Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 20:35:43


Post by: ArcaneHorror


I asked a similar question about army soup and not I'm tackling this topic. I fully agree with GW's decision to reform things in the 9th edition and to not allow crap like a few grots holding up tanks, but to just punish them all strikes me as wrong. Lore-wise, IG, orks, tyranids, certain CSM armies and daemons generally revolve around hordes of some kind, to varying degrees. Am I really a bad person for wanting to swarm the field with load of berzerkers and bloodletters? Thoughts on this issue.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 20:45:38


Post by: Crispy78


We literally don't know. Some stuff that has been revealed, like blasts, sounds dangerous to hordes. There have however been specific mentions of things hordes will be getting in compensation. But we don't know what yet. We also don't know little things like point costs for blast weapons given their new rules. It may well be fine. It may be that hordes are less competitive for a bit. We don't know yet.

Suggesting you're a bad person for wanting to play a horde army however is just being silly.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 21:06:01


Post by: warmaster21


I think its going to come down to how high the point costs of horde units are going to be versus the cost increase of blast weapons.

Missile launchers for example are already expensive for their versatility, are they suddenly going to be one of the most expensive heavy infantry weapons in the game?

and how much are the points going to increase for horde units vs non horde units.

Also going to depend on what compensation buffs they see for the changes to no longer being able to tag vehicles and lock them down.

Melee horde units with the reveals so far are in a really bad spot.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 21:28:54


Post by: BrianDavion


nothing wrong with hoard armies, but most armies have trouble chewing through large hoards. GW is just giving dedicated tools for that.

it's like complaining that GW hates vehicles because the game has lascannons.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 21:29:39


Post by: Tyel


My hope is that hordes are being punished because they are very good are accomplishing the missions GW have designed.

There is always a clash between "we set up our armies on planet bowling ball and shoot stuff until one side falls over" and "we play to the objectives in the actual game". Or at least, thats been the case for the last 20+ years and I don't see it changing now.

Whether or not this will make the game attractive to casual players (who tend to play according to the former) is unclear. But I think the idea hordes are deader than disco may be overstated.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 21:34:02


Post by: Nevelon


A lot of the weapons that were supposed to be good vs. horde armies just weren’t in 8th. The changes to the blast rules will hopefully make them effective at their job.

How this shifts the meta is entirely up to the rest of the rules and how the points fall out.

But fixing the guns so they do what it says on the tin is a good thing. I’m OK with stuff being inefficient, but it should do it’s job, even if it’s overpriced.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 21:54:16


Post by: AnomanderRake


There is a perception in 8e that unit stats are a "race to the bottom" where the durability advantages of being a Space Marine over being a Guardsman don't really matter because spammable guns that can kill both very efficiently are so common. In older editions morale and blast templates were a control on how tough cheap hordes could be, but 8e effectively got rid of both of those, and a lot of GW's math/pricing didn't take that into account.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/14 21:59:21


Post by: Ice_can


The issue is if GW overvalue Blast as they tend to with all their new ideas I suspect Hordes will probably still be viable as no-one will take the blast weapons if they have a choice.

I suspect Guard will become an autoloose matchup along with marines while other armies will find it increasingly difficult to be able to bring enough flexability.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 00:11:50


Post by: Nevelon


Ice_can wrote:
The issue is if GW overvalue Blast as they tend to with all their new ideas I suspect Hordes will probably still be viable as no-one will take the blast weapons if they have a choice.

I suspect Guard will become an autoloose matchup along with marines while other armies will find it increasingly difficult to be able to bring enough flexability.


Honestly, a lot of ways people deal with hordes now are high rate of fire weapons. Those are still going to be prevalent. So people planning on dealing with hordes in 8th wlll continue to do so in 9th. They just won’t use the new set of tools available if they are overpriced.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 01:46:50


Post by: Sim-Life


 Nevelon wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
The issue is if GW overvalue Blast as they tend to with all their new ideas I suspect Hordes will probably still be viable as no-one will take the blast weapons if they have a choice.

I suspect Guard will become an autoloose matchup along with marines while other armies will find it increasingly difficult to be able to bring enough flexability.


Honestly, a lot of ways people deal with hordes now are high rate of fire weapons. Those are still going to be prevalent. So people planning on dealing with hordes in 8th wlll continue to do so in 9th. They just won’t use the new set of tools available if they are overpriced.


This. Why use a Battle Cannon when you can use a Punisher?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:02:07


Post by: p5freak


Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:18:49


Post by: Karol


 Sim-Life wrote:



This. Why use a Battle Cannon when you can use a Punisher?


Because not everyone can and will tailor vs specific armies. In general people are willing to play with a less optimal unit, as long as the other option is still valid and lets them save money.



Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.

Probably not as important to people who play in their own homes. For people playing at stores or who have to pay for reserving tables, and army that has 50min turns is unfun to play against, that is for sure.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:19:11


Post by: Seabass


 p5freak wrote:
Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


You may not care for horde armies, but I can't see a point where they are "bad" for the game. I completely understand you don't want to or wouldn't like to play against them, but the lore and setting clearly establish horde armies as a common threat that armies in the setting will have to encounter, so I really struggle to see where they could be construed as bad. I would also like to note that I'm sure a lot of people don't like sitting down and waiting for their opponent to finish their turn, but its a game. If your opponent has to roll a lot of dice, then so be it. I'm sure on the opposite of the table they horde players don't particularly enjoy dual punisher cannon flyers rolling 40 dice to hit...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:22:58


Post by: Amishprn86


 p5freak wrote:
Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


Re-rolls slows the game down faster than hordes. I play a lot of horde armies and i can 100% for sure tell you castle shooting armies are slower than my horde armies. Yes it takes longer to set up and move, that is 100% true, But turn 1 99% the time is only movement and very little shooting. Most hordes also has 0 re-rolls or just re-roll 1's or if they do shoot its 1 shot each. Armies like DE (which i also play) venom spam (12 Venoms), armies also like Tau and Marines, all has to not only move 30-70 models (where hordes move 100-150 models) each turn but they also have to shoot with almost all of those models and they get Re-rolls on top of re-rolls (some armies moreso than others).

My slowest game in 8th at an ITC event was Venom Spam vs Tau, we didn't get past turn 3 b.c to many dice rolling and we were going fast.

One of my fastest games was Nids vs UM, 60 Genestealers, 60 Hgants, 6 Hive Guard, 1x3 Rippers, Malanthropes, Swarm Lord +Guard and a couple Broodlords, thats 138 models. It was fast b.c my turn 1 was moving models on movement trays, casting 6 power and shooting 2 units. His turn was slower than mine. PS: He had 2 battalions, 6x5 Primaris, Hellblasters, banner guy with other HQ's, Eliminators and Intercesptors (DSing HB guys can't remember the actual name), and Repuslor or 2 i can't remember. But it was he Normally UM list, not as good as IH/IF but still someone good, able to go 3-2 easily.

Even tho he was UM and had about 50 models on the table, his turn one he rolled (with re-rolls) over 400 dice.
EDIT: No it wasn't my fasted b.c I lost, I actually won that game. I did however lose to the top player which was Tau and only b.c he could stand on terrain an di couldn't melee him.. so stupid that genestealers can't melee off ledges lol.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:28:29


Post by: Karol


Non of this things seem to be very horde. I remember seeing the old demons+pox walkers soup list, before it got nerfed, and with spreading it could take 30 min it the movment phase alone. it could take a large chunk of time from opponents time, when dead horrors were turning in to more horrors and a poxwalkers.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:36:32


Post by: p5freak


Seabass wrote:

You may not care for horde armies, but I can't see a point where they are "bad" for the game. I completely understand you don't want to or wouldn't like to play against them, but the lore and setting clearly establish horde armies as a common threat that armies in the setting will have to encounter, so I really struggle to see where they could be construed as bad. I would also like to note that I'm sure a lot of people don't like sitting down and waiting for their opponent to finish their turn, but its a game. If your opponent has to roll a lot of dice, then so be it. I'm sure on the opposite of the table they horde players don't particularly enjoy dual punisher cannon flyers rolling 40 dice to hit...


Of course horde players dont enjoy getting hit by punisher cannons. However, if hordes didnt exist in the first place, no one would use punisher cannons. One players gets annoyed because he has to wait for his opponent to roll hundreds of dice, and he is forced to roll lots of dice as well, to counter a horde.

I dont really mind a large number of models. What i mind is the time needed to manage them. GW could have done something to speed them up, but they didnt. Instead they decided to reduce the overall number of models, which also reduces the time to manage them, and im ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Re-rolls slows the game down faster than hordes. I play a lot of horde armies and i can 100% for sure tell you castle shooting armies are slower than my horde armies. Yes it takes longer to set up and move, that is 100% true, But turn 1 99% the time is only movement and very little shooting. Most hordes also has 0 re-rolls or just re-roll 1's or if they do shoot its 1 shot each.


Good point, rerolls also take time. Lots of dice also mean lots of rerolls. I dont know any horde army who hasnt any reroll ability, or is used without additional reroll abilities.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 05:44:16


Post by: Seabass


 p5freak wrote:
Seabass wrote:

You may not care for horde armies, but I can't see a point where they are "bad" for the game. I completely understand you don't want to or wouldn't like to play against them, but the lore and setting clearly establish horde armies as a common threat that armies in the setting will have to encounter, so I really struggle to see where they could be construed as bad. I would also like to note that I'm sure a lot of people don't like sitting down and waiting for their opponent to finish their turn, but its a game. If your opponent has to roll a lot of dice, then so be it. I'm sure on the opposite of the table they horde players don't particularly enjoy dual punisher cannon flyers rolling 40 dice to hit...


