Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => [WM] Warmaster Fantasy Discussion => Topic started by: calmacil on February 02, 2012, 05:32:28 PM
-
We were playing warmaster the other day at GW HQ, and our game always attracts lots of attention from interested gamers. One bystander said to us ..."i love both your armies, but don't you get bigger monsters like dragons in warmaster?" I then explained that you do, but not many people use them.
Afterwards i was thinking what a shame this was, my dark elf hydra is my favourite model in my army. But when i write an army list comparing the cost of a hydra (135 points) to a unit of Cold One Knights (130 points) there is no contest which one is more effective. Cold Ones win every time. I think i'd still ponder whether to take a hydra if they cost 70 points.
With my O&G the only time i've lost a game with them is when i've taken a giant in my list. I think giants are better value monsters, and very effective if you can get in close and purposely fail with Cmd rolls ;D But lots of chariots and boar riders usually wins me the day with orcs.
What's everyone elses views on monsters? do you take them often? do you think they are worth it? .... (and i'm not talking about character mounts)
Or is it because the equivalent fantasy warmaster cavalry is too cheap? i notice warmaster ancient hvy cav (3/3, 4+) costs 130 and in warmaster they cost 110
-
I know what you are saying! I love to use the bigger monsters, if just for the visual appeal... Even if it means that I am sacrificing some of the effectiveness of the army overall. I will run a pair of Stegadons in my lizardman army, just because I love the models. It has cost me games, but I like the look/feel/backstory of my armies more than their win/loss record.
I would say that anytime that you are playing in a public situation, you should at least have the models on hand to show off - that can be the kind of thing that can get people into the game!
Tristan
-
I for one am all for monsters and more "fluffy" armies, rather than efficient ones.
But then again, I've yet to play my first game of Warmaster ;)
I do find, however, that there isn't enough big stuff in the current Warmaster lists. When you look at Warhammer artwork, there are always plenty of monsters and other really big stuff around in the background. I thought Warmaster would be perfect to move these beauties into the foreground a bit more... but apparently that's just me.
They've done a great job with that in Epic (Titans and War Engines), though.
I will definitely be building some big stuff for my Chaos army, if I ever get around to it. Planning to make a unit of Dragon Ogres using the Epic 40k Ork Squiggoth models...
-
The armies I have (as of yet :) ) dont have any big monsters but Id definetly take whatever I could because that is what the 10mm scale is made for.
The rest of the Austrian group goes more for efficiency, we even have one that plays Araby without Elefants (= a crime, yes I mean YOU :D :P ) The big guys only show up in 2000+ battles because cavalry is just to good to swap them them with a monster in 2000p games.
-
On the topic of monsters, I'm also all for them, it's a shame that they're lacking from the armies I've got so far. I was wondering about writing a 'Storm of Magic' scenario that brought more in for all armies (using Vincent's excellent Magic Fulcrum sculpt).
Planning to make a unit of Dragon Ogres using the Epic 40k Ork Squiggoth models
Do you mean something other than these guys:
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h291/Levinas/DSC04281.jpg)
-
@pw: Yip, more like these guys (by Andy Skinners - hope it's okay to link this picture here):
(http://2md.dk/gw-warmaster/images/armies/chaos/chaos_undivided/andy_skinners_chaos/Chaos_Dragon_Ogre_stand-ins.jpg)
I love those, but not so keen on the use of the chariot. Think I'm gonna build my (what do you call the bit the troops are in) myself, unless I can find something more suitable.
There are more pics of Andy Skinners version here:
http://2md.dk/gw-warmaster/images/armies/chaos/chaos_undivided/andy_skinners_chaos/ (http://2md.dk/gw-warmaster/images/armies/chaos/chaos_undivided/andy_skinners_chaos/)
-
I never leave home without my Chaos Dragon in games 2,000 points and over....
-
Large monsters are easily pointed into the game, but are usually a points drain and are vulnerable to attack.
I have a few in my collection.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f364/mickmarriott/warmaster/beasts%20of%20chaos/DSCN8173.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f364/mickmarriott/warmaster/beasts%20of%20chaos/DSCN8174.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f364/mickmarriott/warmaster/Dwarf/DSCN0113.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f364/mickmarriott/warmaster/Orc%20and%20Goblin/DSCN7713.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f364/mickmarriott/warmaster/Orc%20and%20Goblin/DSCN7714.jpg)
As for regular monsters, I do normally take them, not because they are viable, but because I am a fluff fan :)
They are not effective points wise compared to other units, but I enjoy playing fun and entertaining games, not cheese ridden lists.
