Making mounting a monster beneficial

[Kayosiv]

The problem is with the base rules. You can keep your monster behind your lines and it can still die to cannon fire. The fact that "cover" only lowers BS is.....wells its bs.

Ha, clever. It does indeed make no sense that cannonballs are so accurate, especially when considering bolt throwers and the like miss approximately half the time.

That's what cavalry units are for. Charge with a cavalry unit AND a monster to the same unit. If their champion issues a challenge, the cavalry champion accepts it. And 5 knights are enough to cover a good portion of the enemy front's unit without a big investment of points. A musician and a standard bearer helps too: the musician balances the fight in case it becomes a draw, and the standard bearer gives a point of CR, wich is good.

While this is completely true, you wouldn't need to do this if there was no character on top of the monster. If the rider is necessitating more points and units be spent to make his monster as viable as it would be if he was NOT riding it at all, there's a problem with the rules. On a side note, I frequently play vampire counts with a Zombie Dragon, and use units of dire wolves with a champion for this exact purpose.

Hell fricking yes to the unridden carnosaurs.

Amen.

Zabousta is entirely correct. Cannons with a carriage basically cannot be 'aimed', in the meaningful sense, very quickly at all. You have to wheel the whole damn carriage around, which is rather heavy when it has a (boiling hot! To the 'flesh sizzlingly' hot stage when it's fired several times) cannon on top of it, and even altering the elevation is rather slow. The idea you're hitting a dragon flying at full speed, weaving as it goes, is ludicrous.

This is a good point, but I'm not sure where you draw the line. Flying things? Fast things? While I agree that it makes little sense for a cannon to hit a flying Griffon, are dire wolves as hard to hit because they're "fast?" That's a really tough one to call. Being fast generally makes you more resistant to cannons in of itself because you can get into combat faster, I'm not sure there needs to be any double dipping there.

As a side note: To make carnosaurs, currently, viable, you'd have to be giving them Large Target rule (was great not having it in 7th, but now it's a pain), 3+ scaly skin, Ws5 (at the very least), A5 (again, at least) and maybe up their Initiative to 3 (or W to 6). And probably still lower their price. I like to think of them as direct equivalents to dragons in terms of size and ferociousness. GW really needs to drop the 'Is it a dragon? No? Make it much worse then!' attitude towards scaly monsters.
I love my beastie, but he's just so inefficient. When I consider I could be most of the way to buying another oldblood with gear by dropping him... It's not really a contest is it?

I could easily see the Carnosaur with a 3+ save (it actually IS wearing armor if you look at the model, it has head protection, so 6+ plus his already 4+ scaly skin). I don't think it deserves WS5 but it absolutely should have WS4. I can't imagine it's a "good fighter" but it is a natural hunter and very ferocious. Initiative 3-4 for the same reason. If it has to hunt big dinosaur monsters, it should have a higher WS and I than they do. Considering it's size, I think 5 wounds is about right and T6 is inappropriate as well. They definitely need a price drop though, big time, or just need to become much deadlier. An oldblood with a piranha blade and a potion of strength is significantly more deadly than a carnosaur because he can actually hit things reliably and is harder to hurt so he won't give up so much combat resolution, or just flat out die. It's awkward when tough characters like Vampires or Ogres are actually harder to kill then the giant monsters they are capable of taking in their list. I'm not sure if this means they are too tough or the monsters themselves are just too easy to kill in game terms. I know if I had to choose between trying to hurt a toughness 3 model with a 1+ re-rollable armor save and a 4+ ward save or his dragon, I'd go for the dragon every time.

Possible solutions: this kind of comes with the territory, but possibly some kind of mechanic that allows a rider to not have to engage in combat if it doesn't want to and just allow the monster to do all the fighting. Making it less vulnerable to shooting would be a start. More options for heroes to take mounts would also help.

Cannons (and other war machines)

Possible solutions: making cannons less pin-point accurate, ideally involving BS and cover in some fashion. Possibly lower multiple wounds (but this is not ideal, a cannon should be able to kill a monster) but certainly only hitting rider or mount.

Challenges

Frankly the challenge rules are borked and need a full re-write. It's one aspect of 7th that really needed an overhaul but didn't get it in 8th. Challenge rules should be to allow mighty heroes to engage in epic battles, not prevent powerful monsters or heroes from attacking or allow powerful heroes to avoid fighting other heroes.

