A daemonic giant beast in Dragon Rampant?

[Nord]

I have a game of Dragon Rampant coming up later in the week, first one in fact, though I have enjoyed many a game of Lion Rampant so it's not new to me. I am going to use my chaos warriors, and I want to include a daemonic beast. In warhammer terms it would be a daemon prince, maybe a giant.

My first thought was, quite naturally, to use the greater beast profile, with a fear fantastical upgrade. This is a scary beast! However, looking at the profile and comparing it with the elite foot profile, which cost exactly the same 6 points, I feel like I might be cheating myself. These two profiles are identical in most regards - crucially for me they both have armour 4 and 6 strength points - this thing is no pushover to defeat. But the elite foot seems to offer so much more - a defence value of 4+ rather than 6+ is the thing that really catches my eye. Elite foot also do not have the impediment wild charge like the greater beast profile. And it's easier to activate for a move, though at a reduced move rate.

I realise this is a very gamey question. I am no longer this kind of player. I have played in tournaments in the past, but that's been left far behind and now play narrative/campaign games, often without any victory conditions, just play to see what happens. But this apparent discrepancy really leapt out at me. Can anybody explain why I would take greater beast as a profile over elite foot - same cost and almost the same across the board, but with the glaring difference in defence values? I know the rules are not meant to be looked at in this way, but it did just leap off the page because I am also taking a unit of elite foot to represent my chaos chosen.

Any thoughts?

[Hobgoblin]

I think the overriding point is "which profile best represents the model?".

But beyond that, the higher move of a Greater Warbeast makes a huge difference. In my last game of DR, my Chaos Warrior Elite Foot were slaughtered by sustained missile fire before they were able to close for combat. Had they been (mounted on) Greater Warbeasts, they'd have been wreaking havoc in enemy ranks while they could still attack at full strength.

Also, Wild Charge isn't always or solely an impediment. Yes, it limits your tactical choices, but it also allows you to fail your first activation roll without any consequence for the rest of your troops. So, in a strictly "gamey" sense, it's actually an advantage: a "free go".

Another point about Wild Charge is that it's far less of an impediment to troops with the Ranger (Ferocious) special rule. If Scouts lure Elite Riders into a wood or ruins, that's one thing. If they lure Bellicose Foot or Greater Warbeasts, that's quite another (and it's usually a thing that ends in dead Scouts).

For me, though, the movement is the main thing (if we disregard the aesthetics and "fit"). Greater Warbeasts in our games have always had a significant effect on the battle, whereas Elite Foot can sometimes end up lagging far behind - especially if they have to cross rough terrain. Greater Warbeasts are penalised too, but they still move at a respectable 5", meaning that they can often enter and cross rough terrain in a single move. That's rarely the case with Elite Foot.

[Morgan]

My experience of Elite Foot and Greater Warbeast from my first couple of games at the weekend is that Wild Charge isn't that much of an impediment if you intend to slam that unit/monster forwards as fast as possible anyway. In those circumstances, it translates into a "attack-attempt-that-doesn't-end-your-turn-if-failed" which can be rather valuable. Combined with the increased movement, it's a very nasty thing to be bearing down on you.

[Humorous_Conclusion]

For a Daemon Prince,  you could use Greater Warbeast with Ponderous to remove wild charge or flame attack to remove wild charge and give a ranged attack. You could also use Venomous to represent a magic weapon or great strength.

For a giant, I would probably use Heavy Infantry with Offensive and, again, probably venomous. What you lose in armour, you get back in double the strength points.

[Nord]

Thanks for the tips guys. I went with greater beast with cunning - I couldn't quite let go of the bad defense rolls! As it turned out, in two games the beast attacked every time, the enemy scarpered in the opposite direction whenever he appeared, so he never had to defend. You were right about the 10 inch move, it make a huge difference. And the wild charge thing too. So I am happy with this interpretation. I would like to include the upgrade fear too, which I will do in higher pointed games. Got another session coming up tonight, we will see how the fear works out.

[Momotaro]

My experience of Elite Foot and Greater Warbeast from my first couple of games at the weekend is that Wild Charge isn't that much of an impediment if you intend to slam that unit/monster forwards as fast as possible anyway. In those circumstances, it translates into a "attack-attempt-that-doesn't-end-your-turn-if-failed" which can be rather valuable. Combined with the increased movement, it's a very nasty thing to be bearing down on you.

