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.

Alrighty! So, having both seen the results and been affected by them myself, I have come to the conclusion that Steadfast, most of the time, denies monsters their true potential, namely, the destruction of infantry units.

Now, you may wonder why I believe a monster's true purpose is to destroy infantry, and to that I ask you a question, if not that, what is their purpose? To destroy other monsters? Warmachines? Characters? In a game dominated by infantry, there needs to be a counter to them that every army can access, not just the ones with easily-accessed hordes.

Now, the main barrier to monsters achieving this goal is Steadfast, and obviously the large number of attacks coming back at them which will at the least wound on 6s. We can't do much about the number of attacks coming back at them, but we can certainly do something about Steadfast.

My suggestion is this: A monster "cancels out" a number of ranks in the unit they are fighting equal to half their wounds characteristic rounding up. So something like a Giant or a Thundertusk would deny 3, and something like the Arachnarok would deny 4 ranks, and so on and so forth.

Obviously, if the unit has many, many ranks then this won't come into affect, but it wouldn't really be fair to have monsters cancel out Steadfast entirely, so this is a sort of compromise. Monsters get some ability to ignore ranks due to their monstrousness and power, and the infantry, if it ranked very deep, can possibly ignore it.

Anyway, what do you think?

I think thats a little too much.

I think a better solution is for all monsters to count as having 2 ranks regardless of which monster it is. This will allow them to break ranks when flanking and let them outsteadfast smaller units. larger units will still be steadfast but will have a limit to it.

This has a similer effect to what you propose, but is more balanced without making certain monsters just impossable to have steadfast against(a horde would never be steadfast against an Arachnarok because you almost never see hordes with more then 4 ranks.)

I see where you're coming from, and I suppose it would be very powerful for an Arachnarok to deny all kinds of steadfast automatically. As you say, most hordes won't have more than 4 ranks, but then again, that is the point, isn't it? The horde formation is undeniably an aggressive one, and as such, some sacrifice to their defensive capabilities is part and parcel of that formation. In the same way, the Bus formation is defensive, made to hold up more powerful enemies until aid arrives.

So then, the player has a choice as soon as he sees your monster on the other side of the field, does he go Horde as was his original intention, even though it gives you a greater chance of breaking him, or does he play it safe and go Bus, and hope that his hammers can help him out?

Finally, I guess I thought that the bigger the monster, the more ranks it would deny, and Wounds are really the only benchmark you can use to determine a monster's "impact" on a battle line. Otherwise you get into more subjective matters of how "big" it is, in terms of height and width etc., which is why I suggested wounds being the determinant.

But yeah, even denying 2 ranks would greatly improve a monster's chance of defeating infantry.

Grey Templar wrote:I think thats a little too much.

I think a better solution is for all monsters to count as having 2 ranks regardless of which monster it is. This will allow them to break ranks when flanking and let them outsteadfast smaller units. larger units will still be steadfast but will have a limit to it.

This has a similer effect to what you propose, but is more balanced without making certain monsters just impossable to have steadfast against(a horde would never be steadfast against an Arachnarok because you almost never see hordes with more then 4 ranks.)

This is a good idea. A unit would remain steadfast against a monster until it got down to 2 or less ranks. Also it is silly that monstrous units can break steadfast but monsters can't.

Maybe, only monsters that count as "large targets" should count as 2 ranks and the smaller monsters would count as 1 rank.

I believe rounding should be used sparingly.

I think a set number for monsters is a good idea and it even makes sense fluff-wise. And it can also make it a bit more of a tactical decision to take horde or go deep.

Are there any MO that aren't large targets? I definately think it should only be MO + LT.

Daemon Princes arn't large targets, although I would check the Eratta to see if they weren't given it.

DukeRustfield wrote:I believe rounding should be used sparingly.

I think a set number for monsters is a good idea and it even makes sense fluff-wise. And it can also make it a bit more of a tactical decision to take horde or go deep.

Are there any MO that aren't large targets? I definately think it should only be MO + LT.

The Varghulf is a monster that is not a large target.

So's the carnosaur. Not a bad idea- think its got some potential...

I like the rule but there needs to be for 'rampaging monsters' i.e. monsters working unsupported, or with other monsters.

You can do in a deep infatry block with a combo of monster plus infantry block. So if supported monsters deny ranks to any degree it becomes a push over. Rampaging monsters on the other hand can rear and trample all the more because there are no friendly troops in the way.

Way I would handle it is A melee combat of rampaging monsters denies d6 ranks to the enemy. If the number rolled equals or exheeds the largest starting wounds characteristic contributed the rampage denies no ranks. A monster cannot rampage if any friendly troops other than monsters contributes to the melee.

