Page 1 of 3


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:57 pm
by Maul
I noticed you did not have anything for mounts.

I think the great taurus is by far the most field able option. The lammasu (I really want to build one of these, but they rules are painfully bad so it has been hard to be motivated) is still horribly overpriced to be useful. I think you could safely go with 4 attacks at ws 4. You are still going to at best be hitting on 3+ to 4+ in most situation and at initiative 2. If you did that, I would CONSIDER fielding the lammasu over the Great Taurus. I just would like to see the model used and I think you are going to have to give it more or drop its price to 175 points or so.

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:25 am
by DarkbloodSkullpulper
Ooh, I just had a minor inspiration. How about if the Lammasu gave the HP a chance to reroll failed casting attempts? THAT would make the Lammasu worth taking for sure.

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:18 pm
by Hashuts Scion
The Lammasu had gone through some changes since it was first used by CD armies. For those who may not have seen the stats, I will point out the differences:

When first appeared:
WS 6, BS 0, S 6, T 7, W 5, and I 6.

In Ravening Hordes:
WS 3, S 5, T 5, W 4, I 2 A 2

And our current version.

The difference in abilities was the original had the capability to have a 50% to dispel a spell that was going to affect it and if you attacked in in HTH, then you suffered a -1 to hit (i.e., the best you could do was 2+ and that only if you auto hit).

The RH gave it large, and MR 2. This is the version we have now with an increase of +1 attack. I have the model, but have NEVER used it as I feel it is too weak. It is a monstrous mount, so its rider does not get a modifier to his save. In HTH, it gives no bonuses. The only advantage is it allows the HP to have a 20" move. And the down side, it is large so easier to hit. The rider (our HP) will be hit on a 5-6. So a unit of 24 normal archers shooting at long range will hit with 12, and wound with 4. One half of that will save, so our exalted HP will die on the 2nd or 3rd time given normal odds (used 24 to make odds work out without fractions).

That being said, some possible choices to make this more attractive (suggest only one):
1) Bring back the Sorcerous Exhalation rule. It gives the CDs possibly more dispels. I supposed giving it MR 2 is the same, but in the original rule, any spell was 50%. In the current, Power Level 7 is 50% and a 10.5 is 50% when using 1 Dispel dice. It will also give a small benefit in combat.
2) Allow DS to also ride the mount with all its advantages.
3) Increase its T to 6.
4) Allow it to cast one spell as well at Power Level 3. The fluff had it intelligent, so I could see this.
5) Alternatively, split #1 into 2 parts and just give it the combat modifier.


Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:59 pm
by DarkbloodSkullpulper
Good ideas. The MR or Exhalation isn't incredibly useful, though, just because most players will target a non-MR unit in preference to an MR one. Another way to juice the Lammasu usefulness would be allow the Lammasu (or its rider, if necessary for rules purposes) to dispel at a +1, as if it had whatever the generic magic staff is that gives +1. Doesn't the fluff suggest that the Lammasu are extremely resistant to magic or something like that?

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:22 am
by Maul
The way I see it, a griffon is
-m6 ws5 s5 t5 w4 i5 a4 ld7 for 200 points

The current v.3 Lammasu looks like
-m5 ws3 s5 t5 w4 i2 a3 ld 8 for 200 points with magic resist (2)

I would price this monster closer to 145-165points points in its present form. The low number of attacks and low weapon skill renders it crap in combat. No breath weapon or magic make it really only useful as a terror causer. I would not even trust it to reliably take out warmachine crew. A giant is 205 points, has a very similar profile, but has two more wounds. At least when a giant blows combat it has ld 10 and stubborn to keep it there.

I think the lammasu would be a fun rare choice if their fluff describes them as intelligent creatures. Why subjugate them to the lowly status of only being a mount. Especially considering that the list will likely go out without a giant. I would say leave them at 200 points, give them stubborn and the rider stubborn, throw on a point of ws or give it 4 attacks along with is existing magic resistance.I do like the idea of o having something like lava storm as a bound spell they can cast once per turn, but do not want to take the monster over the top. It still has not save and a low weaponskill.

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:54 am
by KevinC
Great Thread....

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:28 pm
by Larro
That didn't seem sincere. :P

- Larry

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:58 pm
by mattbird
I would normally love for them to be a solo flying monster, as I think it's a great idea, and fits the model. But it would end up adding one more awesome tool to the nearly fully loaded CD arsenal. Not that I love to play the "fan-made list, can't do it" card yet again, but in this case that would be my gut reaction.

What does a Wyvern cost? That's about where I would put this guy...

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm
by Fool
Wyvern is 200 but its got better WS, Init, Attacks and Wounds I believe. Also poison attacks

Re: Mounts

PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:40 pm
by Guy In Suit
I think it should complement the High priest. Keep its states mediocre, but have it give the HP some ability, maybe +1 to cast or something, or the option to reduce the mounts initiative instead of his own on a failed casting attempt.