Is it time GW updated the rules for Characters on Monsters?

[Doommasters]

There has been much discussion around characters on ridden monsters being far to vulnerable to cheap cannon fire. With the new rules making cannons more accurate and the shots hitting both the monster and rider a 700point investment can be wiped off the table from a single shot, if you factor in re-rolls to hit that a few armies can get the chances of survival become even less.

This is not to say a monster rider setup should be able to chew it's way through the field un challenged but between steadfast hordes and more accurate cannon fire that hit both rider and the monster do you think it is time GW revised the rules to even out the balance?

Interested to hear people thoughts on this issue and if it would be worth GW doing a special rules update



Summary of the other thread;

GotrekFan
I think 3 relatively simple things could make them viable/ "balanced".
1) Cannons randomise who that hit like the good old days.
2) Character ward saves transfer to the mount as well.
3)Models with the Large Target rule can disrupt ranks or negate steadfast, but not both.

Shimmergloom
Cannons need to go down to D3 wounds yes, but VPs need to be given when a character is dead or when the monster is dead, at that value, instead of needing both dead to get any vps.

Until the vp system is changed, I don't think cannon damage should be changed.

Gogs78
Agree with above posters about d3 wounds for cannons.
Im guessing most people dont want to go back to herohammer but this is "fantasy" its nice seeing big beasties all over the table but at the moment in any half decent list its very hard to justify them.


Logan054
Lets also not forget how many points a vampire on a dragon is in comparison to a cannon, as for how many shoots,well that depends on who goes first, if its the player with the cannons then its very likely get two turns of shooting at it, I would certainly question your idea of balanced, dragons can be a real pain in combat however they will always have the problem of being ridden by a lone character and being forced into challenges with unit champions and then still have to break through steadfast units. Cannons in general are poorly balanced.
The current VP system is a joke, I prefer the old system of VP's, that said I don't think the VP system is a reason to keep D6 wounds, it just kills the use of so many models which would otherwise be cool to use.


Theunwantedbeing
1. Cannons need to stop being templates and randomise vs multi-part models
2. Monsters ideally need more wounds or to be much cheaper
3. A ridden monster could do with being able to fight without being constrained by the challenge rules
4. Large monsters could do with counting as having a single rank to prevent it being held up by single rank opponents

Another thing I'de have liked to see is regeneration working after wound multiplication
Monsters being able to just leave combat as and when they wish to
Impact hits for larger creatures due to their bulk when charging into a fight

[Askari]

I have no issue with a Cannon occasionally felling a Dragon in one hit. That's the entire purpose of the Cannon, it really isn't that effective against infantry blocks.

However, the way it hits both rider and monster just as hard as each other makes no sense, and means it's a stupid idea to mount, say a Ghoul King on a Terrorgheist, or a Wizard Lord on a Luminark, when you get no points discount for doing so and are much better off taking both seperate. I'd be very happy to see that portion of the Cannon rules changed.

[DaemonReign]

+1 to what askari was just saying. And that's what I would change, no more, no less.
Hitting both mount and rider is just unserious.
Inf-sized riders on a monsters should basically have regular LookOutSir-rolls vs templates etcetera.
Ogres on a StoneHorn could get perhaps a 4+LoS or something.
It'd get a bit more complex, I guess, but in this case it would be Worth it.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The time to fix ridden monsters was in 8th. They're an anachronism based on outdated editions. I think they need to be brought in line with monstrous cav mounts. I was just saying this the other day in a different thread here.

[theunwantedbeing]

it really isn't that effective against infantry blocks.

It's not that effective at killing infantry compared to it's effectiveness at killing monsters.

[Doommasters]

The time to fix ridden monsters was in 8th. They're an anachronism based on outdated editions. I think they need to be brought in line with monstrous cav mounts. I was just saying this the other day in a different thread here.

Copied the post of yours in as it has some very valid points

"Actually the whole rider and mount separate thing feels like an anachronism since all other ridden monsters and chariots that don't have characters are just split profile.

The monstrous mount rules were a great improvement and I think that's the way to go.

When attacking the ridden monster/chariot, use the rider's characteristics EXCEPT Toughness and Wounds, where you use the Mount/Chariot's toughness and wounds. Rider and mount attack separately.

Essentially ridden monsters would mechanically be like monstrous cav mounts, except benefitting from the monster's toughness.

Now, ignoring some silly combinations like pendant dark elves on dragons and just looking at the 8th books, what you'll get is ridden monsters like griffons benefit from armour and ward of the rider, but five wounds total. In comparison with a bloodthirster, for example, quite similar in armour, ward, cost, damage output and manoeuvrability. Wizards on mounts would be more viable too (lord Inquisitor)"

[logan054]

The time to fix ridden monsters was in 8th. They're an anachronism based on outdated editions. I think they need to be brought in line with monstrous cav mounts.

Thats a really good idea! then just add in a better VP system and your on the right track!

