Endangered Species Alert! How do we save the Dragon?

Nihmwit 11 Dec 2012

I think everyone agrees that A.) Dragons and Dragon-mounts are absolutely amazing looking and make for great center-piece models in an army, and B.) are a typically a waste of points since they die so easily to warmachines that cost a fraction of their points.

The question is, how would you fix this? Make the Dragon a desirable and competitive option without making it too over-powered.

My proposed solution would be to first randomize the hit from the warmachine between the rider and the mount, similar to older editions. The fact that a cannon hits both is just a little too devastating. Second, I'd give the dragon a rule similar to the Stonehorn's halve-the-#-of-wounds ability. Warmachines that do d6 wounds only do d3, for example.

Any ideas from you guys? Or do you prefer a dragon-less (or monsterless) battlefield?

Gutlord Inquisitor 11 Dec 2012

1) Give all ridden monsters the same rules as monstrous cavalry: I.e. use the rider's characteristics except wounds and toughness.
2) Any monsters like dragons with a good armour save add +2 to the rider's armour save instead.
3) Ban pendant of khaleth.

Job done. The whole "rider and mount track wounds separately" thing is the issue and just doesn't fit with 8th edition. When monstrous cav, chariots, non-character ridden monsters, war machines and so on are now split profile units, the ridden monster rules are an anachronism.

Nihmwit 12 Dec 2012

That simplifies the rules for them, and brings them much more inline with 8th edition, but it doesn't really make them them any more survivable, just the rider.

Gutlord Inquisitor 12 Dec 2012

Perhaps you misunderstand... I'm saying they become a single model just like monstrous cav.

For example, an empire Lord on a griffon.
- Sword of Anti-Heroes
- Charmed Shield
- Talisman of Preservation
- Other Trickster's Shard.
- Full plate
- Imperial Griffon

This would be a single model, you couldn't hit the rider or mount separately. It would have Toughness 5, 5 Wounds and a 2+ armour save with a 4+ Ward save and the charmed shield too.

Total cost - 369 points. I think that's pretty reasonable for what you get. It's pretty nasty against troops and, while cannons are still a big threat, at least it isn't a total liability. That said, it isn't exactly going to go toe-to-toe with a Bloodthirster either.

AshBorn 12 Dec 2012

Man that might be a little overpowered.

Consider a chaos lord on a chaos dragon. MoT with crimson armour. A dragon with a 1+ armour / 3+ ward save and multi wound protection....

AshBorn
Check my Gnoblog to see my Frost Tribe Ogres!

Gutlord Inquisitor 12 Dec 2012

Well, I think it's worth trying to break this system with the new books, rather than the old. The MOT 3+ ward save is the next worst thing after the Pendant of Khaleth for individual protection cheese. Try looking at the ridden monsters from the 8th ed books.

But even then, how broken is it? It's 675 points, perhaps more. Nasty? Oh yes, but it's 675 points. That means a minimum of 2700 points to field it at all. It means no Level 4 too.

Even if you think this is overpowered remember that any major change like this may require certain things to be repointed. That's a pretty horrendous combo I hadn't thought of and I'm sure there are more, but in general it works surprisingly well with the points that monsters are currently at.

Lexy 12 Dec 2012

Now, the no level 4 is another thing.

It's not just the easy way of killing the dragon, you also miss out on the level 4.
But a dark elf dragon with a decent armour save and the pendant is almost unstoppable if you take the monstrous cavalry rule

Cormorant on thundertusk ASL rule

Quote from: Cormorant on Aug 24, 2011, 05:46:24 PM

Now all we need is the 7th edition rule that said if the models are killed they don't get to fight and we WOULD be a broken army! lol

Ogre achievements: 41/101

T Bone 12 Dec 2012

Saying flyers can't be hit by, or at least get a 3 or 4+ ward from the bounce of the cannon ball might work. To represent the fact that they are probably in the air by the time a cannon ball reaches them and a bounce can't get that high.

Or even different targeting restrictions Vs flyers, aiming the cannon up reduces strength as it has to work against gravity more. For example the 'bounce' isn't a 'bounce' its the point at which gravity takes over, so a direct hit is S10 but the 'bounce' lowers to S5 if making an shot Vs Flyers.

I would be dead right now were it not for the heroics of Skywalker!

32/101

MaanNaam 12 Dec 2012

I think the easiest way to bring in a rule to make monsters more good-looking for using is to simply say cannons (not stone throwers) only do D3 wounds to anything with the rule Large Target. That way you give a use for the Large Target rule again, and it takes at least 2 cannon shots to drop a monster (3 for stonehorn

).

That way the dwarves can have a rune in their new book that makes their cannons do D6 wounds to everything, and they will be the only army able to do that with cannons. (Giving the dwarves the Alpha-role in warmachine users that they should have)

There is only news. There is no good or bad.

Gutlord Inquisitor 12 Dec 2012

Now, the no level 4 is another thing.

It's not just the easy way of killing the dragon, you also miss out on the level 4.
But a dark elf dragon with a decent armour save and the pendant is almost unstoppable if you take the monstrous cavalry rule

I did say you'd have to ban the pendant. But the pendant is broken anyway. It doesn't make "monsters having a combined profile" a bad idea. Neither does any other specific combo. In general it works very well and any specific problem cases can be resolved via FAQ and army book updates.

If you come up with a core change to the game mechanics and the response is "yeah, it'd work great across the board but item X would cause a problem" then the problem is with item X not the mechanic.

Snarkhunter 12 Dec 2012

I think the easiest way to bring in a rule to make monsters more good-looking for using is to simply say cannons (not stone throwers) only do D3 wounds to anything with the rule Large Target. That way you give a use for the Large Target rule again, and it takes at least 2 cannon shots to drop a monster (3 for stonehorn ).