Heroes on terror-causers, well there's a different story ;)
-
Dragon Ogres
Ah yeah i forgot that some armies have 3 monsters in a unit, i've played against dragon ogres and think they're very good, i wouldn't put them in this catergory (24 attacks on a charge is scary :o ) When i made my post I was referring to big single monsters that move around on their own (dark elf hydra, sphinx, the high elf dragons (not the +100 pnt character mnt) and possibly even the Steam Tank (i know they aren't monsters))
Just wondered how many people use any of those? i've seen jc use a sphinx in a bat rep ;D
@amnar... i didn't mean character mounts, i think the chaos dragon as a mount for a character is great. I'd take a dragon mount in my dark elf army if I could.
@azrael.. i'm a fluff fan as well. But i do like to feel i stand a chance in the game. My main opponent takes as many cavalry units as he can. You can hardly blame him, he's got bretonnians so his break point is affected by it. Also, i love that dwarf zeplin, think i went to college with the guy that made that ;)
-
Did you see the photos from the NH Warmaster event? Tristan did some awesome conversions on his steam tanks.
Anyway, I like the look of the big stuff. They tend not to perform on the battlefield. However, there are some exceptions.
When I played High Elves, I loved the Dragon Rider. He causes awesome damage and can charge in from afar.
When I started playing Daemons, I tried removing monsters from my army list. However, I found that I only enjoyed playing my Daemons when I included my Greater Daemon in the list. The odd thing is, now that I've included the Greater Daemon, I've won more than I lost.
-
That's a good point. I suppose I've never used Spawn, but that's because I haven't painted any yet :)
-
Due to the armies i have, i only use 4 large (single base) monsters regularly, HE Dragon, TK Sphinx & Bone Giant, O&G Giant, i like them all, and they definately have their tactical uses (personally i think their essential in a TK army) besides adding a fluff/fun factor, they do seem to be a bit costly however, or and as the OP says Hvy Cav are too cheap in comparison, it maybe worth considering whenever the lists are revised.
-
imo the monsters should be cheaper; would solve all problems :)
-
All GW systems seem to have this problem - the units that seem the most "fun" are also the ones that are "uncompetitive"! x-)
For what it's worth the moment I decided I really had to have a Warmaster army was when I saw the Hydra on the GW website. =-P
-
imo the monsters should be cheaper; would solve all problems :)
Yes i agree. But none of opponents would agree if i turned up to a game saying.."okay i adjusted the points for a Hydra, they now cost 70 points" ;D
I know one of my friends would love it if chaos warriors were 125, or chaos knights 150. ... that's the problem, it's knowing where to stop
-
imo the monsters should be cheaper; would solve all problems :)
Yes i agree. But none of opponents would agree if i turned up to a game saying.."okay i adjusted the points for a Hydra, they now cost 70 points" ;D
I know one of my friends would love it if chaos warriors were 125, or chaos knights 150. ... that's the problem, it's knowing where to stop
battletesting it would solve it. for example: take a unit of human inf standard ones. let a sphinx charge it 10 separate times. write down the results. then let other UD units charge it. write down results. now let the human inf charge the sphinx and other units 10 times. then compare results, and reprice said sphinx according to how it performed to the other units (say it did as good as chariots unit, then make it the new price of the ud chariot, which is 110 iirc)
-
10 time per unit is no where near a large enough sample.
As is said on this forum in frequently, if you want to tweak the points then do so as a house rule.
Since most of us play in small groups where an agreement is more easily reached.
-
battletesting it would solve it. for example: take a unit of human inf standard ones. let a sphinx charge it 10 separate times. write down the results. then let other UD units charge it. write down results. now let the human inf charge the sphinx and other units 10 times. then compare results, and reprice said sphinx according to how it performed to the other units
Someone (I think it was The Happy Ent) used to have a script that would calculate this stuff in large quantities.....
-
I think the single base monsters perform very well against infantry, at least that's where my hydra performs best. It's cavalry that destroy it easily.
-
Someone (I think it was The Happy Ent) used to have a script that would calculate this stuff in large quantities.....
That should be pretty easy, but in the end if you do that enough times all you get is the expected statistics- the simple Math-hammer that so many people seem to loathe (although I don't get why).
The only important thing that is needed other than averages is the standard deviation (often skipped).
I'm not convinced that these details alone would be sufficient to make appropriate points values though- there are plenty of other considerations, like special rules, average Ld of the controlling army, total break point of the controlling army and role of the monster in the army.
