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 love all these new models for WoC but due to being on larger bases and only counting as regular infantry they are meh to not worth it when it comes to fielding them. So I have come up with a quick fix I think everyone could agree to and make them effective and enjoyable to play AGAINST as well. There are two changes I purpose...

1.Make them Mounstrous Infantry.
2.They have the new rule Mounstrous Men: units with this special rule can never make stomp attacks and in addition may only be stomped by models with the "large target" special rule.

I would love to hear feedback and alternative suggestions. I feel these changes make them viable for their current points and inline with other new releases like the Skaven and undead additions.

I agree they should have the benefits of monsterous Infantry, being 5 wide for 1 rank is ridiculas as my HORDE of trolls is 6 wide. it doesn't make sence atall

They should loose the ability to fight with 3 attacks for supporting and drop down to one, keep all other rules the same

SIDE NOTE
The models are acctually really small, i expected them to be ogre sized to match the base but they are 25mm sided, they EASILY fit on 25mm bases and match perfectly.... go figure

IMO the only change I think they need would be to make the unit size 3+ and 3 wide for a rank. If they had all the bonuses of MI then they would be overly broken. Right now blight kings are a good choice as it is even without it. Adding another universal rule would be unnecessary.

That is one of my biggest issues with Monstrous Infantry. Their bonuses are amazing for what amounts to very little in the way of penalties.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That is one of my biggest issues with Monstrous Infantry. Their bonuses are amazing for what amounts to very little in the way of penalties.

Because Ogres have so few drawbacks and terrible matchups.

If you are going to make them MI, then give them a point increase ( I'd say 7-10).
Making them MI without the ability to stomp is still too OP. The ability to have them with ranks would be too good, especially compared to other monstrous infantry

Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

Really? My BSB kills units of them on his own.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

Really? My BSB kills units of them on his own.

So the worth of the unit is reduced because your BSB kills them? Seems... legit.

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

Really? My BSB kills units of them on his own.

So the worth of the unit is reduced because your BSB kills them? Seems... legit.

No. I'm just stating that they're not invincible.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

Really? My BSB kills units of them on his own.

So the worth of the unit is reduced because your BSB kills them? Seems... legit.

No. I'm just stating that they're not invincible.

He never said they were. What he said was that they were to good to pass up as a WOC player. Being good and being invincible are very different. What your comment seems to say is "No they're not very good, my BSB kills them." You question his statement which is that they are good so is it what you mean or are you backtracking?

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

Really? My BSB kills units of them on his own.

So the worth of the unit is reduced because your BSB kills them? Seems... legit.

No. I'm just stating that they're not invincible.

He never said they were. What he said was that they were to good to pass up as a WOC player. Being good and being invincible are very different. What your comment seems to say is "No they're not very good, my BSB kills them." You question his statement which is that they are good so is it what you mean or are you backtracking?

His exact words were that the Unit was a fractions of his points that wasn't going to die. That does not translate to 'too good to pass up', which, for the record, they are.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Chaos Rising wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Make them MI, raise their cost to about 60 PPM

if blight kings were 60ppm I would run 12-15 each game simply for 1/3rd of my points that they are not going to kill. Even at that points cost it still makes them way too good to pass up

Really? My BSB kills units of them on his own.

So the worth of the unit is reduced because your BSB kills them? Seems... legit.

No. I'm just stating that they're not invincible.

He never said they were. What he said was that they were to good to pass up as a WOC player. Being good and being invincible are very different. What your comment seems to say is "No they're not very good, my BSB kills them." You question his statement which is that they are good so is it what you mean or are you backtracking?

His exact words were that the Unit was a fractions of his points that wasn't going to die. That does not translate to 'too good to pass up', which, for the record, they are.

His exact words are "way too good to pass up." But I now start to see what you are saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was looking at the wrong part of the reply.

Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

thats why you have overall and best general. Call it what you will but painting is part of the hobby, instead of complain how about you paint better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back on topic:

One thing that seems to be disturbing me is the trend that blightkings and the new khorne guys are showing of putting infantry on 40's. With 40k moving some of its guys to larger bases could this be a trend that might be carried over into fantasy?

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

thats why you have overall and best general. Call it what you will but painting is part of the hobby, instead of complain how about you paint better?

If you want a painting competition, go to one.

A game of skill has no place for painting. A tournament is not about the hobby as a whole. It's about how good you are on the table. Skewing those results can lead to people who dont deserve to be in the top being there.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

thats why you have overall and best general. Call it what you will but painting is part of the hobby, instead of complain how about you paint better?

If you want a painting competition, go to one.

A game of skill has no place for painting. A tournament is not about the hobby as a whole. It's about how good you are on the table. Skewing those results can lead to people who dont deserve to be in the top being there.

