PDA

View Full Version : Monsters in combat res



tabletopnews
31-05-2009, 03:20
Does it seem a bit unbalanced to anyone that a monster is one casualty in combat resolution?

We played a game today where one combat involved a Stone Giant, a formation or Urak-hai with Lurtz, Wargs and one troll from each player.

The Giant held on to three prize tokens and I attacked it with Lurtz and used an Epic Strike to grind it down and kill it. Thankfully it failed its Terror test when my Troll charged it so I had a huge Fight advantage and did an insane number of wounds against it and through some decent rolling on the Extremely hard to Kill table I killed it.

And yet lost combat because his Wargs and Trolls inflicted seven casualties.

It had 13 wound counters on it when it died and it seems quite odd to me that it only counts as a single casualty.

What this means is that I should have ignored it, pumped my attacks into the Wargs and Troll and then tried to win combat that way and totally ignore the Giant

Which seems as if the game is rewarding me for playing the system and not for playing the situation.

Jorgen_CAB
31-05-2009, 04:02
It gets even worse when you consider that monsters will almost surely drive infantry out (if they kill but one enemy) of cover and in return no one can rout them out of a defensible object.

I really don't like it when things are that absolute.

Poet
31-05-2009, 06:10
I find the same oddity in SBG, where you kill half the models for a break point, no matter what they are.
I have 1 moria goblin and a ringwraith in my army, the goblin dies, my ringwraith panics.

Emissary
31-05-2009, 12:20
Doesn't bother me. Monsters have their strengths and weaknesses. They're expensive, if they're not a hero they can't at the double or do heroic actions, they don't have many attacks and they are easy to kill. The other stuff is their strengths. If they didn't have those strengths there wouldn't ever really be a reason to bring them over blocks of infantry.

tabletopnews
31-05-2009, 14:32
Killing them should be worth something though. They are expensive and tough and yet their death counts for as little as a single goblin

Its not consistent and it means that combats involving them get "gamey" in way that is dissatisfying.

Jorgen_CAB
31-05-2009, 15:17
I would rather that they live longer and that they impact combat more in line with what seem realistic. A monster certainly could be disordered when overwhelmed etc..

RulesJD
31-05-2009, 18:53
What this means is that I should have ignored it, pumped my attacks into the Wargs and Troll and then tried to win combat that way and totally ignore the Giant

Bingo! You must evolve your tactics to the situation. If a monster is in combat alone, it can be very hard for infantry to kill it while the monster can usually score at least one casualty and win that combat.

Whereas, if you throw infantry alongisde your monster and they take multiple casualties while failing to inflict enough in return, your monster may lose combat. So, don't throw wimpy foot soldiers in with the monsters.

You may think this is unrealistic but, consider that monsters are somewhat intelligent and possessed of their own sense of self preservation. If they see companies of allied foot soldiers running away, they just might decide to join them. Furthermore if all enemy troops are throwing themselves at a giant, then the giants allies are free to wreak havoc on the other troops.

Just remember it ain't a simulation.

tabletopnews
31-05-2009, 19:14
Bingo! You must evolve your tactics to the situation.

But its not "tactics". The situation only makes sense because of a game mechanic.

Its game derived and based and makes no actual "real world" sense.


You may think this is unrealistic but, consider that monsters are somewhat intelligent and possessed of their own sense of self preservation.

That isn't and wasn't the issue though

Jind_Singh
01-06-2009, 15:53
Tough question - on the one hand theres this bloody rampaging giant which if left unchecked will munch his way through your forces, or do you take the oppurtunity to destroy his other formations.....
KILL THE GIANT!!!! With his 360 line of sight/charge arc he's a pain in everyones butt....Fair enough you lost the fight and became disordered but with a hero in there you should (hopefully) make your rally test, and then move on and destroy his other formations (unless is there a rule that prevents you from rallying if your too close to an enemy like 40k? My rule book is too far away for me to check!).
And your better of playing the situation than the game (so to speak) as a terror causing monstor is just to painful to ignore.
What was the actual outcome of losing the combat???

tabletopnews
01-06-2009, 16:46
.Fair enough you lost the fight and became disordered...

This is the root of my problem. I can't see how I lost at all given the insane amount of wounds I had to cause to take the Giant down, the low number of casualties my opponent inflicted and the relative cost of the troops involved

I don't think he killed a full company of Urak-hai (seven in total I think) and yet they counted far, far more than a 200+ point Giant.