For added complication you can also look at whether or not the monster breaks an army theme, and may see that as worthy of points punishment. eg. Vampire Counts are the only army with no shooting attacks at all- if you modelled up a Terrorgheist and gave it a shooting attack it should probably be worth more than an equal monster from another army. Of course not all will agree that 'breaking a theme' should matter.
-
The only important thing that is needed other than averages is the standard deviation (often skipped).
Valid point, but the Ent was a math professer, so I guess that was taken care off 8)
I'm not convinced that these details alone would be sufficient to make appropriate points values though- there are plenty of other considerations, like special rules, average Ld of the controlling army, total break point of the controlling army and role of the monster in the army.
Correct ! and having been part of the proces of reviewing "minor" changes in the selectors AND introducing new armies to the game the one thing that sticks out most is
which Role(s) should it forfill and what are the alternative options in the list
closely followed by
Ohhh, but is it sooooooo cute.....
(and thruth be told, some GW participants had models made that where "sooo cute" and then dropped it in the designers/playtestteam's lap to "fit them in"
Honnestly, altough I like me Big Brutes, how many battles in the Warhammer World would actualy see a pletoria of monsters fielded on either side ??
We could do it the "epic" way, and have games with loads of monsters where the infantry basicly is a doormat :o 8)
(actualy, it would not be TOO hard to do that ...........)
-
We could do it the "epic" way, and have games with loads of monsters where the infantry basicly is a doormat :o 8)
(actualy, it would not be TOO hard to do that ...........)
Hey - how else are my warhounds supposed to clean their muddy feet? =-P
-
Some great observations there Geep. Personally i judge the point value by how effective i feel the unit has been in a number of games, and my hydra doesn't "feel" like 135 points... if that makes sense?
As for the hydra's role within my army, i'd say my hydra is a combat support for other infantry units. I try and deploy her so she's opposite enemy infantry, they are my main target.
Honnestly, altough I like me Big Brutes, how many battles in the Warhammer World would actualy see a pletoria of monsters fielded on either side ??
We could do it the "epic" way, and have games with loads of monsters where the infantry basicly is a doormat :o 8)
Yes i agree with you, i wouldn't want to field loads of monsters. It wouldn't be a problem with my dark elves because i can take 1 hydra per 1,000 points. The warmaster system is great for that :)
At the moment i'd like to field more than zero, because i like the model. As i said i have tried the hydra in quite a few games, and although it's a beautiful model it's hard to justify her place in my army. My hydra has been hibernating is her dark cave (box) for a few months now ;D
Evidence of me trying out a Hydra ;D the Hydra's combat support (spearmen) had already been destroyed here. I'm being overwhelmed by the Bretonnians, and he's about to rescue the mithril paladin from that canyon (a scenario we played) >>>>>
(http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr279/waylander2/warmaster024-1.jpg)
-
Monsters are cool but unless you are playing a big game (3K+) they are a bit 'eggs in one basket.' e.g. Played a game with a mate's Dark Elves once and fielded two Hydras. They spent the ENTIRE game refusing to move for anyone, even the general! That cost me the game.
On the other hand I have had a Giant single handedly wipe out 3 units of enemy cavalry over two turns and smash a flank which won me a game!
They're more useful in armies with a decent command really.
Dave
-
Maybe a movement of 25cm could do the trick for monsters, as youll no longer suffer -1 for enemies in range that often.
-
That's a good idea Guthwine, i never thought of that.... An extra rule that applies to all monsters. That way the points costs don't need to be messed around with, and it makes everyones monsters more viable.
Maybe this ..........."Monsters are creatures of muscle and heavy bulk, once they start attacking they rumble forward like juggernauts. Because of this all monsters are considered "supported" at all times"
It does make dragon ogres really good :o But they are 250 points
EDIT... i just realised harpies are defined monsters. If it makes them too powerfull, could add "non-flying monsters" are considered supported.
-
It does make sense that something with so many heads doesn't need any more back up... ;-P
-
As long as this is still in the realm of thought experiment, what about this:
single-based monsters can enter wooded terrain (like kislev bears - but perhaps only on the charge/pursuit). This would give them the valuable ability to root out stubborn infantry that's out of reach from your cavalry, chariots, etc., which in turn would make them a more attractive choice for their points. I think there's a little bit of precedence to it in that the giant can act as a living siege engine (i.e. attack into a terrain feature). It's not too far beyond the realm of possibility that a hydra can go through some woods on the charge if there was a target in front of it, for example.
