramotep and they can really but the hurt on!

TheBrandedOne wrote:We've spoken a lot about CC, but I'd like to bring up shooting as well.

I'm not talking cannons, WLC, etc., I'm talking basic Infantry shooting. I'll give you an example. Let's say a DE player takes a big unit or Repeater Xbowmen, marches them where they need to be, angles them towards the nearest big beastie, hunkers down, and starts firing away. Sure, they'll probably be hitting on 4+. (-1 for Multiple shots, -1 for long range, I'm talking if they didn't move that turn, and +1 for Large Target) But that's a 50% chance to hit, then a 16% chance to Wound, as stated before. When you're firing 40+ (10x10 gunline) shots, with armor piercing, that's a very good chance to kill a big beastie, rather effortlessly, if we can be serious here. If the Monster reaches them, yeah, they're toast. But then you have to deal with Stand and Shoot. The Repeater Xbowmen are a rather ideal choice, as probably the most efficient shooting unit in the game, I'll admit, but I thought they would make the best example. Not to mention, that unit costs 100 Skavenslaves - which is less than *most* Monsters (don't get me started on the Hydra).

You don't get +1 to hit large targets in 8th. So that ideal unit isn't quite that good. You can expect to hit on 6's on the turn you move (move, range, doublefire), and if you're lucky, one turn at short range, then stand and fire. I find I usually get 1 turn on the move, one at long range, and stand and fire. That's 6's, 5's, and 5's. 20 guys would average 6.66 hits, 13.33 and 13.33 from the three bursts.
You only get the 3rd burst if you pass the terror.
On average, you're doing 5.5 wounds.
Now, roll a little low, and the giant hits you while you're ranked up shooting (10 wide, 2 deep).
What's worse, is that you really don't want to get hit by anything while you are 10 wide and 2 deep. Goblin Cav can break you in formations like that.

Keep in mind, Giants at T5. Empire Crossbowmen outshoot the dark elves in the giant killing contest.


If you want to give monsters and edge, give them a 4+ ward against shooting and combat from Infantry. Monsters would swat away the small arms fire and the infantry could have trouble reaching anything squishy on the monster.
This would keep cav in the role of monster hunters, without making monsters fairly immune to warmachines.


-Matt

But wouldn't wounding on 7s do the exact same thing? The 7 roll would only occur if my T was double your S, so cav would still be great as would all warmachines, the 4++ ward would reduce wounds be 50% and wounding on 7s would do the same (i'm pretty sure anyways...)

I agree that this sucks, but it does make sense that everything has a reasonable chance of wounding something, I play tomb kings and have had plenty of warsphinx die on me but overall I notice that they average killing more points in models then its point cost.

HawaiiMatt wrote:If you want to give monsters and edge, give them a 4+ ward against shooting and combat from Infantry.

This is pretty gigantic. It makes all infantry pretty much useless against monsters and we're back to rock/paper/scissors. The most elite of infantry would be smeared into dust by even basic monsters. Various Infantry Stars would be crushed by throwing a 1/4th their points at them.

Monsters aren't THAT bad. The examples you all are giving of X troops doing X wounds, they would do more against rank-and-file infantry blocks. That's part of what monsters do: force you to throw all your attacks at them. They're moving arrow/war machine attractors. People just see them not doing anything in combat cuz they're dead. But them dying did a lot, you sacrificed 200 pts to get your army into place. Sometimes it works better than others.

But if Monsters could always walk up and reliably get into melee, then the thread after this would be how do we buff infantry archers.

The 4+ is ridiculous because it effects all strengths, S6 is still gonna wound T6 on a 4+ even if S3 is wounding on 7s.

The problem with monsters is that they almost never make it into combat due to epicly underpriced artillery (often one shot doubles their points) and 6th spells, and if they're lucky enough to make it into combat with their "preferred" target of S3 troops, they still get put down no problem, especially since arches are amazing at putting wounds on them as is.

I agree that monsters are sometimes equally useful as bullet magnets, but they need to be tough enough to actually fight if they get the chance to get stuck in.

If we look at the blocks with S3 that are common like against a giant with no armor saves current do this many wounds:
Empire swordsmen ( 12 attacks with hatred from priest) 1.44 wounds
Dark elf corsairs ( 20 attacks hatred) 2.7 wounds
Dark elf spearmen (16 attacks spears hatred) 2.07
High elf spearmen 20 attacks (spears, speed) 2.7
Night gobbos 16 attacks (spears) 1.33 wounds
Gors approx 12 attacks (hatred) 1.55 wounds

That's average. Now that's actually a lot of damage considering that a monster usually has 5-6 wounds, and will almost always have lost a few on the way in due to shooting, magic, or artillery that doesn't outright kill it.

