Would AoS style monsters work for 40k?

[Mr Mystery]

How do?

Kind of a buddy thread to the one below.

First up, do try to stick to the topic, and keep bickering over AoS to a minimum.

And now on to the point.

AoS has an interesting mechanic for monsters, including those ridden as beasts of war.

First thing they did, was massively up their wounds, and give them a greater variety of attacks. This has made them considerably more survivable. To balance this, various monster abilities now vary as they take damage, reducing their overall effectiveness.

Could such a mechanic be adapted to 40k, and if so, to what degree? To me some kind of variation on this is just what MC need. They're kind of an odd unit in 40k, as whilst they can certainly bring a lot of pain, they take surprisingly little effort to put down, especially as many don't pack an invulnerable save, leaving them prone to the very weapons you'd most want one against.

[40kGamer]

It could theoretically streamline the whole Gargantuan/MC rules and potentially address the usefulness of units... it could probably be adapted to vehicles as well. Given how much 40k and WFB borrowed from each other over the years I imagine the more successful mechanics will be shared across eventually.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I actually like it, though I'd say maybe upping Toughness as well as Wounds to a smaller degree on 40K MCs would work better. I do like the idea and it makes sense IMO. A Carnifex that's on its last Wound won't quite be the Living Battering Ram a full, healthy one should be. Same with the Riptide, heck, maybe after a certain Wound threshold you get a -1 to Nova Reactor rolls to represent damage to the core?

Would help address the massive rules advantage regarding Monstrous Creatures over Walkers...

[YorkNecromancer]

It would absolutely work. I think it's a brilliant system - it's actually one of the things that's totally sold me on AoS. It'd really work with things like Gargantuan creatures, and would be a great thing to rolled out to vehicles - it'd be a bit like the old personalised datafaxes each vehicle used to get in 2nd edition, only without the randomised element and stupid tracing paper overlay.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

It already *kind of* works that way with 40k vehicles, where they can lose mobility, weapons etc. as the game goes on. I think there'd need to be some shift in the wider rules to make it work in 40k but I don't think it'd be a bad idea at all. Indeed, it'd be a fun idea.

[Ravingbantha]

I play 40k for its complexity, AoS has become so 'streamlined' I might as well be playing shoots and ladders. Companies need to learn that simplifying a complex game, just kills it. I've tried a few games of AoS and I have no desire to play this game. I pray 40k stays as it is and AoS doesn't drag both games down.

[Mr Mystery]

Tracing paper overlay was Rogue Trader, immediately prior to 2nd Ed. LRN2NRD, NooB :p

So what do people think it should look like?

In AoS, monsters are really hard to start out with, but after 3-4 wounds start to lose their effectiveness. In AoS such an amount of wounds can be achieved before it hits combat without too much of a struggle. If you really work at it, to the exclusion of picking off other units, you can render the beastie to a pretty feeble state.

This is again a trade off against how Ld and Breaktests work - being units of one, they're immune to Battleshock, as that is based on models lost, not wounds, so a direct 40k port wouldn't work.

You then have the added risk to deep striking units - port over the 'unwounded hardness' factor, and anyone deep striking too close is in for a really, really bad day if there's multiple big gribblies (and there usually are!)

Oh, and issues with MC's that come in groups (no, not Hip-Hop style MCs)....could get clumsy quickly, as you'd risk winding up with either a single spazzed up monster and his pristine mates, or MC specific wound allocations.

[YorkNecromancer]

Tracing paper overlay was Rogue Trader, immediately prior to 2nd Ed. LRN2NRD, NooB

They were still called datafaxes and had individual damage tables! Now, you young kids,

http://www.spartzinc.com/uploads/2014/04/maxresdefault.jpg

[Cap'nSmurfs]

spoiler: AoS has quite a lot of complexity when you're actually playing it

To transfer monsters (and vehicles?) over to the AoS model where they start mighty but diminish as they take damage, you'd also have to add in some of the concomitant changes to other troops: ie. it's okay that things like Bloodthirsters start with All The Wounds because it's now much easier to hit and wound them. Likewise things like Liberators are two-wound models. If you raise the number of wounds MCs and the like have in 40k without changing some fundamentals about how things are hit and wounded, things can go wrong very fast - giving a Wraithknight 12 wounds but still Toughness 8 (and thus immunity to small-arms fire) would just break everything into tiny pieces, even if it became less effective when you were lucky enough to put a hurt on it.

