PDA

View Full Version : Stone Trolls - What is the point?



Grey Seer
27-08-2011, 16:39
The difference between regular trolls and Stone trolls is that Stone Trolls have a Magic Resistance (2).

My question is, what is the point? Other than against flame based spells, isn't this useless, as regeneration is otherwise 4+?

10 point difference between the two types of trolls seems a lot.

Darwin_green
27-08-2011, 16:52
I guess it's handy when they killed your regeneration save with fire a turn or two before.

Confessor_Atol
27-08-2011, 16:56
It was better two editions ago when MR was useful, and you got your regen.

Avian
27-08-2011, 17:20
I guess it's handy when they killed your regeneration save with fire a turn or two before.

Regeneration doesn't work like that, though. :p

Ister Flersson
27-08-2011, 17:44
Does MR stack with Reg? Reg. is a kind of ward save... Anyway, stone trolls also have scaly skin, so that is something.

edit: Seems like regeneration is not a form of ward save, so no luck there. Still against flaming magic they have better survivability, which is even btter still if the spell has no better than a -1 save modifier. All in all river trolls are still better though...

isotope99
27-08-2011, 17:50
I may be wrong and would welcome correction but don't the saves stack? so a stone troll hit by a S4 magic missile for example would get a 6+ scaly skin save (-1 for S4), followed by a 5+ ward save for MR2 and then a 4+ regen roll.

Regular trolls would just get 4+ regen.

New to fantasy so only just pickling up some of these rules.

Nocculum
27-08-2011, 17:55
You only get one ward save, regardless of it's source.

I would argue that since Regen is a ward save, Magic Resistance increases it to 2+ vs. spells, but that's just me ;)

Yrrdead
27-08-2011, 18:06
You only get one ward save, regardless of it's source.

I would argue that since Regen is a ward save, Magic Resistance increases it to 2+ vs. spells, but that's just me ;)

Regeneration is not a ward save.

OT - You are paying for an armor save and MR2, or you can get -1 to Hit in CC for the same price . Realistically I think the point is to give rules to support the models.

decker_cky
27-08-2011, 18:07
Regen is not considered a ward save, for better or for worse. Makes it better against the other trickster's shard, and worse for combining with MR. A few other effects, but in general, it gains as much as it loses.

Stone trolls are just a bad option, like dozens of other units which are throughout the various warhammer armies.

Don Zeko
27-08-2011, 18:08
Regeneration is not a ward save, so it doesn't stack with the Magic Resistance, meaning you don't get a 2+ save if hit by a non-flaming magic missile. But the rulebook also states that you can't take a regeneration save and a ward save from the same hit, so you don't get a 4+ regen followed by a 5+ ward save either. In this case, magic resistance will give yu a save if you're hit by a damaging spell and don't get your regeneration save. So yes, you're much better off taking regular trolls or river trolls.

russellmoo
27-08-2011, 19:59
I guess the point would be that- while regular trolls, or river trolls die when hit by a fireball, stone trolls would get their armor, and a 5+ ward-

So if you are always fighting against lore of fire, or possibly metal- stone trolls might be worthwhile- but in an all comers setting- you are wasting a lot of points per model-

sulla
27-08-2011, 21:47
The difference between regular trolls and Stone trolls is that Stone Trolls have a Magic Resistance (2).

My question is, what is the point? Other than against flame based spells, isn't this useless, as regeneration is otherwise 4+?

10 point difference between the two types of trolls seems a lot.

Yes, grasshopper. You have correctly discerned that GW missed the boat with the MR rule in 8th edition. It's barely useful in any unit, and next to useless in a regen unit.

Don Zeko
28-08-2011, 01:19
Yes, grasshopper. You have correctly discerned that GW missed the boat with the MR rule in 8th edition. It's barely useful in any unit, and next to useless in a regen unit.

Not only that, they missed the boat in a way that screws up a lot of existing points values and makes some rules unclear. I don't see the problem with just sticking with the old system.

sulla
28-08-2011, 07:01
I would have preferred something that has a chance of stopping the effects of all spells on a unit, not just some types of damage. It's probably about 3 times more expensive than it deserves to be for that... although GW seem to have realised their mistake with the mega spells, judging by the Storm of Magic Cataclysms. Very few of them ignore saves, despite being 'much more powerful' than the magic you see in a normal game. (Just FAQ the 'allow no saves of any kind' spells in the BRB, GW. You know you want to.)

Nocculum
28-08-2011, 07:04
It does give them some protection against flaming attacks from everyone's favourite dirt cheap anti-monster banner mind.