That way the dwarves can have a rune in their new book that makes their cannons do D6 wounds to everything, and they will be the only army able to do that with cannons. (Giving the dwarves the Alpha-role in warmachine users that they should have)

+1 to this.

Wildcards's Ogre achievements: 75/101
Most recent achievement: 59. Why do I bother? - lose 3 games in a row with your ogre army

8th edition: 54/13/6 (New book: 49/10/4)
Most recent result: My ogres lose to Empire - 3000 pts
Current win streak: 0

Gutlord Inquisitor 12 Dec 2012

I think the easiest way to bring in a rule to make monsters more good-looking for using is to simply say cannons (not stone throwers) only do D3 wounds to anything with the rule Large Target. That way you give a use for the Large Target rule again, and it takes at least 2 cannon shots to drop a monster (3 for stonehorn ).

Would that make people take ridden monsters?

Even assuming that cannons hit rider or mount not both and only do D3 wounds to everything, period, I still wouldn't touch a griffon with a bargepole. I'd much rather have a pegasus rider with a charmed shield, a decent armour and a ward save. A griffon still has no armour and is easily killed by infantry. Ditto for wyrven, or manticores, or whatever. Conversely I'd never take a wizard lord on a dragon - the wizard will be easily picked off by attacking troops. I still wouldn't put a vampire lord on a zombie dragon, just far too much of a liability. A ridden monster is still only as good as its weakest component and the enemy can choose to target the weakest link.

There's a more fundamental problem with ridden monsters beyond "cannons kill them too easily". Cannons are just the final nail in the coffin. The core, underlying issue is with units consisting of two different elements. We've seen chariots go from various components to a single model. We've seen it happen to war machines and monsters with handlers. We've seen it happen to non-character ridden monsters which went from things like stegadon (where skinks are a liability) to things like arachranok, warsphynx and stonehorn. We've even seen it happen to characters on monstrous beasts.

"Ridden Monster" needs to be a unit type for both character and noncharacter ridden monsters, and we need the very last vestige of multi-component units to be dropped along with all the rest.

grey templar 12 Dec 2012

They should not be a single model. You should still be able to kill the Dragon seperatly from the rider.

Plus we must also consider that attacks with multiple wounds are meant to kill big monsters. So we must come to a compromise.

I think all monsters, not just Dragons, should have more wounds.

I think 9 wounds would be ok for Dragons.

And have all monster mounts give +2 to their riders armor save.

This way, a cannon can't one shot a Dragon even if it gets lucky, and on average a dragon will take 3 cannonballs before dying.

Current win streak: 10

Things Fluffy,my Stonehorn, has flattened: Ancient Stegadon, Unit of 5 Chariots with Tomb king, Chaos Lord, Herald of Khorne on Jugger,
x58 Forever steadfast
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny________ This is bunny after a Thunderstomp

Nihmwit 12 Dec 2012

That good when comparing monsters to warmachines, but makes them WAY too unbalanced when comparing monsters to troops.

Of the suggestions I've seen so far, I like the "warmachines do d3 wounds against Large Targets," and then combine that with "Monsters are treated like Monstrous Cavalry, with a single profile for rider and mount."

Mr. Cthulhu 12 Dec 2012

That good when comparing monsters to warmachines, but makes them WAY too unbalanced when comparing monsters to troops.

Of the suggestions I've seen so far, I like the "warmachines do d3 wounds against Large Targets," and then combine that with "Monsters are treated like Monstrous Cavalry, with a single profile for rider and mount."

But monsters are supposed to be the bane of infantry's existence because they're supposed to be enormous, tough, strong and just plain terrifying. If this happened, that would be awesome for monster users, and brutal for infantry blocks at the same time, but I'm sure we'd find a way around it nonetheless.

They call me MR. Cthulhu! AAAAAHHHHHHH!

Nihmwit 12 Dec 2012

You'd basically force Empire players to run nothing but gunline armies. I'd say you'd force dwarf players to do the same thing, but they do it already

I can agree with lots of wounds when the monster in question doesn't have a good save, but 9 wounds with a 2+ save would just be WAY too much.

Borgrogh Foebasher 13 Dec 2012

There are only 3 armies in the game with cannons. If we look at the armies with dragons or monsters of equivalent epicness, one can see they are typically armies that can back up their army with decent magic support to work against anything that could snipe the dragon. But seriously, there are 14 currently supported armies and only 3 of them have cannons. There IS other stuff that threaten dragons, but the big thing people fall back on to complain about is the cannon thing, which is only prevalent because Empire is one of the more frequently used armies, dwarves have reliable cannons, and we're starting to see ogres more and they of course have a cannon now too.

Two old rules I think killed dragons when those rules were removed - one, certain strength values couldn't harm higher toughness values. We need this rule back, and bad. Also, it used to be that scaly skin was much less common but was always an unmodified save, to represent how tough dragon scales were compared to the armor of puny mortals.

Painting Progress:
Bulls: 75% complete
Ironguts: 5% complete
Leadbelchers: 0% complete
Maneaters: 0% complete
Characters: 0% complete

Gutlord Inquisitor 13 Dec 2012

Right, it can't just be cannons that are making ridden monsters so rare. As I said earlier in the thread, unlike a ridden mount like a pegasus that's tougher than each component alone, since a monster or rider can be allocated against entirely at choice, the model is really only as strong as the weakest link.

However, the cannon thing is the final nail in the coffin. Cannons take down ridden monsters/chariots hard. Roll up against 4-cannon empire and your vampire lord on zombie dragon is basically dead turn 1. It's extremely hard to hide from cannons on your average board. Now this might be acceptable in a paper-rock-scissors way if the ridden monster really kicked butt elsewhere but it's pretty mediocre at that too considering you're dumping typically a quarter of your army points into the thing.