If they were wounding on 7s, the giant would take have the wounds. Which in my opinion is far more fair especially each wound is worth nearly 40 points of the monster if it costs 200.

Plus these numbers are in a vacuum, there will be magic shooting around including buffs, and debuffs, so in all likely good these units will do much better (particularly the gobbos because they could have poison) and the DE would probably have a blood cauldron giving +1 attacks.

I just don't see monsters being even that much better if we started using this rule, because all the tools that are meant to be used to kill monsters work just as well as they used to.

You've got a good point. But once again, I'd say it's a little more complicated than it needs to be.

First of all, let's set the record straight. The Giant is the worst monster in the game. The Hydra, A-bomb, Arachnarok and Stegadon are super-durable monsters. My A-bomb is taking less than 1.5 wounds from any of the examples above, and he'll dramatically reduce that unit's killing power each swing. He certainly doesn't need to be tougher. But then again, he's only T5, so S3 would still wound him on 6+.

Which brings me to my final point: Giants need more help than anyone else, and this rule isn't giving it to them. Instead, we're looking at an Arachnarok that takes 388 S3 attacks to bring it down. Or a Stegadon that takes 360. Normally, they'd need 194 and 180 respectively, right? I don't think that's unreasonable. At all. Giants need 72, and with a 5+ save, he'd need 96 to bring him down. Still not as tough as the other guys, but hey, he's cheaper.

The only problem I see with monsters is that they tend to die from poison too fast. Cannons are an issue (which I think is a flaw in the accuracy of the machine, rather than the frailty of the monster), but not as unrealistic.

Your opponent has lots of dudes, you have a monster. You'll come out on top. But you say he's got wizards and war machines and knights. Well, you've got those too. I just don't see how this is a big problem.

I agree the giant needs the most help, Because it sucks as of now. But lots of other monsters keep getting dragged down by snot nosed gobbos and peasants, like any of the sphinx. Their toughness is 8. And guess what! S3 still wounds them on a 6, just like S6 S5 and S4. That's stupid. To "compensate" GW gave them a 5+ save, but that's just not good enough to prevent the little dudes from ripping in to it.

You do have a point about poison being very good at bringing down monsters, but I think that this is an even better argument for my side. Because low strength CAN already rip monsters apart with no regards to how big they are, ghouls, witch elves, gobbos, and skaven (not sure here) all have ready access to high numbers of poisoned attacks. The armies that don't have that, tend to have artillery that minces monsters.

The hydra really is just an outlier because of how retardedly underpriced it is for its power, plus it's T5 so would not benefit from this rule unless you're using a S2 model to attack it.

Yes I usually have a wizard, but I almost never had warmachines and rarely knights unless necro knights count. The problem is that monsters are rarely ever anything to worry about and are often seen as "free-points" because they'll barely ever see combat, and sure it's great that they shot my monster with 30 arrows, i failed my crap save, and it died, those didn't hit something else, but that monster isn't some 30 pt unit of warhounds, it's a large investment, equal to or greater than the unit which slew it. Not to mention all the other things able to one-shot it.

My final point:
In warhammer, most things are pretty good at bringing down a monster. Be it knights, wizards, Artillery, other monsters (rarely), combat characters, elite infantry, high strength infantry etc...that list contains most of the things you commonly see on the field. That leaves one thing that should be threatened by a monster, low strength troops and shooting. But because they actually have a solid chance of wounding it as my math above shows, they aren't really all that perturbed by it. Plus, with the addition of steadfast into the mix, there's no way the monster is going to win the war of attrition, because they usually have average weapons skill, so few of their attacks will hit on average. Even the way monsters are made by GW makes it clear that they are 'meant' to take out low strength blocks, by having crap saves but high toughness. Unfortunately the new to-wound chart quite easily circumvents this because it's too easy to wound a monster, and far to hard for said monster I make it's save. Therefore: either the monster must be made 'tougher' by adding a clause into the large target rule stating that an attack with strength equal to or less than HALF the toughness of the defending LARGE TARGET (not hero, lord, monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry etc...) will wound on a roll of 6+ followed by a 4+ (i.e a 7). This rule is meant to represent the sheer size of the monster allowing to shrug off minor strikes, which are naught but pinpricks to the mighty beast.

