AoS monsters

[Worm]

What do you think of monsters in AoS, i am playing AoS for about 1 year and I must say that i am a bit disappointed when it comes to monsters.
As AoS don't have Strenght and Toughnes, monsters are like normal units nothing more, ok they don't have to take Bravery...

But at the end most of the monsteres are just bad.

I play BoC and i our book you can find a lot of monsters, but only few are good and it is the same in most of the amry books.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Worm

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

In general they’re not great for AoS as they struggle with objective play. Big monster heroes are fine as the provide other benefits but others struggle.

You just have to make the most of their combat ability as they can put out a lot of damage in to one small point which a unit can’t do. Make sure they’re screened well etc. 

I use two ghorgon in my BoC list and love them 

[Ajmaus]

Monsters degrade pretty easily and are point costed as if they always fought at the top teirs... BoC monsters are has tough as 14 gors. That just isnt tough enough. I actually think if they added 50% more wounds to most monsters [not every monster] and changed the degrade to start when they hit half wounds instead of quarter wounds.. It would make them viable..

Gorgon

14 wounds > 21 wounds 50% more

Wound degrade after it suffered 11 wounds 

Would degrade again once it suffered 16 wounds..

I think monsters are so easy to degrade people arnt worried about charging them and either killing or making them hit like a wet noodle.. Where more wounds means even a good unit might not degrade it and suffer one attack phase at the monsters full power..

Also just changing nothing but monster degrade at 50% instead of at 25% would help alot

[Popisdead]

I think Monsters are great, I love the degrading profile.  I wish GW would stop making things "non-degrading" as well,. it isn't fixing issues.  Hello Jabberslythe,... not a fix.  I hope Str vs. T doesn't return.  40k while it is a better game now isn't as good as AoS.

[Worm]

I agree monsters should have more HP at the moment they are just bad if you compare them to the units for same points you get more.

[Inquisitorsz]

This was discussed a few weeks ago in regards to monsters/elite units vs horde units

 

Some good point in there worth considering. Also gives you a good idea of the general consensus on the issue (since there's 7 pages of discussion there). 

[Mutton]

For whatever reason, the rules writers loooove giving BIG models BIG points costs, regardless of how useful that model really is. We wonder why hordes are everywhere, and it's because most monsters are priced way out of efficiency (for competitive tables). BoC's entire issue is the BIG MODEL/BIG POINTS conundrum. The Hellpit Abomination was the only recent monster(non-hero) that I feel was priced appropriately.

[tom_gore]

As long as objective control is based on model count, monsters will never be competitive for their points, even if buffed with wounds or the degradation removed.

One easy fix would be to have a MONSTER count as X models (maybe 10?) when deciding the control of an objective.

[Dr Ben]

I think movement is another issue for some monsters. Nearly all the monsters you see played (in competitive list reviews anyway) can fly. Monsters on foot are relatively easy to chaff and often hard to position so that you can use their higher damage per inch to good effect. I think it could help (and be fun) if some monsters got a rule added to their warscroll which gave them some kind of line-breaking movement effect. I know several monsters have a d3 mortal wounds on the charge type rule, but I think extra movement would be more helpful in many situations. From an emotional point of view it feels a bit anti-climactic when you charge a stonehorn into a unit of 10 elves/ungor/goblins etc. and they just stop it dead. I don't know exactly how would implement it or if anyone knows of similar mechanics in other games, my top of the head idea is something like "when making a charge move this model can move over units with a wound characteristic of 1 as if they could fly".

p.s I know thermal rider cloak exists as an option for heroes (and who doesn't like a rocket powered woolly mammoth or t-rex) but I think this thread is primarily about non-hero monsters

[Cookiez]

The fixed to wound roll and no invulnerable saves are the main problem here. Look at 40k knights - 24 wounds, T8 which means small arms wound it on 6 and only dedicated at weapons on 4+ or 3+, native 5 invulnerable which can be uped up to 4++. There are really only few armies that can kill a knight in one turn. Monster in AoS is just as fragile as gor unit.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Cookiez

[Beliman]

21 minutes ago, Cookiez said:

The fixed to wound roll and no invulnerable saves are the main problem here. Look at 40k knights - 24 wounds, T8 which means small arms wound it on 6 and only dedicated at weapons on 4+ or 3+, native 5 invulnerable which can be uped up to 4++. There are really only few armies that can kill a knight in one turn. Monster in AoS is just as fragile as gor unit.