Of course horde players dont enjoy getting hit by punisher cannons. However, if hordes didnt exist in the first place, no one would use punisher cannons. One players gets annoyed because he has to wait for his opponent to roll hundreds of dice, and he is forced to roll lots of dice as well, to counter a horde.

I dont really mind a large number of models. What i mind is the time needed to manage them. GW could have done something to speed them up, but they didnt. Instead they decided to reduce the overall number of models, which also reduces the time to manage them, and im ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Re-rolls slows the game down faster than hordes. I play a lot of horde armies and i can 100% for sure tell you castle shooting armies are slower than my horde armies. Yes it takes longer to set up and move, that is 100% true, But turn 1 99% the time is only movement and very little shooting. Most hordes also has 0 re-rolls or just re-roll 1's or if they do shoot its 1 shot each.


Good point, rerolls also take time. Lots of dice also mean lots of rerolls. I dont know any horde army who hasnt any reroll ability, or is used without additional reroll abilities.


I am not sure where this time constraint comes from. Maybe it's just a demographic difference in your area and mine? When we get to play, we play what we want, and if that means orks make 120 attacks, then there are dice apps for that and movement trays to speed up play. I play Tyranids among other armies and I haven't had a problem with not playing quickly enough to keep the game moving.

Is the time constraint concern based on tournament play? cause if so, I would recommend a chess clock.

In terms of reroll abilities, tyranids reroll abilities are built into their weapons, not into the HQ or elites models save for a few models that can provide that bump, so a lot of the time, they arent rerolling a lot of dice.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 06:25:54


Post by: Eihnlazer


Hoard is becoming a keyword in 9th and a lot of units are going to be changing and there will be new additions to the rules that utilize the hoards keyword.


Example of such a change would be:

Tyranid Hormagaunts: unit size 10-40.

If you purchase 20 or more hormagaunts in a single squad they gain the hoard keyword.





Hoard will affect many things im assuming. Some examples would be:

A unit choosing to fall back from a hoard unit suffers a -1 to their fall back check.

A hoard unit who is above 50% of its original models can never loose more than 6 models due to a failed moral check.

A hoard unit that is surrounding a destroyed transport instantly kills all occupants.

A hoard unit that is composed of more than 30 models does not gain the benefit of cover until they are reduced to less than 20 models.

A hoard unit that has objective secured and has the majority of its models within 3" of an objective automatically claims control of said objective.



Note the above are just examples of things that could be applied to hoards.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 06:44:39


Post by: kodos


 p5freak wrote:
Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


yeah, instead of taking 1 unit of 40 models it will be better to take 4 units of 10

doesn't make the game faster but slower and the problem is not Hordes, but that the core rules are written with less models in mind and as long as single model meachnics are a thing the game will be slow at 2k points not matter if there are a hordes on the table or not

and Horde armies by istself were only a thing at the beginning of 8th, at the end they were already weak and not really played anyway, and the game was still slow


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:02:41


Post by: p5freak


 kodos wrote:

yeah, instead of taking 1 unit of 40 models it will be better to take 4 units of 10


You can still take a 40 model unit, or 4 units of 10, but you would need to cut something else. Cultists are going from 4 to 6 points, similar models probably the same. The overall number of models will be reduced, which is a good thing. As you said, the rules arent designed to handle 200+ models playing quickly.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:08:54


Post by: Jidmah


People, it's "HORDE" not "HOARD"...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:15:44


Post by: kodos


 p5freak wrote:
The overall number of models will be reduced.


for Marines about 5-10 models at 2k, which does not solve anything
also with 8th the model count was rediuced compared to 7th and it did not make the game faster

this alone does not solve the problem unless you start playing 1000 points instead of 2000 points with 9th


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:31:44


Post by: p5freak


 kodos wrote:

for Marines about 5-10 models at 2k, which does not solve anything


So you already know only marine infantry goes up in points ? Everything else stays the same in a SM army ? Points will not go up for vehicles ?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:35:27


Post by: Blackie


 p5freak wrote:
Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


This is bull, what really slow downs the game is SM and they're thousands re-rolls.

The new rules will probably cause those horde armies to go elite style and rolling less dice, but the game real cancer, SM armies, will still roll their thousand of dice.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:36:00


Post by: Amishprn86


 kodos wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


yeah, instead of taking 1 unit of 40 models it will be better to take 4 units of 10

doesn't make the game faster but slower and the problem is not Hordes, but that the core rules are written with less models in mind and as long as single model meachnics are a thing the game will be slow at 2k points not matter if there are a hordes on the table or not

and Horde armies by istself were only a thing at the beginning of 8th, at the end they were already weak and not really played anyway, and the game was still slow


We haven't seen Moral yet or is Hordes buffs that. So it might still be good for hordes to be in larger groups.

But i feel your point. Why take more than 10 ever with the new Blast rules? Every IG player is going to have a unit of Wyverns now.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:39:14


Post by: Blackie


BrianDavion wrote:
nothing wrong with hoard armies, but most armies have trouble chewing through large hoards. GW is just giving dedicated tools for that.

it's like complaining that GW hates vehicles because the game has lascannons.


On the other hand most horde armies have trouble killing the unkillable stuff. Seriously, horde armies do well only because they are anti tournament meta. In a full game, played with TAC lists, their efficiency drops dramatically while stuff like SM, knights, AM... is still very good.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:40:56


Post by: kodos


 p5freak wrote:
 kodos wrote:

for Marines about 5-10 models at 2k, which does not solve anything

So you already know only marine infantry goes up in points ? Everything else stays the same in a SM army ? Points will not go up for vehicles ?
´

as the playtesters said that they had one squad Marines at 2k points less compared to 8th, yes we know what to expect


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:46:41


Post by: Ice_can


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
The issue is if GW overvalue Blast as they tend to with all their new ideas I suspect Hordes will probably still be viable as no-one will take the blast weapons if they have a choice.

I suspect Guard will become an autoloose matchup along with marines while other armies will find it increasingly difficult to be able to bring enough flexability.


Honestly, a lot of ways people deal with hordes now are high rate of fire weapons. Those are still going to be prevalent. So people planning on dealing with hordes in 8th wlll continue to do so in 9th. They just won’t use the new set of tools available if they are overpriced.


This. Why use a Battle Cannon when you can use a Punisher?

Except that doesnt mean they will be any worse off in 8th than they were in 8th.
Which was my point I doubt that Blast etc will change very much in real terms. Just make a few more weapons probably a few more points of overcosted and nothing in the meta will really change.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:47:56


Post by: Amishprn86


 Blackie wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
nothing wrong with hoard armies, but most armies have trouble chewing through large hoards. GW is just giving dedicated tools for that.

it's like complaining that GW hates vehicles because the game has lascannons.


On the other hand most horde armies have trouble killing the unkillable stuff. Seriously, horde armies do well only because they are anti tournament meta. In a full game, played with TAC lists, their efficiency drops dramatically while stuff like SM, knights, AM... is still very good.


Yes 100% this. This has always been true. But Blasts were also better back then, so were flamers. And b.c units like Tanks and Marines were at least 4x tougher than they are now. It was even harder to kill that stuff. In 8th hordes were bad b.c soooo much massive str 4-6 shooting with with re-rolls. 9th might change but. But we'll see. Hordes


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:51:05


Post by: p5freak


 Blackie wrote:

This is bull, what really slow downs the game is SM and they're thousands re-rolls.


Not true. A unit of 10 intercessors gets 20 shots at rapid fire, they hit 13 times, and get 7 rerolls with a chapter master. 25 ork boys with shootas get 50 shots, rerolling 1s, and additional rolls for dakka dakka dakka, when rolling 6s. In melee 10 intercessors have 34 attacks, they hit 23 times, getting 11 rerolls. Next turn this goes down to 23 attacks. 25 ork boys in melee with choppas already have 100 attacks, getting additional attacks for 6s.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 07:51:59


Post by: Ice_can


 Blackie wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
nothing wrong with hoard armies, but most armies have trouble chewing through large hoards. GW is just giving dedicated tools for that.

it's like complaining that GW hates vehicles because the game has lascannons.


On the other hand most horde armies have trouble killing the unkillable stuff. Seriously, horde armies do well only because they are anti tournament meta. In a full game, played with TAC lists, their efficiency drops dramatically while stuff like SM,
Spoiler:
knights, AM
... is still very good.

Fixed that typo for you, nothing competes with Codex Reroll Doctorines.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 08:09:17


Post by: Blackie


 p5freak wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

This is bull, what really slow downs the game is SM and they're thousands re-rolls.


Not true. A unit of 10 intercessors gets 20 shots at rapid fire, they hit 13 times, and get 7 rerolls with a chapter master. 25 ork boys with shootas get 50 shots, rerolling 1s, and additional rolls for dakka dakka dakka, when rolling 6s. In melee 10 intercessors have 34 attacks, they hit 23 times, getting 11 rerolls. Next turn this goes down to 23 attacks. 25 ork boys in melee with choppas already have 100 attacks, getting additional attacks for 6s.


Only on paper. The majority of the ork boyz will die before shooting due to short range and t-shirt saves, let alone fighting in combat, that's the sad reality. Hordes are never good for the sheer number of shots/attack that their countless bodies grants on paper, but because they are tons of cheap wounds that invalidate the enemy anti tank. Their strenght is board control, not any offensive ability. Oh, and only bad moons re-roll 1s and bad moons boyz are extremely uncommon, and only goffs orks, also not among the most common choices, get additional attacks on 6s.

