PDA

View Full Version : Are more big monsters better for Warhammer?



Lord Dan
17-08-2012, 03:47
With several 8th edition army books behind us, one trend that has been obvious to everyone has been the influx of big monsters, big chariot-type constructs, and big howdah-armed gribblies into the new releases. To name a few off the top of the dome:

*Daemons: Soulgrinder
VC: Coven throne/mortis engine
Empire: Hurricanium/luminark
Ogres: Stonehorn
TK: Warsphynx/necrosphynx
O&G: Arachnarok

*Sort of new

Given all of this, please take a moment to answer the question, above.

Rosstifer
17-08-2012, 04:24
I like having monsters in my Fantasy game, and so far, all those that you listed are nice and balanced. A pity they aren't seen around here too much, due to Empire, Dwarf and Ogre players with a cannon fetish, but that's more a problem with Canons being too good (Mainly Ironblasters, at least Empire cannons are appropriately costed...) not Monsters being poor. I like variety on the battle field, and big Monsters striding between regiments of troops really looks awesome.

m1acca1551
17-08-2012, 04:55
From a visual and fluff point of view they are fantastic and makes fantasy more fantastical... i personally think there is nothing cooler than seeing an empire army led by lord on griffon etc... gameplay wise they are very balanced but... there are way to many counters to them to make them a definitive choice unless you know what your opponent is taking.

My main gripe with monsters is with the rule design team and the fact that they are at odds with the GW sales team, big monsters creates income, yet poorly written laser guided cannons kill off my feature unit turn 1 meaning my investment is made redundant and rarely see the light of day and i then hesitate to buy the next amazingly awesome monster created.... makes no sense.

danny-d-b
17-08-2012, 05:15
I'd say more enjoyable

yes I like the set up of infanty strideing to meet each other and cavalry jostlerling for flanking postions, but the monsters add something that bit diffrent, and you have to take a diffrent mind set to them rather than just hitting them with a hoard of halbaders with a warrior priest and grounding something down

Nymie_the_Pooh
17-08-2012, 08:11
I voted more enjoyable. One of the big selling points in 40K for getting new players was that depending on their army they could buy eleven guys then pick whatever toys they want to add to it. For years every codex has had some sort of tank or other big thing that players wanted and due to the structure of the game they could have near instant gratification. While Fantasy has a larger initial cost before the fun toys can be added monsters still provide that carrot to help see new players through that initial purchase and onto the table. I started right as sixth edition was coming out, and some armies didn't really have that one big cool model and I would see those armies less. I don't know if it was because they didn't have that one big over-the-top-looking model, but it probably didn't help.

I like infantry a lot, but there is something nice about having a monster or two as a centerpiece for an army. It's so much easier to put that extra bit of work into one big model than to spread that work out amongst the army.

Urgat
17-08-2012, 08:18
Yes, they're great, because they're not auto-include. They're like in the fluff, they exist, they might appear, but they won't necessarily do so. This is great. Now if only wizards were the same...

Sheena Easton
17-08-2012, 09:23
They are good as they do enrich the Warhammer background somewhat though at times they seem shoehorned in. I'd prefer some more options for "classic" Warhammer monsters (outside of SoM of course) instead of them only being available to one or two armies as mounts. I want my unridden Hippogriff!

Dark Aly
17-08-2012, 12:00
Yes, they're great, because they're not auto-include. They're like in the fluff, they exist, they might appear, but they won't necessarily do so. This is great. Now if only wizards were the same...

Exactly- I do wish wizards weren't mandatory

I do like seeing monsters somtimes which is why I'll only field one cannon in my empire or dwarf armies unless I have a theme (nuln artillery train)

Haravikk
17-08-2012, 14:02
It's nice to have more big centre-piece models, as it adds variety to armies, and in spite of the increasing numbers of them it's not as if any monsters or big contraptions are unstoppable in 8th edition; a decent infantry block can absorb and overcome just about anything you throw at them if handled and supported properly.

I think monsters in general are more fun in 8th as you actually need to think about what you're trying to do with them, rather than just throw them at a unit and hope that doing so results in profit, i.e - like cavalry they're at their best supporting other things rather than going it alone. You can include them in your lists just because you want to, but to get the most out of them you have to at least think about what goes well with them.


