PDA

View Full Version : Monstrous Infantry in 40K?



Chem-Dog
08-03-2012, 01:48
I was flicking through GW's catalogue of big fellas looking for a new and interesting base for Ogryn models and it occurred to me just how many of the 40MM based badasses there are in our fantasy setting cousin.
And that got me thinking. I'm dimly aware that these big guys get their own special rules, though exactly what they are escapes me, but 40K doesn't really, these guys simply get slightly better stats to represent their....bigness.

So here's the question (well, four of them really).
Would 40K benefit from a big-guy category that's not quite "Monstrous Creature" but definitely a bit more meaty than the average grunt?
Who would be a contender for such consideration?
What special perks could it represent over and above what your standard trooper can pull out of the hat?
What new units could such a unit classification generate?


Needless to say I'm all for it in principal, anything for my beloved Oggies :D
What say you chaps?!

Gaargod
08-03-2012, 03:00
Yes, end of day it would be helpful.

It would stop having problems like terminators in rhinos/land raiders or grotesques in raiders. Just say something like MI are bulky, and thus take up two spaces per one, rather than repeating that rule many times. Maybe add a transport rule that doesn't allow bulky units in them.

It also stops arguments about base size (for unreleased models) - if its a MI, it goes on the bigger base. End of discussion.


That's not getting in to all the funky new stuff you could add. Off hand, something like impact hits on the charge would be cool...

carldooley
08-03-2012, 04:18
find another name. we already have MI. they are. . . Starship Troopers!!!

seriously, there are some that it seems to be meant for right off the bat. . . Nobz, Wraithguard, and Nid Warriors.

Charistoph
08-03-2012, 04:36
Off the top of my head I can think of the following that could qualify:

Ogryn
Terminators
Mega Armored Nobs
Tyranid Warriors and Shrikes
Tyrant/Hive Guard
Crisis Suits
Broadside Suits
Hazard Suits
Grotesques
Wraithguard
Thundersquirrels if they weren't already cavalry
Necrons... I'm not familiar with to start guessing, but maybe Destroyers, Lychguard, and Praetorians?

But a lot would have to deal with what they could do, bonuses, disadvantages, etc, to be clear on its worth. Count double for Transport space (where applicable) would be the obvious start, but what else to bonus with? Relentless with Rapid-Fire? Reduced Cover Save options? An incomplete Eternal Warrior, say D3 Wounds from 2xT weapons instead of insta-gib?

Another factor to consider would be movement, for example, Shrikes are currently Jump Infantry, and Crisis and Hazard Suits are Jet Pack Infantry, and if given a new unit type, would need proper rules to handle their new status, or have them tacked on much like Vehicles have Walker and Skimmer attached.

Laughingmonk
08-03-2012, 04:40
I was flicking through GW's catalogue of big fellas looking for a new and interesting base for Ogryn models and it occurred to me just how many of the 40MM based badasses there are in our fantasy setting cousin.
And that got me thinking. I'm dimly aware that these big guys get their own special rules, though exactly what they are escapes me, but 40K doesn't really, these guys simply get slightly better stats to represent their....bigness.

So here's the question (well, four of them really).
Would 40K benefit from a big-guy category that's not quite "Monstrous Creature" but definitely a bit more meaty than the average grunt?
Who would be a contender for such consideration?
What special perks could it represent over and above what your standard trooper can pull out of the hat?
What new units could such a unit classification generate?


Needless to say I'm all for it in principal, anything for my beloved Oggies :D
What say you chaps?!

Yes, absolutely. Monstrous infantry in 40k have serious balance issues. They are essentially redundant in most armies, barring some special ability. For instance, consider the difference between Tyranid warriors and genestealers rules wise. There are no differences, they are treated exactly the same! The difference is that multiwound infantry also suffer from ID, and gain minimal tangible benefits.

Battleworthy Arts
08-03-2012, 05:38
I like the idea, a generalized set of drawbacks and benefits to 40mm infantry would be good.