Of course, this could have all sorts of foreseen and unforeseen ripple effects on list design, infantry-only opponents, etc. etc. so I'm not necessarily in favor of this. It just sounded like a neat idea.
-
That seems cool, and would give them a separate tactical role - especially since it sounds like the real concern is them being outclassed by cavalry in the open. Also the thought of a Stegadon charging through the woods knocking down trees as he goes is just great imagery!
-
Allowing monsters into wooded terrain could work, but it'd need to be less restrictive than 'only on a charge or when pursuing'. I can see people luring monsters into terrain and then abandoning them there, leaving them unable to move at all- effectively making monsters more unappealing and frustrating.
It would add a bit of a tactical change- having something that can hold this kind of terrain but not benefit from the cover.
-
Allowing monsters into forests is alright, i don't think it tips the balance of the game into their favour. Put it this way if that rule was added to a hydra i still don't think i'd take one in a competitive game.
Let's say the monster charges the infantry in the woods. The monster would need to get within 2cm then charge for LOS. He wouldn't get his +2 charge bonus, and he needs 5's to hit.
.....for a hydra against 2 units of bretonnian M-A-A it's the infantry that are favourite. I know you don't roll averages all the time, but it's a combat i wouldn't go for unless forced to.
-
The monster is big enough to see over trees,smells them, uses its (fill in the blanks) and has a perception range of 4/8/10 ? cm.
Aslo because it will wreak havoc with the terrain, defended becomes open and fortified becomes defended against monster.
As a negative the monster itself is ALWAYS counted as being in the open, regardless of terrain it is in ....
Would that work ?
-
The dwarves wouldnt be too happy with monsters that can fight in forests, cause terror and also ignore their defended status.
Id personally go for something more simple. Also if the monster is big enough to look over the trees its also big enough to have a hard time moving through woods. (which are dense woods or the -1 to command for terrain would make no sense)
-
You could follow a bit of the current Warhammer trend (where monsters now get 'thunderstomp').
In Warmaster terms I think it'd be best as Monsters having +1 combat resolution vs Infantry and Artillery. Maybe +2 if the Monster also charged this turn (although the +2 attacks is already pretty good there).
You would still need to protect the monster vs Cavalry and Chariots.
-
they definitely need bit of upgrading.
-
Or you could just remove the badly hurt rule :)
-
You could follow a bit of the current Warhammer trend (where monsters now get 'thunderstomp').
In Warmaster terms I think it'd be best as Monsters having +1 combat resolution vs Infantry and Artillery. Maybe +2 if the Monster also charged this turn (although the +2 attacks is already pretty good there).
You would still need to protect the monster vs Cavalry and Chariots.
I like this, but i think i'd add "non-flying monsters" because i think harpies are already quite good (at least my opponents thinks so ;D ) I'd apply this to all non-flying monsters and steam tanks.
If you want to protect monsters from cavalry and chariots just have +1 combat resolution v's everything
Unsure of the +2 com res on the charge. (i'm thinking of how unstoppable dragon ogres would be, but then again they are 250 pnts. Not sure about it)
-
If you want to protect monsters from cavalry and chariots just have +1 combat resolution v's everything
I like the idea of a bonus only vs infantry and artillery- giving the monsters a specific advantage and weakness. Maybe this makes them too weak- I don't really have enough Warmaster experience to know for certain.
Or you could just remove the badly hurt rule
I'm not sure if it's best to remove it for all monsters- I've never faced a Stegadon, but they look scary on paper to me.
-
Or you could just remove the badly hurt rule :)
I am not too fun to add or change combat bonus (as the core games seems great). Also IMHO do not see the necesity of changing the cost of the monsters. In 1000k armies just avoid taking monsters and leave them to big armies (2000 +) when they have more sense to appear. Then the monster in a big army do not play a decisive roll (like in WHF) is just another troop that you need to work with it in the battle field -it is not gold all that glitter..., and monster glitter a lot, but the battle should be won with inf/cav more than having big chopping meat machines. Just my opinion.
If I had to overpower big monsters in my houserules I love the options that Azrael points. That simple rule apply discriminating the big monsters (hidra, giant, etc..) from other monsters like harpies or dragon ogres.
-
I am with you, I don't think there is a need to modify monsters or their points cost.
But if people insist, then keeping it as simple as possible is the best way.
-
The reasons monster are rarely seen is not that they arent good or because somethings wrong with them, the reason just is that heavy cav is too cheap in Warmaster. Which isnt a big problem but its the reason for monsterless armies, I think.