On the other hand, I'm dreading the Dwarf update in case they get something awful shoe-horned in as a monster equivalent. But in general there are no recent monsters that I dislike; some I don't like sure, but none that I can't stand the sight of. I find the Thundertusk is probably my vote for the stupidest looking so far, though it's also a great monster rules-wise. But as a general rule any monster that's supposed to be a result of a harsh climate yet looks as if it is completely incapable of feeding itself has gone wrong somewhere!

Boreas_NL
17-08-2012, 14:28
I voted 'Much more enjoyable'... Gives my Cannon something to shoot at:D I must say I thoroughly dislike most of the latest Empire additions (the Wizard Mobiles are just silly and not even remotely interesting rule-wise) but I do like the new Gryphon!

eldargal
17-08-2012, 14:34
WFB has always had big monsters, the difference is now each army is getting some and WFB is finally being given the 40k treatment with larger plastic kits for each army. It isn't new, its just an evolution. Until we get dragons rivalling the two foot long Imperial Citadel Dragon of 1982 nothing is unprecedented here as far as I'm concerned.

It's also very good, especially with scrolls of binding. Variety is good, more monsters means more variety, scrolls of binding means more variety of monsters in different armies.

GiraffeCrab
17-08-2012, 14:44
I love what they have done so far with the big monsters. I did always find it a bit frustrating when the only big monsters were dragons, greater deamons, stegadons, giants and not really much else. I am finding that it is a good way to add more flavour to an army, my tomb kings were very pleased. Although I do worry that it will go over board, i am very sceptical about how bretonians will fare with this whole monstrous something + monster trend that has appeared.

gorblud
17-08-2012, 15:34
I love seeing big monsters and chariots on the battlefield, it's a shame cannons are so powerful against them though :/

I play dwarves almost every time I play (we're a few friends who get together) and his 120p cannon rips 300+ points models apart on turn 1-2, which is really sad since it would be fun to try them out in combat once in a while. I bring them anyway though since we all make lists more towards all-comers instead of just eachother.

Djekar
17-08-2012, 15:35
I love the current trend in big monsters. I'm hoping to see more as the edition progresses.

eldargal
17-08-2012, 15:39
What is going on? First the Storm of Magic thread is overwhelmingly positive, now this is overwhelmingly positive. What is wrong with you people?! This is Warseer, not a tea party*.:p

*The good kind of tea party.

GiraffeCrab
17-08-2012, 16:08
What is going on? First the Storm of Magic thread is overwhelmingly positive, now this is overwhelmingly positive. What is wrong with you people?! This is Warseer, not a tea party*.:p

*The good kind of tea party.

What can we say, it takes allot of effort to complain all the time ... and you know sipping tea is a fer better option :p

Drasanil
17-08-2012, 16:10
But but...I wanted to take my Warhammer back. Down with Barracks O'cannon and socialist artillery panels!


(Like the new monsters, very much dislike lazer guided cannons making them an endangered species.)

Korraz
17-08-2012, 16:35
Because Warseer isn't the doomsaying negativism machine it's often made out to be. Most of the time, it's actually extremely positive.
But the very second you voice some concern or critic, it gets blown out of proportion and you get stamped as Geedub Hator and Whineseerite, and your opinion is dismissed as typical Whineseer attitude.

Urgat
17-08-2012, 16:39
Actually, I think it's because few of the grumpy old-timers have posted yet :p

eldargal
17-08-2012, 16:57
You do realise I was being sarcastic and joking, right? In general Warseer is quite positive, so long as you steer clear of GW General.

Because Warseer isn't the doomsaying negativism machine it's often made out to be. Most of the time, it's actually extremely positive.
But the very second you voice some concern or critic, it gets blown out of proportion and you get stamped as Geedub Hator and Whineseerite, and your opinion is dismissed as typical Whineseer attitude.

theunwantedbeing
17-08-2012, 17:03
Yes, they act as big centrepieces for the army which is a good thing as it adds to the visual spectacle of the game.

Urgat
17-08-2012, 17:14
By the way, I was wondering, are the new VC giant flying chariot things popular choices, or are they often left on the shelf?

