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

[snottlebocket]

I think they're just fine. Once super lords reach combat they can often rampage around with impunity. Add to that their speed, terrain and the many ways to thwart warmachines and you don't really get that much opportunity to destroy super lords before they reach the relative safety of combat with their favorite targets.

They're fine as they are. In small games where they don't belong your opponent doesn't get that many chances to destroy them. In large games where they do belong you can play the target saturation game.

[logan054]

super lords bar the vampire lord don't exist, if your investing that many points into a character then you wont have much in the way of magic defense which means they will get into combat and get nerfed to high heaven by the lore of shadow, dwarfs have the lord that can't be attacked with a S higher than 5 and a rerollable armoursave with a 4+ wardsave.

[Dreyer]

Cannons are what made me stop even trying to bring a Carnosaur (other than he is vulnerable to everything!) and my Stegadons don't see a lot of action because of cannons as well. The whole pinball effect that happens when you hit them is just stupid.

[Ramius4]

Just fine as is.

[logan054]

The people who say its fine as it is, would you take a character on monster if you faced Dwarfs, Empire, etc?

[Urgat]

It's the cannons the problem though, so why try and fix the monsters?

[Ramius4]

The people who say its fine as it is, would you take a character on monster if you faced Dwarfs, Empire, etc?

I'm one of those who think they're fine. That's not a fair question. You could use the same logic and ask the same question for several choices in any army depending on which army you're facing. Zombies for example are just fine against Empire, but there's no force on earth that will convince me to bring them against Dark Elves. That doesn't mean the rules are somehow flawed, it's just not a great matchup for them.

[theunwantedbeing]

It's the cannons the problem though, so why try and fix the monsters?

Cannons aren't the only problem.

[innerwolf]

I would trade any unit in the Lizardmen book to be able to field a combined profile Engine of the Gods Ancient Stegadon. The priest is so extremely easy to kill in close combat that you can't use the Ancient Stegadon's close combat potential at all (or risk losing the wizard and the effects of the engine in the first turn of CC). Such a waste of an interesting, characterful unit.

PD. Making the awesome Dragon Mages (and griffon riders while we are at it) viable would be equally desirable.

[Ramius4]

I would trade any unit in the Lizardmen book to be able to field a combined profile Engine of the Gods Ancient Stegadon. The priest is so extremely easy to kill in close combat that you can't use the Ancient Stegadon's close combat potential at all (or risk losing the wizard and the effects of the engine in the first turn of CC). Such a waste of an interesting, characterful unit.

I know this is OT, but I can't resist commenting. Priests on Stegadons are hardly what I'd call 'easy to kill' as you say. Easy to hit and wound with dice rolls, sure. But that's no different than most wizards in the game. You get a whopping 2+ armor save up there, and can easily get a solid ward save, or just buy a Dawnstone.

[IcedCrow]

I've been using ridden monsters the entire edition. I have had many games where my lord riding monster tears my opponent apart despite him having multiple cannons and internetz wizdomz saying I should have died. Thing is, cannons are not 100% going to off your lord and monster. There are ways to mitigate the issue as well... mainly in using terrain that stops cannonballs and having your monster utilize it.

I'd say against opponents with a single cannon, my monster and lord make it into contact 4/5 of the time. Dual cannons drop that to about 3/5 of the time. Three cannons and I'm looking at halfers depending on where I deploy my beast (if he has three cannons I typically deploy on a wing to deny one or two of the cannons the ability to shoot at me).

Does this mean I have never lost a lord riding monster to a cannon? No I have several times. Also realize being hit by one cannonball is also not certain death. Throw wards into the mix on top of a lot of wounds and the opponent has to roll very high to one shot kill. Coupled with denying him shots and deploying him in a way that does not allow all of the cannons clear access to him plus using cannonball stopping terrain however and I find lord ridden monsters to work just fine. I find most of the issues people have are that:

* they don't want to use the terrain / it's not given that they will have the terrain, and if its not something they can optimize or control, they don't like it
* they don't want to deploy the lord monster away from the army as they lose the leadership bonus and feel that this is unoptimal so they don't like it
* there is still risk involved and people don't like that

The only thing I'd consider changing is that both character and monster get hit. That's just a logical thing with me though. I have used my lord/monster combos to great effect and will continue to do so and that's against several empire and dwarf players. A monster riding lord character slamming into the flanks or chewing on lone characters / war machines is a powerful asset. It also takes cannonfire off of the rest of my army.

[innerwolf]

I know this is OT, but I can't resist commenting. Priests on Stegadons are hardly what I'd call 'easy to kill' as you say. Easy to hit and wound with dice rolls, sure. But that's no different than most wizards in the game. You get a whopping 2+ armor save up there, and can easily get a solid ward save, or just buy a Dawnstone.

