Making mounting a monster beneficial

[Drongol]

I think with Thunderstop they do an appropriate amount of damage in 8th. It's more that they seem to die much easier than I feel they should.

You are welcome to think that, but I have to disagree. Compared to decent infantry, monsters lack oomph altogether.

I didn't start playing until 6th edition. Can you explain specifically how that rule worked?

Whoever used it first lost.

Seriously, what happened was that a model with flight could "fly high," sacrificing its movement to be placed off the table. In a subsequent turn, a flying high model could charge anything on the table or just be placed wherever you want.

If your opponent had a model flying high, your own flying models could fly high and charge it, fighting a round of close combat off the table, with the combatants not remaining locked in combat. If the flying monster died, any rider would plummet to its death.

Therefore, if you flew high before your opponent did, you would get charged and your mount would have to weather the attacks of both character and monster before having a chance to strike back. This oftentimes resulted in a dead mount and an equally-dead character and as such it was only ever really used against armies that didn't take a flying monster--and every army could.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Bring back fly high!

Ha!

You are welcome to think that, but I have to disagree. Compared to decent infantry, monsters lack oomph altogether.

So what's your suggestion? Griffons got cheaper and better, yet they're still pretty naff. How do we make monsters viable again without re-writing the existing books?

[TheOneHawk]

In my experience, they most certainly do enough damage. My Chaos Lord on Dragon can completely decimate pretty much anything, ever. Only problem is that he's 700+ points and is a huge target. I have no problem with how much damage cannons do, they certainly should do that much damage. They are, however, far too accurate. Challenges should also allow for the monster to lay into the unit if the champ is dead, since there's no longer any reason to concentrate on him, he's frikkin dead already!

[The Low King]

Terror means you cant be steadfast (or something along those lines).

Fixed.

[Drongol]

So what's your suggestion? Griffons got cheaper and better, yet they're still pretty naff. How do we make monsters viable again without re-writing the existing books?

That's just it: I don't have a suggestion beyond rewriting the books so that monsters are actually monsters. That 700 point Chaos Lord of doom is A: unplayable in standard-sized (ie, 2000-2500) point games and B: going to be challenged and lose combat unless he gets incredibly lucky, for example.

Think about it this way: people say a Stonehorn isn't good enough because it only does (on average) 6 impact hits plus Thunderstomp and riders on a charge. 6 impact hits is the equivalent of 12 attacks in most cases. Know any monsters with 12 attacks?

[TheOneHawk]

The chaos lord of doom generally gets enough overkill on his own, even without the dragon, to hold for the first round, kill the champ, then round two they decimate the unit. True, I need 3K points to play it, but damage potential is most definitely there. Can pump out 41 attacks in one round if I pop both the dragon's breath weapons.

[Enigmatik1]

Terror means you cant be steadfast (or something along those lines).

Fixed.

I like this idea. Good one, TLK.

[Kayosiv]

Seriously, what happened was that a model with flight could "fly high," sacrificing its movement to be placed off the table. In a subsequent turn, a flying high model could charge anything on the table or just be placed wherever you want.

If your opponent had a model flying high, your own flying models could fly high and charge it, fighting a round of close combat off the table, with the combatants not remaining locked in combat. If the flying monster died, any rider would plummet to its death.

Therefore, if you flew high before your opponent did, you would get charged and your mount would have to weather the attacks of both character and monster before having a chance to strike back. This oftentimes resulted in a dead mount and an equally-dead character and as such it was only ever really used against armies that didn't take a flying monster--and every army could.

Seems like a rule they were right to cut. Sounds clunky as heck.

Terror means you cant be steadfast (or something along those lines).

Fixed.

Terror could certainly use some buffing, there is some merit in this. But what does it do that makes putting a RIDER on a monster more beneficial? A buff to terror would make monsters better, but would do nothing to help out rider/monster combos.

Think about it this way: people say a Stonehorn isn't good enough because it only does (on average) 6 impact hits plus Thunderstomp and riders on a charge. 6 impact hits is the equivalent of 12 attacks in most cases. Know any monsters with 12 attacks?

Just 2. The Hydra and the Hellpit Abomination. Neither of them are ridden either...

[The Low King]

Hydra doesnt have 12 attacks...

Ridden monsters will be worth it once your 600 points of awesomeness cant be held up by 200 points of slaves all game

[Texhnolyze]

Hydra doesnt have 12 attacks...

True, it got 7 attacks, then 6 handler attacks. So I guess you could say it got 13 attacks since the handlers are just markers that can't be touched by anything, and are integrated into the model for all things relevant to a game _D

[Texhnolyze]

LoL dubble post, chrome playing tricks on me!

Sorry :/

[decker_cky]

Plus, against WS3, the hydra itself will average 6ish hits, same as a stonehorn.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The K'Daai Destroyer can achieve that many hits easily. Filthy.

[Heavygear]

Put your Dragon behind an obstacle, which stops the cannonball. You can also fly behind a building to take cover, preferably keeping the thing you want to charge in line of sight.

Obstacles do NOT block line of sight to Large Target beasties. Its in the BRB rules. Large targets are well too large for that. How many buildings do you usually see on the table? Most people play with a ridiculously small amount of terrain.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The wall will, however, stop a bouncing cannonball if it hits the ground in front of the obstacle and bounces into it. Which means that despite the only downside to large targets being that they explicitly cannot benefit from obstacles, the best defence against the most threatening ranged attack is indeed the obstacle. One of the idiosyncrasies with the cannon vs monster scenario.

[Reticent]

I like the blended profile suggestions.

I'd also like to see something like a 4+ ward-save against cannons for any self-mobile single model targets, +1 if able to fly, -1 if large target.

Related to all this, maybe champions shouldn't be able to participate in challenges anymore? It made a lot more thematic sense in the long ago early editions where champions were more like mini-characters. Obviously they'd need some sort of compensation for the loss though, something like counting as +1 rank for steadfast determination maybe.

[Leogun_91]

That's just it: I don't have a suggestion beyond rewriting the books so that monsters are actually monsters. That 700 point Chaos Lord of doom is A: unplayable in standard-sized (ie, 2000-2500) point games and B: going to be challenged and lose combat unless he gets incredibly lucky, for example.

With an overly expensive chaos lord the routine for the most important charge goes.
1) You charge.
2) You use word of agony on the unit champion and he dies.
3) You say challenge and either a) slaughter a character or b) deal damage on the unit.

The chaos lord is still not that great but skip that trick and you lose much.