However, bringing back low strength values not hurting high toughness doesn't really help ridden monsters. Most monsters are T6 at best, the only real exception that comes to mind is the TK beasties. In the old table, S3 can still hurt T6. Are people not taking dragons because they're scared of S2 attacks?

As for scaly skin not being modified, that would be a ward save now, but that only really helps certain monsters. Easier to allow the rider's Ward to apply to the mount.

Phazael 13 Dec 2012

There are only actually four armies with cannons. Empire, Dwarves, Ogres, and Skaven. Then there are another six with stone throwers (O&G, Bretts, Mortal Chaos, Daemons, Beastmen, Chaos Dwarves) and several of those have gimmicks to make them more accurate, not to mention all the new monsters come on gigantic bases. Several of the more popular armies tend to pack multiple cannons as a standard part of their build, notably Skaven, Dwarves, and Empire. Cannons are absolutely the main reason monsters (without 8 wounds or ward/regen) are never fielded.

But the other reason is that it is a gamble to even send them in against infantry. Character monsters are worse, especially mounted character monsters. The reason is that a unit champion can force a challenge. The rider will usually push two wounds in the challenge, tops, then the monster does not get to swing because the rider killed the target first. This means that the typical ridden monster will get 3 CR in most situations against the derpiest of units with a champ, who themselves will typically pack four static, just for showing up. So for a ridden monster to win against a unit with a champ to toss under the bus, the rider has to be able to push five wounds in the challenge. Anything less, and he is making a break test. And if he passes, he is stuck in a grind out against a steadfast unit that likely will hold the line for at least three rounds after. And thats derps. If the unit in question is something with great weapons and/or poison, you might die before you grind them out.

So, to recap, you send your general through the cannon guantlet and your reward is generally a risky grind out against a unit you will take at least two full game turns to chew through. So really, the only value of a ridden monster is killing other monsters and cavalry, which is a suspect reason to dump all your points into one vulnerable model.

The easiest fix would be to make cannons randomize what they hit. Stone throwers are generally sufficiently inaccurate, but the hyper accurate ones are still an issue, especially the Doom Diver and Doom Rocket. Failing that, I would like to see Cannons do d3+1 wounds (leave stone throwers as is) and that should probably apply to all of the super accurate cannon like Skaven weapons (WLC, Doomwheel) as well. Another good adjustment would be to make thunderstomps increased by the number of ranks in the enemy unit. That 11 rank skaven slavestar might actually get ground out if they are scooping another 8-10 models a turn from the early stomps.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast

Nihmwit 13 Dec 2012

I really like that idea of variable thunder stomps. What do you say, d3+1 per rank?

I'd also be comfortable with the d3+1 wounds from a cannon, but I still make that a part of "against large targets."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a character model can't be moved out of combat, then that character may refuse a challenge without penalty. Or do I have that backwards, in that in such a situation the character may not refuse? Don't have the BRB with me.

AshBorn 13 Dec 2012

If he cannot avoid a challenge, he cannot refuse.

One of the biggest draw back to Dragons and such. You charge in, and then end up fighting some lowly marauder champion and wasting all your attacks.. Then you die to static CR.

AshBorn
Check my Gnoblog to see my Frost Tribe Ogres!

mpdscott 14 Dec 2012

Maybe the changes need be something along these lines.

Large Target - Cannot be challenged by non-character models or models without the Large Target rule.
This would prevent a Halberd unit champion from stalling a Giant for a turn - which honestly doesn't make any sense - but would still allow the unit to hurt it

Scaly Skin - Unless Challenged, a Model with both Scaly Skin and Large Target, all wounds taken is reduced by an amount relative to the Scaly Skin save, ie Dragon 3+ Scaly Skin reduces wounds by 3 (=6 - Scaly Skin bonus), Stegadon 4+ Scaly Skin reduces wounds by 2 (=6 - Scaly Skin bonus); otherwise, all wounds are taken as normal.
This would mean that artillery and infantry don't do as much damage to the Large Scaly monster, but the Hero leading the Halberd unit would be doing normal damage - IF he challenged it. If he didn't challenge it, then he'd just be doing non-challenge damage to it.

Nihmwit 14 Dec 2012

I hope you meant to add "To a minimum of one." in that scaly skin option

mpdscott 14 Dec 2012

yeah.....forgot that bit

Phazael 14 Dec 2012

Actually the simpler solution would be to add impact hits to all large target mounts (the chariots already have them) because those cannot be challenged out. That way, if they charge in they get a couple extra wounds to let them win if Sgt Mook challenges him out. If you get charged by said block, then you get what you deserve. Simple fixes are better than huge paragraphs.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast

grey templar 14 Dec 2012

But a charging large target should still win combat even if it gets challanged out. I don't know of a single champion out there that could stand up to any large target I can think of.

Phazael 14 Dec 2012

Without impact hits, actually, its not likely. Take your basic HE dragon lord on a star dragon (the only dragon mounted hero I have seen in three years) into consideration. Lets say he charges a saurus unit with shields. Saurus guy challenges, dragon has to accept. With rerolls, the HE lord pushes maybe three wounds tops, assuming no lucky parries. The champ dies and the challenge is over, the dragon gets to do absolutely nothing. HE Dragon lord has CR4 (3 wounds plus charge) vs the built in CR4 any block would have, so it loses by musician. Thats the issue that keeps large ridden monsters off the table, right after cannons. The need to take a break test (likely nowhere near your BSB) and gamble the entire game on one chump unit makes the cost of these guys laughable. With impact hits, at least you pick up a couple wounds the round you charge so you can win if the ten point champ takes you out of the fight. If someone running a dragon manages to get charged by a block of infantry, then frankly they deserve to sweat out that break test, but a ten point champ should not virtually guarentee a win against a dragon lord.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast

Phazael 14 Dec 2012

ps- Armies other than HE can get around this issue by taking a Great Weapon on the character, but even then the dragon is not a sure thing to push the four wounds needed to do the 5CR required to win in that situation. I lose with my Keeper of Secrets all the time in that situation and she is massively better than a unit champ.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast

Snarkhunter 14 Dec 2012

What if the challenge rules were changed to say that a character riding a monster may refuse challenges/be sent to the back (ie not fight) just the same as a character in a unit? The monster would still get to fight (including breath weapon, thunderstomp, etc).