Sorry for keeping it OP: A skink priest is the less resilient wizard in the game with ws 3, toughness 2 and 2 wounds. He really is easier to kill than any other mage. The only wizards you usually see mounted on monsters are well armoured, close combat capable wizards (Chaos sorcerers, Vampire Lords) or have access to ridiculous ward saves (Dark Elf sorceress).
Maybe the 2+ save is enough to fend off strength 3 bog-standard infantry, but heavy infantry (the kind you would like to use the stegadon's heavy offence against) murder him.

I've been using ridden monsters the entire edition. I have had many games where my lord riding monster tears my opponent apart despite him having multiple cannons and internetz wizdomz saying I should have died. Thing is, cannons are not 100% going to off your lord and monster. There are ways to mitigate the issue as well... mainly in using terrain that stops cannonballs and having your monster utilize it.

I'd say against opponents with a single cannon, my monster and lord make it into contact 4/5 of the time. Dual cannons drop that to about 3/5 of the time. Three cannons and I'm looking at halfers depending on where I deploy my beast (if he has three cannons I typically deploy on a wing to deny one or two of the cannons the ability to shoot at me).

Does this mean I have never lost a lord riding monster to a cannon? No I have several times. Also realize being hit by one cannonball is also not certain death. Throw wards into the mix on top of a lot of wounds and the opponent has to roll very high to one shot kill. Coupled with denying him shots and deploying him in a way that does not allow all of the cannons clear access to him plus using cannonball stopping terrain however and I find lord ridden monsters to work just fine. I find most of the issues people have are that:

* they don't want to use the terrain / it's not given that they will have the terrain, and if its not something they can optimize or control, they don't like it
* they don't want to deploy the lord monster away from the army as they lose the leadership bonus and feel that this is unoptimal so they don't like it
* there is still risk involved and people don't like that

The only thing I'd consider changing is that both character and monster get hit. That's just a logical thing with me though. I have used my lord/monster combos to great effect and will continue to do so and that's

The problem is in 7th edition you could do a frontal charge in, let's say, two turns, and hope to defeat/mangle a unit. In 8th, thanks to steadfast, you need to wait for an infantry block to charge in the front and be positioned to flank the unit in order to do any significant impact. That means one or two more turns of fire against the monster rider.

[Lord Inquisitor]

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.

This is an issue for the Killing Blow rules, which are already a mess (a bloodletter hero on a jugger can be killing blowed but a bloodletter on a jugger cannot?). There either needs to be a system for identifying which monstrous cav riders (or monster riders) can be killing blowed, or there needs to be an abstraction (once you ride a monstrous cav or monster mount you are immune to killing blow full stop). Neither is really an issue with split-profile monster mounts.

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.

Even with a sword, someone high up can reach down to bonk people on the head while they will have difficulty reaching back up, let alone lopping his head off.

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?

I think "wizard on a griffon - heck yeah!" is a lot better than "yeah, that beast wizard on a griffon is a nice model. Shame I'd never use it."

But remember the comparison is a greater daemon. A level 4 on a dragon costs around the same as a lord of change. With a ward save on the dragon/rider, fairly similar combat capabilities and magic capabilities. Both fly. Yet Lord of Change isn't often considered the best of the GDs and many competitive daemon players have been running with no greater daemon at all because they're a single big terribly expensive target.

I think it's fairly viable - I think ridden monsters would be good enough to take - but I don't think it'll result in any really broken effects, just looking at the 8th ed books. A vampire lord on a zombie dragon is more viable, but still vulnerable to cannons, etc. Just not straight up suicide.

[logan054]

I'm one of those who think they're fine. That's not a fair question. You could use the same logic and ask the same question for several choices in any army depending on which army you're facing. Zombies for example are just fine against Empire, but there's no force on earth that will convince me to bring them against Dark Elves. That doesn't mean the rules are somehow flawed, it's just not a great matchup for them.

Seems to me your trying to avoid the question, you've done a very poor job in doing so, so basically you saying monsters and riders are fine unless you use them against someone with a cannon, in which case its a very poor matchup and infact you wouldn't use them? well then how are the rules fine? we are not talking about a 3pts model, we are talking about a 600pts+ model.

Is it a fair question? certainly, if I create a all comers list I consider all the things I might encounter, cannons are in 4 armies, as such its something I will always consider when making a army, I will think of ways to counter them and how risky a choice will be against and weight up against how good it will be against a army without access to them.

I've been using ridden monsters the entire edition. I have had many games where my lord riding monster tears my opponent apart despite him having multiple cannons and internetz wizdomz saying I should have died. Thing is, cannons are not 100% going to off your lord and monster. There are ways to mitigate the issue as well... mainly in using terrain that stops cannonballs and having your monster utilize it.

Thats abit like me saying I have no problem dealing with dragon riders because my exalted on jugger kills them in a challenge, it means really little, I actually use the exalted on jugger in a unit of knights and yes he has survived many games, however people do tend to shoot the big bad thing first which is why he survives. While its true you can use terrain what if you go 2nd and you have none he can use in you deployment zone? what if you go first and the only terrain would put you in charge range of a nasty unit? it really isn't as simply as you make out unless you place all the terrain in your favour. It also depends if you play with your mates, a gaming club or a tournament, if its the later of the two you will be restricted by what terrain is available, I have played on plenty of boards with no walls to absorb cannon balls.