Oppressor
08-03-2012, 06:00
So here's the question (well, four of them really).
Would 40K benefit from a big-guy category that's not quite "Monstrous Creature" but definitely a bit more meaty than the average grunt?
Who would be a contender for such consideration?
What special perks could it represent over and above what your standard trooper can pull out of the hat?
What new units could such a unit classification generate?

I don't see how it is necessary. Toughness, feel no pain, or even eternal warrior can easily differentiate. The problem is GW not doing so. Then to add more new special perk rules to rules that still need to have their core fixed is bad.

Chapters Unwritten
08-03-2012, 06:04
Right now the only thing that makes an MC different from infantry is the following:
- Stats.
- All attacks ignore armor.
- 2d6 Armor Penetration.
- Different cover rules.

Otherwise, MCs basically ARE infantry. I see no reason to add a middle class between the two (that will ultimately share none of the traits of either, probably). Could you do some interesting stuff with it? Sure. Could you standardize some minor stuff? Sure. Necessary, though? Not really, IMO.

Bunnahabhain
08-03-2012, 10:31
I have a 'fewer, clearer rules for better gameplay' version of 40 k underway.

One of the things I have there are 4 unit classes:
Man sized, heavy infantry size, Vehicle size, Super heavy size,
and 4 movement classes:
walking, tracked, wheeled or skimmer

I was looking at handling heavy infantry mainly as vehicles, so getting perks relating to moving and firing weapons etc, use a modified version of the vehicle damage table* for when the suffer damage, but can take damage from small arms, unlike most vehicles.

* uses a D12, needs a 12+ to destroy a vehicle, but you have modifiers for existing damage and the shot in question. It's simple and works.

Chapters Unwritten
08-03-2012, 13:49
It's also ultimately the same.

A vehicle infantry model with an AV of, say, 8. A Terminator, perhaps. When you shoot him with a bolter, you need a 4 or better to damage them.
The same exact dice roll as when you need to wound a Toughness 4 model with a bolter. So I would consider setting up a system where such models were treated like vehicles as a waste of time; AV mechanics exist to make it so high strength weapons have a harder time hitting vehicles (Strength 10 vs. AV14 = 4+ needed, versus strength 10 vs. Toughness 8 = Easy to wound).

No offense, but it sounds to me like you added extra mechanics to something GW accomplishes with one D6 roll, personally. The idea of benefits and drawbacks for these models isn't a bad one but I think they are too similar to infantry to start adding damage tables and unique dice rolls to them.

One thing to note is that a lot of models in this particular category are missing a little ooomph, however. Something done to this would rework terminators, Warriors, and several other pieces that people are wanting to see touched up.

ColShaw
08-03-2012, 14:10
I don't think it's necessary.

cynic
08-03-2012, 15:24
An entirely new race of "giants" could be quite interesting.

ChrisMurray
08-03-2012, 15:52
Whilst I don't think it's necessary, it could be useful and I wouldn't mind it. Rather than MI call them Heavy infantry. You could shake up the whole game, having light and heavy versions of all the classes of unit available in the game each with advantages and dissadvantages over each other to make each class useful. Maybe bring back the movement statistic too to help further differentiate each class.

Isstvan
08-03-2012, 16:06
Off the top of my head I can think of the following that could qualify:

Necrons... I'm not familiar with to start guessing, but maybe Destroyers, Lychguard, and Praetorians?



Tomb Blades are the only thing 'Monstrous Infantry' sized that qualifies for Transports, and they take up two spaces. Everything else is far less bulky than would be required to take up 2 transport slots.

self biased
08-03-2012, 16:51
a better idea would be to make monstrous creature a special rule rather than a unit type.

Kevlar
08-03-2012, 17:03
40k isn't really set up for monstrous infantry all over. Fantasy battle has ways of dealing with them as there are lots of multi-wound weapons or spells. Almost everything in 40k only does a single wound, though some super strong weapons do cause instant death. Not many though for toughness 5 guys which most monstrous stuff should be.

Project2501
08-03-2012, 20:02
Not necessary in the slightest. Will cause more problems.

Theocracity
08-03-2012, 20:19
I would save the Monstrous tag for infantry that is suitably Monstrous. Nobs and Terminators shouldn't count for this, as they're just Orks or Marines with bigger muscles or better armor. Ogryn, Tyranid Warriors / Raveners or Grotesques would count.