Gutlord Inquisitor 14 Dec 2012

This is not the only problem with ridden monsters. There are three aspects.

1) Too vulnerable to cannons
2) Screwed by the challenge rules
3) Not viable against enemy infantry

Honestly a unit of great weapon troops will take down a rider/mount very quickly. Even regular S3 or S4 troops will cut a griffon or manticore out from under you or kill any character on top that doesn't have armour.

Really we need all three areas to have an overhaul.

1) Cannons need a rework. They need to get a BS-based system in SOME format. They're just too accurate. The artillery dice system was always meant to complement a guess-range system and just isn't made for a premeasure system and don't work with the established terrain modifier system.
2) The challenge rules need a complete overhaul. They're one aspect that needed a revamp in 7th and didn't get it in 8th. The game would simply be better if the challenge rules didn't exist because they're generally used to avoid a character or deny someone's attacks somewhere. Rarely do they allow mighty heroes to fight!
3) Mounted heroes need a consistent set of rules and multiple-part figures have been removed from 8th edition. A more streamlined and elegant system needs to be implemented. The obvious solution is to make them a single split profile figure.

All three need a look at in 9th.

Nihmwit 14 Dec 2012

I think your comment about the accuracy of cannons might be influenced by your experience with Ironblasters. Regular cannons are far less accurate, unless you're firing at a large base. Part of the issue is how easy it is to hit a target that large. Thats why I'd rather see a change to the monsters, rather than the cannons.

Gutlord Inquisitor 14 Dec 2012

I play with and against Empire pretty regularly too. What Empire lack in reliable bouncing they make up in bringing 4 cannons to the table.

Their "accuracy" isn't just the chance of hitting or missing. The point is that each cannon has a particular chance of hitting and that's really only influenced by (a) special rules such as ironblaster and (b) enemy base size. Terrain has no real effect, a cannon will bounce through a river or wood or whatever just fine (excluding walls - the irony being walls are the best defence for large targets against cannons yet large targets are meant to be unable to benefit from walls!). If WFB used a cover save system it would be much less of an issue as you'd get a save for being in cover and weapons like cannons that don't roll "to hit" wouldn't bypass the cover. So the accuracy comment really is that a cannon has the same chance of hitting when it's being fired between two units, through a giant's legs and two woods to snipe a lone character at maximum range ... as a unit right in front of it in the open.

This often gets complained about as an issue with TLOS but it really isn't. My friend has been using 4 bolt throwers (yeah, he's going to drop them for something more effective) and there was one case where he did try one of those crazy through-the-eye-of-a-needle shots and when you need to roll a 6 followed by a 5 to hit - if you get it fair enough! But if it were a cannon he'd hit just as well as if firing at the same target in the open.

Phazael 14 Dec 2012

And really, the other cannons in the game either do insane damage (WLC) or have their own ways to be even more accurate than the IBlaster. The bounce reroll is actually not what makes the IBlaster good, its the mobility and resistance to conventional war machine countertactics.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast

Captn Morgrim 15 Dec 2012

1) Cannons need a rework. They need to get a BS-based system in SOME format. They're just too accurate. The artillery dice system was always meant to complement a guess-range system and just isn't made for a premeasure system and don't work with the established terrain modifier system.

I wonder if it's enough to enforce the old you have to see the spot on the tabletop where you aiming to spot some cannon shenanigans.

2) The challenge rules need a complete overhaul. They're one aspect that needed a revamp in 7th and didn't get it in 8th. The game would simply be better if the challenge rules didn't exist because they're generally used to avoid a character or deny someone's attacks somewhere. Rarely do they allow mighty heroes to fight!

Agreed in general. If they have the need to keep the bloody rule, I rather have the Monster-Rider's owner decide whether character and monster fight against the challenger together OR choose to fight seperate targets. Single Char goes against sacrificial champion and monster munches his buddies, while they work together against Munchkin's Wet Dream characters - a much easier fix.

3) Mounted heroes need a consistent set of rules and multiple-part figures have been removed from 8th edition. A more streamlined and elegant system needs to be implemented. The obvious solution is to make them a single split profile figure.

I 'd support this move once all the 7th edition sillynes has been purges out of the WHFB system, otherwise, for reasons stated above (Chaos, Druchi), I see broken combos still a'comin'.

"Better t' fight windmills than become a miller!
For thar be always the option of using cannon..."

"The life of a pirate is the only life for a man of any spirit!"
- The mutineers Daniel Macarty and Phineas Bunce in the early 18th century

Nihmwit 17 Dec 2012

How about disallowing challenges in combats involving a monster-riding character? This way no singling out and locking up people. The character-monster can make full use of their combat potential against the unit, but they can't try to defend themselves from units by issuing challenges to weaker characters. Seriously, until the game includes an intelligence-stat, I think we can all assume a lone guy on foot isn't going to accept an invitation to fight against some yahoo on a dragon, regardless of what the dragon-rider calls his mother.

"I challenge you to single combat! Just you versus me and my dragon! All those people with great weapons can watch."
"How about 'No.'"

grey templar 18 Dec 2012

Hmmm, maybe it should be the 2 characters still fight the challange, but the mount is counted as not being in the challange and so can still attack the unit. Only if the mount is a Monster of course.