Another thing I'de have liked to see is regeneration working after wound multiplication
Monsters being able to just leave combat as and when they wish to
Impact hits for larger creatures due to their bulk when charging into a fight

I like the old way Regenerate works, you roll after all wounds are done, if your alive then no real difference, if you dead then you only roll based on how many wounds the model started with, I think a interesting one would be that fliers should be able to leave combat, kind of like hit and run in 40k, makes perfect sense and have them auto rally in the following turn as well as act normally, after all, why would a dragon wouldn't just sit about fighting, it would fly over the unit breathing fire. Now thats a idea! maybe they should be able to make a flyby attack?

I think breath weapons need to be tweaked back to every turn, just not 2D6, like D6 hits

[Gradek]

I think they are fine as is (both ridden monsters and cannons). When playing a game by the rules (ie terrain and varying scenarios) both ridden monsters and cannons are well balanced. Let us also not forget that the vamp lord on dragon (for instance) flies and the cannons likely only get one shot to kill it before the monster wrecks havoc across your army. I think GW did a great job with balance here.

[Drasanil]

Re Regeneration: It might help monsters (and characters) more if Regeneration actually regenerated wounds as opposed to simply being a sub-par ward save equivalent, kind of like it does the 40k nid dex.

[logan054]

Re Regeneration: It might help monsters (and characters) more if Regeneration actually regenerated wounds as opposed to simply being a sub-par ward save equivalent, kind of like it does the 40k nid dex.

thats what the old one did, you rolled at the end of the phase, you didn't roll for every wound caused (like a cannon doing 6 wounds for a troll), you simply rolled your wounds, 4+ gave you a wound back, it was highly amusing on exalted heroes in challenges, you would have some ubber lord beat the crap out of you hero, do like 6 wounds, you then roll 2D6, if you get a single 4+ all the overkill is gone and your back up! man I miss that

[innerwolf]

Copied the post of yours in as it has some very valid points

"Actually the whole rider and mount separate thing feels like an anachronism since all other ridden monsters and chariots that don't have characters are just split profile.

The monstrous mount rules were a great improvement and I think that's the way to go.

When attacking the ridden monster/chariot, use the rider's characteristics EXCEPT Toughness and Wounds, where you use the Mount/Chariot's toughness and wounds. Rider and mount attack separately.

Essentially ridden monsters would mechanically be like monstrous cav mounts, except benefitting from the monster's toughness.

Now, ignoring some silly combinations like pendant dark elves on dragons and just looking at the 8th books, what you'll get is ridden monsters like griffons benefit from armour and ward of the rider, but five wounds total. In comparison with a bloodthirster, for example, quite similar in armour, ward, cost, damage output and manoeuvrability. Wizards on mounts would be more viable too (lord Inquisitor)"

The only problem I see is: what happens with Scaly Skin? Does it becomes obsolete? Or does it becomes some kind of bonus to the rider's armour save (in the same way barding/tough hide/brass skin work for horses/boars/juggernauts)?

[DaemonReign]

I think they are fine as is (both ridden monsters and cannons). When playing a game by the rules (ie terrain and varying scenarios) both ridden monsters and cannons are well balanced. Let us also not forget that the vamp lord on dragon (for instance) flies and the cannons likely only get one shot to kill it before the monster wrecks havoc across your army. I think GW did a great job with balance here.

Good Point Gradek and my experience has been the same.
However, since 'all comers' games are seldom played 'by the book' or - indeed - by even the 'actual rules' it's almost a moot Point.
The poll-question doesn't seem to be focusing on games using random-scenarios, well-balanced list, and opponants adhering to the Most Important Rule.
Rather, it's premise is more like "Can You beat a black powder Gunline at 2,4k charging across an open field with a hill and a forest in each deplyment zone?"

And my gripe, personally, with hitting both cannon and rider isn't primarily about balance (overall balance is fine in 8th if you play by the rules) - but rather that it seems unassociated, counter-intuitive, well heck simply 'unrealistic' to me.

Having the separation at all is perhaps a bit anachronistic, as discussed upthread - but for example 'Killing Blow' or certain spells would impact a 'combined' profile rather differently.
"Make the rider immune to KB if mounted on a Dragon, you say?" - Nah, then we're stuck at replacing one unassociated rule with Another one if you ask me.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Re Regeneration: It might help monsters (and characters) more if Regeneration actually regenerated wounds as opposed to simply being a sub-par ward save equivalent, kind of like it does the 40k nid dex.

That would be really cool. Regen just being another type of Ward save is rather flat.

The only problem I see is: what happens with Scaly Skin? Does it becomes obsolete? Or does it becomes some kind of bonus to the rider's armour save (in the same way barding/tough hide/brass skin work for horses/boars/juggernauts)?

Yeah, I was thinking the latter. A dragon's scaly hide could be represented by +2 rather than +1 for being mounted.

Having the separation at all is perhaps a bit anachronistic, as discussed upthread - but for example 'Killing Blow' or certain spells would impact a 'combined' profile rather differently.
"Make the rider immune to KB if mounted on a Dragon, you say?" - Nah, then we're stuck at replacing one unassociated rule with Another one if you ask me.