It really doesn't make much sense

RulesJD
01-06-2009, 17:22
Does it make sense that only one compnay in a formation can even attack a monster? What, the others mill around in the backfield?

Does it make sense that a Nazgul on a fell beast can be charged by vertically challenged, long bearded, stunties?

Does it make sense that Shelob could be terrorized by a group of bow wielding squishy elves?

Honestly, there are many rules in this and other GW products that can and have been picked apart as "unrealistic". (Frankly, many of the FAQ's are not only unrealistic but, generally silly).

The rule for combat resolution is the number of models taken as casualties per side. A monster is one model. It may take more effort to fell that one model but, it's still only one model. (Like Gimli says of the fallen Mamluk "It still only counts as one".) That's an advantage to a monster model.

So, yes, I do call this tactics which is nothing more or less than deploying and manuevering your troops for the best situational advantage given the circumstances which include the ruleset of your game.

Plus, you should give some joy to your opponent whose giant managed to soak up all that damage. That's the kind of narrative moment that makes these games fun and memorable rather than a simple yet rigorous math exercise.

tabletopnews
01-06-2009, 17:53
Does it make sense that only one compnay in a formation can even attack a monster?

Not sure why I should care or how this is relevant to the conversation at hand.

Indeed it was a great narrative moment. I killed the giant with the prize tokens and then didn't get them because his Wargs and trolls killed less than 35 points of troops.

I'll certainly be bitching about it for a while so in that respect it is a great narrative moment


That's an advantage to a monster model.

You're speculating that this is what the developers had in mind

Emissary
01-06-2009, 18:14
You're speculating that this is what the developers had in mind
How could you think that it isn't? The rulebook goes out of it's way to state that monsters either win or they die and that the only way that they ever have to take panic checks is if they are in a multiple combat and their side loses.

With all their experience at wound winning a fight from 40k or WFB I find it hard to believe they missed this. The book is very clear on casualties and not wound counting.

As for making sense or real world or whatever. It's meant to be a game and not some real world simulation. That's all. It doesn't pretend to try to be as accurate as possible to what it thinks should happen.

RulesJD
01-06-2009, 18:24
You're speculating that this is what the developers had in mind


If reading the plain text in black and white is speculating then, I stand guilty as charged.

Perhaps this gamey game just isn't for you.

tabletopnews
01-06-2009, 18:25
How could you think that it isn't?

In lieu of comments from the designers I'm not making any assumptions.

tabletopnews
01-06-2009, 18:26
If reading the plain text in black and white is speculating then, I stand guilty as charged.

Quote something then that directly speaks to the comment you made and I'll retract my statement. Page reference would help as well.

Emissary
01-06-2009, 18:29
The rulebook specifically states only models killed count for resolution rather then hits. How more clear does it need to be?

RulesJD
01-06-2009, 18:49
The rulebook specifically states only models killed count for resolution rather then hits. How more clear does it need to be?

The rule is clear and unambiguous.

The rule is not contradicted elsewhere in the rulebook.

Conventionally speaking then, there is no justification for examining the intent of the "developers".

The mere fact that the original poster feels the rule to be unrealistic or unsatisfying may be grounds for grumbling but, the value of examining this issue further seems to have little point.

To get back to the orignal question , no I do not believe the rules on monsters in combat resolution are unbalanced nor particularly unrealistic. Opinions on this will, of course, differ but, then again, we aren't writing the rules by committee so we'll just have to wait and see whether this issue is one that offends enough people to require a change.

tabletopnews
01-06-2009, 22:03
The rulebook specifically states only models killed count for resolution rather then hits. How more clear does it need to be?

Perhaps you might want to go back and read what he posted and what I referred to as you're clearly not speaking to the same point as we are

tabletopnews
01-06-2009, 22:05
The rule is clear and unambiguous.

Reread your post and reread my reply. You were not making a reference to the rule itself but the intent of the developers and what their aim with the monster rules was/is.

If you want to argue a point with someone it pays off to actually remember your own point.