It would also need to have a rules system to support it, though. Hopefully 6th will give them a place, which could make things more interesting.

theunwantedbeing
08-03-2012, 21:06
Of course!
Ideally we'de see troops have a unit type, a movement rule(if it differs from the norm) and we'de have a rule stating whether it was Larger than normal, Monstrous or Gargantuan.

So Marines would be infantry, Marines with backpacks would be jump infantry.
Ogryns would be large infantry, Ogryns with backpacks(hell yeah) would be Large jump infantry.
A Hive Tyrant would be Monstrous infantry, a Hive Tyrant with wings would be Monstrous Jump Infantry.
etc etc

Hugely simple.
Large infantry could simply take up extra slots in a transport and certain types of terrain would not affect them, similarly getting tank shocked would work slightly differently or some such.

MajorWesJanson
09-03-2012, 02:53
Add Heavy Infantry as a category.
Heavy Infantry are on 40mm bases, have relentless, and cannot sweeping advance or be swept.
Remove Jump and Jet infantry as unit types and make them movement modifiers like how Jetbikes are a modifier of Bikes.

Then you have Infantry on 25mm bases, Heavy Infantry on 40mm bases, bikes on bike bases, and only cavalry/beasts as a problem still.

Chapters Unwritten
09-03-2012, 15:01
As many have said, it's not necessary, but Wes' way to do it would be the cleanest, I think.

Laughingmonk
10-03-2012, 01:59
Right now the only thing that makes an MC different from infantry is the following:
- Stats.
- All attacks ignore armor.
- 2d6 Armor Penetration.
- Different cover rules.

Otherwise, MCs basically ARE infantry. I see no reason to add a middle class between the two (that will ultimately share none of the traits of either, probably). Could you do some interesting stuff with it? Sure. Could you standardize some minor stuff? Sure. Necessary, though? Not really, IMO.

Plus move through cover.
And different shooting rules. (relentless and can fire two weapons).


That's actually quite a few differences.

Right now, there are NO differences on monstrous infantry. Their stats are similar to normal infantry. They cost way more. They are generally not more effective offensively than regular infantry, and include significant drawbacks defensively. In fact, the only reason they are used is when their stats are absurdly high (S/T 5), have an enormous amount of special abilities (Paladins, crisis suits), or have 3++ saves. Otherwise, they either die from one plasma shot or get immediately ID'd, because it is efficient and very practical to shoot them with such weapons, as they are also frequently very expensive.

In other words, they have no real role. They are not stronger, faster, or tougher than regular infantry. They are just more expensive and more vulnerable. Give them a reason to be used aside from access to certain specialist wargear. Bikes have turbo boosting. Beasts and jump infantry move faster. Vehicles and MC's have a million things. Monstrous infantry just suffer from wound allocation and instant death rules.


Personally, I just think they should scrap the 2x str ID rule period. Nobody uses combat characters without EW, and everything else is just immune to it in one form or another. It makes it very, very difficult to effectively balance multi wound infantry when so many weapons exist that nullify their advantage.

-Loki-
10-03-2012, 06:39
In other words, they have no real role. They are not stronger, faster, or tougher than regular infantry. They are just more expensive and more vulnerable. Give them a reason to be used aside from access to certain specialist wargear.

In general, they have something over infantry outside of wargear. Look at Tyranids - their 'monstrous infantry' are stronger and more resiliant through better armour, more wounds and higher toughness than regular infantry. Terminators, again, are more resiliant than regular Space Marines with better armour and a native invulnerable save. Ork Mega armoured Nobz are the same. Ogryns are quite a bit tougher and stronger than Guardsmen - nearly double their strength and toughness.

Models on 40mm bases already have stats that set them apart from from regular infantry. They don't need a new unit type for monstrous infantry. The main issue is the amount of anti tank weapons that can be packed into an army often makes their resilience (which is generally effective against small arms) a non-issue.

itcamefromthedeep
10-03-2012, 07:33
Relentless (move and fire heavy weapons) and bulky (counts as 2 models in a transport). There you have your monstrous infantry special rules.

big squig
10-03-2012, 07:43
I'm not too keen on adding even more special rules to the game just to make things more special...

