Your views on Monsters

[calmacil]

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.

[Lex]

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 ?

[Guthwine]

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)

[Geep]

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.

[eastern barbarian]

they definitely need bit of upgrading.

[azrael71]

Or you could just remove the badly hurt rule

[calmacil]

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  ) 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)

[Geep]

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.

[jchaos79]

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.

[azrael71]

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.

[Guthwine]

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.

[calmacil]

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  ) 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.

[Lex]

Engine problem   

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....   

[captPiett]

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  ) 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).

[Happymcclap]

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.