Just wondering about the reasons why people dont put big monsters or even monster mounts on the table. I'm looking into running some fun tournaments and I really want to see more of these guys out there.

I would think these are the following reasons

• Poison
• Warmachines
• Magic (please say which spells)
• low, if any, save for the monsters
• I dont have the model
• Lords on monsters cost too much (Brendan Black)

let me know of anything else that is stopping you.

For me its that if I spend 600 points on a Lord on Dragon I can't take a lv 4 mage as well. Even if I perhaps go for Dragon guy, BSB and some low level mages I feel I have overspent on characters. If I go no magic I feel like I am missing out on a large part of the game.

If there were more 3000 point tournaments around I would take my Dragon Lord at all of them regardless of all the nasty stuff that can kill them

NOTHING!!!!

The dragon is FUN!!!!

Mouse

I still use my big monsters. If they are trying to take them down then they are using shooting/magic on what I believe is my important stuff. Monsters are a distraction that most opponents cannot afford to ignore.

Well it used to be lack of access and being over costed.

Now that Empire seems to be getting cheaper one's and a more of them I think I'll be taking some.

I always take some big gribblie, never leave home without my Thundertusk

Agree, nothing.

Its a game of fun, play what you like and make it work.

I still think monsters are great, the issues is you used to see lists with like 3 dragons and that was a very powerful list. Just charge into something kill a bunch, have no one attack you back and then run it down. Get it in the flank and you even negated ranks, plus could avoid the monster killing character.

Now it's not so easy so lots of these list don't dominate at all anymore. They need troops to back them up because of stead fast.

I never take a giant because of the no armour. watching fast cav send a volley over two turns and seeing the big-boy fall over on your own troops for 265 odd points...

i dont take them cause i played fantasy for mass ranks of troops and flowing banners and glorious charges of knights ect, the game devolving into 6 big models getting pushed around is in no way enticing to me, if i want that i'll go play my parking lot guard and have more fun doing that

I think they do feel just a little "easy" to kill for their points. Cannons and poison or magic screw them again and again. Also with so much monstrous infantry etc etc making its way into the game the big monstours are slowly losing effectiveness too I feel, as they loose their stomps.

Maybe the TO can offer in the composition the opportunity to buy monsters a ward save or T increase or some such? A couple of cost brackets depending on how good the monster is generally felt to be? Just for fun games/tournament of course.

I own three stegadons and I love to run them, but if I choose too I know its for a fun game more often than not. I would love a tournament with grand armies.

I'd bring heaps of interesting gribblies then.

Poison for the unarmored fellas

Cannon balls for anything with a save that isn't 4+ or better or MI to shield them

if that all fails they will insta kill spell you

and in general, the new ogres have pretty much made them a non event, they seem to be the band wagon (ie there will be 1/4 of the players at a tourni with ogres so design your list to take them into account), impact hits beats a thunderstomp any day, and you can't thunderstomp a ogre, not mention they can duel wield monster 6 wound cannons and move and shoot them

so there's no longer a incentive to run monsters competitively, or any overall benefit with out the 50/50 chance of just being a major points leek every game, you can use the points else where on something more effective and almost as threatening as monsters in your army that your opposition has to deal with as a threat anyway and will do more for you probably.

the biggest thing with monsters for me, is the ones with fly rule, why would this thing ever land but only to attack something? and in which case why can a cannon act as a 88 flak AA cannon to it?

anyway it's all moot, there the rules, but there's my reasons

Not having any.

If I had an army that could actually have some of them, I'd bring them every time. Part of the fun of it being -fantasy- is that there are massive WTF things like dragons, giants, arachs, mammoths etc.

Think a big thing is allocating higher points too, at 2.4-2.5 you get a very solid choice of the key things but often some of these big things are expensive and other choices just beat them. Higher points tournies would be probably go a ways to bring more of these out.

Transportation - carry cases and foam trays aren't exactly designed to fit big monsters very well.

Nothing Stops me i regularly run 2 terrorghiests!

there goes all my knights turn 2 / I don't play WOC anymore

prefer to use 2 units of hexwraiths, don't have to engage magic weapons just walk over them and they all fall down

just scream on them and they all fall down - don't even have to move!

I play Dwarves

I do still run them when they are good. My wood elves always run the treeman, but he is helped by a good save, a small base (cannons still miss a lot), good stats and a genearlly weak list. I don't run the terrorgheist because of no save and its a pain to transport and I usually don't rum my stonehorn because of ld7 no stubborn and frenzy means he gets redirected and flank charged. I will be running a K'daai when I get around to it. . .

For me it depends on which army I'm playing. As a general rule, things like 600pt lord dragons (chaos and HE for instance) either need my whole army built around them or I just dont bother because twin cannons are everywhere. One im fine with, but its got to the point that because a certain amount of people take double cannon, everyone else has no choice just to be able to counter battery.

Otherwise things like Wyvern, shinxes, arach spider I'll still take because they my game can afford to lose them or they are simply tough enough to withstand a little bit of punishment.

Mixed monsters is another list I'll take them, easily done to great effect with Orcs and Tomb kings.

Giants I'll never run (since last ed Ogre book at bargain 175pts) due to T5 - easy kill to anything, not just warmachines.

It's funny how in 7th Ed, the complaint was about how massed infantry was mostly a liabilty and it was all about manouverable elite stuff. Now it's over the other way a bit. Not really helpful, but just an observation.

Thats what I love about 8th ed. to me warhammer should be about massed infantry

Giants. Haven't run one for years. These days they are just way to easy to kill, and the ability to run into combat (should you live that long) and just do d6 strength 6 hits half the time... just not worth the points. The only attack result worth it is 2d6 hits, and there is only a 1/6 chance of getting it. Terrible unit. The rules for the giant haven't changed one iota for 20 years, which just goes to show how the game has shifted.