And yeah, it's more book-keeping. AoS gets away with that by having reduced so much of the rest of the book-keeping in spells and things.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I play 40k for its complexity, AoS has become so 'streamlined' I might as well be playing shoots and ladders. Companies need to learn that simplifying a complex game, just kills it. I've tried a few games of AoS and I have no desire to play this game. I pray 40k stays as it is and AoS doesn't drag both games down.

And yet here we are discussing a way to add complexity and nuance to the Monstrous Creature rules by borrowing ideas from AoS. Reading the thread rather than just knee-jerking because someone said Sigmar would've been too hard, I suppose.

[Mr Mystery]

Remember folks.

Bickering to an absolute minimum. We're not gonna change anyone's mind, nor should we be trying to.

[40kGamer]

Remember folks.

Bickering to an absolute minimum. We're not gonna change anyone's mind, nor should we be trying to.

Party Pooper!

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQd5ewyi8SxsYoN7vhDpYOjJPIpUe9BZ FpbOdw-aMjUfsIRQNyTiQ

[Mr Mystery]

Don't make me get the Thread Taser....

So anyways, how would adapt it to 40k MC and indeed GC?

[40kGamer]

I think Smurfs is onto something... You can add the extra wounds with degrading effectiveness but also need something where attacking all MC's/GC's uses a different/modified to hit/wound mechanism.

- - - Updated - - -

...and they actually let you play with a thread taser? Oh the humanity.

[Charistoph]

Most of the common changes involve Movement change (not needed without an M stat), # of Attacks, and To Wound Rate (i.e. Str). Some change To-Hit with the weapons and Rend (WS/BS and AP). Usually a combination of different weapons getting different changes.

But each of these usually run from about 10 Wounds at the lowest up to 16 Wounds, so there is a lot of room for change. But they are far easier to damage than anything in 40K, as Toughness has been eliminated as well as Strength.

In 40K, the average MC runs about 6 Wounds. Yes, some are higher, but for the most part they are 6 Wounds. In order to replicate this mechanic, either each Wound would have an affect, or there would have to be a larger difference in plateaus.

[Lexington]

Love the idea.

Maybe an easier way to go about it would be to universalize the point at which wounds start affecting an MC's performance - something like, at 2 wounds left, a certain debuff hits, and at 1 wound remaining, a second debuff stacks on the first? This hurts low-W MCs more, tho, so maybe a percentage-based system?

Just ideas, but it'd be great to see something like this implemented, if for no other reason than to even out the weird disparity between Walkers and MCs.

[Charon]

In 40K, the average MC runs about 6 Wounds. Yes, some are higher, but for the most part they are 6 Wounds.

Not sure what you are playing but the average MC runs about 3 wounds. There are not a lot with more.
GMC start around 6.

[Katharon]

This sounds like something that would fix the Tyranids more than anything else in the 40K codicies. Seeing as they're the only army worthy of the name "monsterous creature" (Orks do have Squiggoth...and I'm ignoring Daemons because they're suppose to be former mortals that know which paw is their paw and which claw is their hand).

[Mr Mystery]

If done 'right' then it could help resolve the general issues Nids in particular face.

As it necessitates a higher number of wounds, it helps with survivability.

Following the same AoS template, unhurt MC gain more attacks, helping them to punch their weight.

But it's the trade off that gives the opponent an interesting new consideration - when facing multiple MC, is it more favourable to focus fire in an attempt to eliminate them, one at a time, or do you split your fire in the hope of crippling a larger number, and if so which do your start with?

