PDA

View Full Version : Medium monsters - how much do you think they should cost?



ewar
22-03-2011, 13:32
Hi all,

I was chatting with a mate of mine about medium monsters in 8th, and Iím curious to see what the community thinks. Our conclusion was that theyíre currently way overpriced for what is effectively a suicide unit. As far as Iím aware medium monsters have gone the way of the dodo in 8th Ė T5 and no armour is just no defence against step up. They pay over the odds for the ability to fly and for terror as well. Changes to LOS mean itís also very hard to screen them so theyíre almost always going to be shot at.

So, what do you think are reasonable point costs for medium monsters? Please list the monster in question and what new cost you think it should have to make it a worthwhile entry in the book.

For my own armies:

Bretonnian Hippogryph Ė Iíd be happy to pay about 135 for this fella, as with a fighty lord he would bring the cost to about 300pts, which I think is fair for his abilities and given the competition in the lord slot with Prophetesses. Anything above that and youíre probably better off with more knights instead or sticking him on a royal peg.

Lizardmen Carnosaur Ė I havenít tried this guy in 8th ed yet, but that is probably because his current cost is insane for something that will get shot down in 2 turns and canít fly behind terrain. I think it should cost somewhere between 120 and 150, to make this a compelling choice.

Other monsters I havenít seen on the table since 7th ed are manticores, gryphons, wyverns and so on.

An alternative approach would be to let them add a wound to the rider the way that mini monsters do, such as pegasi; though this might push them too far the other way as they would not be targetable in combat.

Thoughts?

BigbyWolf
22-03-2011, 13:35
Points drops are likely. The Wyvern is now 40 points cheaper in the new book.

Wade Wilson
22-03-2011, 13:55
The wvyren with its cost reduction is definelty a viable option for an orc warboss with the new army book. Even gigantic spiders (small monsters i guess)are good options for gobbos.

Not exactly a 'monster' but daemon princes (both WoC and DoC) really could do with a 50 point price reduction...

War Hydras on the other hand are still grossly underpriced. If they were their current points value but without regen then fair enough but on a monster like them (many wounds, strong breath weapon, scaly skin + regen) surely regen should bring the points cost up by 20-30 points?

reddevil18
22-03-2011, 14:26
Not sure on the points cost of other armys so ill stick to WoC

hellcannon - I think this should have its point cost dropped by 10-20 tho it is an akward one to price, or use the old rules (regen and alot of crazy stuff that if anyone can find online a link would be apprishiated) and add about 15 points

Chaos giant - usless thing, drop its cost by about 100 and i may use it.

Spawn - a good price tho i wouldnt complain of a 5 point cost drop thanks to how many attacks its getting back these days

Warshrine - i think is very well priced, its not like it can earn its points back but its very unlikely to give them up either.

Shagoth - Either give it regen or drop it by 15 points at least.

ewar
22-03-2011, 14:27
I actually think the hydra is fairly priced in the 8th ed mindset - they are tough, do lots of damage but aren't indestructible. Now that stepup allows infantry to hit them back I find that anything S4 will overwhelm them in a few rounds of combat and once they lose hatred and the breath attack they're much less scary.

I think the farcical thing is when you look at a 200pts Hippogryph and compare it to a 175pt hydra! Taking the hydra as a good base for 8th ed monsters, I'd probably stomach the Hippo at 135pts. Still useful, but not devestating.

Kevlar
22-03-2011, 14:42
Hellpit should be 100 points cheaper or always get back up, not just on a six.

Memnos
22-03-2011, 14:45
Hellpit should be 100 points cheaper or always get back up, not just on a six.

Good one. ;)

Minsc
22-03-2011, 14:54
Medium monsters under the current ruleset can only really be 'fixed' with a big pointdrop.

The Manticore for instance, shouldn't cost more than 100-125 pts. It sounds low I know, but consider what it will do once it hit's combat...if it even manages to get that far.

Edit: Same thing with heavy cav, but they seem to drop quite abit in points as well, judging from the new OnG book.

mrtn
22-03-2011, 15:22
I'd like to take a Jabberslythe, but in that case I'd like a 125 point rebate, or something like that.
275 is taking the p*ss.

Valnir
22-03-2011, 15:55
I actually think the hydra is fairly priced in the 8th ed mindset - they are tough, do lots of damage but aren't indestructible. Now that stepup allows infantry to hit them back I find that anything S4 will overwhelm them in a few rounds of combat and once they lose hatred and the breath attack they're much less scary.

I think the farcical thing is when you look at a 200pts Hippogryph and compare it to a 175pt hydra! Taking the hydra as a good base for 8th ed monsters, I'd probably stomach the Hippo at 135pts. Still useful, but not devestating.

While I slightly agree on that Hydras are reasonable priced for 8th, they could go for being 200 points and still be well worth their weight.

Hydras while being still scary are no where the monsters they use to be of 7th as everybody now has access to the fire banner, laser guided war machines and Int. test will also make fairly short work of a Hydra. Essentially everyone has tools to handle them now.

Monstrous mounts all need a huge price decrease including Dragons, Griffions and Manticores. They just can't survive 8th with the power of war machines now and how both rider and mount suffer wounds under templates. I would say Manticore, Griffions and Wyverns should be put around the 150 point mark to even be worth taking them

madden
22-03-2011, 17:00
Manticores and griffons should be cheaper than that I'd say around 110/130 to be worth while as they are not that tough and have no armour/scaly skin unlike dragons/shaggoths etc, so they should be seriously reduced in points to be a worthwhile choice. Saying that most mid to large creatures need a points drop as fear/terror has been toned down a lot and step up has become very dangerous for them though sheer numbers.(used as flankers they work but I see a large critter going straight down the middle and surviving for more than one round.)

Ronin[XiC]
22-03-2011, 17:03
Hydras for 250 points would be great. I'd ALWAYS take one even for 250 points. Especially with it's breath attack, the incredible sinergy with the cauldron (7+4 hatred killing blow attacks?!?) and regen.. hell yeah.

Harwammer
22-03-2011, 18:42
New Rule Suggestion:

Never mentioning the Beastmen big gribblies because each time I think of them and their bogus points costs I feel sad. :'(

ashc
22-03-2011, 19:43
The points costs in the Beastmen book are quite positively disgusting for what you get.

Tokamak
22-03-2011, 19:51
Yeah but think about it, imagine if people would actually start to play that army.

Jack of Blades
22-03-2011, 20:06
The Beastmen monsters need to be reduced by 75 (allows you to take 3 in 2400 points), 100 (a decent reduction) or 125 (might make people actually consider them pretty good choices) points, I'd say. They need to be cheap enough not to be point sinks and be worth taking but expensive enough to not be no-brainer inclusions that every list takes.

sulla
22-03-2011, 20:32
Not sure on the points cost of other armys so ill stick to WoC

hellcannon - I think this should have its point cost dropped by 10-20 tho it is an akward one to price, or use the old rules (regen and alot of crazy stuff that if anyone can find online a link would be apprishiated) and add about 15 points

.Not really sure how you come to that conclusion. It's a s5 stone thrower (i.e. it can kill about 17 t3 small base guys on a hit), it's almost immune to typical war machine hunters and it now gets to use the BSB for a reroll as well as the M&H rules making the 'crew' a lot more resilient to low strength hits.

Put it down to s4(10) and it becomes about right for it's current price and doesn't wreck your opponent's evening fun when you bring 2.

As for fixing medium monsters, I think taking all cannons down to d3 wounds would go a long way. Then they can't kill both rider and mount from a single shot that will rarely miss from a 100pt war machine of which you will likely face 2-3 in empire and dwarven armies. A points reduction as well would be nice, but making the spectre of cannons not quite so bad would be the main thing. Or you could give flyers a ward save vs war machines. I've never really understood the warhammer theory that smoothbore cannons and catupults should be great antiaircraft defences.

