Your views on Monsters

[Brutalrage]

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" 

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)

[azrael71]

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.

[Lex]

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.....

[calmacil]

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.

[Geep]

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.

[Lex]

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   

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   

(actualy, it would not be TOO hard to do that ...........)

[Stormwind]

We could do it the "epic" way, and have games with loads of monsters where the infantry basicly is a doormat   

(actualy, it would not be TOO hard to do that ...........)

Hey - how else are my warhounds supposed to clean their muddy feet? =-P

[calmacil]

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   

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



Evidence of me trying out a Hydra  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) >>>>>

[David Wasilewski]

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

[Guthwine]

Maybe a movement of 25cm could do the trick for monsters, as youll no longer suffer -1 for enemies in range that often.

[calmacil]

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  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.

[Stormwind]

It does make sense that something with so many heads doesn't need any more back up... ;-P

[captPiett]

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.

[TristanHoag]

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!

[Geep]

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.