10 intercessors will definitely roll more dice during the entire game than 25 boyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:

Fixed that typo for you, nothing competes with Codex Reroll Doctorines.


Of course not, but they're still very good in any possible meta, competitive or not.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 08:12:12


Post by: Amishprn86


 p5freak wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

This is bull, what really slow downs the game is SM and they're thousands re-rolls.


Not true. A unit of 10 intercessors gets 20 shots at rapid fire, they hit 13 times, and get 7 rerolls with a chapter master. 25 ork boys with shootas get 50 shots, rerolling 1s, and additional rolls for dakka dakka dakka, when rolling 6s. In melee 10 intercessors have 34 attacks, they hit 23 times, getting 11 rerolls. Next turn this goes down to 23 attacks. 25 ork boys in melee with choppas already have 100 attacks, getting additional attacks for 6s.


You are forgeting that 10 intercessors is shooting from turn 1, Orks are not, So you need to double that just to get orks in range to shoot once, and they get re-roll wounds of 1 at least. 20 shots with 7 re-rolls is 4.6 more hits, lets say 18 hits b.c its actually 13.336 hits at first rolls, with rrw1s is 3 re-rolls. In total those 10 are rolling 48 dice. Over 2 turns that is 96 dice.

So when it comes to rolling dice, Marines are rolling more shooting dice compare to Shootas.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 08:19:27


Post by: Kitane


I can roll single minded annihilation on 30 devilgants (180 shots with rerolls of 1) faster than my friend can go through one round of combat with his varied weapon wolf guard terminators.

*face palm*


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 08:21:17


Post by: Pyroalchi


And then there are also a couple of rolls outside of attacking to consider. For example the Boyz often don't even roll there armor saves, while the Marines do. I'm not that knowledgable with Marines but I expect there are also builts/combinations/auras that let them reroll said armor saves/add a FNP roll
Then the Marines can reroll their morale roll (which the Boyz often don't have to roll at all due to mob rule)


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 08:24:58


Post by: Niiai


Horde armies are there worst in three respects who have big impacts on you as a player.

1: The cost of buying the models is enourmus. Say you buy a box or ork boys, congrants. Just two more to go and you have a group of 30 boys. With space marines one box not only is enough, but in game those marines costs more then the 30 boys. (To some degree.)

2: Painting hordes takes so very long! Do not do this!

3: When playing you will spend to much time moving models around or roll dice. A friend of mine is a slow player to begin with, but with ork boys he takes for ages.

While point 1 and 2 has no inpact on strategy, point 3 does have an inpact on strategy.

The rest we will wait and see for 8th edition.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 08:25:22


Post by: Amishprn86


Orks can have a Invul and FnP tho. Just like many other hordes lists can, Daemons, Nids, etc... Even SoB hordes can have FnP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Niiai wrote:
Horde armies are there worst in three respects who have big impacts on you as a player.

1: The cost of buying the models is enourmus. Say you buy a box or ork boys, congrants. Just two more to go and you have a group of 30 boys. With space marines one box not only is enough, but in game those marines costs more then the 30 boys. (To some degree.)

2: Painting hordes takes so very long! Do not do this!

3: When playing you will spend to much time moving models around or roll dice. A friend of mine is a slow player to begin with, but with ork boys he takes for ages.

While point 1 and 2 has no inpact on strategy, point 3 does have an inpact on strategy.

The rest we will wait and see for 8th edition.



My nids took me less than 10 hours to paint 5k points. Painting hordes doesn't have to be long. It took longer to base them than it did to paint them.
Certain Box sets are cheaper to play hordes too if you can get them that way. I got 30 Ork Boys for $15 USD b.c of splitting box sets in the past. Why did i need 00 Boyz when i don't play them? Terrain, bits, w/e it was $15 new on sprue b.c it was part of a split box.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:05:37


Post by: Vector Strike


I guess we'll get more info on hordes and morale this week


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:14:50


Post by: Jidmah


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Orks can have a Invul and FnP tho. Just like many other hordes lists can, Daemons, Nids, etc... Even SoB hordes can have FnP.

FNP doesn't scale with unit size, but with number of wounds caused. A unit of plague marines rolls just as many saves as a unit of SoB.

Certain Box sets are cheaper to play hordes too if you can get them that way. I got 30 Ork Boys for $15 USD b.c of splitting box sets in the past. Why did i need 00 Boyz when i don't play them? Terrain, bits, w/e it was $15 new on sprue b.c it was part of a split box.

What box set was that supposed to be? AOBR from ten year ago?

Today, a new unit of ork boyz is at least $75 (according to the store with the highest discount I could find), and you need at least two or three of those, otherwise don't bother with ork boyz at all.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:18:07


Post by: Not Online!!!


 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I asked a similar question about army soup and not I'm tackling this topic. I fully agree with GW's decision to reform things in the 9th edition and to not allow crap like a few grots holding up tanks, but to just punish them all strikes me as wrong. Lore-wise, IG, orks, tyranids, certain CSM armies and daemons generally revolve around hordes of some kind, to varying degrees. Am I really a bad person for wanting to swarm the field with load of berzerkers and bloodletters? Thoughts on this issue.


No, and since dex 2.0 SM horde armies get hard countered by about 60% of all the lists available due to how prevalent marines are.
further yes it is possible to outhorde even ih, but then we are tallking about hordes on a magnitude that you won't even be able to field them all competetnly into your deployment zone.


The truth is, the reason for the effectiveness of the horde ocmes down to the sizecreep and inevitable creep of anti tank / heavy boy weaponry. Both of these things the big boys and the guns to bring them down cost alot more, horde plays into that and exploits the low body count and is therefore able to (was is more accurate) to win via playing in essence another minigame within the game called grab the objectives and dig in.
it also was immensly easy to ignore morale for alot of horde armies, Commisars in early 8th, IW warlord trait or failbaddon cultist conga.

However even within hordes there are very massive differences in what worked and what not. Take the PB horde which worked for a lot of 8th due to an -1 to hit and invul aswell as FNP.
Most hordes couldn't out last these hordes.
Also Morale immune hordes > not morale immune hordes, wherever that imunisation came from.

In most cases, as allready stated, your average tac list could drive a horde army into the ground no questions asked, but the humble taclist itself got out sizecreeped and put to the side because gw insited that it'd be a smart idea to implement full super heavy armies .

In many ways the hordes as issue is untrue, especially when the first dexes started dropping, and more a sign of a symptom of the scale creep.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:18:24


Post by: Spoletta


One thing that hordes got for them is that now they probably count as always being in cover, due to how the obstacles work. It's going to be quite difficult not having at least a rock/barrel/whatever between one of your boyz and the attacker.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:20:36


Post by: Not Online!!!


Spoletta wrote:
One thing that hordes got for them is that now they probably count as always being in cover, due to how the obstacles work. It's going to be quite difficult not having at least a rock/barrel/whatever between one of your boyz and the attacker.


With the prevalence of the popularity of SM and the tac doctrine that really doesn't matter.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:21:49


Post by: p5freak


 Amishprn86 wrote:

You are forgeting that 10 intercessors is shooting from turn 1, Orks are not, So you need to double that just to get orks in range to shoot once, and they get re-roll wounds of 1 at least. 20 shots with 7 re-rolls is 4.6 more hits, lets say 18 hits b.c its actually 13.336 hits at first rolls, with rrw1s is 3 re-rolls. In total those 10 are rolling 48 dice. Over 2 turns that is 96 dice.


Again not true. 30 orks T1 hiding behind LOS blocking terrain, da jumping 9.1" in front of intercessors, needing an 8 on the charge, because of evil sunz, rerolling a failed charge, making it, suffer only overwatch from intercessors. Meanwhile, 2x30 boys advance towards your intercessors with a boss, and can still charge. They are 100% in melee T2. And if your intercessors fail to completely wipe 30 boys they will all come back for 3CP.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:22:27


Post by: Jidmah


The only thing that's really slow about hordes is movement, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Dice rolls can be sped up through apps, when my warbikers start shooting, I can roll those 72 dice faster than most marine players take to find their dice.

Movement often can be sped up by reducing accuracy, but once you need to pile in or consolidate, you have no such liberties.
And I agree that GW has done nothing to change this, for example by implementing rules for using movement trays more naturally - for example, they could allow an entire movement tray to fight when it is within 1" of an enemy unit.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:24:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


Well gw also insited that you tripoint more or less if you want to tie something permanently down. which also takes time to set up propperly.

Otoh, rerolling has gotten so ridicoulus especially when FNP's are also invovled...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:26:06


Post by: Nazrak


Wild to see people claiming horde armies "slow the game down too much" as though the problem is horde armies per se, rather than not allocating enough time to play the game at a given size / trying to play too big a game in the time available.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:47:00


Post by: Blackie


 p5freak wrote:

Again not true. 30 orks T1 hiding behind LOS blocking terrain, da jumping 9.1" in front of intercessors, needing an 8 on the charge, because of evil sunz, rerolling a failed charge, making it, suffer only overwatch from intercessors. Meanwhile, 2x30 boys advance towards your intercessors with a boss, and can still charge. They are 100% in melee T2. And if your intercessors fail to completely wipe 30 boys they will all come back for 3CP.


First you assume that all orks are bad moons so they automatically re-roll 1s, then they all are goffs with exploding 6s in melee, now they're evil sunz so all orks need a 8'' charge. Maybe you're not aware but an ork detachment can have only one clan bonus, like anyone else.