Emissary
01-06-2009, 23:23
The rule for combat resolution is the number of models taken as casualties per side. A monster is one model. It may take more effort to fell that one model but, it's still only one model. (Like Gimli says of the fallen Mamluk "It still only counts as one".) That's an advantage to a monster model.
You're speculating that this is what the developers had in mind The rulebook specifically states only models killed count for resolution rather then hits. How more clear does it need to be?

Which part am I missing?

Since you're waaaay too lazy to look this stuff up (this isn't the first time I've had to quote stuff from the rulebook for you that you're too lazy to look up for yourself...) It's plain as day in the section you should be looking at for this stuff. It's even got big subject heading and everything


Determine Victor p 50
A fight's winner is the side that has inflicted the most casualties (not hits!) Total the casualties scored by each side in the fight - the side with the highest score is the victor

As a further example, a formation of Easterlings has fought a formation of Riders of Rohan. The Easterlings have inflicted 4 hits and therefore cause 2 casualties (the Riders of Rohan being resilience 2). The Riders also inflict 4 hits, therefore causing 2 casualties (the Easterlings have resilience 1). The Riders of Rohan therefore win by 4 casualties to 2.


Monsters and Retreats p 51
It's worth remembering that as a monster cannot suffer casualties in the same way as infantry and cavalry, it is either alive or dead. As such a monster will only ever test for panic if it is on the losing side in a multiple fight. While monsters can survive heinous wounds, they can be driven to fright by the deaths of smaller allies.

Which part of the developer's "intent" is unclear? They're very specific that it's casualties and not hits and they're very clear that monsters only count as a casualty if it dies.

Jind_Singh
02-06-2009, 01:51
oh dear, another thread turns into a bitchfest - people, these are discussion forums, a discusion being people posting their own views - all of which are valid in their own context - and you either agree or disagree with them.
Read all the comments from start to finish - the OP can't dismiss out of hand comments related to the subject as everything has to be taken into consideration.

Major points to make:

1) The OP refers that this isn't realistic....well hello it's blooming fanatasy! What's realistic about any of the GW game series??? There's no science behind this, it's a way to bring fiction to life using excellent rules and figues, no one has ever awarded it for being realistic.
EG, take flight simulators...you want a really exciting game that allows dog fights, excellent visuals, great music scores? OR would you like a nice boring flight sim of a 747?

2) It takes a lot of heart and courage to go up against a monstor - like a toll/giant etc. If you kill it you're already knackered both emotionally and physically. Seeing a few score of your company being hacked down isn't going to help! At the end of the day a troll drops dead on one side of the battle - the troops attacking it are obviously happy. But while they were laying on the smack the rest of the company is being assualted and beaten by other troops, seeing more of their number go down than they dish back.
They aint got time to reflect on....
"Well Cecil, Fred, Sam, Jim, Josh, Mack, Dal, Ivan, Rupinder, are dead - but we did kill 5 orcs and a troll - and as it took us 5 hits to kill that troll we actually won the scrap...excellent work lads"
Hence a dead monstor is just 1 casualty.

3) Sucking rules - theres rules in all the 4 main systems which just suck and are stupid. For example in fantasy......a single character is standing about 1 foot behind an allied unit. Hundreds of metres away, waaaaayyyyy up on a hill archers can suddenly see this guy (which is balls as theres no way you could distinguish at that range he's on his own) and suddenly he becomes a pin cushion! It's lame, retarded, and about as flexible as concrete! But what can you do - the rules are kept basic to keep gameplay flowing but at the same time it creates stupied situations...either just bite it down or come up with a houserule with your gaming group to work around it.
You want a monstor to count as 3 dead, go for it!


Either way the main point with these forums is the same as the game - just have fun with the bloody things! We've all had bad game nights, dreadful dice rolls, etc, but no need to let it create sour grapes.
Enter a post on "What grinds my gears about WOTR", release the angst and get back to having fun with it.

Honestly people!

tabletopnews
02-06-2009, 02:24
Which part am I missing?

Not sure since you've quoted the discussion in a fashion in which it didn't happen.

This is what was posted by me. Not sure how you got your quote



That's an advantage to a monster model.
You're speculating that this is what the developers had in mind

tabletopnews
02-06-2009, 02:27
1) The OP refers that this isn't realistic...

Its always fun to get scolded by someone who can't read.

I said:

Its game derived and based and makes no actual "real world" sense.

Real World is in quotes for a reason.