Korraz
17-08-2012, 17:19
You do realise I was being sarcastic and joking, right? In general Warseer is quite positive, so long as you steer clear of GW General.
With the geneneral attitude and the limitations of the internet, it was hard to tell.

shelfunit.
17-08-2012, 17:27
I was one of the sad old gits that voted "much less enjoyable", although on after thought I would upgrade that to just plain "less enjoyable". My reasoning was nothing to do with monsters themselves, just the models. Within that it isn't the sculpting quality of the monsters - although saying that the manticore and Chimera are shockingly poor sculpts and the cockatrice is not far behind - it is a combination of the large size of the models that (IMO) makes them look overly toy like and they take up far too great a fotprint on the game board - like a large chess piece - and the fact the rules with True Line of Sight mean that that these things can never be hidden by anything (and this is coming from a primarily Dwarf player). Other people obviously love them and that's their perogative, I don't.

eldargal
17-08-2012, 17:50
I thought the poking out tongue smily made it fairly obvious I wasn't being serious. Nevermind though, nwo you know.:)

With the geneneral attitude and the limitations of the internet, it was hard to tell.

Shelfunit, out of curiosity are you basing that opinion on any personal contact with the models in question? I ask becauee I had a similar eaction to the Beastman big gribblies until my brother bought a couple and painted them. The eavy metal paintjob makes them look quite toylike, but they really look quite monstrous when given a better treatment. In my opinion at any rate. Couldn't disagree more about the cockatrice, but I agree the chimera and manticore are not the best GW monsters (though again not quite as bad with a good paintjob).

shelfunit.
17-08-2012, 18:59
Shelfunit, out of curiosity are you basing that opinion on any personal contact with the models in question? I ask becauee I had a similar eaction to the Beastman big gribblies until my brother bought a couple and painted them. The eavy metal paintjob makes them look quite toylike, but they really look quite monstrous when given a better treatment. In my opinion at any rate. Couldn't disagree more about the cockatrice, but I agree the chimera and manticore are not the best GW monsters (though again not quite as bad with a good paintjob).

I haven't seen the beastman griblies up close, but I have (and I still shudder at the horror*) painted up 3 chimeras, a cockatrice, and a sphinx (and a Hydra, but that isn't that big). The cockatrice (I wish I could shorten that, but oh well) I think is just the pose, but it's also made of that damn awful FC rubbish, which doesn't help. The sphinx was wonderful, but I think could have been 1/3 smaller. I can understand GW being able to make these things big now because they can put them in plastic, but I just don't see the need.

*shudder of horror only applies to the chimeras.

Urgat
17-08-2012, 20:24
Bah, you just say that because your shelves are too small :p

RaShondala
17-08-2012, 20:28
I voted more enjoyable.

I've always imagined an army being destroyed, and the remaining soldiers on the winning side thinking "Thank the merciful Lord it's over" and then turning to walk away. And then they glance back over their shoulders, look up the hill, and see a herd of Stegodons trampling their way over, to finish the job.

Crube
17-08-2012, 20:48
Overall I think they are a positive for the game - they really add the 'Fantasy' aspect to the game and generally (with a few exceptions ;)) look really cool...

Shame they often die in game pretty quickly, but in my mind they look damn cool, and that is the main reason I paint and play :D

shelfunit.
17-08-2012, 21:01
Bah, you just say that because your shelves are too small :p

It's not how big they are, it's what you store on them that counts...:shifty:

Lord Inquisitor
17-08-2012, 21:03
Yep, it's fantasy battles, I want to see big monster gribblies on the table.

Now if they could just make them all worth their points... the trend of big monsters in 8th has shown distinct correlation with "new units that aren't worth taking".

DaemonReign
17-08-2012, 21:16
I'm in the middle of this one.
We got some big kits that are plain awesome: Arachnarok, and I really like the Ogre Mammoth and to some extent also the Exalted Seeker Chariot.
Then we got kits that should have been a lot better: The TK-stuff, the Empire WizMobiles.
Then we got the horrible ideas and tacky sculpts: SoulGrinders in Fantasy and most of those SoM "toy-looking" plastic monsters.

Just my two cents. I have nothing against the basic concept of centerpieces though. So for me it's "neither better or worse".

Gradek
17-08-2012, 21:17
I think the big monsters are good for warhammer and most are fine just as they are (the 8th edition ones anyways). Taking a big, game changing monster should involve some risk (which it does) and not be an auto unit deleter.

Cap'n Facebeard
18-08-2012, 07:41
After some deliberation I voted More Enjoyable, mostly due to the counts as / scratchbuild fun that I can have.
The only negativity I have is about how some of these things jar with my suspension of disbelief.
Giant Chaos monster? Ok, its Chaos.
Giant dwarf cannon the size of a house? Why would a Dwarf make that? Where's the logic? Its like saying if I really want to chop up my vegetables, I should use a kitchen knife the size of my car.