Chem-Dog
11-03-2012, 03:27
Add Heavy Infantry as a category.

This is nice and simple, having separate categories of types of troops would be a good way of doing it.


Then you have Infantry on 25mm bases, Heavy Infantry on 40mm bases, bikes on bike bases, and only cavalry/beasts as a problem still.

Not necessarily, look at the bases the Thunderwolves (or Juggers) are on, I'd say both of those groups qualify in stature, at least, to be considered as "Heavy Cavalry".



they either die from one plasma shot or get immediately ID'd, because it is efficient and very practical to shoot them with such weapons, as they are also frequently very expensive.

Especially true of Ogryn actually. The 2-for-1 on transports hurts them too as you're forced to have a small but somewhat mobile and protected unit OR a large and unwieldy unit that has to slog across the battlefield for three turns soaking up hits they can't survive in the hope of there being enough of them to make a dent when they finally get up close and personal.
And Ripperguns just don't do it against any army other than IG.


In other words, they have no real role. They are not stronger, faster, or tougher than regular infantry. They are just more expensive and more vulnerable. Give them a reason to be used aside from access to certain specialist wargear. Bikes have turbo boosting. Beasts and jump infantry move faster. Vehicles and MC's have a million things. Monstrous infantry just suffer from wound allocation and instant death rules.

Agreed. Weirdly, the only rules tweaks I can think of that fit this "Heavy/Monstrous Infantry" category are all quite nerfy:- All dice based movement rolls subtract 1 from the result, a reduction on cover saves, impaired/disabled sweeping advance, taking up more space on transports and so on...
I don't think they should automatically be relentless as this would often prove to be redundant, most units that would fit in this category can do quite well with Assault weapons anyway unless relentless was suitably different.
Firing multiple weapons MIGHT be handy to one or two who fit this group but most tend only to be hefting one shooter anyway.
Any kind of Charge bonus begins to step on the toes of stuff like Furious Charge which already occurs in a few of these guys (Ogryn and Grotesques jump to mind here).

IDK, there's got to be something that this category could do to make them more useful (unless the handicaps they're given contribute to a decent points reduction.



Personally, I just think they should scrap the 2x str ID rule period. Nobody uses combat characters without EW, and everything else is just immune to it in one form or another. It makes it very, very difficult to effectively balance multi wound infantry when so many weapons exist that nullify their advantage.

A very good point actually. ID is a blanket rule that does tend to hurt multi-wound guys very badly, it's the fact that it's going to always be wounding on a 2 if it can cause ID.
If ID were utterly detached from the S=Tx2 formula (perhaps replaced by a weapon rule of the same name which could be assigned to certain really killy weapons, and sniper rifles) it'd see an end to this reliance on EW and make Multi wound models more interesting.
Alternatively, keep in the S=Tx2 system but require a 6 to wound to trigger it, that Battlecannon could well kill your SM captain outright but it needs to hit him square in the jaw to do so....


In general, they have something over infantry outside of wargear. Look at Tyranids - their 'monstrous infantry' are stronger and more resiliant through better armour, more wounds and higher toughness than regular infantry. Terminators, again, are more resiliant than regular Space Marines with better armour and a native invulnerable save. Ork Mega armoured Nobz are the same. Ogryns are quite a bit tougher and stronger than Guardsmen - nearly double their strength and toughness.

Models on 40mm bases already have stats that set them apart from from regular infantry. They don't need a new unit type for monstrous infantry. The main issue is the amount of anti tank weapons that can be packed into an army often makes their resilience (which is generally effective against small arms) a non-issue.

You're right, to a degree. The problem is definitely something to do with the proliferation of Anti Armour weapons, Antitank NEEDS to be high Strength to damage vehicles in accordance to how the rules work and they tend to be on the lower end of the AP scale because that tends to fit with the idea that a weapon that can punch a hole in a tank can be relied upon to make a mockery of most personal armour.
So we have three choices, Alter how penetrating a Tank is calculated, reboot the entire Armour-save system OR perk Heavy/Monstrous Infantry a little to make them work in the game.

magnum12
11-03-2012, 05:37
It is a good idea, but trying to fully implement it could be a problem. The following needs to happen for Heavy Infantry to be properly balanced.