That's a small issue really. This can be resolved in the same way as monstrous cav mounts... by why not immune to killing blow anyway? If demigryphs knights are immune to killing blow is it that strange that a general on a griffon wouldn't be? Is it logical that a tomb king chariot can't be killing blowed but a prince on a chariot can be? I'm not very clear on exactly how bloodletters get all the way up to hack a dragon-rider's head off anyway. Part of the reason people don't use ridden monsters is that they're ridiculously vulnerable to the rider just getting offed like that. Far from being an issue, it's a positive.

[DaemonReign]

by why not immune to killing blow anyway? If demigryphs knights are immune to killing blow is it that strange that a general on a griffon wouldn't be? Is it logical that a tomb king chariot can't be killing blowed but a prince on a chariot can be? I'm not very clear on exactly how bloodletters get all the way up to hack a dragon-rider's head off anyway. Part of the reason people don't use ridden monsters is that they're ridiculously vulnerable to the rider just getting offed like that. Far from being an issue, it's a positive.

Stuff that's infantry (when not mounted) should be susceptible to Killing Blow at all times. GW just botched that one. Of course DemiGrypth Knights shouldn't be immune to KB, (TK chariots though have more than one crew-man right?) This is Another 'lost topic' of dissassociated rules that needs fixing just as much as those ping-ponging cannon-balls - or simply houserules, for the time being.

And if them Bloodletters(?) can't reach the rider then arguably the rider wouldn't be able to reach them either, right? Nobody gets to hit anyone.. Fine.

[Urgat]

While combined profiles are a seducing idea, man, talk about a new way to VP denial-ize. In melee at least, they should be separate, because a lord or a dragon do have an enormous impact on their own, compared to your demigriph knight and his mount, Lord Inquisitor. And wouldn't that push wizard lords forward even more. Lvl4 dragon wizard? Lvl 4 arachnarok shaman? Heck yeah?

[Askari]

And if them Bloodletters(?) can't reach the rider then arguably the rider wouldn't be able to reach them either, right? Nobody gets to hit anyone.. Fine.

My Griffon General has a Lance that appears, by scale, to be about 10ft long. So sure he can poke the Bloodletters while they can't reach over the Griffon's leg

[Miredorf]

Copied the post of yours in as it has some very valid points

"Actually the whole rider and mount separate thing feels like an anachronism since all other ridden monsters and chariots that don't have characters are just split profile.

The monstrous mount rules were a great improvement and I think that's the way to go.

When attacking the ridden monster/chariot, use the rider's characteristics EXCEPT Toughness and Wounds, where you use the Mount/Chariot's toughness and wounds. Rider and mount attack separately.

Essentially ridden monsters would mechanically be like monstrous cav mounts, except benefitting from the monster's toughness.

Now, ignoring some silly combinations like pendant dark elves on dragons and just looking at the 8th books, what you'll get is ridden monsters like griffons benefit from armour and ward of the rider, but five wounds total. In comparison with a bloodthirster, for example, quite similar in armour, ward, cost, damage output and manoeuvrability. Wizards on mounts would be more viable too (lord Inquisitor)"

When creating our gaming group HE army book i came with this solution for the dragon mage. Weve been using him for a long time with a single profile with 2 different attacks and indeed works very well and balanced. Now i never thought in extrapolating this to every character/mount in game... Maybe because we use the old cannon rules and they only do D3+1W...

I also hate with passion nice models and ideas (like the dragon mages) get wasted cause of the simplistic standard rules.

[logan054]

Good Point Gradek and my experience has been the same.
However, since 'all comers' games are seldom played 'by the book' or - indeed - by even the 'actual rules' it's almost a moot Point.
The poll-question doesn't seem to be focusing on games using random-scenarios, well-balanced list, and opponants adhering to the Most Important Rule.

You can tell which people play dwarfs

While combined profiles are a seducing idea, man, talk about a new way to VP denial-ize. In melee at least, they should be separate, because a lord or a dragon do have an enormous impact on their own, compared to your demigriph knight and his mount, Lord Inquisitor. And wouldn't that push wizard lords forward even more. Lvl4 dragon wizard? Lvl 4 arachnarok shaman? Heck yeah?

It already is VP denial thing in melee as you have to kill both the rider and the mount to get anything which can be easier said than done, I would be happy to take on a lvl4 mage on a dragon, just means he isn't in a unit so I can snipe him, it wont effect lore of death, cannons, rock lobbers, etc.

[Urgat]

You can tell which people play dwarfs





It already is VP denial thing in melee as you have to kill both the rider and the mount to get anything which can be easier said than done, I would be happy to take on a lvl4 mage on a dragon, just means he isn't in a unit so I can snipe him, it wont effect lore of death, cannons, rock lobbers, etc.

It's much easier to kill a monster then its rider than some super combo character+monsters+magic items. Your cannons etc would have to deal with all the ward saves and stuff applied to the dragon etc as well, you know. It's completely different than just "well now they're one set of wounds".

[logan054]

My cannons? I collect VC and WoC mate, I have no canons :P I know its completely different, I would actually consider taking one, at the moment you have no point what so ever to even pick up a dragon unless you know your opponent doesn't have any cannons, its funny however because this would make everyone else's big centrepieces on par with greater daemons, well almost...