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 am of the opinion that instead of bringing tracked vehicles to the level of skimmers and monstrous creatures, I think the better idea is to bring Monstrous Creatures and skimmers down to tracked vehicles level, this would be balanced with the (now current) continual realease of more and more codexes with restrictive heavy weapon options.

Skimmers seem to be getting some sort of adress in the rumored 5th edition. But soemthing needs to be done for MC's. Here is my idea:

Critical Wound - If a monstrous creature suffers a wound by a weapon equal or greater it's toughness, roll a D6. On a result of 6, the creature takes 2 wounds instead of one.

I think that would still keep MC's powerful and worth taking.

You know. I agree. I think that's a great idea.
You should just make one change to the poposed rule and one alteration afterwards...

ANY model with multiple wounds is affected like that... and Monstrous Craetures are immediately reduced in points by 25%.




Why do people insist on nerfing Monstrous Creatures?

Thet are called MONSTROUS for a reason.

Why would a Hulking Behemoth need to be penalized because of its' size? It's supposed to be an asset (which you PAY FOR). Otherwise, they'd just be "larger than average" creatures.



Eric

I disagree with your assessment and changes for a few reasons:

ANY model with multiple wounds is affected like that... and Monstrous Craetures are immediately reduced in points by 25%.

Monstrous Creatures would still be worth the points even with this change. They wouldn't need this rule if they where adequately priced now. The problem is with high toughness multiple monstrous creature models. They are infinitely more survivable than most tanks at their point level. And considering the added insult to injury that the lack of heavy weapons in the newer lists, spells a need for such a band-aid. The idea behind this is that a MC is so big and hulking, weak parts are more exposed, or that there is a greater chance that they are hit. You can't tell me that a SM with a meltagun melting a Carnifexes face has the same damage potential as a graze by a Lascannon. Furthermore, most monstrous creatures don't have to deal with a small little rule that applies to infantry level multiple wound creatures, namely Instant Death. A possibility of a "critical hit" causing Instant Death gets thrown out a window when the biggest MC offender, Tyranids, ignore that rule.

First off, my post earlier sound WAY more sarcastic than I meant it. My apologies if I offended. I'm at work & can't proofread as much as I would at home.

Mahu wrote:Monstrous Creatures would still be worth the points even with this change. They wouldn't need this rule if they where adequately priced now. The problem is with high toughness multiple monstrous creature models. They are infinitely more survivable than most tanks at their point level. And considering the added insult to injury that the lack of heavy weapons in the newer lists, spells a need for such a band-aid. The idea behind this is that a MC is so big and hulking, weak parts are more exposed, or that there is a greater chance that they are hit. You can't tell me that a SM with a meltagun melting a Carnifexes face has the same damage potential as a graze by a Lascannon. Furthermore, most monstrous creatures don't have to deal with a small little rule that applies to infantry level multiple wound creatures, namely Instant Death. A possibility of a "critical hit" causing Instant Death gets thrown out a window when the biggest MC offender, Tyranids, ignore that rule

I can understand SOME of your points... but I think that most of what you're talking about is based on personal preference and not looking at the big picture.
Also, I think you're off base in some areas. I'll explain:

Re: Lack of Heavy Weapons in newer lists.

What lists? I have all the newest codexi and, aside from Tau (which I don't understand because it's just like reading Martian to me for some reason LOL), they have plenty.

You can't tell me that a SM with a meltagun melting a Carnifexes face has the same damage potential as a graze by a Lascannon.

No offense, but that is a ridiculous comparison.
A successful wound roll is not supposed to represent a "graze" by one weapon or a "melted face" from another. A wound is a wound. DESCRIBE it however you want, but a WOUND is something that wounded successfully. if you're going to compare the 2, you have to compare them both as "face shots" or whatever.
In that case, I say Yes. They are roughly equal.
A LC is a stronger weapon with a longer range but, as it is a light based weapon, armor is slightly more resilient against it than a Melta gun (which can do more damage to a tank than an individual, due to the Melta technology).
LC= S9, AP2
Melta = S8, AP1 (IIRC... it might be 2, but I'm pretty certain it's 1... Can't recall EVERYTHING LOL).

