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.

Impy wrote:On a larger point, the idea of making cannons weaker against monsters is fairly problematic. Cannons are intended to be a hard counter to monsters... if you weaken them, "MonsterHammer" gets bigger and more important. Dwarf and Empire armies, neither one of which is currently in the top 3, fall a few ranks. Dark Elves, with their undercosted Hydra and #1 position, get even better.

But if you consider fixes purely in terms of the present play environment and not as part of changes, then you end up with a shambles of minor changes to chase after some vague notion of perfect balance.

I don't think anyone is pretending that the next Dark Elves release is going to have Hydras at anywhere near their present cost, or that Empire and Dwarves aren't very likely to see price increase

If I were to balance Cannons, I'd do so by: making them explode less (so that you're not either randomly deleting monsters or taking your own models off the table), cost more, and have the Stonehorn "All Multiple Wounds are Halved" rule. If a Cannon blew itself up less often, was a lot less likely to die in a single barrage of counter-battery fire, but cost 215 points, it would make a lot more sense. It would also make the cheap Bolt Throwers an interesting option... though they still badly need some way to hit more often.

215 points for a cannon? Even if it didn't explode at all that's madness. And counter battery fire ought to destroy a cannon quite often - cannons really can't handle being hit by another cannon ball, after all. Having a shell just bounce off another cannon with only a scratch on most occasions would be very silly.

I do like the idea of extending 'all multiple wounds are halved' to every monster, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Monsters should get buffed, not nerf cannons.

Fair point.

Monsters should also all count as having 2 ranks for the purposes of determining Steadfast and breaking Ranks. So a monster in the flank denys rank bonuses and a Monster will also break Steadfast on units with 2 or less ranks. That will allow a monster to be a viable flanking unit as well as possably be able to break enemy units on the charge after doing some damage to them.

I think that's about the best set of changes I've heard for making monsters viable again. Not so powerful that they make monsters capable of sweeping through massed ranks of troops like they used, but powerful enough that they can route small units like they should be able to, and play a decisive role in combined arms against large enemy targets.

Instead of giving them more wounds, though, I like the idea of giving them 'multiple wounds are halved'. That way it's still possible for decent infantry units to inflict enough wounds, but they're not such easy prey for cannons.

Multiple Wounds Halved only works if the Stonehorn only takes 1/4 wounds(rounding up)

Grey Templar wrote:Multiple Wounds Halved only works if the Stonehorn only takes 1/4 wounds(rounding up)

Why?

It's 2:49am but I don't think of monsters as flankers. I think of them as front line grunts. If they should be given anything it's Stubborn. I mean they're monsters. Just the name itself implies a sort of mindless ferocity. Not a tactical shenanigans.

I don't know the repercussions of a Steadfast infantry block vs. a Stubborn Monster. Cuz I've been taking some Bugman's Not-So-Best, but I don't think they should be flankers. That would just make flying monsters or other quick ones have a much higher premium.

sebster wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Multiple Wounds Halved only works if the Stonehorn only takes 1/4 wounds(rounding up)

Why?

Because thats what makes the Stonehorn special, that and its 3D3 impact hits.

Alteranativly you drop its cost by 100 points.

Impy wrote:Nobody is taking big blocks of infantry, magic, or medium-sized units of cavalry *solely* to take out enemy monsters. That's the only reason most people take cannons. (Character-sniping is a side benefit, unreliable but something to do if there are no monsters or war machines to shoot)

That the problem.
You don't have to tool up to face monsters. Things that you normally take, also make a mess of monsters.

-Matt

I think Monsters counting as 2 ranks of 5 models is fair. Giving them 2 wounds is a little more drastic, and a lot less subtle.

I certainly do not think that Monsters should all halve wounds, though. I mean...if something does d6 wounds, it does d6 wounds. Not d6 wounds to Characters and Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry and d3 wounds to Monsters.
The Multiple Wounds rule is one of those few things that should stay good against Monsters.
If you want to make them better, I'll say it again: minimum 5+ Scaly Skin save, and probably a points-drop on many of them. And yeah, Stubborn or Unbreakable all around.

Here's what I'm considering, then:

- Cannon do d3 wounds and kill up to two models/rank
- Bolt Throwers don't lose Strength but can only kill models in ranks up to their range away.

@GreyTemplar: I've been advocating a few little tweaks to Monsters for a while, but I do think that Cannons need a hard push in a different direction too, because they're the biggest Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of Warhammer.
Cannons should rip through blocks of infantry, like a bouncing cannonball really would. But we can't just make Cannons better, obviously, so this D3 wounds idea really helps monsters out; doubly so, since other targets become more tempting in addition to the Monster becoming less so.

Can someone do a little Mathhammer, to show how accurate a Cannon is versus a Bot Thrower? 'Cause right now we've got:

Cannon Pro's-
- S10
- 2X the kill rate
- more accurate

Bolt Thrower Pro's-
- 1/2 the price
- never blows up

I also don't think we can look at Monsters as capable combat units of their own. Warhammer seems to tink of Monsters as the ultimate support unit. Pit two units against each other. Now cast a spell on one, or throw in a third unit. That side's got the edge now, right? But throw a Monster in, and his side suddenly gained a slew of bonus CR while giving up very little in return.
Monsters need help in terms of:
- lots of little attacks (Poison especially). Hence Scaly Skin.
- cannonballs. Hence d3 Wounds.
- some spells. Maybe they take d6 Wounds instead of auto-dying? Maybe?
- poor dice rolls versus static combat resolution. Hence Stubborn or Unbreakable.