Gutlord Inquisitor 18 Dec 2012

I wonder if it's enough to enforce the old you have to see the spot on the tabletop where you aiming to spot some cannon shenanigans.

Well that aiming to the spot stuff is downright stupid. One of the things that needs to be changed. Cannons should shoot a target, not fire at the ground.

grey templar 18 Dec 2012

Except thats how cannons have always been aimed, both in the game and IRL.

It makes sense, you know its going to bounce/deviate. So you aim at a point rather than a specific target. Its what comes with having an inaccurate weapons.

You probably have a specific target in mind, but you are actually aiming at a different point hoping for a favorable bounce.

Gutlord Inquisitor 18 Dec 2012

It may be, but this is just fine abstracted into a BS roll for the war machine crew. Failing that the normal "games as played" convention of picking a target and nominating a number of inches from the back of their base works just as well. After all, the cannon crew are trying to hit their target and just undershooting by the relevant amount. They don't actually need to literally see the spot on the ground they're undershooting at.

It's rather absurd that a cannon crew couldn't shoot at a giant because another enemy unit obscures the point in front of the giant where the first bounce would be. Similarly it's pretty dumb that a cannon crew can hit a single model hiding out of sight behind a hill because they can target a spot on the hill and somehow hit the model behind.

Nihmwit 19 Dec 2012

Try this:
When Firing a cannon, you must choose one of the below types of fire.
Skip-Shot: This is a normal cannon shot as detailed by the BRB, with the exception that a model is allowed to take an initiative test if struck by the cannon. Models that pass the test take a S5, d3 wound hit (saves allowed as normal). Models that fail the initiative test take the full S10, d6 wound hit.
Elevated-Shot: When firing an Elevated-shot, you pick a target unit that can be seen. Roll to hit with a d6, ignoring modifiers, and the artillery dice. The artillery dice is rolled only to determine if a misfire has occured; on any other result, ignore it. If a hit is rolled by the crew with the d6, the target (and only the target) takes a S10, d6 wound hit. The shot does not bounce or scatter, and can effect nothing except the intended target.

As far as I remember, no cannon crew in the game has a BS higher than 3, so an elevated shot would hit on a 4+ universally. Except for those sneaky empire and dwarf engineers, who are BS 4 I believe. The skipping attack would still be a decent attack against monsters, provided you can see the terrain in front of them to skip the shot.

grey templar 19 Dec 2012

Yeah, so all that really does is make our cannon worse.

Nihmwit 19 Dec 2012

Not really. Our cannon is substantially taller, so it can see the ground for skip shots easier, plus it can move if it can't and still fire. Plus most monsters have crap init, so they'll still take full strength shots, and War Machines don't HAVE an initiative, and so auto-fail (probably should have included that caveat). It's less useful against heavy cav and monstrous cav, which could be a serious problem.

psychichobo 19 Dec 2012

I realise what I'm saying goes against the grain here, but the only problem I've found with Monstrous Mounts - and in fact many Monsters - is whether or not they actually have a save.

Dragons may not be awesome, but the ability to pack a 3+ armour save means they really only fear war machine shooting - in comparison to the Giant, Griffins, and the godawful bunch of freaks from the Beastmen book, who have no save whatsoever, and thus are often ripped up by mere archery and some lucky infantry stabs. This is especially true in the case of T5 monsters who immediately become useless against S4 armies. Thunderstomp helps a LOT, but really it's a bit sad when you're up against cheap units that can chop you up happily.

I propose two changes to solve the problems!

1) For the challenge issue, simply have a rule wherein if an opposing character dies in a challenge and either your rider or mount hasn't attacked yet (and is still alive), your rider or mount gets to make their attacks anyway - to represent them stomping Jim the Unit Champion into a fine paste in front of any mates who might get any funny ideas. Viola, gives you the required combat res and keeps it real.

2) Perhaps a lazy option here but... LOWER THE POINTS COST. Seriously, so many monstrous mounts and monsters are overcosted nowadays. Giants could easily drop to 150 or less, for example, and a cheaper Stonehorn when being used as a Hunter's Mount would be very welcome - considering GW never seem to consider what you're losing out on as well as getting when you take a monstrous mount it's very annoying.
If the Stonehorn went to 150 as a mount, it would still be expensive with the cost of the hunter included, but it might make some players consider it nonetheless.

Cheaper monsters people. It makes sense, and won't hurt as much when a cannonball pops 150 points instead of 200 (I'd argue giants should be cheaper at 100 points, but that's just me personally).

Ogres - because who honestly likes 2 wound heroes?

rocdocta 20 Dec 2012

dargons are dead because of standfast. My VC lord on a dragon could do 800 wounds in a combat (ok he cant) vs empire militia, but as long as the militia have 5 guys left, they still test on unmodified leadership with a reroll from bsb and using generals Ld9 or 10. That will leave him open to a flank counter charge.

For the points dragons are just too inefficient. i dont think cannons are the reason.

Mal Beastkiller 20 Dec 2012

Would it be worht reintroducing the olf "flying high" rules from the 4th/5th edition? A flying model could effectively leave the battlefield in one turn and then return the following turn and be placed anywhere on the table, even charging into combat.

Gutlord Inquisitor 20 Dec 2012

Would it be worht reintroducing the olf "flying high" rules from the 4th/5th edition? A flying model could effectively leave the battlefield in one turn and then return the following turn and be placed anywhere on the table, even charging into combat.

Nihmwit 20 Dec 2012

okay, for sheer amusement AND accuracy, that's worth a gnoblar.

That's a horrible idea.

Hinge 21 Dec 2012

As someone who has played two ridden monsters (Old blood on Carno + Engine) in tourneys and done well, I can lend a little perspective here.