The_Bureaucrat
22-03-2011, 22:43
I think the new O&G book has it right for mounts. The 150-160 point spot is pretty sweet spot for flying t5 w4 mounts. If you lower it too much than armies start becoming flying circuses. Also mounts for heroes should cost more.

As for stand alone monsters 175-250 seems about the price range for these monsters, keep in mind not every army has cannons
Giant: 175
Hydra: 215 or just ditch regen.
Beastmen monsters: 200-225
Hellcannon: same but lower to str 4

Storak
22-03-2011, 23:08
I think the new O&G book has it right for mounts. The 150-160 point spot is pretty sweet spot for flying t5 w4 mounts. If you lower it too much than armies start becoming flying circuses. Also mounts for heroes should cost more.

As for stand alone monsters 175-250 seems about the price range for these monsters, keep in mind not every army has cannons
Giant: 175
Hydra: 215 or just ditch regen.
Beastmen monsters: 200-225
Hellcannon: same but lower to str 4

i disagree. this is 8th edition. monsters got a bonus (thunder)stomp attack against infantry, but they also get massive attacks back from multiple ranks and massive use of high strength attacks.

the strong monsters from 7th edition (hydra, HPA and Hellcannon) are still doing all right. they might need a minor price increase or rule adjustments (as suggested above, the hellcannon should become a Strength 4 template). but the other monsters simply are pure garbage in competitive games.

giants are horrible and barely worth 100 points with their attack table being simply not compatible to 8th edition. the wyvern is still too expensive (orcs need the generals Ld!) and the arachnarok should be closer to 200 points than to 300.

GW should look at the stuff that actually gets fielded in battles. then they should think about whether they want to encourage the use of a certain model (i agree, i don t want to see a flying circus in every army either). based on this thoughts, they need to come up with point costs.
the O&G monsters seem to be based on 7th edition thoughts about point costs. so the giant remains unplayable.

Malorian
22-03-2011, 23:29
giants are horrible and barely worth 100 points with their attack table being simply not compatible to 8th edition. the wyvern is still too expensive (orcs need the generals Ld!) and the arachnarok should be closer to 200 points than to 300.

First of all if giants were 100 points I'm sure everyone would be all over them :D

Secondly I think the underlined part is the big one. If you could only take the hydra as a mount for DE lords then I'm sure you wouldn't see much of it. On the flip side I'm sure if you could take a riderless wyvern as a rare choise you would see much more of it.

theunwantedbeing
22-03-2011, 23:33
160pts for a wyvern seems about *right*.
This means Griffons and such, would be cheaper at 125-140pts(manticore at the higher end).

The Carnosaur is a tricky one to place, as it's really very good despite being 50pts more than the wyvern. I'de leave it at 210pts.
Stegadons are again, about right.
Largely because of their toughness 6, many riders and wounds.
The ancient is much better though, being a higher strength.

The Dark Elf Hydra is possibly undercosted, but I've always found that unless you run two of them together, its really not that special. So 175pts is about right, I'de prefer it to be tougher, or have a 6th wound though for a higher cost.

Things like the Shaggoth aren't good value. Roughly 300pts for a monster, with no real staying power is not good value at all, whereas the treeman is similarly pricey and yet is really very good value because it has staying power, it is toughness 6, it has a ward save as well and a shooting ability.

Some monsters definitely need to get cheaper.
Specifically the toughness 5 no save stuff.

Malorian
22-03-2011, 23:37
Some monsters definitely need to get cheaper.
Specifically the toughness 5 no save stuff.

Just keep in mind that some naked monsters still have a save (like the bret hippo).

xxRavenxx
22-03-2011, 23:44
i disagree. this is 8th edition. monsters got a bonus (thunder)stomp attack against infantry, but they also get massive attacks back from multiple ranks and massive use of high strength attacks.


8 attacks, from most basic infrantry. 12 with spears or extra handweapons. Likely needing 5s or 6s to wound them.

Its hardly massive attacks.

That said, armies who's troops are "fighty" (high attacks or great weapons) do mince through them a little fast.

Monsters have always had issues with the difference in stats between mooks with shields, and soldiers with great weapons.

Ideally, what I think would have been good this edition, given 6s always wound, would to have been to creep up the toughness of some monsters by a point.

Dragons, being expencive and angry, could be T7, making greatweapons useless.

Certain other guys (giants, angry flying lizards) could have crept to T6, to keep them safer against two handed bashing sticks.

DarkstarSabre
22-03-2011, 23:49
.
Stegadons are again, about right.
Largely because of their toughness 6, many riders and wounds.
The ancient is much better though, being a higher strength.


Please mind the fact that when they get hit by a template that EVERYTHING takes the hit. The many riders are Toughness 2. And there are many templates that ignore armour or are high enough strength to do so. Sure, the Stegadon itself is resilient...but the many Riders are not. It's even harder to hide than a Carnosaur and just a likely to go splat should a single cannon be on the table. One shot can kill everything, even an Ancient with those evil things.

Malorian
22-03-2011, 23:49
Ideally, what I think would have been good this edition, given 6s always wound, would to have been to creep up the toughness of some monsters by a point.

Dragons, being expencive and angry, could be T7, making greatweapons useless.

Certain other guys (giants, angry flying lizards) could have crept to T6, to keep them safer against two handed bashing sticks.

Careful...

We don't want to change all monsters into T10 steamtanks...

theunwantedbeing
23-03-2011, 00:01
Please mind the fact that when they get hit by a template that EVERYTHING takes the hit. The many riders are Toughness 2. And there are many templates that ignore armour or are high enough strength to do so. Sure, the Stegadon itself is resilient...but the many Riders are not. It's even harder to hide than a Carnosaur and just a likely to go splat should a single cannon be on the table. One shot can kill everything, even an Ancient with those evil things.

I put that down to war machines being underprinced, rather than monsters being overpriced.
Also I blame idiot rules designers for making stupid rules like that exist.

WarmbloodedLizard
23-03-2011, 00:20
1. Warmachines should not be able to deal more than D3 wounds to monsters and characters. D6 wounds for warmachines is one of the worst rules ever, no matter how fluffy it is. it's just way too luck dependant.
2. Giants should be T6 and ~175pts (Slave Giants ~125pts)
3. Carnosaur should be ~130pts and WS4
4. rest dunno but most things (griphon, manticore, etc.) should be a lot cheaper, similar to the above.


The Carnosaur is a tricky one to place, as it's really very good despite being 50pts more than the wyvern. I'de leave it at 210pts.

in which universe? certainly not 8th ed warhammer ;)

vinny t
23-03-2011, 00:22
For Lizardmen i would like some point reductions. I think a 175 point Carnasaur would be nice. Regular Stegadon should probably be at 225, Ancient at 260. I think Stegadons really aren't as good as the used to be, with lots of hig strength hordes running around. But then again, they do have incredable synergy with Lore of Life.

As for the WoC monsters, Manticore needs to be around 130 to make it useable. Giant at probably 175, Helcannon at either 275 or template dropped to S4 and 225. Shaggoth needs to be around 190+upgrades.

DarkstarSabre
23-03-2011, 00:25
~125pts)
3. Carnosaur should be ~130pts and WS4


This I would say yes to. Especially WS4. I find it quite horrendous that a top tier predator is no better at 'fighting' than a guy running around barefoot with a sword. Mind you Lizardmen seem to have an issue with low WS across the board...

theunwantedbeing
23-03-2011, 00:36
in which universe? certainly not 8th ed warhammer ;)

I do hope you aren't one of these who advocate that hydra's should be 250pts.

Also...130pt carnosaur???????
Yes, I'm the one with the crazy idea's ;)

Minsc
23-03-2011, 00:39
Wait...the Hydra was better in 7th Ed. and people still want it to get more expensive??

Malorian
23-03-2011, 00:40
Keep in mind that once you make them cheap enough they are competing with things like chariots as combat supporters.

