Monster...a new trooptype.

[zellak]

Representing , Giants ,Ents and so on. I would like to present an idea.

An Elephant BG has 2 bases and costs 50 points.

So a single Monster base could cost 50 points and and count as 2 Elephant bases.

This would mean it would effectively fight as 4 bases , and count as 4 bases for hits recieved.

Very few core rules would then be affected.

A balancing factor would have to be included, or perhaps only a restriction in the number allowed.

One idea might to be to limit Monsters against the maximum Generals allocation .
i.e. take 3 Generals then you can only take 1 Monster ?

Or add a Charm Monster spell to the magic list ? (The Monster then changing sides.)

Or both.

Any suggestions ?

(note , flying Monsters might be double points ...100points for a Dragon.)

[AuldChevalier]

Elephant BG's can only ever be 2 bases.

Therefore that would lead to my thinking that if 1 monster represents 2bases then it needs to be fielded as a single monster and not a BG with 2 in it.

Elephants are Glass Daggers and I don't see why monsters should be different if it is a single monster being represented.

Cheers

Auld Chevalier

[Polkovnik]

Seems reasonable - a monster BG is a single, double width base and fights as two bases of elephants side-by-side.
Does it disorder mounted in the same way as elephants ? It would seem OK that it does, as the mounts would presumably be scared of approaching something that big.
I can't think of any advantage it would have over a BG of two elephants. In fact it's slightly worse as it can't go into column, so is slightly less flexible in its use. So priced as 2 bases of elephants I can't see why it would need any restrictions. As it's fantasy, the only restrictions are the source material or the players view of what the army should consist of.

[zellak]

Elephant BG's can only ever be 2 bases.

Therefore that would lead to my thinking that if 1 monster represents 2bases then it needs to be fielded as a single monster and not a BG with 2 in it.

Elephants are Glass Daggers and I don't see why monsters should be different if it is a single monster being represented.

Cheers

Auld Chevalier

I'm not sure if you understood my idea .

When i said "So a single monster base could cost 50 points and count as 2 elephant bases."

I mean a single monster, on a single base, counting for all game purposes as 2 elephant bases.
i.e. it would count as 4 bases when fighting and 4 bases for taking hits.

But it would still only be 1 base.

It might be overpowered due to the fact that being only 1 base, only 3 enemy bases could fight it to the front.
One in contact and two as overlaps.

Also if the monster was fighting in the overlap position, it would fight with four dice and would take no hits.
As no dice are allocated to BG's fighting only as an overlap.

Hence the balancing needed,(1) limiting numbers against Generals allocation and (2) the Charm Monster Spell.

[Polkovnik]

I think you are confusing things by saying it counts as four bases, when you mean it counts as two bases of elephants. Elephants don't "count as 2 bases" each when fighting. They may fight in melee with two dice each but that doesn't mean they count as two bases.

I assumed you meant it would be on a double width base, thus being effectively the same in most circumstances as two bases of elephants. If you mean it would be on a normal width base and would fight with 4 dice in melee and impact, then that is a huge advantage, and should be more points than two elephants.

I had been thinking about a monster / giant BG myself, single base BG, fighting impact and melee with 3 dice and counting POAs as elephants. I would probably cost this at around 50 points per base.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Basing them as an elephant sized unit would work best as your not changing any rules.

[zellak]

I think you are confusing things by saying it counts as four bases, when you mean it counts as two bases of elephants. Elephants don't "count as 2 bases" each when fighting. They may fight in melee with two dice each but that doesn't mean they count as two bases.

I assumed you meant it would be on a double width base, thus being effectively the same in most circumstances as two bases of elephants. If you mean it would be on a normal width base and would fight with 4 dice in melee and impact, then that is a huge advantage, and should be more points than two elephants.

I had been thinking about a monster / giant BG myself, single base BG, fighting impact and melee with 3 dice and counting POAs as elephants. I would probably cost this at around 50 points per base.

You are right , my bad, my explanation was very poor.

I did indeed mean 4 dice impact and melee, and should have clearly said so from the start.
Which is why i felt the need for balancing factors (i.e. numbers limitations and a weakness against magic.)

Reducing the dice from 4 to 3 is another option, which would be easier to balance without changing to many rules.
By that i mean no limitations on the numbers of monsters allowed in the army list, or tying the magic system to monsters in order to balance them out.

If Monsters are only 3 dice with no limitations on numbers, then this would open the way for armies of Giants,Ents and Dragons. Which can only be a good thing.

[zellak]

Basing them as an elephant sized unit would work best as your not changing any rules.

I dont think at this stage we should be too timid .

When the FoG team get down here (after finishing the Napoleonic and Rennaissance rules) they will throw out anything they dont like.

We should just knock a few ideas around and have fun.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Fair one, im just lazy

You can always try it and see what happen!!!

[MatteoPasi]

Everything dipends of the kind of monster, we play like this :
- troll are El poor
- dragon ogre are El average
- Ent are El superior
The basing is the same as elephants, a minotaur isn't larger than an elephant

Matteo

[Zephyr40k]

Yeah I don't see why we can't just use the Elephant rules straight from FoG for monsters. Basically, FoG elephants would be the "vanilla" monsters. While in FoG, an elephant is an elephant and all elephant's stats are the same, I can't see any reason why we can't vary that a little for FoG: Fantasy. Like what Matteo says, use elephants as the baseline and then just tweak things from there.