First off, many of the things that people are bringing up as making monsterous mounts less effective are really just challenges to be overcome. Any monsterous mounts are likely the center piece of your army and you really should design your army to take advantage of their strengths while mitigating weakness. Bring Warmachine hunters, strong defense on rider, and decent magic defense. If Monstourous infantry is available, take them to use as a cannonball catcher, demand lots of terrain. etc., there are plenty of tactics. As far as the unit champ challenge problem, if you plan on jamming your dragon into units alone, make sure he has the crown of command. If you dont take the CoC, avoid units with champs unless you are going in with support (really the best way to use any monster).

IMO, the biggest reason that most players do not take a Dragon is it usually means they cannot take a L4. It is near gospel that you need to take a L4 in competitive play.

I have played 25 tournament games with my general sitting on a T5, 4+ armor save, non flying (heck not even a large target for the 18 IP). These matches include battles against dwarf gunlines, double Iron blasters, steam tanks, etc. The only thing that really worries me is the Lore of Death!

However, the one change I would make is that a cannon should be randomized between rider and mount. Just makes sense.

Nihmwit 22 Dec 2012

*scoffs!* What, you mean I have to use STRATEGY with my 600 point super character/dragon combo? I can't just point him at a unit and fire-and-forget? Gah, why even bother then!

Brainfreezer 22 Dec 2012

We would all assume.

I think the challenge idea screws dragons over, as they are "seperate" models. I can't see why they didn't treat them like a split-profile like MFC. That way, they both get to attack.
I find cannons are only an issue when you overspend on your dragon and everything else is just combat mush. I mean, 600+ for lords on dragons is not worth it and those who do would be foolish to do it. 600 points is 14 Ironguts or 20 Bulls. We all know what way combat would swing.
Cannons do need to be nerfed, but not very much so that cannons are just unit drops. Cannon hits should be randomized on hit, but that's it. No other rule is needed against monsters.
I agree that monsters should be cheaper, as they are overpriced whereas a unit of equal points can beat them in combat.
Giant: 140pts
Dragon:175pts
Stonehorn:200pts
Thundertusk:185pts
Wyvern:190pts
Hydra:215pts (they are just broken when spammed)
Gryffon:100pts

Johnny-Crass 22 Dec 2012

My Woodelf dragon does just fine. The way you save the dragon is you get players who know how to use it. Simple enough.

Lexy 22 Dec 2012

Or the opponents he chooses?

to be honest: in a wood elves list the dragon would be the number one target.
So if he stays alive (and takes enough points from the opponent, than good job, but why isn't your opponent not trying to kill him?

Cormorant on thundertusk ASL rule

Quote from: Cormorant on Aug 24, 2011, 05:46:24 PM

Now all we need is the 7th edition rule that said if the models are killed they don't get to fight and we WOULD be a broken army! lol

Ogre achievements: 41/101

Johnny-Crass 22 Dec 2012

You make it sound like I am just sitting my dragon in the middle of the field with its pants down. Using a dragon is about target saturating and utilizing terrain and combats in other to minimize shooting. Double treeman and a few eagles pull off heat from the dragon and using the Fly rules makes it simple to engage in CC early. Warmachines are easy to deal with if you have half a brain. Hence why I said good players use dragons, bad players loose dragons

Lexy 23 Dec 2012

With true line of sight most dragons can't hide anywhere, or your terrain is much more in scale then the terrain I play with.

Of course there is target saturation, but to me a dragon is another target (think: needs a different solution) then eagles.
Treemen are the same target, but on the other hand, if you loose two treemen, you may keep the dragon.
How good that deal is: I don't know.

Cormorant on thundertusk ASL rule

Quote from: Cormorant on Aug 24, 2011, 05:46:24 PM

Now all we need is the 7th edition rule that said if the models are killed they don't get to fight and we WOULD be a broken army! lol

Ogre achievements: 41/101

Gutlord Inquisitor 23 Dec 2012

The whole player skill thing is a fair point, but ultimately you can say that about anything in the game that is suboptimal. You're playing Wood Elves for starters! Most Wood Elf players I know are expert generals and play the army because it is a challenge and takes skill to get the most out of.

Sure, people think Yhetees are bad, but in the right matchups they can be very good indeed and you can't just throw them at the enemy and expect them to do well. Use terrain, play to their strengths and don't charge people with the flaming banner. Good players can do well with them. ...

You can make a ridden monster viable, but you have to work hard and you have to accept that sometimes it'll just get blown away turn 1 by cannons or be cut down by enemy infantry. If you can make a ridden monster work as a good player then more power to you but that doesn't suddenly mean they are good value for points in comparison with other units. A ghoul king is a pretty good choice for VC. So is a terrorgheist. But put one on top of the other is a terrible idea! For a host of reasons. That's not to say you cannot expect to win if you do... but you've stacked the odds against you to say the least.

Furthermore there are other reasons beyond "I can't win with unit X" for changing game mechanics:

- Cannons just don't fit with TLOS and 8th edition in general. "Too good" is almost besides the point. They don't play with all of the terrain rules that are designed with BS in mind.
- Why do we think cannons should kill flying monsters anyway? Think you could hit a helicopter with a medieval cannon? Even a swift-moving chariot? Cannons should be the bane of large units that can't dodge, or big, slow ground targets. Surely the weapon of choice against monsters should be the bolt thrower? (Yes, I think this means a rethink of the bolt thrower rules too).
- Ridden monsters should become a combined profile unit and this isn't only because it would make people think about fielding them. Once again we're looking at something that is a leftover from previous editions and doesn't really make sense in the 8th ed rules.
- Challenge rules need to be remade from scratch and not just because of ridden monsters. They just don't do what they're supposed to.

This goes a lot deeper than "My dragon sux!" and remarks about learning to play better. The point is why does it suck? It sucks for a number of underlying issues with the 8th ed rules that stem from mechanics stuck in previous editions.