It's one thing to say monsters suck on their own (being locked down by steadfast forever) but once you pair them with a unit their kills give you the win while the unit takes away steadfast.

That is why we will never see things like an 100 point giant or 130 point carnosaur.

Chris_
23-03-2011, 01:08
We'll see how they do the Tomb Scorpion in the new Tomb Kings book but right now it is one of those medium monsters that does NOT need a points decrease. With "It came from below..." it is worth its weight in gold on the table top. Could do well with being a little bit more expensive and put a better save on it though. (5+ is not really that hot)

2-3 in my army are a no-brainer.

ChaosCajun
23-03-2011, 01:27
I'm an advocate for increasing the toughness of dragon ogres and most monsters, unless they have regen or some ward save. With the proliferation of great weapons and ability to wound with anything on 6's, this shouldn't be a huge issue. I really hate that the dragon ogres were reduced to T4. An increase of 1 toughness (in several cases they used to have the higher T anyway).

Bottom line for me is even with many of the points drops suggested in the thread, it is not much help and a waste of points when they rarely get into combat and even when they do, die to most things stepping up.

Malorian suggested if points dropped too much they would compete with combat support troops. I submit that, with certain exceptions (HPA, dragon), they already are support troops and should cost accordingly unless they are beefed up.

ewar
23-03-2011, 01:28
Keep in mind that once you make them cheap enough they are competing with things like chariots as combat supporters.

It's one thing to say monsters suck on their own (being locked down by steadfast forever) but once you pair them with a unit their kills give you the win while the unit takes away steadfast.

That is why we will never see things like an 100 point giant or 130 point carnosaur.

I think what people are forgetting is that most of the medium monsters (gryphons, hippogryphs, manticores etc) are that they are only availabe as lord level mounts, which means you're never going to see them spammed as they (a) will still be expensive and (b) will compete with a lord level caster, which 99% if lists take.

Lets face it, you're not going to ditch a level 4 for a second character on a monster. However, it would be nice if there was an option to field both together sometimes.

On a different note, I honestly can't understand why they brought in the change to templates and monster mounts. Was there really a problem before with template weapons not being good enough? That was a daft change.

Although it seems they understand that so have made changes regarding the arachnorok; I haven't personally read the OnG book, but the impression I got from white dwarf was that the crew were not killable separately to the beast, so they act as some kind of monster and handler type unit, which will avoid the beast being left crewless.

Cherrystone
23-03-2011, 01:31
Careful...

We don't want to change all monsters into T10 steamtanks...

I too think Toughness should be increased back to pre 6th edition levels as now that 6 always wounds a high T has less of an impact.

ariochhelldrake
23-03-2011, 02:54
Yeah medium Monster mounts like Griffons (Empire Griffon at 200 points!) seem way over priced for there effectiveness at present, the complete lack of a save means they last no time at all against any kind of attack. Any basic trooper is evenually going to wear them down and kill them if they every make it through the magic/shooting phase.
Having said that part of that is how effective warmachines are now against rider/monster mount combos (and of course the combined cost).
Maybe moving some of these monsters to monsterous beasts with a greatly reduced cost would work(though losing thunderstomp would make them worse)?
The entire model would get a decent armour save at least that way.
But I agree with Malorian the role of monsters from one man armies has changed to a supporting/winning combat role with the steadfast rule.

Maybe all monsters should get at least a 5+ save to help them out.

The_Bureaucrat
23-03-2011, 03:20
I think what people are forgetting is that most of the medium monsters (gryphons, hippogryphs, manticores etc) are that they are only availabe as lord level mounts, which means you're never going to see them spammed as they (a) will still be expensive and (b) will compete with a lord level caster, which 99% if lists take.

Heroes can take manticores. A half decent kited wyvern and orc warboss runs a little over 300. Plenty of room for a lord level caster or a general at 2400.


Also apparently dwarfs, mono-khorne and a good number of combat oriented TK and VC make up less than 1% of lists.

WarmbloodedLizard
23-03-2011, 09:23
I do hope you aren't one of these who advocate that hydra's should be 250pts.

Also...130pt carnosaur???????
Yes, I'm the one with the crazy idea's ;)

compared to other monsters, the hydra is definitely undercosted (by a lot). I don't know if it should be more than ~200pts in the current environment though.

ewar pretty much mentioned why you cannot compare the carnosaur with non-lord monsters.

130 might be 10-20 points too low but its in the range the carno should be, being a lord mount and not flying.

ftayl5
23-03-2011, 10:43
New Rule Suggestion:
Never mentioning the Beastmen big gribblies because each time I think of them and their bogus points costs I feel sad. :'(


...Beastmen...


The Beastmen monsters...


Beastmen monsters...

Just found this a little amusing :)

Anywho...Most ridden monsters need a points reduction (dragons, manticores, pegasus, griffon's, etc etc.) The Wyvern got a 50pt reduction, I think it could be safe to assume that in future, similar monsters will also get a similar reduction.
I think a lot of monsters should just get a general point reduction, to try and balance out steadfast and laser guided cannons.
Hydra obviously needs an increase, while, just to annoy Harwammer more, the Beastmen monsters need a decrease. I don't think that the Ghorgon is quite so bad, in fact he almost seems worth the points. But the Slythe and the Cygor definitely need BIG reductions.
Won't happen for about a decade though.

Lord Solar Plexus
23-03-2011, 11:22
Wait...the Hydra was better in 7th Ed. and people still want it to get more expensive??

Who cares about an old edition? That's not the measuring stick these days.

I'm not sure 175 points are a fair price when you look at a Griffon or even a Doomwheel (which is arguably often better against single high-armour targets but somewhat easier to kill).

ewar
23-03-2011, 14:14
Heroes can take manticores. A half decent kited wyvern and orc warboss runs a little over 300. Plenty of room for a lord level caster or a general at 2400.


Also apparently dwarfs, mono-khorne and a good number of combat oriented TK and VC make up less than 1% of lists.

But I think that's the point of the discussion surely? It should be feasible to take a naked level 4 along with a fighty character on a reasonably priced monster (which these days is nowhere near as dominating as it used to be).

I don't think there are many hero level characters who have access to monstrous mounts rather than monstrous beasts.



Who cares about an old edition? That's not the measuring stick these days.

I'm not sure 175 points are a fair price when you look at a Griffon or even a Doomwheel (which is arguably often better against single high-armour targets but somewhat easier to kill).

Again - I think 175pts is actually quite a fair price for a hydra now. What is completely unreasonable is the cost of the gryphon!

If I were a DE player I would be unhappy with anything over 190 really.

The kicker for monstrous mounts is that they're taking your character % up, and often a big part of it.

I haven't personally played with or against any of the new beastmen monsters, but when I got the book the first thing I thought (even in 7th) was that they were crazy expensive. Now their price is laughable.

Ronin[XiC]
23-03-2011, 14:32
How did the hydra get ANY weaker in 8th?
You mean it got weaker because it got a 2d6 S5 breathattack in cc?
Or the extra d6 Thunderstomp hits?

How is that weaker? Hydra is mobile enough to ignore the high S hordes or at least combocharge into them with DE infantery. Place the Hydra in the corner and you have all your attacks from the monster but almost zero attacks back.

ewar
23-03-2011, 14:44
It got weaker through the abundance of flaming attacks - something every all-comers army should have in it.

It got weaker through step up attacks back.

It's not very hard to take 2 wounds of the thing, so it's left with a less intimidating S3 breath weapon either - it should be a focus to knock a couple of wounds off before it reaches combat, then it will normally die in one or two rounds of being hit back. Yes, it does damage - but it should do.

Overall I think they're a decent unit - I wish my armies had something similar.

Spiney Norman
23-03-2011, 14:46
160pts for a wyvern seems about *right*.
This means Griffons and such, would be cheaper at 125-140pts(manticore at the higher end).

The Carnosaur is a tricky one to place, as it's really very good despite being 50pts more than the wyvern. I'de leave it at 210pts.
Stegadons are again, about right.
Largely because of their toughness 6, many riders and wounds.
The ancient is much better though, being a higher strength.