I really like the idea of characters having protection from fighting "if they want it" on a large monster. Quite frankly, if I was riding around on a griffon and fighting, say, a horde of forest goblins, I see no way they could actually hurt me unless I wanted to actively engage them in combat. My mount is as big as an elephant, what are they going to do, throw rocks at me? There could absolutely be a "refrain from combat" rule that would allow the wizard (or perhaps just hurt hero) from fighting. I could see perhaps like, -1 or -2 to hit him or only hitting him on 6's if he does this. It would certainly give more reasons to take wizards on giant monsters, which is something I don't think I have seen anyone ever do in competitive play.

I really just hate cannons. Not because they're too strong, they seem priced pretty fair for what they can do, but their rules are just non-nonsensical in 8th. BS factoring into their aiming is essential for them to make sense.

The challenge rules do definitely need work. I think there needs to be some sort of system where a champion challenging a terror causing gigantic monster that will SURELY kill him, should need to pass at the very least a leadership test. Overkill on dead champion body needs to happen too, but I've made a lot of posts on that before just because it's such a given.

[Lord Inquisitor]

There's one other possible solution for ridden monsters that sounds nuts but would actually work very well and that's to make them a split profile unit like monstrous cav. So you'd use the rider's stats and armour but the monster's wounds like monstrous cav. I would also add that you use the monster's toughness.

This would mean you would have a griffon with a 3+ or 2+ save and a 4+ ward, but paying 400 points that's greater daemon prices then, it doesn't seem that unreasonable and the whole model would only have 5 wounds total.

This would bring it in line with all other units and really give an incentive to buy a mount as it will make a serious threat and you can buy those wards necessary to keep the monster alive. Obviously some points would need to be adjusted and some items would be problematic, particularly some pre-8th items (the pendant would not be okay!) but those books need an update anyway.

Not a change we'd be likely to see before 9th but it is the logical extension of the change to monstrous cav mounts for characters.

[Kayosiv]

It is a bit of a stretch that Dragon's can die but horses are invincible.

[Maltor]

My group has been considering having cannons become D3+1 wounds with an extra +1 wound vs. large targets. Monster Riders would suffer a S5 hit, no armour save, doing D3 wounds.

This would make it take 2 cannon shots to kill a 6 wound monster while still threatening to kill the rider. Cannons would remain a counter to Monsters which have great destructive potential if they reach your lines.

[Baragash]

There's one other possible solution for ridden monsters that sounds nuts but would actually work very well and that's to make them a split profile unit like monstrous cav. So you'd use the rider's stats and armour but the monster's wounds like monstrous cav. I would also add that you use the monster's toughness.

Like I said on page 1, I like this idea.

I was writing rules for all the models that can do this in the armies we play here and the last bit about Toughness isn't straightforward IMO (Arkhan + Chariot, Chaos Lord + some mounts, Elves IIRC were some things that don't work well otherwise).

The T + Sv/Items bonus the monster gets is also slightly mitigated by the loss of 3-4 wounds overall by playing with a split profile, so it's not just a straight powering up of monsters.

[Skopey]

Regarding shooting flying critters with a cannon maybe the shot fired isnt a single cannon ball, maybe its a Sabot or a ball and chain. Maybe cannons should have more choice of ammunition like the two above. A Sabot which works like a Bolt thrower or a ball and chain working with the small template. I mean if grapeshot uses BS then work these in as well. the sabot using the cannons BS and the Ball and chain using the Art dice and scatter dice. That way when shooting flying creatures you must use the ball and chain for example. That way you will most likely either hit both or just the mount.

[Athlan na Dyr]

There's one other possible solution for ridden monsters that sounds nuts but would actually work very well and that's to make them a split profile unit like monstrous cav. So you'd use the rider's stats and armour but the monster's wounds like monstrous cav. I would also add that you use the monster's toughness.

This would mean you would have a griffon with a 3+ or 2+ save and a 4+ ward, but paying 400 points that's greater daemon prices then, it doesn't seem that unreasonable and the whole model would only have 5 wounds total.

This would bring it in line with all other units and really give an incentive to buy a mount as it will make a serious threat and you can buy those wards necessary to keep the monster alive. Obviously some points would need to be adjusted and some items would be problematic, particularly some pre-8th items (the pendant would not be okay!) but those books need an update anyway.

Not a change we'd be likely to see before 9th but it is the logical extension of the change to monstrous cav mounts for characters.

YES!!!!! DEAR SWEET LORD, YES!
Would love to see this implemented. Makes Lords + Monster a powerful option, yet with the inherent disadvantages (Inspiring Presence lost due to monster placement, lack of caster lord/ lots of points spent in the lord section) still remains a choice rather than a 'pick me' over a caster lord.

Though to be honest, who wouldn't want to field a dragon lord.