Jumping boyz is a good strategy, so is bringing expendable screeners to mess them up and reduce their killyness. Force those boyz to show up near scouts or 5 man squads of intercessors, they won't be an issue for the SM player then.

Those 2x30 with the warboss are footslogging and they realistically reach melee at 25-30% of their forces, if they aren't wiped out before.

The 3CPs stratagem is also a thing, but a very expensive one for an army that is extremely CPs hungry and those orks will be far from the action in the turn they arrive, so no dice rolling for them and all the time in the world for the opponent to deal with them.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:47:51


Post by: Jidmah


 p5freak wrote:
Again not true. 30 orks T1 hiding behind LOS blocking terrain, da jumping 9.1" in front of intercessors, needing an 8 on the charge, because of evil sunz, rerolling a failed charge, making it, suffer only overwatch from intercessors. Meanwhile, 2x30 boys advance towards your intercessors with a boss, and can still charge. They are 100% in melee T2. And if your intercessors fail to completely wipe 30 boys they will all come back for 3CP.


So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:49:21


Post by: Huron black heart


I actually like hordes, either using them (Genestealer cults, Imperial Guard, Orks, Nurgle) or against them. No one really knows how everything is going to pan out with the new edition, and whilst I think the increases to blast weapons lethality is a good thing, I'm hoping points are costed accordingly


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:53:41


Post by: Not Online!!!


6pts cultists would probably disagree huron.

Probably


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 09:57:57


Post by: Huron black heart


Not Online!!! wrote:
6pts cultists would probably disagree huron.

Probably


But perhaps blast weapon points will be where the balance comes in, or the horde key word granting some extra abilities


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 10:05:42


Post by: Jidmah


 Huron black heart wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
6pts cultists would probably disagree huron.

Probably


But perhaps blast weapon points will be where the balance comes in, or the horde key word granting some extra abilities


I don't see blasts to being that bad though. Even for something like a tank commander with battlecannon (ordering itself) we will be looking at 3 additional cultists or boyz killed compared to what it did before. I somehow doubt people will start shooting their big guns at boyz instead of targets they are shooting now just because of blasts.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 10:11:56


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Again not true. 30 orks T1 hiding behind LOS blocking terrain, da jumping 9.1" in front of intercessors, needing an 8 on the charge, because of evil sunz, rerolling a failed charge, making it, suffer only overwatch from intercessors. Meanwhile, 2x30 boys advance towards your intercessors with a boss, and can still charge. They are 100% in melee T2. And if your intercessors fail to completely wipe 30 boys they will all come back for 3CP.


So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


Son, round these parts we only compare things in a vacuum. Take your reasonable arguments outta here before you get an ass whoopin'


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 10:13:55


Post by: Spoletta


What the blast change will probably do is to make available some equipment that previously were not.

No one was using frag grenades, maybe that now they will.
How many barbed stranglers did you see around? Plasma cannons? The blast rule gives a purpose to many previously unused weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
One thing that hordes got for them is that now they probably count as always being in cover, due to how the obstacles work. It's going to be quite difficult not having at least a rock/barrel/whatever between one of your boyz and the attacker.


With the prevalence of the popularity of SM and the tac doctrine that really doesn't matter.


Apart from few exceptions, those doctrines don't work on turn 1, or work ONLY for turn 1. Hordes are a problem that you have from turn 1 to turn 5.

The new terrain system paired with the strategic reserves (supposed one at least) makes it so that you can dictate when and how your opponent can shoot at you. They said that 9th edition is the CC and short/mid range edition, and reveal after reveal i'm starting to see it.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 10:27:46


Post by: Amishprn86


p5freak wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:

You are forgeting that 10 intercessors is shooting from turn 1, Orks are not, So you need to double that just to get orks in range to shoot once, and they get re-roll wounds of 1 at least. 20 shots with 7 re-rolls is 4.6 more hits, lets say 18 hits b.c its actually 13.336 hits at first rolls, with rrw1s is 3 re-rolls. In total those 10 are rolling 48 dice. Over 2 turns that is 96 dice.


Again not true. 30 orks T1 hiding behind LOS blocking terrain, da jumping 9.1" in front of intercessors, needing an 8 on the charge, because of evil sunz, rerolling a failed charge, making it, suffer only overwatch from intercessors. Meanwhile, 2x30 boys advance towards your intercessors with a boss, and can still charge. They are 100% in melee T2. And if your intercessors fail to completely wipe 30 boys they will all come back for 3CP.


Now you are talking about scenarios and i'm not getting involved with you on that, b.c i can post 50 others to show how that wont work. On average the Marine player will roll more dice give the army as a whole vs a horde army. We can talk about unit vs unit all day, what matters is the army as a whole.

From my Experience with playing Hordes (120models+) those games are always faster than Non horde games with armies that has lots of re-rolls.

You are also forgetting (I think someone else said it already) that every turn if you both lose equal of your forces, the horde player is removing a lot more models, which both move and shoot, and that is even more dice not being rolled. If the Marine player loses 5 guys, well the Nid player might love 30 Gaunts, those 5 guys are rolling 40+ dice with re-rolls, where those gants turn 1 might have done nothing but died (there's a scenario for you).



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 10:44:19


Post by: Galas


The thing that slows the game are slow players.


For feths sake, I swear theres players that are payed for each minute they use to play this game. I don't like chess clocks but with some people I would not only use it, I would smak them in the head with one every time they "take a moment to think" and spend 5 minutes lookin at the existential void that are their lives.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 10:55:59


Post by: Jidmah


 Amishprn86 wrote:
From my Experience with playing Hordes (120models+) those games are always faster than Non horde games with armies that has lots of re-rolls.

The funny part is that I would agree with p5freak, but he is arguing in bad faith using armies as an example he doesn't understand properly.

Playing a competitive ork army with da jump, tellyporta and endless green tide is actually really time-efficient as you spend almost no time moving you models - they all deep strike or remain stationary and shoot. When playing this way turns don't last any longer than armies with other time-consuming mechanics like AM orders or a TS psychic phase. Boyz also tend to be mostly wiped out by T3, and the few hand full still running about hardly take any time - rolling a bunch of dice once or twice per game hardly match all the re-rolls that some armies accumulate over the course of a game.
Before the codex dropped, orks had to bring 180 or more boyz, protected by KFF and pain boy and had no other chance but march them up the board. You couldn't cut any corners when moving or rolling saves, you needed those fractions of an inch and 6+++ saves in order to squeeze out a win. Playing (against) armies like that takes a lot of time and should receive some support from the rules to speed up their game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
The thing that slows the game are slow players.


For feths sake, I swear theres players that are payed for each minute they use to play this game. I don't like chess clocks but with some people I would not only use it, I would smak them in the head with one every time they "take a moment to think" and spend 5 minutes lookin at the existential void that are their lives.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

Guide them to making their decision, speed up your games


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 11:15:09


Post by: the_scotsman


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Hoard is becoming a keyword in 9th and a lot of units are going to be changing and there will be new additions to the rules that utilize the hoards keyword.


Example of such a change would be:

Tyranid Hormagaunts: unit size 10-40.

If you purchase 20 or more hormagaunts in a single squad they gain the hoard keyword.





Hoard will affect many things im assuming. Some examples would be:

A unit choosing to fall back from a hoard unit suffers a -1 to their fall back check.

A hoard unit who is above 50% of its original models can never loose more than 6 models due to a failed moral check.

A hoard unit that is surrounding a destroyed transport instantly kills all occupants.

A hoard unit that is composed of more than 30 models does not gain the benefit of cover until they are reduced to less than 20 models.

A hoard unit that has objective secured and has the majority of its models within 3" of an objective automatically claims control of said objective.



Note the above are just examples of things that could be applied to hoards.


Id love to know if you have a source for any of these pieces of info. Not your speculation but

1) the existence of a horde keyword

2) Fall Back tests?

Etc


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 11:43:55


Post by: Seabass


 Huron black heart wrote:
I actually like hordes, either using them (Genestealer cults, Imperial Guard, Orks, Nurgle) or against them. No one really knows how everything is going to pan out with the new edition, and whilst I think the increases to blast weapons lethality is a good thing, I'm hoping points are costed accordingly


I like horde armies too, and I love elite armies as well. It's fun to play them against each other! (especially when fully painted). In a recent Vox Cast, from Tabletop Tactics, Lawrence and Bone seemed like they were very confident in the points costs and balancing of the new edition, so I have hope. I think the biggest thing here is that we are making snap decisions with half of the information we need. I'm sure there are plenty more changes.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 11:44:18


Post by: Gregor Samsa


The problem with hordes is, imo, largely a result of scale and abstraction. Even with hordey armies: orks/nids etc... there aren't enough models they can bring to really function as a "horde" relative to the amount of shots/firepower Space Marines can bring.

As usual with GW, the problem lies in having every xeno faction being largely a foil for Space Marines to annihilate in epic lore stories.

With the points increase in 9th, I think this will only get worse. What will happen with less models over all is that hordes would feel even less of a horde, largely because of the very relevant housekeeping issues (takes a lot of time to move and arrange hundreds of models on a board).

So it seems that unless the horde keyword confers some very gamey effects, 40k is spinning its wheels in exactly the same place it has always been: way too many space marines making for boring and tactically uninspired play styles.

Ultimately, because GW is a business, I don't fault them. They supply people's demand for fantasy juice. At some point the cycle has to be broken.

As in:

For the love of the Warp:

Stop
Buying
Space
Marines

I have a small Dark Angels faction, which I never, ever use, largely because...It is just enough with the space marines.

Cheers!