Don Zeko
28-08-2011, 17:02
No, it doesn't. Magic Resistance protects you from damaging spells, but has no effect upon magical attacks. And even if it did it wouldn't matter, because the BoEF gives a unit flaming attacks but not magical attacks.

jtrowell
29-08-2011, 13:16
Against those, such as S3 shooting, you still get the 5+ armor save.

The bearded one
29-08-2011, 15:03
Which is of course the ultimate form of protection :)

Rivertrolls are vastly superior. Vastly I tell ya! The -1 to hit should protect you in CC more than the miserable 5+ armoursave.

NTJ2010
31-08-2011, 02:39
I guess the point would be that- while regular trolls, or river trolls die when hit by a fireball, stone trolls would get their armor, and a 5+ ward-

So if you are always fighting against lore of fire, or possibly metal- stone trolls might be worthwhile- but in an all comers setting- you are wasting a lot of points per model-

Actually against Lore of Metal I'd rather have River or non-Stone trolls since lore of metal can't do damage to them (except the 6 spell which effects them all the same)

I like all the troll options (I try to "change them up" too)

Haravikk
31-08-2011, 21:32
It's a strange one, as even against low Strength attacks, where you might initially think having Scaly Skin would be better, the -1 to hit in close combat is actually more effective.

I suppose the main advantage of the Stone Troll is against shooting or fire, but even so, against flaming attacks in close combat the Stone Troll is only a tiny amount better.

A 5+ armour save is so easily reduced by anything other than hordes (and even then, halberd hordes will do it anyway) that it's just not really worth that much in practise.

Malorian
31-08-2011, 21:54
It's a strange one, as even against low Strength attacks, where you might initially think having Scaly Skin would be better, the -1 to hit in close combat is actually more effective.

If opponent has WS3 and str 3:
-1 attack does 0.06 wounds to a stone troll
-1 attack does 0.06 wounds to a river troll

If opponent has WS4 and str 3:
-1 attack does 0.07 wounds to a stone troll
-1 attack does 0.08 wounds to a river troll


So it's exactly the same against WS 3, and stone trolls are BETTER against WS 4.


If you expand this out to the worst case scenario and have a WS4 and str 5:
-1 attack does 0.22 wounds to a stone troll
-1 attack does 0.17 wounds to a river troll

Expanding this to 30 attacks from a horde would mean:
-6.6 wounds to a stone troll
-5.1 wounds to a river troll

So only a difference of 1.5 wounds... in a WORST CASE SCENARIO


Personally I always thought stone trolls were crap, but then I saw the math.

Now I know that not only are they not that much worse in the worst of times, but there are actually situations that they are the same if not better (when shooting is involved).

Malorian
01-09-2011, 16:47
I love how once I debunked this thread with the math that everyone just ran away ;)

kafrique
01-09-2011, 16:55
I love how once I debunked this thread with the math that everyone just ran away ;)

Firstly, it's been less than a day since you posted. Secondly, all you managed to do was successfully prove that river trolls are, indeed, almost always better than stone trolls.

Malorian
01-09-2011, 16:58
Certainly isn't the vast difference people were making it out to be though :)

antihelten
01-09-2011, 19:48
If opponent has WS4 and str 3:
-1 attack does 0.07 wounds to a stone troll
-1 attack does 0.06 wounds to a river troll


I think you made a slight mistake here. Should be 0.08 for the river troll, so stone trolls are actually slightly better against WS4

Malorian
01-09-2011, 20:48
Nice catch!

Math post updated.

Pulstar
01-09-2011, 21:42
Because I painted my stone trolls blue. They look like big deranged smurfs.

And as everyone knows big deranged smurfs > slimy green smurfs any day of the week.

stashman
02-09-2011, 11:00
Stone Troll can be usefull vs. Ogres

MR against there big maw mouth d6 wounds when a firebelly have taken away the regeneration.

And 6+ save vs. bulls + regeneration

Avian
02-09-2011, 11:47
Worst case scenario is WS3, S5.

River Troll: 0.22 wounds per attack before regen
Stone Troll: 0.33 wounds per attack before regen

Thus in the worst case scenario, the Stone Troll takes 50% more damage for the exact same cost.

Malorian
02-09-2011, 12:22
Worst case scenario is WS3, S5.

River Troll: 0.22 wounds per attack before regen
Stone Troll: 0.33 wounds per attack before regen

Thus in the worst case scenario, the Stone Troll takes 50% more damage for the exact same cost.

But you need to include regen because it's an important part of the larger picture.

WITH regen WS3 and str 5 is doing 0.17 wounds to the stone troll and 0.11 wounds to the river troll.

Again expand that out to horde attacks and that's 5.1 wounds against a stone troll and 3.3 wounds against a river troll. So a differnce of a massive 1.8 wounds...


