If you don't have a specific role for your monster, then the giant is the safe choice between the two, he has a smaller footprint (the mammoth has a 50x100mm base), he has a better nerve so should last longer, and strider, fury and CS(3) will make it effective against almost any target (just don't charge the giant alone into a horde of infantry or it will be tarpitted, send it with support)
However the mammoth can be more useful for certain roles.
Among other things, the presence of the ballista can be very effective in a more defensive Ogre army where you might want to wait your opponent.
Note that the ballista has 2 shots, not one and only cost 10 points. If facing something like a short range gunline with lots of breath attacks, your mammoth can combine with your shooters to force your opponent to come to you.
Also, note that the mounted ballista does not have the Reload! rule, so you can move and fire. granted, it will only hit on 6, but àonce againt for 10 points you are not paying much. Also, note that as a monster with height 4, the mammoth can fire without cover above height 1 units, so you can for exemple screen it with goblins archers and fire above their head, or you can target at things behing your ennemy own infantry (suddently those dwarf flame canons and goblins tromblones seems much less scary).
It's not much, but by takign the mammoth instead of the giant you traded toughness for some versability.
Second point, the mammoth has 12 attacks, while the giant has a random value between 7 and 12, so the mamoth will usually do more damage, and with TC(2) and CS(2) it will wound anything on 2+ on the initial charge (but it's true that the lack of strider will be a pain in difficult terrain)
The mean that the mammoth can be a better reserve monster than the giant : you keep it being your lines, maybe behing a screen of goblins, use the ballista so he still has something to do while waiting, dissuade fliers or similar fast units from trying to get a flank, and if/when your screen is charged and killed you charge the killer with the mammoth.
In short, the giant is better as a front line monster in an agressive army, but the mammoth might be better in more defensive or balanced ogre armies.
Note that nothing prevent you from mixing both styles of play, you can of course play agressively in one flank and more defensively on the other, or you can adapt depending on your opponent.
Of course, because each monster is best suited to some role doesn't prevent it from doing less optimal jobs if needed (well, the giant won't be able to provide ranged support of course ...), so a mammoth can still be a decent front line monster, and the giant can also be a nice reserve unit too (the small base helps too), but if there is a role that is clearly used more often than the other, you will usually prefer the optimal option of course.
Against an opponent with a lots of short ranged shooting, or one with a lack of shooting, I will usually prefer the mammoth, while the giant is simply a good pure melee support.
Myself, I think that I will probably simply take both one giant and one mammoth next time I play with my Ogres.
|