A simple alternative: A flanking or rear attack by a monstrous creature voids all benefits generated by ranks and rank bonuses.
This is nastier but you need to set up your gribbly for a flank attack

Dr. Delorean wrote:Alrighty! So, having both seen the results and been affected by them myself, I have come to the conclusion that Steadfast, most of the time, denies monsters their true potential, namely, the destruction of infantry units.

No, that's not their purpose.

Now, you may wonder why I believe a monster's true purpose is to destroy infantry, and to that I ask you a question, if not that, what is their purpose? To destroy other monsters? Warmachines? Characters? In a game dominated by infantry, there needs to be a counter to them that every army can access, not just the ones with easily-accessed hordes.

Monsters are an absolute beat stick that can slaughter a smaller unit in a single turn, or work in a combined charge with a unit of infantry to route an otherwise superior enemy unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:I think a better solution is for all monsters to count as having 2 ranks regardless of which monster it is. This will allow them to break ranks when flanking and let them outsteadfast smaller units. larger units will still be steadfast but will have a limit to it.

Yeah, I think this is the best solution. It means monsters will be able to route smaller units, and units that have already been dealt hefty damage, while still allowing large units to hold a monster and hopefully wear it down over several turns, at which point the monster's player will need to combine the monster with a charge from his own unit of infantry.

Monsters are an absolute beat stick that can slaughter a smaller unit in a single turn, or work in a combined charge with a unit of infantry to route an otherwise superior enemy unit.

But they don't do the former, they charge in to the unit, kill 2 ranks at most, then the unit sticks around because it has its Command rank left. That means their only purpose is to help infantry out by flanking an enemy, but that's disappointing. A huge monster needs help killing tiny infantry? Not exactly a threat, is it?

There's also no need to be rude, sir, this is a civilised forum. Your opinion will be heard, you don't need to resort to shortness to get your point across.

Maybe Terror = -1LD to steadfast checks.

Well, didn't they come up with steadfast because 1000 points of infantry were running away when charged by 1 terror monster? Or just about anything that did a lot of hits.

Having mass infantry matches the fluff for pretty much all military engagements that ever existed (on this planet). We don't have so much in the way of monsters, but on the military channel, I was watching some WWII survivors talking about infantry vs. tank engagements and that was pretty damn similar.

The whole Saving Private Ryan over the bridge scene is an example of Steadfast. Cuz they really can't do much against those tanks.

So I think it's a very important concept. Though I recognize that Monsters have lost a lot of their awesomeness.

Dr. Delorean wrote:But they don't do the former, they charge in to the unit, kill 2 ranks at most, then the unit sticks around because it has its Command rank left. That means their only purpose is to help infantry out by flanking an enemy, but that's disappointing. A huge monster needs help killing tiny infantry? Not exactly a threat, is it?

Which is why, if you'd bothered to have read my post, you'd have seen I agree with Grey Templar's approach to have monsters count as two ranks.

There's also no need to be rude, sir, this is a civilised forum. Your opinion will be heard, you don't need to resort to shortness to get your point across.

I was trying to make it very clear that your basic assumption is flawed. Monsters are not there to wipe away infantry units. If that were true, then what would be the purpose of infantry units?

Monsters got hit hard by a number of things, not just Steadfast.


1) Always wounding on 6s: Most monsters only have their toughness to save them. You will notice that the only monsters taken competitivly are ones with good saves(namely Regen on the Abom and Hydra)

High toughness in some cases is points paid that don't provide additional protection. a T5 giant is wounded by Str3 just as easily as a T8 Necrosphinx is. The Sphinx pays points for a useless stat increase.

2) Steadfast for obvious reasons.

3) Premeasuring. Now that you always know what the distances are ranged attacks have become more accurate/easier to set up. Experienced 7th ed players could achieve almost as good accuracy with their cannons but that little bit of doubt has been completely removed.

4) Less LoS blocking terrain. Forests not blocking LoS really hit monsters(and others) hard because now the only terrain that can stop a cannonball, or other shooting, is a building or a wall(at a proper distance)

5) Fear/Terror change.


Individually, none of these things crippled monsters. The combination did.


Monsters are still good, and got a few buffs with 8th(Thunderstomp) but they can't win combats by themselves anymore. Check that, they can win the combat but they will lose the fight. Each round they kill 6-7 enemy models but lose 1-2 wounds themselves. Their enemy never runs and over the course of 3 combats they die. They need support by a friendly ranked unit(to break those ranks)

I agree there grey.

I would like to see monster be more usable that would be nice or just so something that can give them a bit more of an edge.