So what this really boils down to is that if you like stone trolls then take them. They might be worse overall but their ingame performance isn't actually all that different than the river troll (and if you were serious about being effective you would just be taking regular trolls anyway).

kafrique
02-09-2011, 12:28
(and if you were serious about being effective you would just be taking regular trolls anyway).

This is the real lesson of this thread. Use whatever models you want, call them regular trolls. Congratulations, you have the best trolls.

Avian
02-09-2011, 12:46
But you need to include regen because it's an important part of the larger picture.
No, both types get Regen, so it's irrelevant in this comparison. It's only important to include something if it varies between types.

The relevant thing is that whether or not you include Regen and however many attacks you use, the Stone Trolls take 50% more damage. So you can multiply or divide that up however you like, it is still 50% more.

So if the River Trolls would take 4 wounds, the Stone Trolls would be taking 6 wounds.
Or, the damage needed to kill 3 Stone Trolls would only kill 2 River Trolls.

Malorian
02-09-2011, 13:09
Avian, I understand what you're trying to say, but you can't deny the expanded math.

Haravikk
02-09-2011, 13:22
Hmm, so slightly better against common horde types then? Weapon Skill 3 and Strength 5 isn't a desperately common combo after all, without augments that is.

Still, I think if it were Scaly Skin (4+) rather than 5+, then it would go a long way toward making them a bit more competitive overall.

One of the problems really is that both types grant combat defence, really one of them should be more specialised, for example, Stone Trolls having the defence, with River Trolls having greater speed or Ambush or something like that, so there isn't such a degree of overlap.

warplock
02-09-2011, 13:48
Again expand that out to horde attacks and that's 5.1 wounds against a stone troll and 3.3 wounds against a river troll. So a differnce of a massive 1.8 wounds...

Not meaning to be a pain but that really is quite a lot. Sure it's only (almost) two wounds, but when those two wounds are 35% of the total... it makes a big difference. Like, having 3 trolls to attack back or only having 2.

Malorian
02-09-2011, 13:55
Hmm, so slightly better against common horde types then? Weapon Skill 3 and Strength 5 isn't a desperately common combo after all, without augments that is.

I see you ignored the math of WS4 and Str5...




Not meaning to be a pain but that really is quite a lot. Sure it's only (almost) two wounds, but when those two wounds are 35% of the total... it makes a big difference. Like, having 3 trolls to attack back or only having 2.

This isn't much at all.

The difference might or might not kill another troll, and the if a full horde is attacking the trolls then they will be getting a lot of attacks back, and you can be sure the trolls will score more than 5.1 wounds to win the combat ;)

Avian
02-09-2011, 17:28
Mal, you are going at this from the wrong angle if you wish to convince anyone. If you could have a 5+ Ward save* on your character FOR FREE, what would your reply be?
1) Yes, please!
2) No. It's not going to do much even in the worst case scenario. I'd rather go without.
3) It doesn't work all the time and it comes with a slight disadvantage in some situations, so I can take it or leave it.

You can't seriously go on with option 2), as taking one third less damage is GREAT (just ask any Daemon player). Going with Stone Trolls over River Trolls for reasons that have anything to do with tactics has to be that you think the situations where they are essentially the same or the Stone Trolls are better, are the most likely.



I can list them, if you like:

Situations where Stone Trolls are better

- Flaming damage
Stone Trolls take 33% less damage / River Trolls take 50% more damage

- Shooting with no save modifier
Stone Trolls take 33% less damage / River Trolls take 50% more damage

- Shooting with -1 save modifier
Stone Trolls take 17% less damage / River Trolls take 20% more damage

- Attacks with WS4 or more, Strength 3 or less
Stone Trolls take 11% less damage / River Trolls take 13% more damage



Situtations where they are equal

- Shooting with -2 save modifier or more
Same

- Attacks with WS2 or 3, Strength 3 or less
Same



Situations where River Trolls are better

- Attacks with WS 4 or more, Strength 4
Stone Trolls take 11% more damage / River Trolls take 10% less damage

- Attacks with WS2 or 3, Strength 4
Stone Trolls take 25% more damage / River Trolls take 20% less damage

- Attacks with WS1, Strength 3 or less
Stone Trolls take 33% more damage / River Trolls take 25% less damage

- Attacks with WS4+, Strength 5 or more
Stone Trolls take 33% more damage / River Trolls take 25% less damage

- Attacks with WS 2 or 3, Strength 5 or more
Stone Trolls take 50% more damage / River Trolls take 33% less damage

- Attacks with WS1, Strength 4
Stone Trolls take 67% more damage / River Trolls take 40% less damage

- Attacks with WS1, Strength 5 or more
Stone Trolls take 100% more damage / River Trolls take 50% less damage



* it's the equivalent of being a River Troll as opposed to a Stone Troll in the example I used

Malorian
02-09-2011, 17:35
I think you pretty well counter yourself there.