The Dark Elf Hydra is possibly undercosted, but I've always found that unless you run two of them together, its really not that special. So 175pts is about right, I'de prefer it to be tougher, or have a 6th wound though for a higher cost.

Things like the Shaggoth aren't good value. Roughly 300pts for a monster, with no real staying power is not good value at all, whereas the treeman is similarly pricey and yet is really very good value because it has staying power, it is toughness 6, it has a ward save as well and a shooting ability.

Some monsters definitely need to get cheaper.
Specifically the toughness 5 no save stuff.

The carnosaur IS hard to place. The changes to Frenzy made the carno considerably better, the nerf of flying movement meant that compared to dragons, wyverns and other similar monster mounts the Carno improved, and the thunderstomp attacks were also a major boost.

As someone who uses one regularly I don't think a carnosaur needs to go down any, the only rule changes that really hurt it were the increased accuracy of warmachines (which was always an issue) and the fact that it can no longer break ranks (but then it was pretty hard to position a frenzied monster on to an opponent's flank in 7th anyway). Personally I feel this is far outweighed by the fact that it can avoid being led around by the nose by passing a cold blooded Ld test.

It was right to make the wyvern cheaper, obviously flying monsters should come in a bit cheaper this edition because of the huge hit to flying movement, and I really struggle to see a griffon being worth more than 100pts due to its lame attack potential and lack of any kind of save.

And hydras did get weaker this edition, just not weak enough to warrent their current pts value. 200 seems fair to me, rather than the 250 they should have been under 7th Ed.

ashc
23-03-2011, 18:07
The beastmen monsters and the dark elf hydra should swap prices :angel:

Chain
23-03-2011, 18:19
not for a monster but for monstrous Cavalry i'd like to see a change to the rider and mount sharing the higher toughness lvl

a +1 AS isn't much in return for 3 wounds


Would be nice had a sorceress on Dark Pegasus and a nobel on great eagle T4

Lord of Divine Slaughter
23-03-2011, 21:03
With my new raging heroes manticore, I'll give medium monsters a revival.

Besides I got rather bored with flying a dragon around in 7th., but a lesser monster wouldn't be so dominant - and especially not in 8th :)

Ronin[XiC]
23-03-2011, 21:26
It got weaker through the abundance of flaming attacks - something every all-comers army should have in it.

It got weaker through step up attacks back.

It's not very hard to take 2 wounds of the thing, so it's left with a less intimidating S3 breath weapon either - it should be a focus to knock a couple of wounds off before it reaches combat, then it will normally die in one or two rounds of being hit back. Yes, it does damage - but it should do.

Overall I think they're a decent unit - I wish my armies had something similar.

weakening the breath attack is not a general nerf. It never really used it's breath in 7th anyways. Now in 8th it will dish out the extra attacks in cc. Even S4/3 is enough to add a lot of punch.
Even in all comers armies there is usually only one unit with a flamming banner and an experienced DE player knows where that banner is going to be.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
23-03-2011, 21:44
Besides a Hydras breath weapon got a wee bit more potent with the 'no partials' rule. I have no count of the times, a little huffing and puffing has blown a huge infantry unit to pieces.

I generally keep mine out of combat, untill it has either suffered a couple of wounds, or it has put its breath attack to good use.

superczhunk
23-03-2011, 21:51
They need to be A LOT cheaper since they are not the killing machines they were in 7th (fighting 20ish man units is less suicidal than fighting 40+man units).

The biggest problem besides points cost is that most monsters have atrocious initiative. Thunderstomps, combat breath attacks any other devastating abilities a monster might have is negated when they almost always strike last. If they do survive the first round, they're usually dead the second due to most not have a save either.

The only exception is the hydra since 50% of wounds should be regenerated and it can proceed to utterly destroy half a unit (they hit the hardest out of all the monsters). Yes, yes, flaming attacks are in abundance but that doesn't matter IMO.

I never really understood why most monsters didn't have a natural armor save or 3+ or 4+ to begin with, but perhaps it could be a tacked on rule for monsters. Either that or their points need to drop significantly.

The only real argument against doing anything to monsters (although the hyrda is too cheap and beastmen rares too expensive) is that if used as a supporting attack (like cavalry, chariots, etc.) they should last longer. Headlong charges should only be used by infantry, hard-hitting death dealers like bloodcrushers and nothing else.

Valnir
24-03-2011, 01:18
The problem with raising the hydra's point cost is already the hydra is a target painted red with all the warmachines taking pot shots from turn one on the creature. As I mentioned before every army has the means to take it out fairly simple. It's not the beast it was back in 7th since now 6's always wounds, step up will mean it's going to fail those awesome 4+ regen save (if they even get it now) or make it take an Int. test and watch it fail horribly and die instantly.
This edition is ruled by templates and cheap hordes armies and those that don't have easy access to both can get quickly overwhelmed, so the hydra's position in a Dark Elf force is to either A.) take the hits for the team and not be forking over massive amounts of VP when it dies or B.) Getting revenge for the MASSIVE amount of troops that were lost due to warmachines or step up.

hashrat
24-03-2011, 01:26
Wait...the Hydra was better in 7th Ed. and people still want it to get more expensive??

Maybe if it wasn't the only DE rare worth looking at and the only unit that can survive a hit in the whole army, hadn't lost 2 wounds and if terror wasn't worthless, if it wasn't for HKB, magic and laser artillery and step up, oh and its terrible initiative maybe then it would need a price hike.
When I read the inevitable Hydra whines I often wonder why on earth people struggle with it so much, or if they even fought one for that matter, seems more bandwagon jumping than anything.

If anything it is one of the few correctly priced units, all ridden mounts from Manticores to Griffons and Dragons are a total rip off.

WarmbloodedLizard
24-03-2011, 01:34
Maybe if it wasn't the only DE rare worth looking at and the only unit that can survive a hit in the whole army, hadn't lost 2 wounds and if terror wasn't worthless, if it wasn't for HKB, magic and laser artillery and step up, oh and its terrible initiative maybe then it would need a price hike.
When I read the inevitable Hydra whines I often wonder why on earth people struggle with it so much, or if they even fought one for that matter, seems more bandwagon jumping than anything.

If anything it is one of the few correctly priced units, all ridden mounts from Manticores to Griffons and Dragons are a total rip off.

compare the hydra to a baby steg. the hydra is better in almost every aspect but still costs 60pts less.

I agree that most monsters should cost less but the hydra is still slightly undercosted.

Valnir
24-03-2011, 01:53
compare the hydra to a baby steg. the hydra is better in almost every aspect but still costs 60pts less.

I agree that most monsters should cost less but the hydra is still slightly undercosted.

But you can't just make a cross book comparison and say "oh your creature is better and 60 points cheaper" You have to understand the synergy of an army and why things may "seem" to be cheaper. Look at the lizardmen book and notice your saurus warriors being T4 STR 4 and A2, being core blah blah blah.

Now Look at just elves* in General and notice almost everything (chariots and monsters mounts being the only exception) and everything is T3 and no templates of death. (*Yes I know there are spells see further down)

The hydra fills a role in the dark elf army, Dark Elves don't have the template power (minus spells but that's not a sure thing, and some of us don't always want to be jerk who keeps throwing around the lore's 6th spell ) and a Hydra at it's peak can only throw around 28 Str 5 and 4 Str 3 close combat attacks (6 from profile +2D6 from breath+ D6 from thunderstomp and finally 4 attacks from handler at Str 3) large template can get what under it? 21-28ish individuals and can do that multiple times and all tend to be much cheaper then the hydra

ihavetoomuchminis
24-03-2011, 02:02
oh no...the sinergy thing again. Sorry, i don't believe that legend.

theunwantedbeing
24-03-2011, 02:04
compare the hydra to a baby steg. the hydra is better in almost every aspect but still costs 60pts less.

