Are more big monsters better for Warhammer?

[Lord Dan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I voted 'Much more enjoyable'... Gives my Cannon something to shoot at 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]

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]

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]

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]

I love the current trend in big monsters. I'm hoping to see more as the edition progresses.

[eldargal]

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*.

*The good kind of tea party.

[GiraffeCrab]

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*.

*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

[Drasanil]

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]

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]

Actually, I think it's because few of the grumpy old-timers have posted yet

[eldargal]

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.