[Charistoph]

Not sure what you are playing but the average MC runs about 3 wounds. There are not a lot with more.
GMC start around 6.

Whoops, was remembering Toughness. Wounds tend to be higher than 3, though. The Carnifex runs at 4, and many of the Tyranids run higher than that.

[Denzark]

Pedant shield to on:

'Could it be adapted to 40K?' Yes almost any mechanic could.

Pedant shield to off.

Should it be added?

Mmm. Not convinced. It is more 'book-keeping' which I am not sure is a good thing. Further, I find MC/GC - especially the latter - a much harder proposition to kill - then what they should be.

At least, what they should be in comparison to vehicles, especially dreads. I liked old 1st/2nd ed Carnifex as a dread equivalent. it made sense. But it is well nigh impossible to 1-shot a MC without D and I don't think this should be the case.

Therefore I balk at the thought of making them harder to kill then degenerating.

If this is a 'fix nids' measure then actually it should be 'change the codex' not 'change a game mechanic'.

[daboarder]

it Should also be noted that the damage table for vehicles is increasingly irrelevant, so why take the backwards step and force an irrelevant similar mechanic on MCs?

[Mr Mystery]

It's not Tyranid specific as such, but given their greater proportion of big gribblies, they're a good baseline army to work from.

[Denzark]

What about everything with 5+ wounds gets an AV and uses the veh damage* table instead? This will ensure a degradation effect with various debilitating effects and also allow 1-shot kills with lucky rolls.

After all, if MM^ can with luck 1-shot a LR, then I reckon it should be able to do similar for a MC/GC - a lascannon shot will melt a head or a MM shot cook its heart.

* You may need to write a slightly different table for organic beasties - and possibly a further for FMC.

^ I mean multi-melta not Mr Mystery...

[Jef Stuyck]

How do?

Kind of a buddy thread to the one below.

First up, do try to stick to the topic, and keep bickering over AoS to a minimum.

And now on to the point.

AoS has an interesting mechanic for monsters, including those ridden as beasts of war.

First thing they did, was massively up their wounds, and give them a greater variety of attacks. This has made them considerably more survivable. To balance this, various monster abilities now vary as they take damage, reducing their overall effectiveness.

Could such a mechanic be adapted to 40k, and if so, to what degree? To me some kind of variation on this is just what MC need. They're kind of an odd unit in 40k, as whilst they can certainly bring a lot of pain, they take surprisingly little effort to put down, especially as many don't pack an invulnerable save, leaving them prone to the very weapons you'd most want one against.

Can you tell me a warscroll example of this? ( I am new to warhammer because of AoS so i would like to know more details about this warscroll :p )

[Makenshi]

I find this being one of the only few interesting new changes to AoS. If it would have a good spot in 40k i don't know but i like the idea of things getting worse the more damaged it gets, adds alot to the narrative.
Oh and i can't wait for when there's things that start out really docile but as they get damaged they turn beastly, i like how that would force you to think differently about some things.

[Charistoph]

Can you tell me a warscroll example of this? ( I am new to warhammer because of AoS so i would like to know more details about this warscroll :p )

Look up the Daemons Warscroll list. It's the most easily referensable between Fantasy and 40K.

[Cutter]

I'm sure I still have my acetate overlays somewhere...

[terminus]

The monster rules are the most elegant part of the new ruleset, I quite like that aspect. There is currently a huge disparity in 40K between vehicles and monstrous creatures, and vehicles that are monstrous creatures and monstrous creatures that are vehicles. Bringing all such models under one umbrella and giving them a toughness value like everything else, and perhaps degrade their performance as they get injured, would be a great way to introduce parity to these particular types of models.

AV14 = T10 and scale down from there.

[grimmas]

Yes a thousand times yes they are possibly my favourite part of the AoS rule set and they would quite nicely add a bit of decent flavour to monstrous creatures and balance them with vehicles which has been an issue with 40K for some time.