[DaemonReign]

This is an issue for the Killing Blow rules, which are already a mess (a bloodletter hero on a jugger can be killing blowed but a bloodletter on a jugger cannot?). There either needs to be a system for identifying which monstrous cav riders (or monster riders) can be killing blowed, or there needs to be an abstraction (once you ride a monstrous cav or monster mount you are immune to killing blow full stop). Neither is really an issue with split-profile monster mounts.

I agree with you the Errata/FAQ wasn't satisfactory. Personally though I'd definately be in the camp of Bloodcrushers, DemiGryphs, TK Stalkers (etcetera) all being susceptible to Killing Blow. Including Archaon. haha

Even with a sword, someone high up can reach down to bonk people on the head while they will have difficulty reaching back up, let alone lopping his head off.

Right. So then monster-riders gets to attack but nobody gets to hit them back.. (?)
Sounds a Little too good, to be honest, but sure - I'll concede that fighting from 'up high' (or other favorable positions) isn't really represented well by WHFB mechanics.

But the cannon-ball ping-ponging must certainly be seen as both 'wierder' and a bigger problem for all-comers competativeness, no?

[logan054]

I agree with you the Errata/FAQ wasn't satisfactory. Personally though I'd definately be in the camp of Bloodcrushers, DemiGryphs, TK Stalkers (etcetera) all being susceptible to Killing Blow. Including Archaon. haha

If it has made them immune to killing blow it would have made juggers a decent upgrade for Chaos heroes., now its simply a "it looks cool" upgrade

[Lord Inquisitor]

Make ridden monsters split profile units and the ping-pong issue goes away

I'm not particularly invested in killing blow either way but I think it's simpler to just say all Monstrous Cav, chariots and monsters are immune from killing blow even if they have man-sized rider(s). But whichever way it works it ought to be consistent.

[Ramius4]

Seems to me your trying to avoid the question, you've done a very poor job in doing so, so basically you saying monsters and riders are fine unless you use them against someone with a cannon, in which case its a very poor matchup and infact you wouldn't use them? well then how are the rules fine? we are not talking about a 3pts model, we are talking about a 600pts+ model.

Is it a fair question? certainly, if I create a all comers list I consider all the things I might encounter, cannons are in 4 armies, as such its something I will always consider when making a army, I will think of ways to counter them and how risky a choice will be against and weight up against how good it will be against a army without access to them.

Thats abit like me saying I have no problem dealing with dragon riders because my exalted on jugger kills them in a challenge, it means really little, I actually use the exalted on jugger in a unit of knights and yes he has survived many games, however people do tend to shoot the big bad thing first which is why he survives. While its true you can use terrain what if you go 2nd and you have none he can use in you deployment zone? what if you go first and the only terrain would put you in charge range of a nasty unit? it really isn't as simply as you make out unless you place all the terrain in your favour. It also depends if you play with your mates, a gaming club or a tournament, if its the later of the two you will be restricted by what terrain is available, I have played on plenty of boards with no walls to absorb cannon balls.

I answered your question with one of my own, that's hardly avoiding it. I just find your particular question inherently flawed. A few sub-optimal matchups out of 15 possible armies you might face. We can both sit here and present situation after situation in which you would or wouldn't use XYZ unit, but knowing there are times where it's good and times when it's bad still doesn't mean the rules are flawed.

That's like making a statement that "my Goblins always get killed when they face troops with lots of attacks and decent armor". Well duh... Choices within army books really don't have to always be effective or even survive past turn 2 to be viable. And that's exactly the kind of argument you seem to be making.

Like most things, ridden monsters are either going to be awesome, average, or possibly even worthless during any given game. But overall? Pretty much average.

[IcedCrow]

Well Logan after a couple of years of using said ridden monsters vs a myriad of opponents in a myriad of environments from casual to ball crushing competitive and having had good experiences with them, i cant agree that they are horribly broken and weak.

They just arent a sure thing and something that can be optimized. They involve a sizeable risk.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Like most things, ridden monsters are either going to be awesome, average, or possibly even worthless during any given game. But overall? Pretty much average.

If that were the case, you'd see a lot more ridden monsters. Unfortunately the ridden monsters are going to be average, worth little or a total liability during any given game. Overall? Pretty poor.

Cannons are a big part of the problem but not the only thing making them poor. If you took cannons out of the game altogether, would ridden monsters rule the game? Very doubtful. A character on a mount is pretty vulnerable since he can get picked out, and ridden monsters have all the vulnerabilities of regular monsters. Even with the points drop for griffons and the improved combat stats - they're pretty poor. It's not just cannons - empire can bring enough cannons of their own to effect counter-battery fire - griffons are still poor anyway. Because you put your general/level 4 in such a precarious place.