I agree that most monsters should cost less but the hydra is still slightly undercosted.

The hydra isnt immune to psychology, the steg is.
-not having to worry about panic ever is a big thing
The steg is wounded on a 6 by st4 things, the hydra on a 5+
-again, plenty of stuff is "only st4" and against more damaging things like great weapon armed troops, the boosted toughness is very helpful.
The steg has a bunch of ablative crew with a 3+ save, the hydra doesn't.
-handy for dealing with those pesky non-template shots (like bolt throwers)
Steg carries a move-and-fire bolt thrower, the hydra doesn't.
-The hydra will bounce off knights, the steg can skewer them from afar
The steg is also stubborn, so can actually afford to lose combats.
-losing a fight with a hydra is really really bad

In damage potential, sure the hydra tends to win.
And it won't be smooshed by a cannonball so easily.
That said, the breath weapon only works once and hatred is only the first round.

The baby steg is a bit pricey compared to the ancient though, simply as st6 and the improved save is such a big bonus.

sulla
24-03-2011, 05:58
;5407794']weakening the breath attack is not a general nerf. It never really used it's breath in 7th anyways. Now in 8th it will dish out the extra attacks in cc. Even S4/3 is enough to add a lot of punch.
Even in all comers armies there is usually only one unit with a flamming banner and an experienced DE player knows where that banner is going to be.Any player using the breath weapon in combat doesn't really know his stuff. At I2 and 2d6 hits, there is almost no chance of the output being as high as if he had breathed on the unit before combat.

Even in 7th, hydras were usually more powerful hanging around the flanks of small based infantry flaming them. In 8th, if you can make it to the enemy without losing a wound, it's always best to breathe on them before entering combat. Even at optimal conditions, 5 wounds and 7 hits vs t3, no armour, you only get+5-6 CR and the enemy is likely steadfast so it was for nothing. You should easily kill double that if you breath on them, making them far less likely to countercharge you in most cases.

ihavetoomuchminis
24-03-2011, 11:16
yes, it's clear the hydra is properly priced.....come on....there's a reason why every single DE player takes two. If the hydra is properly priced, i will rip off the rare unit's page of my beastmen book, i will burn my O&G giant, and convert my griphon, my dragon, and all my monsters in statues for the battlefield.

Valnir
24-03-2011, 11:21
Not exactly sure where your reasoning is? Did you not see all the posts that mention how in 8th all those other monster are horribly overpriced?

theunwantedbeing
24-03-2011, 11:29
yes, it's clear the hydra is properly priced.....come on....there's a reason why every single DE player takes two. If the hydra is properly priced, i will rip off the rare unit's page of my beastmen book, i will burn my O&G giant, and convert my griphon, my dragon, and all my monsters in statues for the battlefield.

That reason is because you need two of them for them to be good :)
Also bolt throwers are appaulingly bad for their cost.

The beastmen monster's arent that bad for their cost really.
A Cygor is a giant with a stone thrower and a few extra effects.(boosted giant, for a bit more)
A Gorghon is a giant with dragon stats, and bloodgreed!(again, boosted giant for a bit more)
A Jabberslythe is the most overcosted thing being a 5 wound griffon with a few extra's that really don't do a whole lot.

Wade Wilson
24-03-2011, 11:32
I do think hydras are a bit too cheap...but i also think they should set the standard of quality for all medium monsters.

Hydras are a fantastic unit that can do loads of damage to light/medium troops. More heavily armoured troops (cavalry) can take some punishment and deal it back just as they should. This should set the standard for all new medium sized beasties. Monsters do help keep the game interesting (and look fantastic) after all...

Its 'regen' that make a hydra underpriced compared to other monsters (many with no save). Add 15-20 point to the cost of a hydra would DE players still use them? Course they would, as they are a brilliant unit! yes there are many ways for an army to get flaming attacks...but against most missile fire that 4++ regen save is going to help the hydra at least get into combat wheras other monsters would die.
Alot of the griping from players comes from their own monsters being costed much higher but not comparable in effectiveness as a hydra and you can hardly blame them. Beastmen in particular. Its such a shame that beastmen, an army one would associate with many monsters cant bring many of them to the board due to their cost/effectiveness/survivability.

Lord Solar Plexus
24-03-2011, 12:00
It got weaker through the abundance of flaming attacks - something every all-comers army should have in it.


Which abundance of flaming attack? There's a single banner on a single unit that could be on a completely unrelated flank. Lore of Fire existed before, and while metal could hurt the Hydra, it is not usually seen in all-comers lists and pretty useless against Spearmen.



But you can't just make a cross book comparison and say "oh your creature is better and 60 points cheaper"


Well, I can. An Imperial or Lizard Hydra would do exactly the same damage as a DE one.

Spiney Norman
24-03-2011, 12:30
Which abundance of flaming attack? There's a single banner on a single unit that could be on a completely unrelated flank. Lore of Fire existed before, and while metal could hurt the Hydra, it is not usually seen in all-comers lists and pretty useless against Spearmen.


But the lore of fire didn't used to contain a spell that gave an entire unit flaming attacks. I'd also add that I do take lore of metal in my general purpose Empire list, IMHO its a lot more 'general purpose' than fire.

Valnir
24-03-2011, 12:50
Which abundance of flaming attack? There's a single banner on a single unit that could be on a completely unrelated flank. Lore of Fire existed before, and while metal could hurt the Hydra, it is not usually seen in all-comers lists and pretty useless against Spearmen.



Well, I can. An Imperial or Lizard Hydra would do exactly the same damage as a DE one.
Called the flaming Sword of Rhuin and not only is amazing against a hydra but even against the "Spearmen" you're going to bring a world of pain on to them as well.
Also, no you can not just do cross comparisons. This has been argued here many times and since each army is different and works in different ways things are priced differently due to how each unit is suppose to work with each other.

ihavetoomuchminis
24-03-2011, 14:54
That reason is because you need two of them for them to be good :)
Also bolt throwers are appaulingly bad for their cost.

The beastmen monster's arent that bad for their cost really.
A Cygor is a giant with a stone thrower and a few extra effects.(boosted giant, for a bit more)
A Gorghon is a giant with dragon stats, and bloodgreed!(again, boosted giant for a bit more)
A Jabberslythe is the most overcosted thing being a 5 wound griffon with a few extra's that really don't do a whole lot.

i must say i disagree with the totality of your post. and it's hard for me to believe that even you agree with it :p.

Gaargod
24-03-2011, 15:23
The carnosaur IS hard to place. The changes to Frenzy made the carno considerably better, the nerf of flying movement meant that compared to dragons, wyverns and other similar monster mounts the Carno improved, and the thunderstomp attacks were also a major boost.

As someone who uses one regularly I don't think a carnosaur needs to go down any, the only rule changes that really hurt it were the increased accuracy of warmachines (which was always an issue) and the fact that it can no longer break ranks (but then it was pretty hard to position a frenzied monster on to an opponent's flank in 7th anyway). Personally I feel this is far outweighed by the fact that it can avoid being led around by the nose by passing a cold blooded Ld test.


Wait what? You do know the carnosaur has the Blood Frenzy rule, not the normal frenzy rule? As in, it has to get into combat and kill something before it becomes frenzy? That was what made it usable in 7th ed, with 7th ed monster movement (as compared to everyone else) and Mv7, it was actually very maneuverable - and with rank breaking, it was a great flanker. Even when it was frenzied, you merely had to charge - not the closest unit, which often was fine. Not to mention terror working...

Yes, thunderstomp rocks and... well that's about it. It become less maneuverable, slower by comparison (random charges) and can't break ranks. Which happened to every other medium monster too - they all deserve a price drop.

Oh, and yes the hydra got 'worse' (well, technically the enemy just got better at killing it) in 8th ed, but the problem is that it was drastically underpriced in 7th. Its now just a bit underpriced in 8th.