The idea behind this is that a MC is so big and hulking, weak parts are more exposed,

They ARE more exposed. That's why they can be shot at, even if there is a combat between you and them.
It doesn't mean their weak spots are bigger. that doesn't make sense. Typically, large things get that way due to smaller or non-existent weak spots.

or that there is a greater chance that they are hit.

We're not talking about hitting them. We're talking about wounding them.
If you want a bonus to HIT them, fine... While I'd disagree, I'd understand it... but you'd better apply that to EVERYTHING as big as them or bigger (Tanks, Bunkers, Gargantuan Creatures etc).

Furthermore, most monstrous creatures don't have to deal with a small little rule that applies to infantry level multiple wound creatures, namely Instant Death.

There's a flaw in your logic.
They're immune because of their high Toughness, not their size.

Again, unless I'm remembering their rules wrong, MC doesn't automatically grant them no instant death. They have to have another rule that allows it.

A possibility of a "critical hit" causing Instant Death gets thrown out a window when the biggest MC offender, Tyranids, ignore that rule

ALL Tyranids ignore the rule, if they're within synapse. It's one of the benefits of Synapse.

Just for comparison, let's say you had 2 Tyranid creatures OUT of Synapse... a Ravernor and a Carnifex.

Now (though it's not possible), let's say - for the sake of discussion- that they had the same # of wounds and same Toughness.. Shoot... the WHOLE stat line is the same. Would you still think the carnifex should be affected by your rule? Would you feel that BOTH should be? Why or why not?
Do you feel as if Tyranid MC's shouldn't benefit from Synapse?



Finally, to revisit MC's vs heavy wepons...

You seem to be forgetting that a balanced list (even IG) should have HtH options available. If the player didn't choose to take HtH options, then you can't fault their opponent. Plus, even though their HtH options might PALE in comparison... they're the one who chose to play that army, not their opponent.


My $.02.


Eric

If I'm right Mahu was talking about the new codex's such as the DA, CSM the 6 man las/plas is now gone irrc the Da need to have a full squad of marines to purchase a heavy weapon. + the rules would make sense a MC,s vunerable point's would be more prominent, like the size of a mans head. also the rules should be changed to allow units to flee if they can't hurt the MC there nothing worse than watching your men get squished by a MC and not being able to shoot it or do anything about it. So you should be able to shoot in to CC if theres a single MC or walker involved..

I like the idea. MC are way overpowered when compared to equal points in vehicles. MC's usually always win that bet. Why do they get 2D6 armor pen? That's fine, but then there should be a way to multiply wounds. tit for tat

Mahu wrote:I am of the opinion that instead of bringing tracked vehicles to the level of skimmers and monstrous creatures...

Or they could fix the offending list and not let Tyranids easily field 20+ MC wounds. Which is the actual problem, not the MC mechanics.

I think it’s goofy that an MC can walk onto the field knowing that it’ll be able to survive 3 lascannon shots before having a chance of dying. The head and other vulnerable areas are exposed, why can’t a lucky shot take out a MC, just like a lucky shot might take out a monolith or land raider?

I’d like to see a wound table for MCs and multi-wound characters, same concept as vehicles, but with results more in line with the nature of MCs and characters.

I can understand SOME of your points... but I think that most of what you're talking about is based on personal preference and not looking at the big picture.
Also, I think you're off base in some areas. I'll explain:

Re: Lack of Heavy Weapons in newer lists.

What lists? I have all the newest codexi and, aside from Tau (which I don't understand because it's just like reading Martian to me for some reason LOL), they have plenty.

I am referring to all the Eldar and on lists. I am also refering to weapons of a STR. 6 and higher. I find it funny that you mentioned Tau as your example, as they only have the railgun and missle launcher that would benefit from this rule, and only one of those have the lower AP, the plasmagun may come close but only a few MC's are T 6 and the plasmagun is such sort ranged.