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 11:49:53


Post by: leopard


Horde armies don't slow the game down, armies that are being played slowly slow the game down

removing the blast templates made the game play faster as you no longer needed maximised spacing etc.

I've run hordes for a while in several games, my turns are usually a lot shorter than my "elite" opponents, heck I've deployed faster against some (true less often in 40k though).

remove a lot of the re-rolls and more elite armies will take less time, but it will still be the speed of the player.

Hordes are good specifically because it forces some variability, if all armies were small elite armies they would all focus on killing small elite armies - as it is running a horde can shake things up, and that also benefits the elite armies


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:02:15


Post by: Seabass


 Gregor Samsa wrote:


As in:

For the love of the Warp:

Stop
Buying
Space
Marines

I have a small Dark Angels faction, which I never, ever use, largely because...It is just enough with the space marines.

Cheers!


Do you even 40k bro?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:13:31


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gregor Samsa wrote:
The problem with hordes is, imo, largely a result of scale and abstraction. Even with hordey armies: orks/nids etc... there aren't enough models they can bring to really function as a "horde" relative to the amount of shots/firepower Space Marines can bring.

As usual with GW, the problem lies in having every xeno faction being largely a foil for Space Marines to annihilate in epic lore stories.

With the points increase in 9th, I think this will only get worse. What will happen with less models over all is that hordes would feel even less of a horde, largely because of the very relevant housekeeping issues (takes a lot of time to move and arrange hundreds of models on a board).

So it seems that unless the horde keyword confers some very gamey effects, 40k is spinning its wheels in exactly the same place it has always been: way too many space marines making for boring and tactically uninspired play styles.

Ultimately, because GW is a business, I don't fault them. They supply people's demand for fantasy juice. At some point the cycle has to be broken.

As in:

For the love of the Warp:

Stop
Buying
Space
Marines

I have a small Dark Angels faction, which I never, ever use, largely because...It is just enough with the space marines.

Cheers!


Yeah, who knew that if you make 1/2 of the factions in the game space marines, then proceed to make space marines immune to mechanics that you build into your game (e.g. morale) then those mechanics will become largely meaningless and you may as well not have them. WILD stuff.

Look, I am of the opinion that if the mechanics actually support it I would LOVE for pretty much every horde unit to be bumped up in points. I think Grots and Brims are pretty comfy at 3ppm, but I think they shoudl be just about the only things in that bracket, and I would love to see a game where we can have 4-5ppm nid gribbles, 6ppm GEQ, 8-10ppm guardians/kabalites/ork boyz/lesser daemons, you know the nice sliding progression between "super cheap horde infantry that does basically nothing" to "medium infantry defined by the space marine" that we had in previous editions.

The problem is, every mechanic previewed so far benefits smaller, elite units much, MUCH more than horde units. To make horde units actually useful, you'd want soemthing like:

1) terrain rules that proportionally benefit infantry that start out with lighter protection. This is why cover saves were 4+ for SOOOOOOOOO many editions - it's the perfect spot to put them in. It provides marines protection, but ONLY against weapons that would ordinarily be wiping them out, while orks, guardsmen, guardians, etc etc actually get a boost to their defenses for being in the terrain.

2) morale rules that you can mitigate by having more models in your squad. bonus points if you also redesign morale to be something that reduces rather than increases lethality, like it does in nearly every other game in existence that has a morale mechanic. Don't have morale just throw down mortal wounds like soldiers die of a heart attack in the field, make it a sliding scale that causes units to move slower, shoot worse, and potentially even not act at all. And for feth's sake don't just give every faction a way to totally mitigate it holy crap why does GW keep doing this how many ING editions have we had where GW designed a morale system and then spent the whole edition giving basically every. single. goddamn. faction. a way to not play with it at all?

The problem is, in the past rather than create these roles for troops and give them a situation where they can meaningfully compete (i.e. where both sides are dug in to terrain, light infantry gets an advantage!) GW has opted to either require them, or grant them bizarre conditional advanages that allowed them to punch WAY above their weight class, like the 8th ed lockdown rules or the 7th ed "vehicles always use rear armor in melee" rules.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:26:48


Post by: p5freak


 Jidmah wrote:

So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


They are wasting my time because i have to counter them. Im forced to play auspex scan on them, im forced to fire my TFCs at them. Im forced to fire WWs artillery at them. Im forced to counter them with lots of dice, which adds to the insanely huge numbers they roll. When i play against an ork player with SM his turn takes about twice as long as my turn. Some tournaments limit the number of models, and thats a good thing. I wish that had been a matched play rule. Now the number will be limited by points increases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote:
Horde armies don't slow the game down, armies that are being played slowly slow the game down


Of course it depends on the player, there are fast and slow players. But 50 models usually take less time to manage than 200 models, if both players are equally fast.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:30:55


Post by: Not Online!!!


 p5freak wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


They are wasting my time because i have to counter them. Im forced to play auspex scan on them, im forced to fire my TFCs at them. Im forced to fire WWs artillery at them. Im forced to counter them with lots of dice, which adds to the insanely huge numbers they roll. When i play against an ork player with SM his turn takes about twice as long as my turn. Some tournaments limit the number of models, and thats a good thing. I wish that had been a matched play rule. Now the number will be limited by points increases.


lol, you are aware that the orkz literally don't do half the stuff you complained about taking time yet you rolled more reactionary dice then the bloody unit would roll for attacks yes that is hyperbolic but still-


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:31:04


Post by: Amishprn86


 p5freak wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


They are wasting my time because i have to counter them. Im forced to play auspex scan on them, im forced to fire my TFCs at them. Im forced to fire WWs artillery at them. Im forced to counter them with lots of dice, which adds to the insanely huge numbers they roll. When i play against an ork player with SM his turn takes about twice as long as my turn. Some tournaments limit the number of models, and thats a good thing. I wish that had been a matched play rule. Now the number will be limited by points increases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote:
Horde armies don't slow the game down, armies that are being played slowly slow the game down


Of course it depends on the player, there are fast and slow players. But 50 models usually take less time to manage than 200 models, if both players are equally fast.


You mean you are force to play the game with the rules you have? If his turns are taking twice as long then he is a slow player and he would have been slow no matter the army. PS No major tournament limit models. Limiting model count is as bad as limiting Knights.

And no 50 mdoels dont take the same time if they are rolling 4x the dice.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:33:39


Post by: the_scotsman


 p5freak wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


They are wasting my time because i have to counter them. Im forced to play auspex scan on them, im forced to fire my TFCs at them. Im forced to fire WWs artillery at them. Im forced to counter them with lots of dice, which adds to the insanely huge numbers they roll. When i play against an ork player with SM his turn takes about twice as long as my turn. Some tournaments limit the number of models, and thats a good thing. I wish that had been a matched play rule. Now the number will be limited by points increases.


If you want the model count to be less, that's perfectly fine and makes sense.

But if you give light infantry units bigger point hikes than elite units, and make the rules of the edition favor elite units even MORE than the previous edition, then you just will never see light infantry units used.

That's the dichotomy here. No person who plays a cheaper army ENJOYS having to field 200 orks instead of 150 orks to play a 2k game, we just want them to be actually functional at whatever point value you choose to apply to them, rather than just costing more and being unusable.

If you just hike the cost on them, their cost will just slowly drop down throughout the edition with Chapter Approveds, and you'll end up in the same spot you're in now.

....I would argue though that things takin way too long is a problem with 40k in general, rather than just hordes. how many shots roll, Hit roll, wound roll, save roll, remove models, with rerolls exploding dice stratagems and gak all in there makes everything take a crazy long time. especially when you have gak like aggressors putting down 18 shots per model.But that's not a problem that's going to be resolved with 9th, unless they do stuff like take out Overwatch or reconfigure it so it isn't a fullly resolved shooting attack. THat problem is baked into every datasheet, and in particular datasheets like Ork Boyz, Punisher tanks, Aggressors, Dakkabots, and every other unit that requires a bucket of freaking dice to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


They are wasting my time because i have to counter them. Im forced to play auspex scan on them, im forced to fire my TFCs at them. Im forced to fire WWs artillery at them. Im forced to counter them with lots of dice, which adds to the insanely huge numbers they roll. When i play against an ork player with SM his turn takes about twice as long as my turn. Some tournaments limit the number of models, and thats a good thing. I wish that had been a matched play rule. Now the number will be limited by points increases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote:
Horde armies don't slow the game down, armies that are being played slowly slow the game down


Of course it depends on the player, there are fast and slow players. But 50 models usually take less time to manage than 200 models, if both players are equally fast.


You mean you are force to play the game with the rules you have? If his turns are taking twice as long then he is a slow player and he would have been slow no matter the army. PS No major tournament limit models. Limiting model count is as bad as limiting Knights.

And no 50 mdoels dont take the same time if they are rolling 4x the dice.


I use the GW dice app when I play my orks and it is a god damn dream to resolve die rolls instantly. Since it's an "official warhammer app" few people have problems with it I've found.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:45:24


Post by: Amishprn86


To bad its Iphone only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, its not on Android anymore (and hasn't for a couple years) b.c its outdated and no longer supported.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:50:29


Post by: p5freak


Not Online!!! wrote:


lol, you are aware that the orkz literally don't do half the stuff you complained about taking time yet you rolled more reactionary dice then the bloody unit would roll for attacks yes that is hyperbolic but still-


Thats weird, because one ork player does it exactly like i described. 2x30 boys advance towards me, 1 unit of 30 boys gets da jumped, sometimes they make the charge, sometimes they dont. 10 intercessors with auspex scan cant kill 30 boys.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

And no 50 mdoels dont take the same time if they are rolling 4x the dice.