Urgat
18-08-2012, 09:18
Giant Chaos monster? Ok, its Chaos.
Giant dwarf cannon the size of a house? Why would a Dwarf make that? Where's the logic?
The answer is in the first sentence I quoted and that you wrote yourself?

eldargal
18-08-2012, 09:42
Fair enough. I'm not sure it is new though, I mean I have some big dragons and whatnot in metal from the 80s as do my brothers. The GW things are still smaller, just in plastic. If they had the technology to do what we can do now in the 80s we would have seen jsut as many big plastic kits. I really don't think it is a bad thing. Still a long, long way from the dragon I mentioned already which dwarfs any of GWs plastic kits.

I haven't seen the beastman griblies up close, but I have (and I still shudder at the horror*) painted up 3 chimeras, a cockatrice, and a sphinx (and a Hydra, but that isn't that big). The cockatrice (I wish I could shorten that, but oh well) I think is just the pose, but it's also made of that damn awful FC rubbish, which doesn't help. The sphinx was wonderful, but I think could have been 1/3 smaller. I can understand GW being able to make these things big now because they can put them in plastic, but I just don't see the need.

*shudder of horror only applies to the chimeras.

Cap'n Facebeard
19-08-2012, 04:58
The answer is in the first sentence I quoted and that you wrote yourself?

Not sure I get you here. All this is going to be subjective viewpoints, of course. But to me personally, the forces of Order even in the Warhammer world should, you know, follow some kind of order. Fair enough huge Chaos monster. Fair enough giant Dragon. Fair enough huge magic altar, etc etc. But taking the time to build a giganto cannon that, really, is only going to shoot at one thing? Its not a nuclear bomb. Its a giant cannon. Why not build 50 smaller cannons and shoot 50 different things? I just personally find it jarring.

Vandur Last
19-08-2012, 05:48
I like them so long as they don't have regeneration. It doesn't help that the main two regen monsters are overly brutal in combat. I'm looking ant you Abom and Hydra.
The stuff from 8th Ed books seems real nice though.

eldargal
19-08-2012, 08:17
It may be jarring but it is based on reality. In the 15th and 16th centuries there were cannon so large they could only fire one shot an hour. They were generally used against fortifications for obvious reasons, but they could also be used against attacking armies in some cases.

Not sure I get you here. All this is going to be subjective viewpoints, of course. But to me personally, the forces of Order even in the Warhammer world should, you know, follow some kind of order. Fair enough huge Chaos monster. Fair enough giant Dragon. Fair enough huge magic altar, etc etc. But taking the time to build a giganto cannon that, really, is only going to shoot at one thing? Its not a nuclear bomb. Its a giant cannon. Why not build 50 smaller cannons and shoot 50 different things? I just personally find it jarring.

8m/27ft long Ottoman bombard c1450:
148516
148517

shelfunit.
19-08-2012, 08:24
If I recall there was a film about the Spanish civil war and there was a cannon that was ridiculously (almost to GW levels) big in it. Am I mad, or did that happen?

EDIT - clearly I am mad, the spanish civil war being around WW2 in time lines. But I'm certain there was a film that was historically based with a massive cannon. Again - am I mad?

EDIT 2: I am not mad!!!!! "The pride and the passion" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050858/) (1957) set in Spain with Carry Grant and (bizzarely) Frank Sinatra, avec giant cannon...148518

Urgat
19-08-2012, 09:37
Not sure I get you here. All this is going to be subjective viewpoints, of course. But to me personally, the forces of Order even in the Warhammer world should, you know, follow some kind of order. Fair enough huge Chaos monster. Fair enough giant Dragon. Fair enough huge magic altar, etc etc. But taking the time to build a giganto cannon that, really, is only going to shoot at one thing? Its not a nuclear bomb. Its a giant cannon. Why not build 50 smaller cannons and shoot 50 different things? I just personally find it jarring.

Because in both fluff and art, there's monsters so big a regular cannon would do nothing to them. You've got to remember our models, even the current big plastic kits, are often smaller than what they portray. I remember the description of a dragon in the battle Book (5th ed BRB was actually two BRB, there aws the rulebook and the battlebook, the later had all the fluff, pictures, bestiary etc), and it was describing some dragon who'se head was big as a house and body big as a ship. What can even a dozen regular cannons do against such beast?