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.

We'll start an AoS league (1500 pts, KDV), soon. I'll play Bloodbound combined with Khorne Daemons and Slaves to Darkness.

I'd like to know how good monsters are?
In 40k, monsters are usually decent, since with their increased toughness they are harder to wound.
In AoS, the situation is different, since models/unit wound on a certain value independent of the enemy and rend values are rather common.

Thoughts? Experiences?

Monsters in AoS have, as far as I'm aware, a unique rules set which sees their skills and attacks get weaker as they take more wounds, though there are powers that can heal. Monsters are not broken but the threat of one-shotting them is almost nil, though there are few instances where any model plunging into are slain on a role of a 1 outright, no matter how many wounds. Do you have an idea of what race, faction or even models you like and would consider playing?

Toughness doesn't exist in AoS, so durability is based on wounds, armor save, regeneration/healing (if any), and any special saves that a monster or monster rider might have (dragon prince shield or something similar).

Generally monsters very between solid options and borderline overpowered depending on the comp. I haven't heard of KDV before though, so I'll have to take a look.

[edit] Are there any monsters you were specifically looking at? At a skim KDV seems to have a solid average on monster capability, though there are certainly winners and losers. Wizard-Monsters in particular seem to be pretty undercosted. In terms of Khorne-ish monsters they seem meh to above-average, FWIW it looks like the best things in Khorne's arsenal on KDV are Wrathmongers and large units of Bloodletters (since KDV does not incorporate scaling unit costs). Skarbrand is still awesome but costed enough that he isn't auto-take either. Perhaps not strictly Khorne but Be'Lakor looks like a very powerful option for his cost.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Generally monsters very between solid options and borderline overpowered depending on the comp. I haven't heard of KDV before though, so I'll have to take a look.

[edit] Are there any monsters you were specifically looking at? At a skim KDV seems to have a solid average on monster capability, though there are certainly winners and losers. Wizard-Monsters in particular seem to be pretty undercosted. In terms of Khorne-ish monsters they seem meh to above-average, FWIW it looks like the best things in Khorne's arsenal on KDV are Wrathmongers and large units of Bloodletters (since KDV does not incorporate scaling unit costs). Skarbrand is still awesome but costed enough that he isn't auto-take either. Perhaps not strictly Khorne but Be'Lakor looks like a very powerful option for his cost.

No, I wasn't looking for a specific monster.
Indeed, some monsters are meh like Daemon Princes (they cost around 160 pts) while others like wizard monsters seem to be above average.
Khorgoraths seem to be a solid choice too (119 pts for one exemplar seems reasonable).
Not sure about the units. Skullreapers with daemonblades are a bit cheaper than Wrathmongers (179 vs. 189). Blood Warriors seem to be an auto include but not sure if a 10 men unit is justfied (243 pts). The same goes with Bloodreavers (20 men unit is 122 pts) in the presence of a Bloodsecrator.

The thing with wrathmongers is their ability that triggers on death. Hitting a hero or monster with this can be game-winning and all the wrathmongers have to do is be within 3" when they die. They also do enough damage on their own that the opponent can't afford to ignore them either, and they are difficult to tie up with chaff for long. Bloodreavers die extremely easily but if they charge first they will probably do enough damage that it doesn't matter anyway; this makes them good with wrathmongers since the latter is a magnet for enemy shooting. Blood Warriors are just a solid all-around melee troop along with Skullreapers but they basically do the same thing. Blood Warriors gain more benefit from Bloodsecrators though.

Ah Bloodsecrators, I forgot about them. Since we now know for sure that their ability stacks as per GW's faq I'd recommend spamming them as much as you feel comfortable. At least one is an auto-take for any Bloodbound army (bloodreavers or no) but 3-4 really wouldn't be bad either since they are so cheap in KDV. Because they buff all Khorne models (mortal or no) they combo very well with Skarbrand, Skull Cannons, and Insensinate Bloodthirsters since each of those has a powerful ability normally compensated for by a limited number of attacks.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The thing with wrathmongers is their ability that triggers on death. Hitting a hero or monster with this can be game-winning and all the wrathmongers have to do is be within 3" when they die. They also do enough damage on their own that the opponent can't afford to ignore them either, and they are difficult to tie up with chaff for long. Bloodreavers die extremely easily but if they charge first they will probably do enough damage that it doesn't matter anyway; this makes them good with wrathmongers since the latter is a magnet for enemy shooting. Blood Warriors are just a solid all-around melee troop along with Skullreapers but they basically do the same thing. Blood Warriors gain more benefit from Bloodsecrators though.

Ah Bloodsecrators, I forgot about them. Since we now know for sure that their ability stacks as per GW's faq I'd recommend spamming them as much as you feel comfortable. At least one is an auto-take for any Bloodbound army (bloodreavers or no) but 3-4 really wouldn't be bad either since they are so cheap in KDV. Because they buff all Khorne models (mortal or no) they combo very well with Skarbrand, Skull Cannons, and Insensinate Bloodthirsters since each of those has a powerful ability normally compensated for by a limited number of attacks.

Wrathmongers are indeed great as are Bloodsecrators.
Not sure if I should stay with infantry alone or to include a bigger monster like Skarbrand or a Bloodthirsters. Atm I'll stay with infantry.

The issue with Skarbrand is he might kill friendships as well as enemy models!

I usually like to include 1-2 monsters in my lists. Not only can they hit hard early game and really weaken the opponents starting forces, they also force your opponent to focus them early letting you claim obj and position your slower infantry. Another major thing is they also play a big part in mind games against your opponent, common reaction is see something big and mean looking, pour way too much into it to kill it. This lets you better set up as I mentioned, you can even get off great counter charges against units that charge your monster.

I love monsters, one of my favorite parts of the game.

Monsters are good. In Age of SIgmar you can reach a 1+ save by mystic shield stacking, much easier to do when a monster already has a default 3+ save. This makes it so the monster can only be damaged by mortal wounds. (May sound crappy, but its the same system has high armor low strength) This is what makes monsters more viable than a mass amount of low wound high dice. Then monsters don't suffer from the penalties of battleshock and pile in. It is a single model so it will always get all 15+ of its attacks off, which usually have a higher landing chance than low wound models, and low wound models may not get all of their attacks in because of pile in. If you play by custom rules that are lenient on 1+ saves and pile in then the effectiveness of monsters drops, but you have no one to blame but yourself for changing the rules Then you have unique abilities of monsters to add more strategy than charge forward and pow pow.