Most things are not good at bringing down monsters. And you're not looking at what is happening on the game level. If 500 pts of infantry sit on a ~200pt monster for 2 turns, that monster did it's job. Period. Done. Esp. because the monster likely inflicted a good chunk of damage and left the rest of your army to do whatever it wants.

It seems you want monsters to be able to be Godzilla. Except for a FEW broken examples, which everyone in the entire game complains about, that's not what they do. As a single model they are very maneuverable, they have great LD in general, and are relatively cheap compared to big blocks. If they did more dmg than big blocks and hung around longer, why on earth wouldn't everyone just be doing monster mashes?

I still say a global 5+ armor save for Large Monsters and maybe +1 to armor to any existing monster that already have one, the assumption being they already balanced them somewhat.

DukeRustfield wrote:

It seems you want monsters to be able to be Godzilla. Except for a FEW broken examples, which everyone in the entire game complains about, that's not what they do. As a single model they are very maneuverable, they have great LD in general, and are relatively cheap compared to big blocks. If they did more dmg than big blocks and hung around longer, why on earth wouldn't everyone just be doing monster mashes?

I still say a global 5+ armor save for Large Monsters and maybe +1 to armor to any existing monster that already have one, the assumption being they already balanced them somewhat.

I think you misunderstand, Duke. I don't think Ferrum wants Monsters to be Godzilla.

Let me use the Hydra as an example. What makes this thing so good? (besides it's "retardedly underpriced" cost, which I 100% agree with.)
Its Attacks? 7 at Str. 5 with additions from the Beastmasters? That's not too overwhelming.
The Breath? Equal to remaining Wounds? Not that bad.
In my humble opinion, it's the Hydra's saves that are really the icing on the cake. Essentially a 4+, 4++ - yes, yes, you can give a unit Flaming and negate the Regen. But you have to hit at Str. 5+ to have a decent chance to Wound, and it has to be Flaming to negate Regen as well.
The thing has survivability. It's pretty difficult to kill without a unit specifically kitted to kill it.
I played TK for a while - and the best you could do is try to throw a Sphinx w/Breath at it or try your best w/ Flaming Impact from Chariots. But I'm getting off topic.
I personally think the Hydra, all in all, is a powerful monster - but, to me, (feel free to play devil's advocate here) the good Saves are what really makes it a problem. I think giving Monsters better Saves could help this issue - Giants especially, because they're fun but so easy to kill with standard fire.
Maybe "Large Target" could come with some kind of physical size advantage rule... Such as a static Scaly Skin due to sheer size of muscle/thickness of skin. Then Armor Saves could improve it further. At least to me, a Sphinx (made of gemstone) should be more resilient, as higher T doesn't mean much due to the new To Wound charts.

Cost is the grand equilizer of everything. If a Hydra cost 600, it would be the worst piece of crap in the game. The fact it is so hated is because of its cost.

Some stuff already has scaly skin. But I'm not sure you read my not very long post. Which basically said exactly the same thing you said. So not sure why you're arguing.

Giants can't be made too good because everyone has them. The moment a giant becomes better than individual army book stuff is the moment half the armies look exactly the same because they're all packing them.

Ignore the Giant, because he's just bad and needs a significant overhaul. Instead, look at the monsters that actually get into the field, like hydras and arachnaroks - people don't worry about masses of spearmen attacks against those things, because even with 'just' a 6+ to wound, it takes a silly amount of attacks to inflict enough wounds on those things.

No, the limiting factor on those monsters comes from powerful attacks like cannons, and from steadfast giving infantry the ability to stay in the fight. Steadfast is fine as it is (and its good to finally see a thread where people don't bother


It might be true, somewhat, that it's silly for a Str 3 attack to be as deadly against a T8 opponent as a Str 6 attack, but you have to accept a limit to the amount of simulation you put into a game just to keep it moving. And besides, after a certain point strength doesn't really matter as you're going to forced to target weakpoints like eyes and knees. Imagine the rhino mentioned by the OP, that I'm trying to shoot with .22 rifle or with a .303. The .303 packs a lot more punch, but still won't crack through, so with either weapon I'm stuck aiming for the eye and hoping to get a little lucky. Same thing with Empire spearmen and Dwarven hammerers, the hammerers might pack a lot more punch but against a Warsphinx they're going to be stuck aiming for weakpoints just like the Spearmen.

Once again, Sebster, well done.