@Skopey: Seems a bit complicated with the various firing mechanisms and the ball and chain option seems to be taking away the only advantage stone throwers have over a cannon (the blast template). I do like the idea behind it, but I think that warmachines should be reasonably specialised (cannons for monsters, stonethrowers are jack-of-all-trades master of none and things like the hellblaster and fire throwers are more anti-infantry) rather than making cannons the best.

[Skopey]

Aye, i hear you and for the most part totally agree

[sulla]

This is one of the few instances where I would prefer to see a return to 7th edition rules- cannonballs /templates only hitting the rider or the mount, and the mount being able to attack in a challenge for overkill. In order to make a combat lord on a monster "viable" (by which I mean, closer to optimal), you'd also need to depower magic slightly, as it stands magic is just far and away the better option for almost every army because you get more out of it for less risk.

My only issue with the above is the laser guided breath weapon and thunderstomp. IMO stomps and breath weapons should not be able to be used in a challenge. The attacks of the rider and mount combined are enough of an attack vs a single hero tghat the model shouldn't need the extra guaranteed hits.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Like I said on page 1, I like this idea.

You slipped it in there very quietly And I thought I was being so original...

[decker_cky]

My only issue with the above is the laser guided breath weapon and thunderstomp. IMO stomps and breath weapons should not be able to be used in a challenge. The attacks of the rider and mount combined are enough of an attack vs a single hero tghat the model shouldn't need the extra guaranteed hits.

Easily fixed by saying those are always allocated against rank and file, even in a challenge.

[The Low King]

IDK, having your champion consumed by fire or squashed flat is going to be pretty demorilising for the unit (overkill)

[Baragash]

You slipped it in there very quietly And I thought I was being so original...

I think this actually popped up about a year ago on Warseer, I've got an unfinished 9-page Word document converting the Skaven, HE, TK and WoC models (the armies we have in use) to single model/multiple element profiles (bottom of the link).

[Mati]

imho the fact that my dragon is 300 point sink that can't attack after my lord decimated the enemy hero is dissapointing.. the worst scenario being that it can do nothing at all in whole battle - almost happened to me once when my friend had a goblin hero in every unit!

[sulla]

IDK, having your champion consumed by fire or squashed flat is going to be pretty demorilising for the unit (overkill)

I'm sure it is, but having probably 7 breath weapon hits (and some of the breath weapons, like the toad dragon or gaulrach's are extremely powerful) and about 3 high strength autohits plus around 10 attacks on your character is not condusive to you ever accepting a challenge...

[The Low King]

I'm sure it is, but having probably 7 breath weapon hits (and some of the breath weapons, like the toad dragon or gaulrach's are extremely powerful) and about 3 high strength autohits plus around 10 attacks on your character is not condusive to you ever accepting a challenge...

Why should a 200-300 point character (assuming Lords here) NOT be terrified of getting into a challenge with the 300 point character on a 300 point mount?

[Why]

I champion would be even more terrified, and more dead

[Tores]

Personally, I've never liked the idea of the rider fighting afar from the back of a huge beast as it appears clumsy or awkward. I would have preferred the monstrous mounts as a much cheaper upgrade where the rider exchange his profile for the beast one (ie, losing his attacks and so on). The cost of the upgrade would be similar to the difference with the normal cost of the beast; so, as an example, the cost of a dragon mount should be usually less for a chaos lord than for an elf lord as the improvement in characteristics is less.
A special case would be characters with magic skills or rules that are not inherent combat and in this case the cost increase should be bigger: their cost includes their extra abilities and so it would be unfair towards fighting characters if they used the same formula.

To make it clear with a specific example, giving the griffon to a General of the Empire should cost around 75 point only and it will make is profile change to the griffon's one (everything except leadership) while the upgrade should cost more for a wizard lord (130sh?) as it improves it's profile more and the wizard cost is not centred only on his fighting skills.

I think this will make the choice of mounting a lord more useful as it will be more affordable to lose a cheaper piece, without the need to weaken the counter-measures the other armies have against what is a dangerous and strategic model.

[Duke Ramulots]

I think anyone fighting a challenge vs a monster should be able to have the champion and or any other character fight along side them against said beastie. I picture it like an epic clash at the end of some movie where the group of heroes are fighting the head bad guy...lol

[Ratbeast]

Yes this exactly. My flying creatures take shelter behind buildings and walls. This helps them survive and do what they need to do. If you are in the open, you are going to eat one.

While taking shelter youve just lost a turn or two hiding, if not more avoiding the cannon, aggressive play is the way to go lol