1. Revert wound allocation rules back to 4th. Multi-wound models are the prime abusers of a rule that has been a tumor upon 40k since day 1 of 5th edition.

2. Change instant death to "inflict d3 wounds instead". 2 wound doods will still likely die, but HQs will have a decent chance of surviving.

3. Make them all Relentless.

4. Give a +1 bonus (maxes out at 6 anyway) to difficult terrain rolls as it represents them simply overpowering the obstacle but not to the degree that a proper "monster" does.

5. Change Fearless so that if a fearless unit loses, they take a leadership test, then make saves depending on the degree of failure. Inspired by "Mutants and Masterminds" where bad stuff that happens as a result of a failed saving throw or skill check is not binary like a tradtional pen and paper RPG, but rather based on "degrees of failure" i.e. how badly you failed (a botched save or check that was a near miss only gives a minor penalty).

Socaddict
11-03-2012, 12:04
My instant thought was giving them rending unless they have a special close combat weapon. A sort of MC AP light, and makes them a bit better in CC.

Charistoph
11-03-2012, 18:52
3. Make them all Relentless.

This might may be a little much. Relentless with Rapid-Fire maybe?

Radium
11-03-2012, 19:28
I don't really think it's necessary, but if some rules would be standardized (two slots in transports and such) it would help clean up unit entries slightly.

itcamefromthedeep
11-03-2012, 21:16
This might may be a little much. Relentless with Rapid-Fire maybe?
Which unit would it be a bit much on? Ogryn, Grotesques and Tyranid models all bring assault weapons. Terminators, Meganobz and Obliterators already have the relentless rule. Spawn and most medium daemons don't have guns at all. Most Tau battlesuits are relentless on account of the jet pack. I don't think Warbosses get rapid fire weapons.

Relentless would be a big deal for Broadsides, I guess. Thunderwolf cavalry might get some help if you put them in that category.

Make monstrous infantry relentless and bulky. They effectively have those rules already.

grey knights rock
11-03-2012, 23:42
I think that this is a good idea. My prime exaples is bloodcrushers. The mounts are like 10 feet tall in game plus the hight of an eight foot tall bloodletter. I think they should have something cool going for them. What comes to my mind is that they are rending on a roll of 4+. This way they are not great against tanks like monstrous creatures, but they still wount get bogged down by a drednought that is shorter than they are. Just my 2 cents.

Rhaivaen
25-03-2013, 00:18
Models on 40mm bases already have stats that set them apart from from regular infantry. They don't need a new unit type for monstrous infantry. The main issue is the amount of anti tank weapons that can be packed into an army often makes their resilience (which is generally effective against small arms) a non-issue.

^what he says, unfortunately.. A.T. weapons kill multi wound inf to much...

xavos
25-03-2013, 10:37
Big base infantry/cavalry generally have beefier strength, toughness and wounds compared to standard infantry, which would normally be enough except for instant death attacks. Further classification is not necessary. Anyway, we may well see units of monstrous infantry in the future (eg Carnifexes).

I think its more important that those units get suitable roles within their army lists. If those units (notably Ogryns and Tyranid Warriors) were given rules and wargear that made them valuable assets then this wouldn't be an issue.

Azulthar
25-03-2013, 11:11
We could give them AP5 by default, as well as the Very Bulky rule....

Neh, not worth it.


Edit: I do agree most "Monstrous Infantry" should be buffed though, but that's a separate issue.

raygunsand rocketeers
25-03-2013, 22:57
I like the idea in general.....
but what about the other way as well....
whynot a DI or diminutive Infantry as well.....
squats, ratling (hobbit snipers), snotlings/ gretchlings, goblins etc.....

3 sizes of infantry.... Small, standard, and large/ heavy
(assuming that elves/ eldar are in same catagory as regular sized humies...)

JWhex
26-03-2013, 06:16
Not really needed and would actually be a constraint because then everything on that base size has a particular rule. Better to use the USRs more effectively.