50 intercessors roll less dice than 200 orks, even with reroll everything, and reroll 1s to wound. Ars Bellica limits the number of models. Its not a major tournament, its a competitive tournament format for the tabletop game Warhammer 40.000.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 12:59:26


Post by: Amishprn86


Thats b.c you are comparing 1400pts vs 850pts.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 13:42:07


Post by: the_scotsman


 Amishprn86 wrote:
To bad its Iphone only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, its not on Android anymore (and hasn't for a couple years) b.c its outdated and no longer supported.


Ah, mine must be out of date then. But i mean, it's a dice rolling app. I'm sure there's a half dozen you could use to simulate rolls, rerolls, whatever.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 13:49:33


Post by: Tycho


Admittedly I just skimmed the thread, so apologies if this was covered, but I keep seeing it come up -

"I'm so tired of the horde armies and all the dice they roll ...etc etc" ....

Do people not use dice roller apps? As someone else said - "Horde armies don't play slow - armies that are played slow, play slow". I've seen 1000 point games between two marine players take forever, and I've seen 200+ combined models on the table where the game took hardly any time at all.

Generally speaking, and whether players want to admit/understand it or not - three things slow the game down. Re-rolls, strats, and not knowing the rules of the game/the rules of your army well enough. Army size has significantly less to do with it.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 14:27:47


Post by: Slipspace


Tycho wrote:
Admittedly I just skimmed the thread, so apologies if this was covered, but I keep seeing it come up -

"I'm so tired of the horde armies and all the dice they roll ...etc etc" ....

Do people not use dice roller apps? As someone else said - "Horde armies don't play slow - armies that are played slow, play slow". I've seen 1000 point games between two marine players take forever, and I've seen 200+ combined models on the table where the game took hardly any time at all.

Generally speaking, and whether players want to admit/understand it or not - three things slow the game down. Re-rolls, strats, and not knowing the rules of the game/the rules of your army well enough. Army size has significantly less to do with it.


In general they don't. I think I've seen one used maybe twice in the whole time they've been available. Not sure if that's just because people haven't really figured out how useful they are or whether people are suspicious of their quality. There's also the fact that it's pretty much a GW-only problem since the vast majority of other wargames don't roll so many dice in the first place. That's where GW should be concentrating their efforts, IMO, but it seems 9th isn't changing those basic mechanics.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 14:41:20


Post by: the_scotsman


Slipspace wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Admittedly I just skimmed the thread, so apologies if this was covered, but I keep seeing it come up -

"I'm so tired of the horde armies and all the dice they roll ...etc etc" ....

Do people not use dice roller apps? As someone else said - "Horde armies don't play slow - armies that are played slow, play slow". I've seen 1000 point games between two marine players take forever, and I've seen 200+ combined models on the table where the game took hardly any time at all.

Generally speaking, and whether players want to admit/understand it or not - three things slow the game down. Re-rolls, strats, and not knowing the rules of the game/the rules of your army well enough. Army size has significantly less to do with it.


In general they don't. I think I've seen one used maybe twice in the whole time they've been available. Not sure if that's just because people haven't really figured out how useful they are or whether people are suspicious of their quality. There's also the fact that it's pretty much a GW-only problem since the vast majority of other wargames don't roll so many dice in the first place. That's where GW should be concentrating their efforts, IMO, but it seems 9th isn't changing those basic mechanics.


I recall flames of war having a pretty similar structure, but at this point I'm sure the volume of dice rolling in 40k has massively outstripped it. I haven't played it since like 6th ed 40k era so couldn't tell you for sure.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 14:50:13


Post by: carldooley


As someone who has seen it used against them. Slow play is slow play, but it is a lot easier with hordes. Timed play is a major factor too, but I can tell stories about timed tournament games where an ork player ended the game turn two and won on objectives by playing 6 30 boy troops where the player exhaustively measured each model's movement precisely, and used all the time allotted to both players - refusing the other player time to play the game.

In 8th at least, there is no reason not to play hordes, as movement trays are a perfectly valid way to move models if you want to. With the absence of blast templates and facing not mattering there is little to no reason not to use them to speed the game up.

In 9th, there is likely going to be an issue with units that have 19+ models. But the only thing that I have seen is the thing that says that units with more than 18 wounds don't benefit from cover.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:08:14


Post by: the_scotsman


 carldooley wrote:
As someone who has seen it used against them. Slow play is slow play, but it is a lot easier with hordes. Timed play is a major factor too, but I can tell stories about timed tournament games where an ork player ended the game turn two and won on objectives by playing 6 30 boy troops where the player exhaustively measured each model's movement precisely, and used all the time allotted to both players - refusing the other player time to play the game.

In 8th at least, there is no reason not to play hordes, as movement trays are a perfectly valid way to move models if you want to. With the absence of blast templates and facing not mattering there is little to no reason not to use them to speed the game up.

In 9th, there is likely going to be an issue with units that have 19+ models. But the only thing that I have seen is the thing that says that units with more than 18 wounds don't benefit from cover.


MODELS with 18 wounds. That would have nothing to do with hordes.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:34:41


Post by: JNAProductions


 p5freak wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


lol, you are aware that the orkz literally don't do half the stuff you complained about taking time yet you rolled more reactionary dice then the bloody unit would roll for attacks yes that is hyperbolic but still-


Thats weird, because one ork player does it exactly like i described. 2x30 boys advance towards me, 1 unit of 30 boys gets da jumped, sometimes they make the charge, sometimes they dont. 10 intercessors with auspex scan cant kill 30 boys.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

And no 50 mdoels dont take the same time if they are rolling 4x the dice.


50 intercessors roll less dice than 200 orks, even with reroll everything, and reroll 1s to wound. Ars Bellica limits the number of models. Its not a major tournament, its a competitive tournament format for the tabletop game Warhammer 40.000.
Really now? Because T1, your 50 Intercessors shoot 100-120 shots (depending if you use the Rapid Fire Strat) for...

120 shots
40 rerolls [160]
107 wound rolls [267]
18 rerolls [285]

That's 285 rolls T1.

The Boyz roll... 6 Advance rolls, and they cannot make it to shooting range assuming you were smart and deployed back. But wait! One squad gets Da Jumped! So that's 7 rolls so far.

They then get shot by you with Auspex Scan, for...

40 shots
20 rerolls [60]
30 wound rolls [90]
5 rerolls [95]

The remaining 13 Boys shoot you.

13 shots
2 extra rolls [15]
5 wound rolls [20]

Orks are up to 20 rolls total. Charging makes that 21, rerolling the charge, 22.

If they make it, they roll 39 attacks.

39 attacks
26 wound rolls [65]
13 save rolls [78]

So, counting the save rolls they force as rolls they make, they make a total of 100 rolls T1.
Marines make 95 on Auspex Scan alone, with Rapid Fire strat and Rerolls.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:40:54


Post by: Tycho


Timed play is a major factor too, but I can tell stories about timed tournament games where an ork player ended the game turn two and won on objectives by playing 6 30 boy troops where the player exhaustively measured each model's movement precisely, and used all the time allotted to both players - refusing the other player time to play the game.


But this was an issue inherent to the tournament rules. Not the horde. A player could easily have done the same w/a few squads of marines. Was a judge not called? Did the tournament not have a scoring system that would have penalized the other player for doing this? If player A was ALLOWED to use all of the time given to BOTH player A and player B - That's strictly an issue with the tourney format you were playing, or possibly an unwillingness to call a judge to intervene. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything specifically wrong with Orks.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:41:06


Post by: Amishprn86


 JNAProductions wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


lol, you are aware that the orkz literally don't do half the stuff you complained about taking time yet you rolled more reactionary dice then the bloody unit would roll for attacks yes that is hyperbolic but still-


Thats weird, because one ork player does it exactly like i described. 2x30 boys advance towards me, 1 unit of 30 boys gets da jumped, sometimes they make the charge, sometimes they dont. 10 intercessors with auspex scan cant kill 30 boys.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

And no 50 mdoels dont take the same time if they are rolling 4x the dice.


50 intercessors roll less dice than 200 orks, even with reroll everything, and reroll 1s to wound. Ars Bellica limits the number of models. Its not a major tournament, its a competitive tournament format for the tabletop game Warhammer 40.000.
Really now? Because T1, your 50 Intercessors shoot 100-120 shots (depending if you use the Rapid Fire Strat) for...

120 shots
40 rerolls [160]
107 wound rolls [267]
18 rerolls [285]

That's 285 rolls T1.

The Boyz roll... 6 Advance rolls, and they cannot make it to shooting range assuming you were smart and deployed back. But wait! One squad gets Da Jumped! So that's 7 rolls so far.

They then get shot by you with Auspex Scan, for...

40 shots
20 rerolls [60]
30 wound rolls [90]
5 rerolls [95]

The remaining 13 Boys shoot you.

13 shots
2 extra rolls [15]
5 wound rolls [20]

Orks are up to 20 rolls total. Charging makes that 21, rerolling the charge, 22.

If they make it, they roll 39 attacks.

39 attacks
26 wound rolls [65]
13 save rolls [78]

So, counting the save rolls they force as rolls they make, they make a total of 100 rolls T1.
Marines make 95 on Auspex Scan alone, with Rapid Fire strat and Rerolls.



Also its 850pts marines vs 1400pts orks.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:42:24


Post by: JNAProductions


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Also its 850pts marines vs 1400pts orks.
Well yeah. So half the points for triple the rolling!