As you can see it's not just like getting a 5+ ward save for free because there are times when the stone troll is the same if not better than the river troll.

And as I have shown, even when they are worse they are not that much worse.


The point of all of this is that stone trolls are not worthless, and if you want them because you like the look of them you can do so knowing they really preform just about as good as river trolls, and if you want to use them tactically you can do so knowing that there are situations where they preform better.

Avian
02-09-2011, 18:31
I think you pretty well counter yourself there.
No, Mal, what I did was give a full and balanced approach. Something you failed to do. :p

Malorian
02-09-2011, 18:49
There was no need to show everything, people already know the obvious.

All I needed to do was go straight to the worst situation of the stone troll and mathematically prove it wasn't as bad as people thuoght.

Avian
02-09-2011, 19:07
Mal, you did not mathematically prove anything. Take it from the maths teacher.

And that wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been.

Malorian
02-09-2011, 19:14
Good lord Avian, why are we still fighting about this?!

People say trolls are the best, and of the rare trolls rivers trolls are best and stone trolls are useless.

Well none of us are fighting over the fact that common trolls are better, we've shown that even against a horde of high strength attacks that the stone trolls would only lose less than 2 wounds more than the river trolls, and that in some cases stone trolls are even better. So obviously stone trolls are not useless and could tactically be better than river trolls.

What else are you possibly trying to drive at?

Are you trying to go to absolute extremes were they are up against WS10 Str10 monsters with hatred, flaming attacks, and heroic killing blow? What's the point?

In game terms WS3-5 and str3-6 is the vast majority your going to see, and we've covered all of it!

If a stone troll killed your sister then I'm sorry, but it's time you look at the math and put away this silly stigma against stone trolls.

Avian
02-09-2011, 22:05
Good lord Avian, why are we still fighting about this?!
Because you don't have the sense to give up.


People say trolls are the best, and of the rare trolls rivers trolls are best and stone trolls are useless.
And they are essentially right.


Well none of us are fighting over the fact that common trolls are better, we've shown that even against a horde of high strength attacks that the stone trolls would only lose less than 2 wounds more than the river trolls, and that in some cases stone trolls are even better. So obviously stone trolls are not useless and could tactically be better than river trolls.
That example you gave isn't the sort of worst-case scenario you claim it to be. Take a horde of 15 Ironguts with the flaming banner, if you wish. You could even throw in some characters.

Thing is that the Stone Trolls will generally take around 25 to 50% MORE damage than River Trolls, for the SAME cost. And that MATTERS in this game of attrition. Saying that 50% more damage doesn't make a difference isn't good tactics. If two units do the same job for the same cost, then the unit that does the job best is useful and the unit that does it the worst is not.

Stone Trolls can't be tactically better than River Trolls except in very specialised cases you aren't likely to see on the tabletop. (Ex: a High Elf archer army with an interest in Fire spells).

Tell people that they should field whichever models they like if they don't particularly care about performance.

Chain
03-09-2011, 14:36
I would have preferred something that has a chance of stopping the effects of all spells on a unit, not just some types of damage. It's probably about 3 times more expensive than it deserves to be for that... although GW seem to have realised their mistake with the mega spells, judging by the Storm of Magic Cataclysms. Very few of them ignore saves, despite being 'much more powerful' than the magic you see in a normal game. (Just FAQ the 'allow no saves of any kind' spells in the BRB, GW. You know you want to.)

Especially the part where. "no save of any kind", "irrisistible force" & "slain outright" is combined :eyebrows:

Doesn't make it better that cheap suicide mages can be pretty successful with this



That's a pretty damn lame way of winning(perhaps instead of the large casting cost such spells should require the mage 1 turn of Focusing power aka a turn where the mage can do nothing, not move, not shoot, not cast spells just focus)

Still not great but would like to see the slain outright replaced by lose D3 or D6 wounds or be allowed some kind of save

stashman
03-09-2011, 21:32
I will try out 6 STONE TROLLS tomorrow against a wood elf army.

Lets see what 5+ save with 4+ regen is worth against S3 (4) bows :D

And against S4 attacks from dryads (still 6+/4+ save)

Will come back and tell how it wen't

stashman
04-09-2011, 17:58
Here is my report from todays game:

Hehehehehehehe!!!

6 Stone Trolls Running forward against wood elf gladeguard! Loads of arrows hitting. 5+ save saves some, but flaming arrows - LOL!!! No regen. Then at closer range - by by trolls, S4.

River trolls should have been killed easier, but today it wasn't the trolls day.