On an aside about the destroyer, with people thinking it's not fair that anything strength 4 and below can't wound it, well that's only been around since 8th!!! it's just a nod to the old wound table. It's not that bigger deal for those who have been playing a long time. I don't see why bow and musket fire should have any impact on any monster!

I think the "always wound on a 6" has killed most of my reason to field monsters.

I still take big things in my armies and yes that includes Giants. My goblins never leave home with out one. I think there cool, they look good on the battlefield and I find them affective. not always though. My Giants aren't scared of cannons, there too stupid. And I think if it looks good do it.
A question, would you comp hit someone if they took 3 giants in a 2000 point list?

I don't think you can because of rare choice? But if you can then I would probably give you positive comp for doing it.

cannons.


this can be sovled by two ways

1)restrictions on warmachines ( 1 machine of each time or 4-5 warmachines max or whatever)
2) terrain, premade maps that give hidding spots for the big guys like hills , impassible terrain, buildings.

Fences, fences are very good at stopping cannonballs. Lots of fences could be useful then.

+1

2x max rare choice.. and the fact rares only get 500 pts allowance and giants cost 200, so 3 would be 600. Heh.

Little bit off topic, but why do fences stop cannonballs? Is it something to do with the 'defended obstacle' special rule?

And if so, would Bret peasent archer wooden stakes count as cannon stopping obstacles?

If a cannonball bounces into a fence/obstacle it destroys the fence/obstacle and cannonball stops.

So, you put a big beasty in base contact with a fence, cannonball has -very- slim chance of landing directly on his face. If it lands in front of the fence and bounces through it, the fence explodes in harmless shrapnel and the cannonball stops in it's tracks right there, big beasty is left safe.

Page 113 of the BRB should explain it.

So, as a double cannon user, I honestly like to see a table with several fences and annoying obstacles all over it. Makes things a little more fun for my opponent and for me. A lot of tourney tables have too few imho.

The rules for cannons on pg 113 refers to obstacles stopping a bouncing cannon ball and are destroyed. It refers you to the terrain section on obstacles of which fences are listed as one example, as well as walls etc. I guess you just have to assume that they are quite sturdy fences or perhaps that the cannonball gets partially deflected and buries itself in the ground or some such.

Since it doesn't specify exactly what sort of obstacles you just have to assume that any obstacle defined in the BRB counts as good enough for the purpose. Also applies to impassable terrain, so I don't know about everyone else but I usually tend to play with at least one magical mystery, sinister structure or steadfast sanctum which almost always we count as impassable terrain. Something to think about when trying to dodege cannonballs with big gribblies.

Al

Good to know!

I like the flying mounts (griffons/dragons etc). The issue is cannons.

Cannons.

Too reliable. They are literally homing missiles that can take out both mount and rider at ease. Against non-bolt thrower weapons there should be a blanket pre-wound "avoidance" roll or something. How on earth a trebuchet can pick out a flying, swooping dragon every third rock, or a cannon can shoot balls through both rider and mount from the other end of the battlefield is beyond me.

Like others have said just make sure there are a few fences or other things and that it should be ok.

If I recall correctly cannons used to be d3 wounds except the empire great cannons so 8 edition made cannons even better monster snipers.

I was damn good at guessing anyway so pre-measuring hasn't changed much of anything.

D6 instead of D3.
Auto hit on rider AND mount.
No range-guessing.

Then the Ogres decided they needed more reliable cannons...

zzz

Yes thats true Empire Great Cannons use to be the exception rather than the rule.

People keep saying how pre measuring is not that big a deal, bit I rather think many players remember there estimation skills a bit too fondly. I'm sure there are some players out there who could get it spot on every time, but no there is no possibility for mistakes and you can be literally inch perfect. Hence why 10" from the back of the base, has become the standard aiming point, means you almost can't miss.

Al

Yep, totally agree. Even a quarter inch makes a 1/6 difference between a bounce hitting or not, or overshooting the target.

Really I normally for go for 5 3/4 back from a unit.

But yes I was never that accurate but with the exception of the first shot which always seemed to be a "range finder" I was mostly within 2".

I want to make a distinction between monsters and ridden monsters.

Ridden monsters were all the rage in 7th ed as a lord on a dragon was basically able to rip through an entire army if the oponent didn't have the tools to deal with it. Even lesser ridden monsters like manticores were pretty handy. We really don't see many ridden monsters any-more for a few reasons:

1. Firstly cannons and other warmachines are much more reliable now and also hit both mount and rider together.

2. Steadfast means that monsters are a lot less effective against infantry, you can no longer just charge in and expect to break a ranked unit by out-killing it

3. Monster killing spells being fairly easily accessible to most armies

4. What are you giving up to take a ridden monster? Usually you won't be able to get a level 4 which is a big thing to lose


Now I actually think single monsters are making a bit of a come-back at the moment, I've been seeing a fair few arachnaroks, stonehorns/thundertusks, hydras, abomonations, sphynx etc. I would say that the reason single monsters are more popular than ridden monsters at this stage is because you are not investing as many points into them and generally the return on investment is much better than say a 600 point lord on dragon. There will still be games when you lose them on turn one to a cannon shot or spell but that's just the risk you take tbh.

I think that to an extent a way for monsters to be brought back into the game would be for the points values to be reduced in the army books, and I think that the monsters in the 8th ed books so far have been fairly reasonably priced (with the exception of giants) so I can only hope that it continues in this way. I personally really want to see my beloved treemen be brought down a few points when the WE eventually get a new book.

The main reason i usually don't field monsters/monstrous mounts is for some reason my opposition usually feels threatened by them and so targets them first, so they usually get killed before i get a chance to do terribly much with them. XD