No offense, but that is a ridiculous comparison.
A successful wound roll is not supposed to represent a "graze" by one weapon or a "melted face" from another. A wound is a wound. DESCRIBE it however you want, but a WOUND is something that wounded successfully. if you're going to compare the 2, you have to compare them both as "face shots" or whatever.
In that case, I say Yes. They are roughly equal.
A LC is a stronger weapon with a longer range but, as it is a light based weapon, armor is slightly more resilient against it than a Melta gun (which can do more damage to a tank than an individual, due to the Melta technology).
LC= S9, AP2
Melta = S8, AP1 (IIRC... it might be 2, but I'm pretty certain it's 1... Can't recall EVERYTHING LOL).

My point was that there is a precedent in the tank rules for large objects taking more damage from one hit than another. Why should MC's be exempt? Besides, the amount of times that the rule would play into effect is still less enough to not cause that much of an impact. We are talking 1/6 of the wounds a MC takes, and even then only the high streangth ones.

They ARE more exposed. That's why they can be shot at, even if there is a combat between you and them.
It doesn't mean their weak spots are bigger. that doesn't make sense. Typically, large things get that way due to smaller or non-existent weak spots.

I don't understand your point. Typically the larger the creature, especially in a fantasy setting, the larger things like eyes, heads, joints are. Think of any fantasy movie and story you have ever seen, how often does the hero stab things like the eye because it was "that one weak spot". Think of any large animal in real life, elephants might be a good example, there are different result between shooting an elephant in the leg and shooting it in the head.

We're not talking about hitting them. We're talking about wounding them.
If you want a bonus to HIT them, fine... While I'd disagree, I'd understand it... but you'd better apply that to EVERYTHING as big as them or bigger (Tanks, Bunkers, Gargantuan Creatures etc).

There are already sufficient rules concerning hitting larger targets.

There's a flaw in your logic.
They're immune because of their high Toughness, not their size.

Again, unless I'm remembering their rules wrong, MC doesn't automatically grant them no instant death. They have to have another rule that allows it.

And they have a higher toughness because of their size.

That argument can get circular real fast. Unless you know an infantry size creature that is toughness 7+. Their are ways to Instant Kill high toughness creatures but those are few and far between and usually don't get much use because TC's can ignore it.

ALL Tyranids ignore the rule, if they're within synapse. It's one of the benefits of Synapse.

Just for comparison, let's say you had 2 Tyranid creatures OUT of Synapse... a Ravernor and a Carnifex.

Now (though it's not possible), let's say - for the sake of discussion- that they had the same # of wounds and same Toughness.. Shoot... the WHOLE stat line is the same. Would you still think the carnifex should be affected by your rule? Would you feel that BOTH should be? Why or why not?
Do you feel as if Tyranid MC's shouldn't benefit from Synapse?

Your logic is flawed. The Ravenor has the statline it has because of its size, combat prowess, speed, etc. Why would the Ravenor have a higher toughness unless it was "Super Ravenor". I think that GW has been pretty good at keeping the higher toughnesses on big monstrous creatures. Besides this is a proposed 5th edition change, so the only context of the big picture is how does it effect the current statlines now?

Finally, to revisit MC's vs heavy wepons...

You seem to be forgetting that a balanced list (even IG) should have HtH options available. If the player didn't choose to take HtH options, then you can't fault their opponent. Plus, even though their HtH options might PALE in comparison... they're the one who chose to play that army, not their opponent.

Yes, but you can't possibly tell me that most balanced lists have enough heavy weapons to take out the same number of tanks as they can MC's.


The fact of the matter is that MC's always have an advantage over vehicles because of their greater resilence to damage, and the fact that they don't loose any effectiveness untill they are dead. It's probably the one glaring imbalance of the game and needs to be addressed. I thing increasing the ability to damage them, even if its a slight increase, helps to even the playing field.