Brainfreezer 24 Dec 2012

If you all notice, (bar VC) Dragons in 7th ed books are mainly for dealing damage to some other monsters. Dragons in these books were not the beet at clearing infantry, and even with new game mechanics, they still use those old, anti-monster rkilling rules.
Maybe a "generic" dragon that can be taken like magic items ir SOM in the BSB? Now some armies can't take them (Ogres and VC come to mind and maybe OnG) but armies like (Lizards, Elves, Empire, Chaos) can take them. These monsters would have rules to kill, well, what they should. INFANTRY. They would be reasonable cost and have decent wargear. Wargear and the class of Dragon can be upgraded etc. I think that could work better. It would also be easy to do, just stick it in a White Dwarf.

grey templar 24 Dec 2012

Dragons are ok at killing infantry. They all have at least a 3+ armor save and T6 so they won't be taking all that much damage, except against things that have Halberds or Great Weapons. Which is only fair because thats what you should use to kill a dragon.

They also have a decent number of attacks and Thunderstomp.

Maybe give characters riding a Dragon the option to refuse a Challange with no penelty?

Give characters that take a monster as a mount the following rule.

Below Contempt: A character with such a magnificent steed is going to be quite proud of it and will often ignore challengers they don't deem as being worthy of their time. The Character and his mount may not be sent to the rear for Refusing a Challange if the model issuing the Challenge's unit type was infantry of if the model is a Unit Champion. Such foes are simply beneath him.

Gutlord Inquisitor 24 Dec 2012

Dragons have armour but most other monsters do not. An imperial griffon for example, still dies pretty quickly even to regular troops. 30 S4 attacks on average? Not a whole lot, what, survive 2 rounds against a horde?

Being able to ignore challenges would be a good start but that's not enough to make me take a flying monster. Really, being challenged for a turn isn't the end of the world for a big monsters especially with a stubborn crown.

There isn't one problem with ridden monsters. Making them a split profile helps the most with all the various issues, but the issues with cannons and challenges are there anyway even if you aren't looking at ridden monsters, they just affect ridden monsters the most.

Johnny-Crass 24 Dec 2012

Well in all fairness Griffons are the biggest craponastick in warhammer

As for challenging out the dragon lord most Elf players (any elf really) will know the flying noble trick where you double charge a chump hero and the dragon into the same unit. Hero eats the challenge and dragon wrecks face. I will admit player skill is huge for playing dragons in general but they are not going extinct. It is more like they are being rounded up and collected by eccentric generals who know how to care for them.

Gutlord Inquisitor 24 Dec 2012

Griffons got a price break and a stat boost and they're still rubbish.

That's the thing, you have to really, really want to field a dragon to get over the inherent suckiness and play well to even get it back to mediocre. Some people like that kind of thing and most of us that played ogres before the new book are familiar with that - we played ogres because we liked the army or because it added an extra challenge to the game and indeed some ogre players did well with the old book despite the odds being stacked against us. But that didn't mean ogres were a particularly competitive book and I don't think anyone was really sad to get a new book with decently priced (perhaps some too decently) units.

I'd like to see ridden monsters considered a 'competitive' choice, or at least not considered a major handicap. Not too good, but a real "I could make this my centerpiece for my army and it would kick ass too!" feel to these models.

flodhestur 25 Dec 2012

I think the easiest way to bring in a rule to make monsters more good-looking for using is to simply say cannons (not stone throwers) only do D3 wounds to anything with the rule Large Target. That way you give a use for the Large Target rule again, and it takes at least 2 cannon shots to drop a monster (3 for stonehorn ).

That way the dwarves can have a rune in their new book that makes their cannons do D6 wounds to everything, and they will be the only army able to do that with cannons. (Giving the dwarves the Alpha-role in warmachine users that they should have)

That would make our Ironbalsters only take d3 wounds, since they are largetargets....

Nihmwit 25 Dec 2012

I'm fine with that

Johnny-Crass 25 Dec 2012

And make the Steamtank impossible to drop

grey templar 26 Dec 2012

Meh, now that Ironguts wound it on 4+ I would be fine with that.

Brainfreezer 26 Dec 2012

That's a brilliant rule! And maybe to balance it out, Large Targets are not obstructed by non-Large Target models for purposes of shooting. Plus, shooting attacks recieve +1 to hit them if out of half range.

Johnny-Crass 26 Dec 2012

Oh yah guys lets go one step further and break out our 7th edition rulebook!!!

Mr. Cthulhu 26 Dec 2012

Maybe give characters riding a Dragon the option to refuse a Challange with no penelty?

I honestly don't see a character on a large target (dragon or not) stopping his beast after charging into a unit from eating every little thinling it can get to and making it sit and wait to tear arse at one person, just because that one person called his mother something foul...
"You know what Mr. Gigantic (Dragon, Griffon, etc.), you shouldn't destroy all those little tiny humans with your razor sharp claws or menacing teeth or what have you, I need you to watch me cut this guy's head off for saying my mother smells like the underside of a river troll in July."

Yeah...that'll happen....

They call me MR. Cthulhu! AAAAAHHHHHHH!

Lexy 27 Dec 2012

Maybe give characters riding a Dragon the option to refuse a Challange with no penelty?

I honestly don't see a character on a large target (dragon or not) stopping his beast after charging into a unit from eating every little thinling it can get to and making it sit and wait to tear arse at one person, just because that one person called his mother something foul...
"You know what Mr. Gigantic (Dragon, Griffon, etc.), you shouldn't destroy all those little tiny humans with your razor sharp claws or menacing teeth or what have you, I need you to watch me cut this guy's head off for saying my mother smells like the underside of a river troll in July."

Yeah...that'll happen....

You did NOT do that, right?
You just put real world logic and dragon in one sentence.