Some new abilitites could help: "Scaly skin: -2 to wound rolls that target this monster".
Ward saves are a bit tricky. With some positioning and magic/prayers, you will start rolling 2 to 5 ward saves for some armies.
IMO, GW should remove the ability to stack special saves. 

[KoganStyle]

2 hours ago, tom_gore said:

As long as objective control is based on model count, monsters will never be competitive for their points, even if buffed with wounds or the degradation removed.

One easy fix would be to have a MONSTER count as X models (maybe 10?) when deciding the control of an objective.

It could count as the number of models as its current wounds  to keep the degrading effectiveness theme. I am sure there are other methods but these feel like easy fixes

[zilberfrid]

3 hours ago, KoganStyle said:

It could count as the number of models as its current wounds  to keep the degrading effectiveness theme. I am sure there are other methods but these feel like easy fixes

I agree, even as a Free Peoples player. If there's a general on griffin there that's carved halfway through ten guard and three of them ran away, it should not lose the objective to them. If 10 greatsworders have reduced it to a tiny sliver of its health, they are the ones having a hold over them.

[Dead Scribe]

Its a dance. 

Make monsters just as good as units and now people don't need to buy a bunch of little models anymore.  They can just take as many monsters as can fit legally in a list.

Monsters are support units whose main job is to do damage, not hold objectives.  It is a role.

 

[TheCovenLord]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Its a dance. 

Make monsters just as good as units and now people don't need to buy a bunch of little models anymore.  They can just take as many monsters as can fit legally in a list.

Monsters are support units whose main job is to do damage, not hold objectives.  It is a role.

 

Although I agree with you on the shift over to monster heavy lists if they become too efficient. I really think they should lean much heavier on the support role/abilties.  Most of the behemoths either hit like noodles or degrade far too quickly to be considered "damage dealers" with few exceptions ex: Gristlegore gheist and KoS (which may be what you are more familiar with as I take it you are a competitive only player).  Although thematically I really enjoy the degrading profile, I find most of the monsters seem to be pointed for the maximum profile, yet a mere 3 wounds drops their effectiveness to such a degree that they are often ignored. 

[Whitefang]

It's really a embarrassing  moment when those shorty fyreslayers hack down  big bullgors much eaiser than verse versa 

[Dead Scribe]

Therein is the question to ask yourself.  How do you point cost a model that degrades over time?

Consider a unit of 10 models that does 2 attacks each at 4+ hit 3+ wound -1 rend 1 damage (thats 20 attacks) at say 150 pts
Consider a monster (1 model) that does 12 total attacks at 4+ hit 3+ wound -2 rend 3 damage at say 200 pts at full strength.

The unit hits 10 times wound 6 times at -1 rend 1 damage (rough potential max 6 damage) asssuming you can get ALL 10 models into base contact with something.

The monster hits 6 times, wounds 4 times at -2 rend and 3 damage (rough potential max 12 damage) which only needs to be in base contact with one thing.

I see a lot of monsters roughly in this arena.  The above would still be considered unoptimal because the monster's potential damage can be dropped to equal the unit of 10 or less even, and therefore never be taken because 200 pts is too much for that, even though if its not dropped to that point, its doing more potential damage.

So how do you price that?  Would you say thats equal to 150 points?  Then people will spam it and it will be called over powered because at 150 points its bowling ball through units since there are now more of them due to the optimization factor that drives many players.  

Or you remove the degradation altogether.  Which a lot of people I have seen have called for.  I don't know if its many people, most people, or a fraction of people.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Lord Krungharr]

If we're talking Monsters, that is units with the Monster keyword, not all of them are degrading brackets or that expensive.  The Dragon Ogor Shaggoth and Khorgoraths are good examples of Monsters that can hit hard but don't degrade, and aren't too expensive.  

If we're talking Behemoths, who have an army limit, I think they could use that 'counts as 10 models for objective scoring' rule.  That alone would help them out big time.  But not any Monster, as an army can have a bunch of those without limits of Behemoth.

Seems like the real benefit is the massive amount of damage a single activation can cause.  Whereas my 12 Bullgors will rarely fit close enough to any enemy unit for max damage output, a single Skullcracker War Engine for my Legion of Azgorh is one model that can do craploads of damage in a single pile-in/activation.  The key is launching them into combat effectively.  They don't do well floating in the wind.  So yeah, flying is awesome!