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:45:16


Post by: Mr.Omega


Personally I've found the blast weapon adjustments to be baffling, for a couple reasons.

For one, in my entire time playing 8th I very rarely saw anyone play a horde army, especially compared to my experience with previous editions. That I can recall, in 8th I only ever lost to someone playing a horde once and it was an Ork army that worked around the super mobility of old Ghazghkull, Da Jump and Storm Boys. I vaguely recall it being before the Astra Militarum Codex dropped but I'm not sure.

Secondly, especially from the perspective of someone that plays Guard, I've found hordes to be pretty terrible this edition since the moment the Commissar nerf dropped. I ranted at length about this in another thread a while back, but the gulf in effectiveness and efficiency between Guardsmen and something like Custodes is so ridiculously big that unless you're going to try squeeze like 200 Guardsmen on the board and bore your opponent into submission the only reason to take 50-80 Guardsmen or is because you want more chaff to throw onto objectives and more bubblewrap to guard fire support with. I certainly stopped taking any upgrades, priests and extra officers after my experience with custodes. Some people raised the point that the same issue exists with Primaris, which I'm not going to argue against anymore tbh.

They made it impossible to take combined squads, nerfed Conscripts into uselessness, and then gave Commissars a big fat nerf as well. It was understandable that there needed to be some changes what with the nonsense of 150 pt, 50 man fearless conscript blobs at the start of the edition, but instead of carefully adjusting it and fixing it, GW just took a sledgehammer to the whole issue and piled on so many nerfs that noone in their right mind would even bother with the playstyle anymore.

Oh and finally, between the abundance of multi-shot weapon units (hello, aggressors) that wipe the floor with hordes anyway, and the fact that I spent the better part of this edition dumping well over half of my points into tanks and artillery to pretty good success, it comes across as completely pointless to me. I started playing Russ spam at the very end purely to counter annoying elite model armies with supertough fire support (Knights, Callidus tanks, etc) and now as a free bonus that list is now well suited to curbstomping hordes seeing as how every one of my Russes now gets an automatic 12 shots against any mob of greater than 10 dudes. Oh and as another bonus my tanks can shoot into melee with merely a -1 to hit too now so any poor person playing hordes against me can't even rely on the oldest trick in the book in tying up my stuff in melee, which in a number of tournament games against non-hordes this edition otherwise basically signalled the end of the match for me.

Since about last April I've mainly been playing X-wing purely because I'm tired of the monotony of the game. Every single tournament the main challenge had been working out how to spam high strength/ap/damage guns harder than my opponent can and then gambling that I blew up their heaviest thing before they blew up my heaviest Russes.

I played one game in January I believe where in the first round I lost initiative against a guy with a Knight Crusader, 2-3 Callidus tanks and minimum investment skitarii. It was a clustered urban board with heavy obscurement on one side and I ended up losing my 200+ pt Knight Commander Pask in an executioner on turn one because the Crusader was within range of him by a margin of one inch with the melta and because he fired before Pask did. I then lost at least another Russ to the Callidus tanks. And that signalled game over basically with the rest being going through the motions. Probably the most competitive list I faced this edition that I can remember.

And the reason I had a lot of success this edition is because about 80% of the time I was the one making other people feel like they were going through the motions because I deleted 400~ pts of hard hitters on turn one instead.

But no according to GW the pressing issue is hordes and that multi-shot high strength/ap/damage weapons aren't powerful enough.

Sigh.





Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:48:25


Post by: Gregor Samsa


I am having a hard time understanding the argument that hordes confer some kind of competitive advantage over elite armies. Surely those edge-cases where a player is able to use army size to "stall" and frustrate the other player is not unique to horde armies. People can do that by slowly flipping through rules, "suddenly" needing to text their partner, bathroom breaks and so on. All of these qualitative factors slow down the game and are not intrinsic to horde players.

From a quantitative perspective focusing on the data provided by unit data sheets, mathhammer, and the results of powergaming tournaments clearly demonstrate the competitive advantage of elite armies.

Providing arguments that the game system should further penalize the already significant challenge of fielding a horde army (time investment and cash investment) will contribute to an even worsening of homogenizing elite style army lists.

I understand the cumbersome nature of dice, but on the other hand one of the essential charms of wargaming is its admittedly gruelling analog nature. Personally I like to roll the dice and engage mentally in the small arithmetic it entails. Certainly there are good ways to reduce the number of dice that are used (end the rerollapalooza). But my crew and I definitely prefer dice in a dice tray to some kind of digital system. 40k's niche is a very "offline" game (before the internet even!). Be careful at how you chip away the foundation as it is perhaps sort of unclear what the cornerstone of this hobby/obsession is.





Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:52:24


Post by: Ice_can


 Mr.Omega wrote:
Personally I've found the blast weapon adjustments to be baffling, for a couple reasons.
Spoiler:

For one, in my entire time playing 8th I very rarely saw anyone play a horde army, especially compared to my experience with previous editions. That I can recall, in 8th I only ever lost to someone playing a horde once and it was an Ork army that worked around the super mobility of old Ghazghkull, Da Jump and Storm Boys. I vaguely recall it being before the Astra Militarum Codex dropped but I'm not sure.

Secondly, especially from the perspective of someone that plays Guard, I've found hordes to be pretty terrible this edition since the moment the Commissar nerf dropped. I ranted at length about this in another thread a while back, but the gulf in effectiveness and efficiency between Guardsmen and something like Custodes is so ridiculously big that unless you're going to try squeeze like 200 Guardsmen on the board and bore your opponent into submission the only reason to take 50-80 Guardsmen or is because you want more chaff to throw onto objectives and more bubblewrap to guard fire support with. I certainly stopped taking any upgrades, priests and extra officers after my experience with custodes. Some people raised the point that the same issue exists with Primaris, which I'm not going to argue against anymore tbh.

They made it impossible to take combined squads, nerfed Conscripts into uselessness, and then gave Commissars a big fat nerf as well. It was understandable that there needed to be some changes what with the nonsense of 150 pt, 50 man fearless conscript blobs at the start of the edition, but instead of carefully adjusting it and fixing it, GW just took a sledgehammer to the whole issue and piled on so many nerfs that noone in their right mind would even bother with the playstyle anymore.

Oh and finally, between the abundance of multi-shot weapon units (hello, aggressors) that wipe the floor with hordes anyway, and the fact that I spent the better part of this edition dumping well over half of my points into tanks and artillery to pretty good success, it comes across as completely pointless to me. I started playing Russ spam at the very end purely to counter annoying elite model armies with supertough fire support (Knights, Callidus tanks, etc) and now as a free bonus that list is now well suited to curbstomping hordes seeing as how every one of my Russes now gets an automatic 12 shots against any mob of greater than 10 dudes. Oh and as another bonus my tanks can shoot into melee with merely a -1 to hit too now so any poor person playing hordes against me can't even rely on the oldest trick in the book in tying up my stuff in melee, which in a number of tournament games against non-hordes this edition otherwise basically signalled the end of the match for me.

Since about last April I've mainly been playing X-wing purely because I'm tired of the monotony of the game. Every single tournament the main challenge had been working out how to spam high strength/ap/damage guns harder than my opponent can and then gambling that I blew up their heaviest thing before they blew up my heaviest Russes.

I played one game in January I believe where in the first round I lost initiative against a guy with a Knight Crusader, 2-3 Callidus tanks and minimum investment skitarii. It was a clustered urban board with heavy obscurement on one side and I ended up losing my 200+ pt Knight Commander Pask in an executioner on turn one because the Crusader was within range of him by a margin of one inch with the melta and because he fired before Pask did. I then lost at least another Russ to the Callidus tanks. And that signalled game over basically with the rest being going through the motions. Probably the most competitive list I faced this edition that I can remember.

And the reason I had a lot of success this edition is because about 80% of the time I was the one making other people feel like they were going through the motions because I deleted 400~ pts of hard hitters on turn one instead.

But no according to GW the pressing issue is hordes and that multi-shot high strength/ap/damage weapons aren't powerful enough.

Sigh.




Your also playing on of the armies best suited to spamming Mass Random shot,high strength, medium damage shooting.

If you take grinding advance away from Russ's as most other armies have to contend with and it becomes flat D6 shots without catachan rerolls etc D6 shot weapons are avoided like the plage as they aren't currently reliable.

Saying you don't have that issue when you play the army thats been handed the most ways to mitigate bad rolls isnt a shock.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 15:53:23


Post by: Tycho


I understand the cumbersome nature of dice, but on the other hand one of the essential charms of wargaming is its admittedly gruelling analog nature.


But like I said earlier - even that limitation is easily over-come. Admittedly, I have not been on the "ITC"/major tourney scene in about a year, but I'm flabbergasted to see people not using dice rollers. They save so much time, and a lot of them also take things like exploding 5s/6s into account as well. Kind of crazy to me that people are actually rolling that amount of dice ...

In my local meta, most players use dice apps for large rolls like that. Saves so much time and space.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:15:03


Post by: Mr.Omega


Ice_can wrote:
 Mr.Omega wrote:
Personally I've found the blast weapon adjustments to be baffling, for a couple reasons.
Spoiler:

For one, in my entire time playing 8th I very rarely saw anyone play a horde army, especially compared to my experience with previous editions. That I can recall, in 8th I only ever lost to someone playing a horde once and it was an Ork army that worked around the super mobility of old Ghazghkull, Da Jump and Storm Boys. I vaguely recall it being before the Astra Militarum Codex dropped but I'm not sure.