We had a big discussion about Wild Charge last time we played, and this was our conclusion too - it's a chance to activate with no danger of losing your turn.  The units that have it are powerful on the attack, but poor defensively.  Even with the best armour in the game, those units are half-strength and you can chip them down to half damage very quickly.  There was a phase mid-game where all I was able to activate was Wild Charge over and over with a treeman!

That's also why Venomous and Slayer are so expensive (the price of another unit) - often a couple of extra hits are enough to push a unit over an armour threshold.

And Summoner - putting a unit where you like on the board, when you need it, without all those move activations to get it there is very powerful.

[Furstenburg]

Wild charge is great if you plunge that unit headlong into the enemy. Give yourself multiple units within charge range. It doesnt say you have to wild charge the closest one. The difference between greater beasts and elite foot is that they will get to charge much more with their 10" range.

[Nord]

I played a couple more games last night, again I used greater beast with cunning and this time added fear as we were playing a 32 point game - sounds a lot but only five units apiece. My opponent had an all mounted army, with a griffin which he classed as a greater beast with fear and fly. He was taken aback that the defence value was 6, dont think he realised it before the game started. At the end he said it would be much better to use the elite horse profile - its almost identical to greater beast, defence is one better at 5, move is one worse at 7+ but of course most of the time wild charge will kick in so you will be testing to attack on 5+. In all other regards the profiles are the same - BUT elite horse get counter charge, which can make a huge difference - ie roll hits on 3+ rather than 5+.

I realise that it's not the spirit of the game to choose one profile because it's better than another, but there is a mismatch here. The points value for greater warbeast is the same as elite horse, but elite horse is better, unless I am missing some glaring error. I paid 8 points (cunning) to get a defence value of 5, I could have had it for 6 points with elite horse and got counter charge for free!

[robh]

I think the overriding point is "which profile best represents the model?".

I think this is absolutely key. If the model looks like a some sort of creature without a rider then its profile is "Warbeast", if it looks like a hero/character mounted on some sort of creature then it is a "Rider"

Looking like one thing and using the stats of a (better)different unit type is not in the spirit that these sort of games should be played. Take a WYSIWYG rather than a max/min approach to army building and these issues do not crop up.

***edit:  Knew it was in there somewhere...pp58 in the GRRR! list the distinction between Gryphon and Gryphon with rider is ruled. The former is a "Warbeast", the latter a "Rider"

[Hobgoblin]

I think this is absolutely key. If the model looks like a some sort of creature without a rider then its profile is "Warbeast", if it looks like a hero/character mounted on some sort of creature then it is a "Rider"

Looking like one thing and using the stats of a (better)different unit type is not in the spirit that these sort of games should be played. Take a WYSIWYG rather than a max/min approach to army building and these issues do not crop up.

***edit:  Knew it was in there somewhere...pp58 in the GRRR! list the distinction between Gryphon and Gryphon with rider is ruled. The former is a "Warbeast", the latter a "Rider"

While I (obviously!) agree in general, I can think of a few potential exceptions. I'm building up a warband of Tolkien-esque orcs, and I think that orcish wolfriders could be well represented by the Lesser Warbeasts profile. Light Riders could be used too, but Tolkien (as far as I recall) never describes wolfriders using archers. I may use a mix of Light Rider and Lesser Warbeast units for my wolfriders, but I'm tempted to use Lesser Warbeast + Spore Attack for those that have bows.

My rationale for using Lesser Warbeasts would be as follows:

1. Tolkien gives the impression that the wargs are worse than their riders: "The wolf that one hears is worse than the orc that one fears".

2. Wolfriders often seem to fight alongside unmounted wargs (as in the Battle of the Five Armies). A unit of wolves, some of which have riders and some of which don't, would look authentic to me. Or, unmounted wargs could be Lesser Warbeasts and mounted units Lesser Warbeasts with Flame/Spore Attack (to represent archery and better control).

3. Wolfriders were "very swift and skilled at avoiding ordered men in close array, being used mostly to destroy isolated groups or to hunt down fugitives; but at need they would pass with reckless ferocity through any gaps in companies of horsemen, slashing at the bellies of the horses." The statement before the semicolon says Light Riders; but the section afterwards, which is part of a note used to explain "the dreadful orcish wolfriders, feared by horses" suggests Lesser Warbeasts. Adding the Spore Attack rule to reflect either shooting or, more abstractly, "lightning raids" on stragglers would seem to work well here.