Malorian
24-03-2011, 15:38
Oh, and yes the hydra got 'worse' (well, technically the enemy just got better at killing it) in 8th ed, but the problem is that it was drastically underpriced in 7th. Its now just a bit underpriced in 8th.

A note on the hydra... it's a beast!!!

In eigth you have a monster that can do a ton of kills with regular attacks, plus thunder stomp, plus breathing fire into combat. The number of kills means you pretty much WILL win combat and then all you need is a unit of spearmen along with it to take away steadfast.

Think of it like the HPA paired with slaved except the hydra does more damage.

ewar
25-03-2011, 01:34
Which abundance of flaming attack? There's a single banner on a single unit that could be on a completely unrelated flank. Lore of Fire existed before, and while metal could hurt the Hydra, it is not usually seen in all-comers lists and pretty useless against Spearmen.

But that banner should be on GW armed infantry who now come in a massive unit. You'll forgive me for making the assumption that a player in possession of such a unit would do their utmost to get it into combat with a hydra or HPA as they will chew through those monsters.

Considering some armies had no access to flaming attacks, the ability to give a whole unit flaming attacks is brilliant and for what? 10 points!! It changes the whole meta of regenerating monsters.

It seems to me that people want creatures like hydras and HPAs able to be killed before they do any damage whatsoever. They should be able to get into combat, kill some stuff and then get hit back - which is actually what happens in 8th.

The real problem is that other monsters aren't as good - they should all be similar in this respect.

theunwantedbeing
25-03-2011, 01:40
i must say i disagree with the totality of your post. and it's hard for me to believe that even you agree with it :p.

You'll have to explain why.

sulla
25-03-2011, 01:42
Well, I can. An Imperial or Lizard Hydra would do exactly the same damage as a DE one.An imperial hydra would do far more damage than a DE one because the Empire have cannons to kill the main threats to hydra; enemy war machines. That means the hydra generally gets to the enemy lines in better shape with a higher strength breath weapon. :D Not sure if lizards would ever field a hydra if they had the option. Massed salamanders are still the better option.

Minsc
25-03-2011, 02:00
yes, it's clear the hydra is properly priced.....come on....there's a reason why every single DE player takes two.

Probably because it's their only decent rare-unit?
Besides, I've been a DE player since 6th Ed, and I still only own 1 Hydra.


If the hydra is properly priced, i will rip off the rare unit's page of my beastmen book

Yeah, because everyone doesn't already know that Beastmen raremonsters are laughably overpriced? Seriously, you're not doing your argument a favour by mentioning beastmen rare monsters...


Which abundance of flaming attack? There's a single banner on a single unit that could be on a completely unrelated flank. Lore of Fire existed before, and while metal could hurt the Hydra, it is not usually seen in all-comers lists and pretty useless against Spearmen.

Regen got severely nerfed in 8th Ed in general, plus flaming attacks became alot more common.
If players have a problem with dealing with Hydra's theese days, it's not the Hydras fault - it's either the generals or the armylists fault.
(Yes, I realize that this sounds alot like "I'm not OP, everyone else just suck", but it's not the same thing.)

Storak
26-03-2011, 23:22
The beastmen monster's arent that bad for their cost really.
A Cygor is a giant with a stone thrower and a few extra effects.(boosted giant, for a bit more)
A Gorghon is a giant with dragon stats, and bloodgreed!(again, boosted giant for a bit more)
A Jabberslythe is the most overcosted thing being a 5 wound griffon with a few extra's that really don't do a whole lot.

the problem with your approach is obvious: you compare them to a giant, which is a horrible monster.

"this monster is not bad in comparison to a giant"

is the same as saying:

"this warmachine is a little bit better than a repeater bolt thrower"

vinny t
26-03-2011, 23:45
I really do think the Hydra is quite a bit underpriced. The thing that pushes it OTT is the S5 breath weapon. For armies that lack convertional warmachines (everything but Dwarves, Empire, O&G, and maybe Skaven/Bretonnians) the hydra will get into position unhurt. Then with one S5/4 breath weapon a massive chunk of a unit is gone. Now you can charge the hydra, but it will still rip you apart in combat.

I think a 210pt hydra with 4+ AS and regen would be fairly costed

xxRavenxx
27-03-2011, 00:47
Simple reason a hydra is undercosted:

It can easily claim twice its points in rank and file, via pure brute force, before going down.

Second reason:

When people bring up overpowered monsters, they only mention two: HPA and Hydra. There is a reason noone complains about any of the others en-masse. Because only two are too good. Hydra by being too cheap. HPA by being a bit too explosively good.

Valnir
27-03-2011, 03:09
Simple reason a hydra is undercosted:

It can easily claim twice its points in rank and file, via pure brute force, before going down.

Second reason:

When people bring up overpowered monsters, they only mention two: HPA and Hydra. There is a reason noone complains about any of the others en-masse. Because only two are too good. Hydra by being too cheap. HPA by being a bit too explosively good.

Uh so by that reasoning mortars and large template weapons are also overpowered as a 75 point mortar can easily kill 200 points worth of troops in a turn, or how a canon can kill a Dragon and rider or steg with little to no effort :wtf:

H33D
27-03-2011, 07:39
In my opinion thats what monsters should be in Warhammer. They should be large points investments for how easily they die to high strength ranged attacks, but should be a cheap points investment for how many wounds they can deal in close combat. They should be combat monsters.

I mean come on, they only have 5-8 wounds. Thats 12+ less than a normal infantry unit. They have slightly higher toughness and about the same survivability as most. But they have a glaring weakness that makes them okay to make a bit cheap for how much damage they do. They are a one trick pony so to speak. If this works my investment just raked in multiples of what it is worth, but if it fails I just wasted a lot of points.

The Hydra to me seems like a balanced monster when these things are considered. The HPA should a bit more expensive and other monsters especially the beastmen ones need a bit more killy-ness and/or to be a few points cheaper.

sulla
27-03-2011, 09:20
Uh so by that reasoning mortars and large template weapons are also overpowered as a 75 point mortar can easily kill 200 points worth of troops in a turn, or how a canon can kill a Dragon and rider or steg with little to no effort :wtf:Don't know if you're joking or not, but I would actually agree with the above. Cannons because the basic rules for cannons are just stupidly overpowered. Mortars because they are currently better than stonethrowers for less points.

To my way of thinking, the only real thing that makes the hydra underpriced in 8th is the internal balance of the DE book, where a hydra is far better value than 2 chariots, or 2 bolt throwers, or an assassin or other combat hero or even a unit of knights. External balance is fairly unimportant in the grand scheme of things as long as they are not a no-brainer internally.

Storak
27-03-2011, 09:30
Uh so by that reasoning mortars and large template weapons are also overpowered as a 75 point mortar can easily kill 200 points worth of troops in a turn, or how a canon can kill a Dragon and rider or steg with little to no effort :wtf:

the mortar obviously is overpowered. not because it can kill 200 points in one shot, but because it is sooo much better than the rulebook stone thrower or especially the puny rock lobba now.
the mortar has a much bigger template and gives a -1 save modifier. (the mortar is a little bit worse against single targets) factoring in the option of an engineer, the mortar is just incredibly better.



In my opinion thats what monsters should be in Warhammer. They should be large points investments for how easily they die to high strength ranged attacks, but should be a cheap points investment for how many wounds they can deal in close combat. They should be combat monsters.

I mean come on, they only have 5-8 wounds. Thats 12+ less than a normal infantry unit. They have slightly higher toughness and about the same survivability as most. But they have a glaring weakness that makes them okay to make a bit cheap for how much damage they do. They are a one trick pony so to speak. If this works my investment just raked in multiples of what it is worth, but if it fails I just wasted a lot of points.