It's all about metagaming.
If a tournament organiser uses really high terrain or there is lots of fog of war (less far sight rule) then dragons and other flying monsters will be more interesting.

Cormorant on thundertusk ASL rule

Quote from: Cormorant on Aug 24, 2011, 05:46:24 PM

Now all we need is the 7th edition rule that said if the models are killed they don't get to fight and we WOULD be a broken army! lol

Ogre achievements: 41/101

grey templar 27 Dec 2012

Except I've found that if you go too far in the other direction you make the monsters unbelievably powerful again.

It seems like there is very little middle ground here. either the monsters are super powerful or they are complete suck because cannons blow them off the board.

Lexy 27 Dec 2012

Let's be honest.
In 7th the metagame was basically: charge with knights, win combat and break the blocks.
Now it is more of a: big units of steadfast and use stuff to kill monsters that are able to break them anyways.
9th edition: we don't know what will be the meta game

Cormorant on thundertusk ASL rule

Quote from: Cormorant on Aug 24, 2011, 05:46:24 PM

Now all we need is the 7th edition rule that said if the models are killed they don't get to fight and we WOULD be a broken army! lol

Ogre achievements: 41/101

grey templar 28 Dec 2012

Let's be honest.
In 7th the metagame was basically: charge with knights, win combat and break the blocks.
Now it is more of a: big units of steadfast and use stuff to kill monsters that are able to break them anyways.
9th edition: we don't know what will be the meta game

Skirmishers...

The great Wood Elf appocalypse is coming. You have been warned!

Mr. Cthulhu 28 Dec 2012

Let's be honest.
In 7th the metagame was basically: charge with knights, win combat and break the blocks.
Now it is more of a: big units of steadfast and use stuff to kill monsters that are able to break them anyways.
9th edition: we don't know what will be the meta game

Skirmishers...

The great Wood Elf appocalypse is coming. You have been warned!

The new wood elf book (if it comes out before 9th...) should use the skirmish rules from 7th. I'd love to dust my wood elves off again...

They call me MR. Cthulhu! AAAAAHHHHHHH!

Nihmwit 28 Dec 2012

Let's be honest.
In 7th the metagame was basically: charge with knights, win combat and break the blocks.
Now it is more of a: big units of steadfast and use stuff to kill monsters that are able to break them anyways.
9th edition: we don't know what will be the meta game

Skirmishers...

The great Wood Elf appocalypse is coming. You have been warned!

followed 2 months later by a new wood elf book that contains only a single entry for 0-1 Skirmishers, thus invalidating all the wood elf armies all the band-wagoneers just bought.

Johnny-Crass 28 Dec 2012

Wood Elf Apoc is already here.... We just hide and only appear to smash poor HE and Daemon armies them melt back into the shadows

Lexy 28 Dec 2012

Let's get back to saving dragons guys.
This thread is derailing too far now.

Cormorant on thundertusk ASL rule

Quote from: Cormorant on Aug 24, 2011, 05:46:24 PM

Now all we need is the 7th edition rule that said if the models are killed they don't get to fight and we WOULD be a broken army! lol

Ogre achievements: 41/101

shaun5603 29 Dec 2012

How do you run your WE dragon point wise? 2500 or less.

I have a carmine dragon that looking for home but not sure what army to buit it

Johnny-Crass 29 Dec 2012

I only play 2500 and the rider bears Stone of Crystal Mere. Easiest way keep a dragon alive is give it a wardsave after all

Thunder lord klement 10 Feb 2013

Maybe if they introduced a rule abit like 'hit and run' (from 40k) where after the round of combat the dragon and rider could leave combat (picture it making a swoop attack) or heck introduce some kind of swoop attack all together.
Maybe some generic dragon upgrades such as regen , +1 toughness, heroic killing blow, level one magic - for x amount of points each might help give them an edge. Monsters should be powerful as heck its a dragon! think how Smaug in the Hobbit destorys, but most seem just to have stat line on par with hero choices so it is my opinion they need abit of something extra

I'm no longer a big gamer in 8th, so please don't be too harsh if you disagree as I am unfamiliar with some of the more complex game mechanics.
TLK

Brainfreezer 10 Feb 2013

Maybe like this?
Blazing Descent: Nominate an enemy unit within the dragon's maximum movement distance. The rider ushers the dragon to fly over the enemy, nearly nose diving in the process.
Roll a d6. On a 2+ the dragon is placed at the back edge of the unit. (Staying 1" away blah blah) The unit suffers d6 hits, equal to the dragon's Strenght. These attacks are resolved as a Shooting attack, but occur in the Movement phase, in the "Remaining Moves" phase. The unit must pass a Leadership test, or it may not reform in it's turn. The dragon, then completes it's move, without exceeding the maximum distance allowed. On a 1, the above rules take place, but the dragon suffers an equal amount of attacks that the models in the middle row have (So the middle of 1 rank is the whole rank). They must roll to hit and wound as normal, but have the Armour Piercing special rule because they are attacking the sofyer under belly of the dragon. If the dragon is slain, the rider suffers d6 hits at the strenght of the mount from the impact. The rider is placed 2" away from the back of the unit attacked.
On a 6, the dragon follows the normal 2+ result, but also gets to make a free breath weapon attack on the unit. Place the flame template on any model in the front rank, and it must pass through as much enemy models as possible.
If a dragon descends on a flank side, then the dragon will be placed on the opposite flank side.
A dragon cannot Descend upon units locked in combat or in woods or buildings or courtyards.
The dragon may not be placed in a vortex. If this would happen, reduce the distance from the unit to the minimum, whilst staying 1" away. If this cannot be done, then the Blazing Descent may not be declared.

Continue this conversation on GitHub ↗

Opens a new GitHub Issue pre-filled with a link back here — sign in with GitHub to post. If someone already restarted this thread, please add to that issue instead of opening a second one.