Question / Complaint / Moan - Large Creature Henchmen

that is a good idea to have the healing herbs carry over there too.
I get "what" your saying but if no one is willing to invest the 145+ gold in one shot for something does it not mean that that "something" is broken in some way. As with armour, no one will pay for it beyond a few cases (mainly just on your leader) or shields as it's better to have 2 one hand weapons. This leads there to be a problem there that many address to promote there use to make the game have more variety. variety is never a bad thing.

also on your 100 gc archers, you never had to buy them "as is" at 100 gc, you could buy the Archer with LB (40 gold) and then invest more gold over time. So the investment is gradual. Though no worse when you take the loss, it is less pain to lose after one battle and conversely you get more value out of it if it is lost at the same time you make that large gold investment.

I will say that I don't consider those archers a good investment. It would have been much better to have a second group to run the blunderbusses. I had been holding off on that because the blunderbusses were going mainly unused due to a blunderbuss treaty with the other two mercs in our campaign. That happened after a few games in a row where blunder buss fire took out a warband in the first or second turn. This quickly led to a blunder buss arms race that was about to get way out of hand. Now, anyone using blunderbusses should expect to have the other two mercs gang up on them (we are playing 4 way multiplayer matches). Until the people can agree on how to settle the issue there is little reason to buy more.

I see it like aviphysics.

If i buy a dwarf with a crossbow he costs me 65 gold. Three of them cost 195 gold. Thats nearly around the price of a large henchmen.

If they are taken out, i should loose on average 1 dwarf, but i have also a chance to loose three to none...
A large creature has a 66% chance to survive. My chance that ALL dwarfs survive is 30%. On average i loose the same amount henchmen worth 200 gold than a large creature player...

You just put your chances in just one roll and don't splitt it between more models.

That aside most large creatures aren't worth their price after some games. Than with many advances the enemy has enough possibilities to stop the creature, while in the beginning he just depends on many 6`s. They kick ass as the start of the game, when nearly everyone has only S3 and just 1 profile attack.

Large creatures are advantage few warbands have (official - skaven,beastmen,ostland,orcs). Making them better by increasing their survivability is tottaly wrong. Just because someone spends 200 gc for one model? So what? They are powerful fighters and are a bonus to any other things. There would be a problem if a warband must take a large creature to become effective, but there's no such warband.
The argument with hochland long rifle was good - you pay for something EXTRAVAGANT, so take responsiblity.
And there's of course gameplay matter. If somene let half of enemy warband charge into one model, there is something wrong. Large creatures are not one man army and should be supported by others. They need more tactical approach than charging them mindlessly and expecting that they will come on top, cause they are good fighters.

Von Kurst wrote:

House rule--we have instituted the Nemesis rule that a Troll that is taken out by fire must roll to see if it dies.

I like this. It always bothered me that trolls were indestructible.

the comparison to smaller henchmen isn't accurate.
Take your marksmen (30 gc), you buy them and nothing else (because thats all you could afford after the last match). You gain +1 dagger attack, +1 model for rout test, and he starts to gain exp. After each game you can tool him up slowly investing more and more making him more valuable.
Compare this to say a Rat Ogre (145 gold), in order to buy this guy you must save over the course of a few games, as you are saving you are not buying as much new equipment or henchmen as other warbands. Thus you are at more a disadvantage in the next 3ish games well saving up the money and better odds of losing battles.
In short if you don't start with one then there is no reason to save up as you will start losing more and more battles as you save up for him.

but even then the troll is the only one that is worth seeing be brought into battle as he just can't die (though the fire and regeneration rule makes sense). The investment in such a guy just isn't worth it.
I have seen large creatures brought into battles before and after the first time they die the user won't return with them again. That seams to be broken. Giving them better survival odds doesn't seam to be a bad idea as it won't add strength to them In Game so thats not an issue.
Though there is a talk here that healing herbs be used post game to give models a re-roll in the post game, this if extended to henchmen (all) Would also in my mind fix the large model problem as well and be simple as it carries over one house rule to address mutable things.

Of course, part of the value of the large figure is that it draws fire and warriors. You're not going to send one warrior against him, you're going to send 3. He's at +1 to hit when shooting, she he's going to get most of the shoots. When he's a hero, that's less of a good thing, but for a big henchman, he's pulling a large number of models. This way, he's as good as having 3+ other models, and increases the chance of your heroes facing enemies on a 1-to-1 ratio (which means more kills and experience), rather than a 2-1.

There's also a psychological factor. If you're in a 3 person game- on one side is a bunch of orcs, on the other is a slighty smaller number of orcs, but they have a troll, you're prooooobably going to go with the group without the troll. They command fear and respect. (Although, this can sometimes backfire, as the most intimidating figure will often face opponents 2 vs. 1)

In the Campaign i am running we allow big guys to gain xp at half rate and all big guys can become heroes, just like it the warhammer novels you read about rat ogre heroes and arch villains, each warband will gladly pay 200 + for a big guy, we had a pitfighters warband/ ostlanders and Ogre warband so i thought why let them have all the fun.
I have a Minotaur lord as the leader of my beastmen warband (long story) he has reached 90 xp he is as tough as a maxed out vampire atleast the vampires in my gaming group ( there are some real beasts), not quite as tough as the possessed (the last possessed made cost the player over 3000gp) and just slightly tougher than a maxed out human who has had an extra 6-8 skills from a lamp of the djinn

To loose you big guy is hard. Sometimes an attack of two wardogs is sufficient for an pitfighter ogre.( both critical hits).

I like the big guys and i try to squeeze an model in every time if possible.

They are strong and they need support and yes the enem will often shot with everything he has at them to weaken them before it gets ugly in cc.

The chance to loose big money with one model is quite big, but you have this chance with every model. I don't think you should give them mor advantages. If you want to buy a big guy in a campaign you need some discipline to do it.

I do not like the idea that ever big guy gets experience, it is not fair for the warbands who do not have a big guy.

If you loose the big guy in the first two games you will restart the warband nevertheless. if you loose him later he had some big impact in your games before.

I often run the ogre hired sword. He is a beast at the beginning of your warbamd but you buy your strength with an decreased income per game. Yeah he is fun, but you have to pay for it. And not everytime he is the game winner( most of the time) but he makes often a difference.

In the late game i think big guys are not so useful, but ithink the late game can be boring nevertheless.