Seriously folks, if you aren't going to read what people write why bother?

Jorgen_CAB
02-06-2009, 05:30
I agree that you need to infuse some sort of "real world" sense into even a fantasy world. Would you like Hobbits that can hurl pikes 24"?
Based on that logic it would be perfectly legal if there was such a thing because it is a fantasy game?

at some point you need "Real World" logic to be part of even a fantasy setting. What makes a troll tick? Can't a troll run away because it feels overwhelmed by it's foe?

As I said in my first post, the biggest problem that I have with monsters are that they can't be ousted from defensible terrain and they only need to make ONE casualty to oust someone else from defensible terrain (extremely easy to do). I really think that is "unrealistic" and not very fun, even if monsters are easy to kill.

Why not make monsters slightly harder to kill but also able to flee when outnumbered and they don't manage kill enough to boost their morale.

In my opinion there should be something similar to rank bonus like in WFB. simply count each company toward combat resolution in every fight. That way even monsters could flee in combat if they don't do enough damage. It would be very easy to include and would not complicate things much either.

Jind_Singh
02-06-2009, 08:32
Depends on the monstor I guess - a troll might be too stupid to run were a dragon wont be scared of a mob of goblins/men - they are mere newts (or lunch!) to it.
I toyed with the idea of having each formation count towards combat but it would:

1) Be similar to concept of WFB, as opposed to being a new combat system
2) Make certain formations less effective as they have limits on their size (as otherwise they would be overpowered if they could go 9 companies big).

Perhaps there could have been a push-back rule for the monstors in defensible terrain - or make it so their bulk doesn't allow them the advantages of being in the said terrian.

And Mr Tabletop - Fellow Vancouverite you might be, but sadly they overlooked you when it came to branding BC peeps as easy going.

In the 1st page you start of well, you raise a good point - wounds caused on a monstor count for diddly squat, Gimli tearing into a mumak is all for vain as the damn bugger kills 3 dwarf warriors in turn. Your next few posts are aslo valid - but the whine factor kicks in when you start arguing about 'intents' of writters, etc.
You even go to say you'll retract a statement if it's shown that it was written in the rules, it's shown - weres the retractment? NO WERE!
In fact it's followed by more of the same!
Don't forget - we've all got problems with some of the rules in this system - and the reason we get so involved in these threads is due to the fact that apart from the occasional rules of lame it's a very fun/slick game, but at times certain moments make you shake in head at how an overlooked rule just ruined an hour or two of gaming.
And for petes sake - the only enemy is the one on the oppposite side of the board deploying their troops against you - not here, this is an friendly forum!
Anyways, take care and try not to take too much umbrage at the words of an old man.
Peace!!!

Emissary
02-06-2009, 10:33
Not sure since you've quoted the discussion in a fashion in which it didn't happen.

This is what was posted by me. Not sure how you got your quote
My quote just pulled in the parts of his post that you didn't quote that followed right before what you did quote.
That's an advantage to a monster model. is just the last line in
The rule for combat resolution is the number of models taken as casualties per side. A monster is one model. It may take more effort to fell that one model but, it's still only one model. (Like Gimli says of the fallen Mamluk "It still only counts as one".) That's an advantage to a monster model.

If this advantage isn't the advantage to which you're arguing that the developers didn't intend, which advantage is it? I took the advantage that he was talking about from what you yourself quoted. I just brought it forward into my post so we could keep it straight.


Seriously folks, if you aren't going to read what people write why bother?
While we're at this, why don't you actually make a point through the rules rather then just nitpicking on minor things or making sweeping generalizations. You force everyone else to quote exactly from the book yet you add little but your own opinions and skewed logic to the discussion. You also don't try at all to follow anyone else's posts and rather just pick a part of it to reply to.

J-C: I agree on monsters, but at the moment monsters have one good thing: defending terrain and one bad thing: now easy they are to kill going for them. Yes both get fixed, but neither are completely gamebreaking and at least they balance each other somewhat. That's good enough for me considering how badly GW has screwed up other things in some of their game systems.

I also agree with J-S about the company size thing being an issue. Elves usually go to around 3-4 stands while my orcs typically reach 9. I don't want to imagine how good a formation of 9 warg riders with the betrayer and tormented steeds feat would be then.