@Duke- cost is an equalizer, but it's not the only one. I mean, the model actually needs to, you know, do stuff. A unit that costs 1pt/model but can't do anything won't be used, and a monster that costs 1500pts but has 2,000 wounds would be awesome. It's all about what you get for the investment.

@TheBrandedOne- I think you and Duke mostly agree about what should be done here.

@Ferrum-

1. how "easily" can a unit take down a monster? I've already posted the numbers, and they're not good. 60 attacks to bring down a T5 W5 monster with no saves? That's 6 phases, assuming 10 attacks/phase. 4 if it's a horde. Assuming the horde is big enough to avoid losing attacks from casualties and you do nothing to help the big guy out.
How often do you lose monsters to small-arms fire, anyway? These numbers apply to that, too, except you only get shot once/two phases, so they're even better for the beastie.

2. Warhammer uses six-sided dice, which means that, a lot of times, the difference between one number and another is non-existent; there's only so much variation- 1 through 6. When you're opponent's S6, T4 is like T1. When you're I8, I6, 2, and Always Strikes Last are all the same to you.
T8 versus S6 and down is just another example of that. Sometimes, the premium you pay for an awesome stat doesn't matter, be it monster or man. Maybe it's a flaw of the game, or maybe it's an aspect of the strategy. If it's a flaw, then propose to fix it as a whole, not just in terms of Large Targets. If not, leave it be.

3. Cannons are a hard counter to monsters, and it's unfortunate. If Warhammer rules were reality, why did the world make the transition from catapults to cannons, when we only had infantry and cavalry?
Cannons are just awesome at killing monsters. The odds you one-shot a monster are actually fairly low, but you'll probably take a good chunk out of him and for very few points.
A way to reduce rate of fire or accuracy, increase cost or effectiveness against troops or decrease it against monsters--these are things that could help this problem, which is much more serious than S3 attacks.

Ferrum wrote:Ah I see how that could be confusing. I meant on a roll of 6+ followed by a 4+ just as in the shooting instances where a roll of a seven is required.

Is that in the rulebook somewhere? When we go over 6 to hit we hit on 6's where I play (both in one of the stores in town and at friends' houses). I'm both confused and intrigued, which is, on its own, a confusing feeling.

/Anderzzon

Warpsolution wrote:@Duke- cost is an equalizer, but it's not the only one. I mean, the model actually needs to, you know, do stuff. A unit that costs 1pt/model but can't do anything won't be used, and a monster that costs 1500pts but has 2,000 wounds would be awesome. It's all about what you get for the investment.

I agree, I mean theoretically as long as you price it properly then you'll get play balance, but about how the unit plays and feels in the game matters as well. If Goblins were restatted with Str 8, T 9 and six attacks each, well you could reprice them so they were balanced, but they feel ridiculous in play. Same thing with monsters, if they're underpowered you can re-price them so they're worth what you get, but if they remain vulnerable then they'll feel wrong, even if they cost the right amount.

Not that I think monsters are too vulnerable, in fact I think for the most part they're about right (a few could use a rewrite, but that's all). Just talking from a general game design perspective.

1. how "easily" can a unit take down a monster? I've already posted the numbers, and they're not good. 60 attacks to bring down a T5 W5 monster with no saves? That's 6 phases, assuming 10 attacks/phase. 4 if it's a horde. Assuming the horde is big enough to avoid losing attacks from casualties and you do nothing to help the big guy out.
How often do you lose monsters to small-arms fire, anyway? These numbers apply to that, too, except you only get shot once/two phases, so they're even better for the beastie.

T8 versus S6 and down is just another example of that. Sometimes, the premium you pay for an awesome stat doesn't matter, be it monster or man. Maybe it's a flaw of the game, or maybe it's an aspect of the strategy. If it's a flaw, then propose to fix it as a whole, not just in terms of Large Targets. If not, leave it be.

That's a pretty good way of summing up the issue.

sebster wrote:Ignore the Giant, because he's just bad and needs a significant overhaul.

I remember when they were Str7 T6 and still not very good.

If your going for realism with the harder to wound rules then the infantry should have automatic hits. I mean like your not going to miss a giant dinosaur that's right infront of you. Infantry already have waaaay to much hassle killing monsters. I flank charged the hell pit with a unit of 30 flagellants in horde formation, I got a 6 on the martyrdom so I had rerolls to hit and wound plus I was strength 5 because of flails and I did no wounds. The hell pit then ate most of the unit some how