Manticores can be 'like elephants' but with the Javelin ability (to represent flinging their tail spikes) and cost 27 per base
Ankylosauruses can be 'like elephants' except Heavily Armored and cost, say, 32 per base (25 base + 7 for heavily armored)
Dragons can be 'like elephants,' except Armored (for their scales), drilled (they're smarter), superior (they're better fighters) and Impact Foot (to represent their breath weapon) and cost, say, 40 (25 base + 5 for armored + 3 for Drilled + 5 for Superior + 2 for Impact Foot). If they fly, that will be even more points.

[MatthewB]

We went over several different ideas like this one in the Yahoo FoG Fantasy Group.

Basically, most Monsters are treated as Elephants. Some have some additional attributes with act as modifiers to combat or moral/cohesion tests. Or modifiers that make them more difficult to charge/make contact with.

And the idea of having a Monster count as 2 elephant bases is not a new one.

For Mûmakil, we floated the idea for bases that were for "monstrous" (sized) creatures, and that these bases were essentially 4x the size of a typical base (2x width and 2x depth), and counted for all practical purposes as a BG in their own right.

I wondered for a while about BGs of Mûmakil that had 2-bases (which were each 120mm x 160mm), and included rules for the "death" of partial bases within the BG (so that the number of combat dice decreased as damage was done.

And Balrogs and Dragons tend to have troubles as being represented as just an Elephant or Elephant BG. But these sorts of Monsters tend to represent something that no typical army will have a chance against. It takes a being blessed by the God(s) to deal with such a creature. And the typical hero rules we came up with don't seem to offer a lot in the way of dealing with such things.

I suppose in a Non-Middle-earth setting that it might be easier to justify such monsters on the battlefield.

But for Middle-earth (as I mention below - as well- which is mostly the area with which I am concerned) only in the First Age would these things be of any concern, and then all troops would be considerably higher quality, and "sterner-stuff" than the inhabitants of Middle-earth in the Third Age. Thus, your "Average" troops of the First Age are not equivalent to the "Average" troops of later ages.

And then there were monsters such as basic Trolls, or Olog-Hai (since I tend to concentrate primarily... well.. solely, upon Middle-earth) that would really just be based on regular bases, but with fewer figures, representing larger-sized beings but a less numerous forces/numbers of them.

But most monster types work best as simply elephants. It saves a lot of trouble.

[Ranimiro]

with the new elephant rules in V 2.0 monsters would work even better.

[MatthewB]

V 2.0???!!!

Is this the miniature's rules, or the Computer Game rules?

I don't particularly care for the Computer Game rules for Field of Glory, as they don't seem to have thought that keeping base sizes the same as the miniature rules was worthwhile, and the game is played on a hex-map.

It would not have been terribly difficult to have free-movement, or at least faux-free-movement (it looks like free movement, but really conforms to a very small sized square grid).

And to have Battle-Groups represented by Multiple stands wouldn't have hurt either.

BUT...

Having done a quick Google-search for FoG V 2.0... I see that they are listed as "sometime 2012", meaning that I will need to buy a copy, and get to painting my Lord of the Rings Rank-File troops.

I agonized over how to base them, but finally decided that I am going to be basing my fantasy armies on 80mm frontages.

Cramming all of these huge 30mm figures onto a 60mm frontage, while possible, just didn't feel Right!

And, with my designs for Easterling Heavy Chariots, and Smaller types of Mûmakil for the Easterlings, Wainriders, Khandirim and Haradrim, I felt that trying to cram these onto a 60mm frontage really overly constrained my designs (I have a CAD Easterling Light and Heavy Chariot ready for Prototyping ).

And, looking at the new EL rules... I looks indeed like they will be able to handle all manner of "Monsters" that are not "intelligent" (Trolls, Mûmakil, And other "Gigantic beasts" (such as the "Beast of Gorgoroth" that GW has released for the Mordor Orcs).

MB

with the new elephant rules in V 2.0 monsters would work even better.

[Sinthoniel]

This is my first post here, i read a lot at the yahoo-group and wanted to take part on the development as i like game development in general.
I only will consider Middleearth as this is my favorite world for fantasy battles.

I think, you can't get monsters with one unit type only. At my opinion, that should be 3.

Behemot. This is the type of all really large monsters like giants, mumakil and so on. They have the same rules as Elephants, to get not to many rule changes. A dragon could be a superior (Elite for really old dragons) behemot with flying, which will be an ability.

Monster. This is the type for troops like trolls and ents. They can't be representated as behemots, because they are smaller, learned to fight in groups and can better be controlled (or control themselves). Monster are more like oversized heavy infantry, though and capable of longer fights and they don't fight as suicidal as elephants. The rules should consider, that a man has a chance to heavily wound a monster in an open fight. Their bases are smaller than Elephants with maybe 2 figures per base. Only heavy weapon (and maybe charged spear/pike) can fight them efficiently. Giant eagles could count as flying monster.

Beast. This type covers creatures like (mounted or wild) wolves/wargs or spiders. They are similar to camelry: fast cavalry, that can terrify horses.

Sorry for my probably bad english, i'm german.