RulesJD
02-06-2009, 21:36
Originally Posted by Jind_Singh
1) The OP refers that this isn't realistic...
Its always fun to get scolded by someone who can't read.

I said:

" Its game derived and based and makes no actual "real world" sense.
Real World is in quotes for a reason.

Seriously folks, if you aren't going to read what people write why bother?" by Tabletop

So now the argument is that "realistic" is not the synonymous with "real world sense"? If this is the kind of parsing you want to engage in when talking about fantasy wargame rules then I hope never to see you accross a tournament table.

As Jind_Singh says above this is supposed to be about having fun. Nitpicking the verbiage isn't fun.

You seem to feel the combat res rule for monsters is not realistic or doesn't make sense in the real world (like deja vu all over again). Okay, your point is understood. It's just that no everyone agrees with you so far.

So, either keep playing by the rules, get your local store to homerule it for you or start a campaign with GW to change it to reflect your view. In any case let's stop beating a dead horse about it here.

ismar
02-06-2009, 21:59
I actually think it makes a lot of sense. Consider that your unit of infantry have to pump all it's attacks into one large monster just to kill it, and in the process they lose a few of their fellow warriors. And they still have to deal with the other enemy infantry attacking them. I would lose heart and feel that I lost the fight as well.

But if you instead turn your attacks towards the multitude of enemy infantry, and kill more of them than you lose warriors in return, I would feel bolstered and want to continue fighting on against the monster.

I think the rules work fine as written, and also have some fluff context as well.

Thanks,

Jind_Singh
03-06-2009, 05:43
Sounds good Ismar - thats how I thought it worked too

Mad Makz
04-06-2009, 22:54
The situation is this - it makes little tactical sense within the rules trying to kill the monster when both monster and infantry are attacking you, attacks should be diverted to the infantry if possible to win the combat.

The rules are designed around the fact that monsters need to be able to fight alone, but should not be too powerful when combined with infantry.

The designers way out of this has been to make them suffer panic when fighting with other formations, but not suffer panic when fighting by themselves.

The flip side to this is that monsters only count as a single casualty, and thus aren't viable targets when trying to win the combat.

Explanations for this could include the idea that the death of monsters do not demoralise men/elves/orcs/dwarves - they are either too animalistic, too alien, or simple too designed to fight and die to have their loses contribute towards moral.

Winning a combat isn't only about defeating your biggest threat and getting bolstered by that, it's about defeating the moral of the enemy. In this case, if the warg riders did not care if the Giant lived or died then their comparative success should see them win the combat, because they are now fighting a weekend force and they received few losses.

The solution to this from a gameplay point of view is to focus on winning the combat, rather than killing the biggest threat, when there are multiple combatants. It's a tactical nuance to the game that may have robbed you in this instance from what you thought was correct - but the assumption of your forces may be interpreted as the same incorrect assumption you made - that the enemy would be disheartened by the loss of the giant. In actuality they are not.

Jind_Singh
05-06-2009, 07:07
Well then again it depends on if 5ft is considered a normal height! As a staunch (and short) dwarf player I say let me lose combats! With an amazing leadership I'm pretty confident that I'll recover the next phase so I'll kill the big beasty please!
Then I'll turn around and teach those other buggers a lesson or 2!!!

But excellent points made Mad Makz, I think we can safely say that we've reached a pretty good understanding of the game mechanics and why the rules are set the way they are - for this instance.

Still grinds my gears though that a Balrog has to take a terror test to charge a pesky troll! Like REALLY GRINDS my gears!!!

galenus
14-06-2009, 17:15
Alternate viewpoint...Your troops piled onto the beast and riddled it with wounds, killing it then proceeding to tirelessly beat the dead horse. All the while the uncontested enemy was taking advantage of the situation to inflict casualties on you. When they're done bleeding the stone giant's corpse (do they bleed?) they realize they're losing the rest of the fight and become disheartened. It only counts as 1 casualty because it only dies once, the rest of the enemy was unscathed.

DDogwood
15-06-2009, 03:41
Historically, armies that defeated war elephants did it either by ignoring/avoiding the elephants as much as possible, or by frightening the elephants so that they disrupted the enemy formations in their panic. Killing an enemy's war elephants while ignoring the enemy's troops usually resulted in bloody defeat.

It is possible that the rules about monsters in combat resolution were written with this in mind.