Painting score is only added at the very end, also look at the results of the tournments. Those in the top tier are usually seperated by a point or 2 which can be the difference in the paint score but all of them belong at the top simply because the VAST majority of points are gained from in game play.

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

thats why you have overall and best general. Call it what you will but painting is part of the hobby, instead of complain how about you paint better?

If you want a painting competition, go to one.

A game of skill has no place for painting. A tournament is not about the hobby as a whole. It's about how good you are on the table. Skewing those results can lead to people who dont deserve to be in the top being there.

Painting score is only added at the very end, also look at the results of the tournments. Those in the top tier are usually seperated by a point or 2 which can be the difference in the paint score but all of them belong at the top simply because the VAST majority of points are gained from in game play.

If the soft scores don't matter, why have them? Either you do them, at which point the entire tournament becomes a waste of time and money, or you ditch them and have it as an actual contest of skill.

Anyone who thinks paint scores are an important part of a competitive event won't be playing on top tables any time soon.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

thats why you have overall and best general. Call it what you will but painting is part of the hobby, instead of complain how about you paint better?

If you want a painting competition, go to one.

A game of skill has no place for painting. A tournament is not about the hobby as a whole. It's about how good you are on the table. Skewing those results can lead to people who dont deserve to be in the top being there.

Painting score is only added at the very end, also look at the results of the tournments. Those in the top tier are usually seperated by a point or 2 which can be the difference in the paint score but all of them belong at the top simply because the VAST majority of points are gained from in game play.

If the soft scores don't matter, why have them? Either you do them, at which point the entire tournament becomes a waste of time and money, or you ditch them and have it as an actual contest of skill.

Anyone who thinks paint scores are an important part of a competitive event won't be playing on top tables any time soon.

Look at the paint scores of the top tables...................you will see how they value the paint score

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

............i disagree but thats fine im glad you play on another continent. Come to adepticon I really want to play a game against you

If I go to a tournament where I expect to get hammered based on stupid arbitrary soft scores, I expect the players to be at my level. And from what I've seen/heard about the US competitive scene, that latter part is lacking in spades.

is it because we can play the game without 10 pages of silly arbitrary comp?

You add elements onto the game that lessen the elements of skill required to play. Painting should not come into a tournament. At all. Ever.

thats why you have overall and best general. Call it what you will but painting is part of the hobby, instead of complain how about you paint better?

If you want a painting competition, go to one.

A game of skill has no place for painting. A tournament is not about the hobby as a whole. It's about how good you are on the table. Skewing those results can lead to people who dont deserve to be in the top being there.

Painting score is only added at the very end, also look at the results of the tournments. Those in the top tier are usually seperated by a point or 2 which can be the difference in the paint score but all of them belong at the top simply because the VAST majority of points are gained from in game play.

If the soft scores don't matter, why have them? Either you do them, at which point the entire tournament becomes a waste of time and money, or you ditch them and have it as an actual contest of skill.

Anyone who thinks paint scores are an important part of a competitive event won't be playing on top tables any time soon.

Look at the paint scores of the top tables...................you will see how they value the paint score

A well painted army means that they accept the presence of it. Not necessarily building an army towards it. Whilst I paint a nice looking army, I don't build an army for my opponent to enjoy the game. I build an army that plays effectively. If I get punished for doing so, that is not good tournament organising. That is pandering to an element of a hobby which should be kept separate.

How are you punished for building an army "not for you opponet to enjoy the game"????(d bag statement of the day btw)

Seriously im curious because a paint score is based on what you do with the army you bring. Its not based on what you list entails but how it is presented. The paint score is based off of a checklist that is shown well before the event and has solid guidelines. If you do this you will recieve x points. Players choice scores have NO bearing on the overall score just simply another prize to be won by ANYONE

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 namiel wrote:
Dont bother arguing with him. He doesnt live in the same gaming world as the rest of us.

In that I actually know how to play well.

I think i should point out, this is not OK. You must surely know this is insulting, you are saying either you are so much better then all of us here, without any proof, or that all of us play the game badly. You should consider what you write before posting, this seems petty and vain. I also don't think you should be forcing you views on Tournaments on other people. The Hobby includes painting, playing against drabs of grey breaks the suspension of disbelief while playing against a lovely painted army makes the game feel more thematic. If some tournaments want to reward players for putting the time into making the game enjoyable for the opponent, then that is an admirable thing to do. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean that all tournaments should fit to your view, should it?

As for the actual topic of discussion, what if they got a points drop (They need one) and become Monstrous Infantry without the perks? No stomp, but a horde is 5 models and 3 attacks from second row and don't allow them to be stomped. I don't know, but ''Above Average' infantry rule needs some thought into it.

Can we get back on topic and stop arguing the place of soft scores in tournaments?

"Savage, favoured and unkillable"
But they all die in the end!