The Hydra to me seems like a balanced monster when these things are considered. The HPA should a bit more expensive and other monsters especially the beastmen ones need a bit more killy-ness and/or to be a few points cheaper.

i agree, but GW is going the opposite way. they are balancing new monsters (arachnarok) against monsters that are useless for competitive play, like the giant. (this can also be seen by the giant not getting a significant price reduction or an attack table that makes sense in 8th edition)
according to this policy, the hydra and the HPA should increase in price to around 300 points.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-03-2011, 12:31
that's the problem. GW is making all the monsters suck, being too expensive for what they do. It's better to invest the points in more infantry, instead of investing it on a 300 points monster.

Ronin[XiC]
27-03-2011, 12:46
Mortar SHOULD have had it's strength reduced to 2 (4) without the AP. With S3 it's just stupid. Same for all S5 stone throwers. Just reduce the strength of trebuchets, hell cannons by 1 and limit the dwarven +1 strength rune to one and we'd have a much better shooting phase.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-03-2011, 12:49
The mortar is not undercosted. You must look at the rest of the empire army. It fullfills a role in the army.....blah blah blah

Ronin[XiC]
27-03-2011, 15:17
It fullfills the role WAY TOO GOOD for 75 points. It would be great for 125. large template in 8th is evil S3 -1 AS is evil and BRUTAL. All that for 75p is undercosted.

And what about the rest of the army? Empire is one of the strongest armies in 8th. It would be just fine with a S2 mortar.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-03-2011, 21:55
I was just being sarcastical. I think the mortar is as underpriced as the hydra is.

H33D
27-03-2011, 22:11
A Grudge Thrower is 80 points and a Mortar is 75 points.

+Grudge Throwers have 12" more range
+Grudge Throwers have strength 9 D6 wounds in the center
+Grudge Thrower crew have light armor and toughness 4
-Mortars use the large template
-Mortars are armor piercing

Yeah I can see Mortars as being scary if your army mainly consists of skeletons wearing only light armor. Too bad you still have to roll to wound with them at a measly strength 3. Trebuchets and Grudge Throwers are much much better and can do the same job as a cannon. Taking a Great cannon and a Mortar to effectively fulfill the same role costs about as much or even more than a single runed up Grudge Thrower.

I don't know of any war machines that need their cost fixed. I am surprised people complain about Mortars and not Grudge Throwers or Trebuchets. My gaming group hates the Rune of Accuracy. 25 points for what is effectively a second grudge thrower (although no probability of two hits in one turn).

2 runed up Grudge Throwers: 350ish
1 runed up cannon: 150ish
total: 500 points

4 mortars: 300
2 cannons: 200
total: 500 points

they all have about the same amount of hits per turn statistically (due to more machines for Empire and good machines for Dwarves) and cost about the same, but the Dwarven ones usually hurt much much more. Not to mention the Empire army needs those cannons because their mortars won't cut it. You could easily drop the Dwarf cannon and use the Grudge Throwers for the job.

And you can't even have 4 mortars at less than 3K points..

superczhunk
08-04-2011, 18:30
Why not give the unit type "Monster" a basic rule of a 4+ save and then it could be modified by the type of monster it is in the future. The Hydra converts it to a Regeneration instead, the Dragon is +1 for it's scales, etc.

hashrat
08-04-2011, 19:08
I think the farcical thing is when you look at a 200pts Hippogryph and compare it to a 175pt hydra! Taking the hydra as a good base for 8th ed monsters, I'd probably stomach the Hippo at 135pts. Still useful, but not devestating.

Why are you comparing a mount to a lone monster? The comparison is invalid.
Hydras don't get save 1+ rerollable, ASF, HKB characters across the table in turn 1.

Half the points cost is down to the guy sat on their back gaining 20" charges and terror and a 2 in 6 chance of avoiding missile fire etc.

The mounts aren't worth squat on their own, but you will never see one alone, they aren't comparable to lone monsters.

Granted they all cost 50-100 points too much for 8th given their loss of unit strength and the nerf to terror, more importantly the lack of any rule preventing you from targeting distant lone characters. (Who would take Hellebron on a Manticore at 500 points, neither is tough, neither has a save etc. turn 1 pop 100% of the time.)

And why is the Hydra underpriced? A single T5 model with a save too hard to cope with in a T3 army with saves of 5 or worse?
Put it in an army that are all T4 and heavily armoured and it might be, in a paper army like Elves the moaning is nothing short of ridiculous.

Walgis
08-04-2011, 20:00
i would realy like to see stegadon pint drop i mean a 275 for ancient steg is way over the top, just compere tham to hydras and like wtf hydra is better and 100 point less :D

sulla
08-04-2011, 21:01
i would realy like to see stegadon pint drop i mean a 275 for ancient steg is way over the top, just compere tham to hydras and like wtf hydra is better and 100 point less :DStegs were priced for 7th edition, where a good roll on the impact hits won you a combat and probably broke and ran down an entire unit. If they repriced for 8th, they likely would get a price drop. But GW doesn't seem to want to get into that (admittedly slippery slope of) reviewing of points costs.

decker_cky
08-04-2011, 23:10
I think GW needs to do a class of monsters around 150-175 pts. This is where typical 5-6A T5 minimal save monsters with 1 special feature like the Giants, Bone Giants and Jabberslythes would fit.

Next, there's a band around 225-250 where more dangerous monsters with some of these fit: Better saves (3+ armour, regen or daemonic ward) or T6 low save, and a few neat abilities fit better in here (breath weapons, stubborn, etc..). Shaggoths (with a slight boost), Ghorgons, Hydras and monsters like that would fit in that range.

At the top end, you have unit killer monsters in a 300-350 range. Over the top abilities like the offensive output of an abomination, T8 for sphinx's or 8 T6 wounds or arachnaroks. These generally have great survivability and the potential to wreck, or at least tie up a unit all game, and some specialized super abilities (HKB or great anti-infantry abilities) or several moderate abilities.

sulla
09-04-2011, 03:47
I think GW needs to do a class of monsters around 150-175 pts. This is where typical 5-6A T5 minimal save monsters with 1 special feature like the Giants, Bone Giants and Jabberslythes would fit.

The problem with those budget monsters is that the current warmachine rules and the prevalence of great weapon hordes make them a total liability vs a great many armies. You don't see giants or flying monsters now;admittedly, for flying monsters, this is as much because it stops you taking a lvl4, but still... Even if you got a points break, I don't know if you'd see them. We may have to wait till 9th edition to see some innaccuracy introduced into cannons and newer books price great weapons a little higher before large support monsters become worth taking. For now, if it can't win on it's own, it isn't worth bringing.

ewar
09-04-2011, 13:01
The problem with those budget monsters is that the current warmachine rules and the prevalence of great weapon hordes make them a total liability vs a great many armies. You don't see giants or flying monsters now;admittedly, for flying monsters, this is as much because it stops you taking a lvl4, but still... Even if you got a points break, I don't know if you'd see them. We may have to wait till 9th edition to see some innaccuracy introduced into cannons and newer books price great weapons a little higher before large support monsters become worth taking. For now, if it can't win on it's own, it isn't worth bringing.

I'm not sure that's true, everything has a use at the right points value. For instance at that price target saturation becomes an issue for artillery. Yes, you'll likely lose your medium monster but then the guns aren't shooting your elites/cav/other monsters.

Or they don't shoot the medium monster and it becomes a viable support unit. I think at around 150 it at least makes them a plausible choice and would add variety.

Satan
09-04-2011, 13:08
I'd like minotaurs to see a points decrease by at least 5 pts or, preferably, have their T increased to 5. There's s huge discrepancy between the minotaur characters snd the basic unit right now. And the minotaurs aren't worth it in a competitive environment IMO.

Kevlar
09-04-2011, 16:39
I just think they need to downgrade stuff like Griffons and Hippogriffs to monstrous cavalry. Look at the rat ogre bonebreaker. Its every bit as good as a griffon, and only costs 1/3 the points or so.

Urgat
09-04-2011, 18:26
I just think they need to downgrade stuff like Griffons and Hippogriffs to monstrous cavalry. Look at the rat ogre bonebreaker. Its every bit as good as a griffon, and only costs 1/3 the points or so.