-
The reasons monster are rarely seen is not that they arent good or because somethings wrong with them, the reason just is that heavy cav is too cheap in Warmaster. Which isnt a big problem but its the reason for monsterless armies, I think.
I've been tempted to change the lists for ages, but didn't feel i was qualified/experienced enough to do it. Heavy Cavalry being too cheap was something i noticed in my very first game, and there are armies which are stronger than others. It's nowhere near as pronounced as it is in WH or 40k, but it does exist.
It's such a shame. But i don't think it will ever be addressed (i think this has to be a personal project, behind closed doors ;D ) i just wondered if other people felt the same way about monsters, and most people do.
I read somewhere (probably from Rick) that you shouldn't go down the WM ancients route for fantasy WM. I think he means if you change one rule/points cost it could have a knock on effect and change the role of other units around it. Also the role of one unit/character can differ between armies (eg. the High Elf and Dwarf general both have 10 command, but the dwarf general is cheaper . I understand that this is because the dwarves don't have the same mobility (cavalry/chariots))
However, i do think the cost is roughly correct in WMancients.
-
Engine problem ;D
The WMA engine was created to produce "more realistic historical results", while the WM one is geared towards "high fantasy".
(like comparing a diesel engine vs a formula 1)
Not saying it cant be done, but from personal experience I would do it another way........ well actually a lot of that excersize is already done.... 8)
-
I think the "cheap heavy cavalry" problem is actually a "lack of sufficient terrain" problem. On a board with just rolling hills and open fields, maxing out on cavalry of any type is a no-brainer, and infantry just needs to get out of the way and pray it doesn't get noticed. Once you start adding forests, towns, and other obstructions to cavalry, infantry suddenly becomes more useful and attractive - and you need the more elite infantry to deal with the opponents defended units.
Giving monsters some ability to go into forests (or even built-up areas - sort of medieval/fantasy version of godzilla ;D ) would provide a more interesting way of rooting out that defended infantry. Yes, by themselves it's probably still a losing proposition, but why would you risk a large monster on its own? I envisioned something more along the lines of "combined arms assault, monster style". That unit of spearmen isn't likely to dislodge that infantry in the woods, but send in a dragon, hydra, etc. along with them and the equation changes a bit.
I think it's right that monsters should fear heavy cav. Both tend to be high-value units, and a combat between the two would understandably be quite dicey for the monster (it being only one base vs. 3 cav).
-
Just for comparison purposes a unit of Empire Knights would cost 135pts using WMA against the rulebook cost of 110pts, whilst Chaos Knights would be 155pts opposed to the 200pts in the rulebook, monsters come out roughly about the same cost.
-
Another idea would be that enemy units (infantry/cav/machines) are not allowed to charge monsters on initiative but have to pass an order (like a leadership check) to charge.
Which would call for a special category for huge monsters like monsterous creatures to prevent flyers from benefiting from this rule.
-
I like that idea
You could make it part of the rules for Fear/ Terror in Warmaster- that limits it to big monsters and also reflects the normal Warhammer rules a bit (I like continuity). That may make it too powerful for characters mounted on monsters though?
-
Ok - the discussion has unfortunately veered off towards costing alternatives on another thread... a worthy topic I'm sure, but one that makes my eyes glaze over.
So here's what I want to know... how would you go about play testing these ideas about monsters? For simplicity's sake, let's take the two big ones (or maybe they're just the last ones, I don't know), in general form:
1. Monsters can enter/attack into woods
2. Some sort of restriction against charging monsters
I'm fairly experienced at playtesting in Epic (usually as Dave's punching bag for Hivefleet Unfairness), but I've never done a WM playtest. So, what are some general guidelines to playtesting WM, and what specific game characteristics would need to be incorporated to pose a good test for these house rules?
Right off the bat, I would assume that a tourney scenario would be the most appropriate, followed in importance by strictly defining the house rule to be tested (e.g. "monsters can enter woods both in the initiative and orders phases," or "terrains X, Y, and Z are no longer impassable to single-based monsters", etc.).
In other words, how would you go about finding out whether or not a rule modification was workable?
-
WM playtesting ....
in general ...
Define situation in current rules, set up (small scale if appropriate) and reproduce said scenario a couple of time, in general I would use "basic" units at first.
Set up the same situation and perform the same number of test with the new rules.
Rinse and repeat af infinitum, start to vary size first and other gaming situation when you feel comfy with current and expected rule.
Report back to the playtest coordinator (me) for your next assignment