4. In "The Battle of the Fords of the Isen", from which the above note comes, the wolfriders move very quickly and attack the Rohirrim's horse-herds and spare horses directly, killing or dispersing them. The speed of movement and direct frontal attack suggest Lesser Warbeast to me.

5. In The Hobbit, the "swiftest wolfriders" form the vanguard of the orcish army and are formidable melee troops. But wargs appear to be less good on the defensive, as when Thorin and company suddenly sally out. So again, the Lesser Warbeast profile seems a good fit.

6. The Fleet-Footed and Ranger rules seem very well suited to wargs (which are creatures of the wilds), whether ridden or not.

I think there are other instances where ridden beasts could be Warbeasts rather than Riders: the old Ral Partha ogres and giants riding elephants, for example, or mumakil or the like.

The overall principle is the same, though: does the profile fit the models/concept?

[robh]

Interesting analysis, which bodes well for the rules that whichever way the unit is fielded works and will not break the balance of the game. It is only aesthetics.

I still hold to the 'Warbeasts have no riders' view so your Warg rider units are either Heavy or Light Riders depending on whether you view them with a Melee or Missile focus.

[Hobgoblin]

Interesting analysis, which bodes well for the rules that whichever way the unit is fielded works and will not break the balance of the game. It is only aesthetics.

Yes, indeed. Dan said somewhere (his blog?) that part of the fun of the rules is trying out different profiles for the same units, and he's spot on.

I still hold to the 'Warbeasts have no riders' view so your Warg rider units are either Heavy or Light Riders depending on whether you view them with a Melee or Missile focus.

To me, much depends on the importance of the beast relative to the rider. An elephant with a howdah (or a mumak!) suits the Greater Warbeast profile better than Heavy or Elite Riders, I think. I could also envisage using large reptilian cavalry as Greater Warbeasts (in units of six, four or three, rather than single-model units), while using smaller reptile riders as Heavy or Elite Riders. I think the use of predatory mounts tends to shift the balance towards warbeasts rather than riders.

The wolfriders I'm using of for my Middle Earth warbands are the Chronicle and GW Hobbit ones, both of which have very big wolves and relatively small riders. For my non-Middle Earth wolfriders (the old Citadel ones on small wolves), Light Riders fits fine.

One problem with Heavy Riders for melee-oriented warg riders is that they would be significantly hindered in forests, whether moving or fighting, which "feels" wrong. If Riders of Rohan were ambushed by wolfriders in a wood, you'd expect the wolfriders to have a significant edge.

[Nord]

Choose whichever you feel fits best is my advice. If none of the profiles fit what you feel is right, you could always tweak the stats. I think that's what I will do with mighty warbeasts, give them a defence value of 5 rather than 6, which just does not make sense to me.

[guitarheroandy]

Choose whichever you feel fits best is my advice. If none of the profiles fit what you feel is right, you could always tweak the stats. I think that's what I will do with mighty warbeasts, give them a defence value of 5 rather than 6, which just does not make sense to me.

Tweaking stats is an obvious option, but beware the resultant imbalance! A tweak of +1 on the defence is quite significant with regard to the average hits you'll inflict, so you'd probably need to up the overall points cost too - my advice would be to try upping by +1 point and trying it for a few games. If it seems overpowered, up the cost by 2 points instead (but don't go over the magic 10pts! )

We are trying to work out how to make the goblins in our Warhammer-world-esque DR games more 'goblin-like' (i.e. as per the typical 'Warhammer Goblin'). We were wondering about dropping courage by 1 and reducing the points cost, but are now considering making them 'fearful'...  We have yet to test this concept...

Ultimately it doesn't really matter as long as both you and your opponent enjoy the resulting games. Stick by that principle and whatever you do should work out fine in the end.

[Nord]

I agree that care should be taken to maintain balance as much as possible, but really I think that the greater warbeast is already out of balance, see my previous post. I guess it depends on how durable you think a beast should be. As these are the mighty beasts such as dragons, daemons, wyverns, etc I am happy to give them a little boost in defensive combat - I don't see them as being fierce on the charge, but feeble in defence.