It doesn't fly or cause terror, that's pretty big differences, don't you think?

Kevlar
09-04-2011, 18:51
It doesn't fly or cause terror, that's pretty big differences, don't you think?

Not really. Charging an extra 3-4 inches isn't that great, and since terror bombing no longer exists fear is about 90 percent as good as terror. So is it a 140 point difference in your book considering you can hide the bonebreaker in units and possibly give it a 'look out sir' roll? Granted skaven can't, but any army with MC can. The combat stats are the same or better for the bonebreaker.

sulla
09-04-2011, 20:18
I'm not sure that's true, everything has a use at the right points value. For instance at that price target saturation becomes an issue for artillery. Yes, you'll likely lose your medium monster but then the guns aren't shooting your elites/cav/other monsters.

Or they don't shoot the medium monster and it becomes a viable support unit. I think at around 150 it at least makes them a plausible choice and would add variety.

You don't see many combat characters in most armies these days because they often can't last more than a couple of phases vs hard hitting troops, say s5 or higher - and there are armies like dwarves or WoC where often every single model will have that strength. I suspect large cheap monsters would be in the same boat unless they were in the 100 pt range. T5, no armour or low armour and about 2 wounds in combat plus thunderstomp (5 attacks at WS3) would not be enough to entice most players to take one, I think.

Look, I may be wrong here and completely misreading what other players would take, but that's my gut feeling on it. The numbers just don't stack up to me. Things that might change that dynamic are movement. If the thing could get to the other side of the field quickly to put instant pressure on the enemy, they would start to get a bit of utility and survivability, but in general, they are less survivable than a giant, and those were easily dealt with in 7th, let alone 8th.

Dante blackfur
09-04-2011, 21:40
I have to talk about demon Princes, from DoC, Firstly the biggest problem is that they are a Lord slot, I think This alone makes them not worth taking, because Greater daemons are FAR better for the pts, now if they dropped the DP closer to 200 rather then 300+ I think you would see a lot more use, (Simply because people would take 2-3 of them) but a better choice would be to make them either a) a hero choice, at about the same pt cost would be fine, maybe a slight drop, or b) a Rare choice, (this would probably work the best,) slimier to the 40k builds, it would add a nice option to the DoC selection, (Plus for hobbyists like myself who like to convert stuff and sculpt new things,) It would actually give us a chance to make a cool looking model that we would actually use, besides we have 4 Rare choices, Bloodcrushers (Which are expensive for what they do) Flamers, (My personal favorite Rare, but die easily if attacked in CC) Beasts of Nurgle (Not really worth the pts again) and Fiends of Slenesh, (the only nice thing about these guys is 10" move, great for War machine hunting) so throw in a DP for around 300 pts, you would have a good customizable Rare taht you could change depending on your opponent (Very Useful). and lastly they would make a nice look and feel to the army. :) just my thoughts on these Medium monster for DoC.

ashc
10-04-2011, 08:39
Daemon Princes are terrible.

Kevlar
10-04-2011, 10:07
Daemon Princes are terrible.

They were terrible in 7th too. Not much change there. It is ridden monsters who stink now. Consider the mount is still rather easy to kill, like it was in 7th, but now monstrous cav is benefitting from the armor and ward save of the character. Granted, they share a wound pool, but killing them is harder and they give up no easy combat resolution.

Urgat
10-04-2011, 15:09
Not really. Charging an extra 3-4 inches isn't that great, and since terror bombing no longer exists fear is about 90 percent as good as terror. So is it a 140 point difference in your book considering you can hide the bonebreaker in units and possibly give it a 'look out sir' roll? Granted skaven can't, but any army with MC can. The combat stats are the same or better for the bonebreaker.

So for you flying is only about charging 3 or 4" farther away, and terror just about terror bombing? I'm not saying they aren't too expensive, but they're worth more than you want to admit.

Dante blackfur
10-04-2011, 19:09
Daemon Princes are terrible.

I know that! tahts why I said they need to change them to hero or better yet rarechoices. because I coud see players taking a greater demon and 1-2 deamon princess if tey where rare.

Jack of Blades
10-04-2011, 19:15
I know that! tahts why I said they need to change them to hero or better yet rarechoices. because I coud see players taking a greater demon and 1-2 deamon princess if tey where rare.

I would like rare Daemon Princes too, I really liked that about the 40K Daemons book.

Valnir
11-04-2011, 13:10
Wait... what? Daemon princes should be a rare choice?:wtf:

Odin
11-04-2011, 13:51
I've been thinking a bit about the medium monsters, prompted by the 40-point drop in the cost of the Wyvern, and my own wish to be able to use my Khorne Lord on a Manticore without shooting myself in the foot.

The Wyvern works pretty well now - I've faced them several times since the new O&G book came out, and they are a real threat, especially when teamed with a Warboss with the impact hits armour.

But the Wyvern's 4+ armour save is crucial to keeping it alive. Things like the Manticore and Chimera don't have that protection (IIRC), and without it they are very vulnerable to massed shooting.

Another thought is that the value of a monster mount is not necessarily the same as the value of the same monster unridden. I'd happily pay about 200 pts for an unridden Manticore or Chimera, as a Rare choice, because they would be very tactically useful. But as a mount for a Lord they are worth less, because they leave him vulnerable to being targeted by firepower and magic, take generals away from where their Leadership can best be used, and at 2000-3000 points are likely to prevent you taking a second Lord.

The change to the S/T table in 8th edition might offer a solution. We've already seen T8 monsters in the TK book. Dragons and Treemen could feasibly move to being T7, with the more fleshy monsters such as Griffons, Manticores and Giants moving to T6.

As for the Daemon Prince, he doesn't need to be made a Rare choice, he needs to be made a decent option. That means S6 for a start - after all, they're basically a Chaos Lord with an extra wound, stat-wise. Yet the lord can easily take a cheap Halberd to increase his close combat ability, while the DP is left with a comparably pitiful S5.

xxRavenxx
11-04-2011, 13:56
Wait... what? Daemon princes should be a rare choice?:wtf:

40k demons required a way to add more MCs to the army (due to its lack of tanks and heavy weapons, similar to tyranids.)

Thusly DP in 40k were made into heavy support. up to 2 Greater demons lead the army, with 3 princes bringing extra "oomph"

It makes sence, as princes are not true demons. They shouldnt be in charge.


Fantasy wise... for WoC I would not want it to happen. Princes are the most gifted of chaos lords, imbued with power, clearly in charge of the mortals.

They just need a stat boost.

For fantasy demons? Rare would suit them I think, but then, you would have the problem that they would need to be worse in one book than the other, which doesnt make sense.

Dante blackfur
11-04-2011, 19:00
40k demons required a way to add more MCs to the army (due to its lack of tanks and heavy weapons, similar to tyranids.)

Thusly DP in 40k were made into heavy support. up to 2 Greater demons lead the army, with 3 princes bringing extra "oomph"

It makes sence, as princes are not true demons. They shouldnt be in charge.


Fantasy wise... for WoC I would not want it to happen. Princes are the most gifted of chaos lords, imbued with power, clearly in charge of the mortals.

They just need a stat boost.

For fantasy demons? Rare would suit them I think, but then, you would have the problem that they would need to be worse in one book than the other, which doesnt make sense.

And thats fine for WoC they can stay how they are, but in the DoC they are like, "DP? AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! :(" they really need to be moved from the lord slot, heck throw them as a hero and it would be fine.

Valnir
12-04-2011, 01:56
And thats fine for WoC they can stay how they are, but in the DoC they are like, "DP? AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! :(" they really need to be moved from the lord slot, heck throw them as a hero and it would be fine.

But how is this any different then say a lord mounted on a dragon? If anything the lord mounted on the dragon is in a worse situation as the dragon does not benefit from the save of character and is prone to being shot down at the start of turn one with being a large target and TLOS.