Secondly, especially from the perspective of someone that plays Guard, I've found hordes to be pretty terrible this edition since the moment the Commissar nerf dropped. I ranted at length about this in another thread a while back, but the gulf in effectiveness and efficiency between Guardsmen and something like Custodes is so ridiculously big that unless you're going to try squeeze like 200 Guardsmen on the board and bore your opponent into submission the only reason to take 50-80 Guardsmen or is because you want more chaff to throw onto objectives and more bubblewrap to guard fire support with. I certainly stopped taking any upgrades, priests and extra officers after my experience with custodes. Some people raised the point that the same issue exists with Primaris, which I'm not going to argue against anymore tbh.

They made it impossible to take combined squads, nerfed Conscripts into uselessness, and then gave Commissars a big fat nerf as well. It was understandable that there needed to be some changes what with the nonsense of 150 pt, 50 man fearless conscript blobs at the start of the edition, but instead of carefully adjusting it and fixing it, GW just took a sledgehammer to the whole issue and piled on so many nerfs that noone in their right mind would even bother with the playstyle anymore.

Oh and finally, between the abundance of multi-shot weapon units (hello, aggressors) that wipe the floor with hordes anyway, and the fact that I spent the better part of this edition dumping well over half of my points into tanks and artillery to pretty good success, it comes across as completely pointless to me. I started playing Russ spam at the very end purely to counter annoying elite model armies with supertough fire support (Knights, Callidus tanks, etc) and now as a free bonus that list is now well suited to curbstomping hordes seeing as how every one of my Russes now gets an automatic 12 shots against any mob of greater than 10 dudes. Oh and as another bonus my tanks can shoot into melee with merely a -1 to hit too now so any poor person playing hordes against me can't even rely on the oldest trick in the book in tying up my stuff in melee, which in a number of tournament games against non-hordes this edition otherwise basically signalled the end of the match for me.

Since about last April I've mainly been playing X-wing purely because I'm tired of the monotony of the game. Every single tournament the main challenge had been working out how to spam high strength/ap/damage guns harder than my opponent can and then gambling that I blew up their heaviest thing before they blew up my heaviest Russes.

I played one game in January I believe where in the first round I lost initiative against a guy with a Knight Crusader, 2-3 Callidus tanks and minimum investment skitarii. It was a clustered urban board with heavy obscurement on one side and I ended up losing my 200+ pt Knight Commander Pask in an executioner on turn one because the Crusader was within range of him by a margin of one inch with the melta and because he fired before Pask did. I then lost at least another Russ to the Callidus tanks. And that signalled game over basically with the rest being going through the motions. Probably the most competitive list I faced this edition that I can remember.

And the reason I had a lot of success this edition is because about 80% of the time I was the one making other people feel like they were going through the motions because I deleted 400~ pts of hard hitters on turn one instead.

But no according to GW the pressing issue is hordes and that multi-shot high strength/ap/damage weapons aren't powerful enough.

Sigh.




Your also playing on of the armies best suited to spamming Mass Random shot,high strength, medium damage shooting.

If you take grinding advance away from Russ's as most other armies have to contend with and it becomes flat D6 shots without catachan rerolls etc D6 shot weapons are avoided like the plage as they aren't currently reliable.

Saying you don't have that issue when you play the army thats been handed the most ways to mitigate bad rolls isnt a shock.




Um, what? The point I'm making is that I was taking random shot weapons for use against high toughness and elite targets and now for no good reason the blanket change means they're extremely effective against hordes too.

The fact that its a blanket change is what makes it so silly. Its disproportionate. Yes I'm well aware there are weapons in other armies that are probably hot garbage without the buff. Pointing out that I don't believe that every Leman Russ I take should suddenly double as high grade anti-horde doesn't mean I don't think those other random shot weapons shouldn't be balanced, adjusted and fixed.




Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:17:00


Post by: p5freak


 JNAProductions wrote:
Really now? Because T1, your 50 Intercessors shoot 100-120 shots (depending if you use the Rapid Fire Strat) for...

120 shots
40 rerolls [160]
107 wound rolls [267]
18 rerolls [285]


Thats not whats going to happen. If the marine player gets T1 the ork player will set up his boys more than 36" away. 50 intercessors will roll 0 dice.

 JNAProductions wrote:

They then get shot by you with Auspex Scan, for...

40 shots
20 rerolls [60]
30 wound rolls [90]
5 rerolls [95]


How do 10 intercessors get 40 shots with auspex scan ? They get 20 with bolt rifles, and 30 with auto bolt rifles.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:24:43


Post by: Karol


Tycho 789228 10831683 wrote:

But like I said earlier - even that limitation is easily over-come. Admittedly, I have not been on the "ITC"/major tourney scene in about a year, but I'm flabbergasted to see people not using dice rollers. They save so much time, and a lot of them also take things like exploding 5s/6s into account as well. Kind of crazy to me that people are actually rolling that amount of dice ...

In my local meta, most players use dice apps for large rolls like that. Saves so much time and space.


Not everyone wants to risk taking a tablet to a store, and not everyone has a phone that can run apps on it. Sometimes both things happen. Plus you would have to be very sure of the quality of the roller used by the other person.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:28:41


Post by: JNAProductions


 p5freak wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Really now? Because T1, your 50 Intercessors shoot 100-120 shots (depending if you use the Rapid Fire Strat) for...

120 shots
40 rerolls [160]
107 wound rolls [267]
18 rerolls [285]


Thats not whats going to happen. If the marine player gets T1 the ork player will set up his boys more than 36" away. 50 intercessors will roll 0 dice.

 JNAProductions wrote:

They then get shot by you with Auspex Scan, for...

40 shots
20 rerolls [60]
30 wound rolls [90]
5 rerolls [95]


How do 10 intercessors get 40 shots with auspex scan ? They get 20 with bolt rifles, and 30 with auto bolt rifles.
Rapid Fire Strat. And if the Orks deploy 36" away, they delay the inevitable. You're not Da Jumping all 7 squads each turn-if you do just one a turn, you'll get eaten piecemeal.

Melee units have to close in. Ranged units don't.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:33:53


Post by: Jidmah


 p5freak wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

So, what is it p5freak? Are those orks wasting your time through their re-rolls? Because of their exploding sixes in combat? Or do they have +1 to charges?
Did you forget to use your stratagem to shoot at models arriving from reserves? Was the TF cannon gunner on a break?
How are you hiding 30 32mm bases out of LoS while also advancing across the board in two turns? Did you move forward towards your enemy so he has a 100% charge after moving 10"+2d6?
What were those other troop slots doing while 630 points of boyz spread across 3 slots were walking up the board to maul your 170 point unit? What was the rest of the army doing?


They are wasting my time because i have to counter them. Im forced to play auspex scan on them, im forced to fire my TFCs at them. Im forced to fire WWs artillery at them. Im forced to counter them with lots of dice, which adds to the insanely huge numbers they roll. When i play against an ork player with SM his turn takes about twice as long as my turn. Some tournaments limit the number of models, and thats a good thing. I wish that had been a matched play rule. Now the number will be limited by points increases.

Poor you, please show me on this bandai toy where the orks hurt you.

You do realize that you have to shoot the same amount of shots to kill similar amounts of points regardless of model count, right?
To bad that stupid ork play just isn't lying down to die and instead puts pressure on you.

Tournament limiting models is on the same level as tournaments banning primaris marines - a stupid house rule made by people who have no clue how the game works.
Get a chess clock from your TO if you think your opponent is being to slow, the amount of models you are whining about can easily be played without hitting the clock.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:34:16


Post by: xeen


 p5freak wrote:
Horde armies are bad because they slow down the game. They take a lot of time to set up, and to move. Its not fun to see your opponent roll 1000+ dice during a game. Blast weapons, point increases, vehicles being able to shoot in melee, will greatly decrease the number of models, which means less set up time, less movement time, less dice to roll.


I think you exactly right. If you watch the Table Top Tactics guys vox cast talking about play testing 9th (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObLM6O6Aglc) you can see a consistent theme from GW. Play the game faster. The Blast rule is just an extension of that. It 1. helps reduce large squads faster (reducing the number of models being moved, dice rolled etc.) and 2. discourages you from relying on large squads as the base of your army as you know they will get killed quicker, harder to hide etc. Now you can debate whether this is fair or not to the player who wants to bring 3 x 30 mobs of whatever, but clearly GW is trying to discourage this for, what I think, is the purpose of faster games.

This is also why vehicles are getting better. it is much quicker to play with 2 tanks and one infantry squad than even 3- 10 man infantry squads. Also the blocking of line of sight plays into faster games, which might not sound right, but with more units unable to see or be seen, that is less shots per turn, so like turn one and two your whole army is not shooting, maybe only half, meaning less dice rolled. Smaller tables make so units get engaged faster, aka killed or kill faster, and thus the game plays faster. Aircraft can move off the table so you don't need to spend a bunch of time trying to figure out how to move them is faster. More points per unit, less units is faster.

To me the main focus of 9th is that a 2000 point game should play in 3 hours and the overall changes are all geared toward that goal. Again, if this is the best course is debatable, but I think it is clear that is GWs focus. I for one love this as I don't usually have a ton of time to play, and ensuring games are in a 3 hours span or less will be great for me. I do feel bad for people who like large 100 man armies that represent a hoard charging across the battlefield, as I do think this edition is not going to be kind to them, and I believe that is solely due to GW wanting to speed up the game.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:38:22


Post by: p5freak


 p5freak wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

They then get shot by you with Auspex Scan, for...

40 shots
20 rerolls [60]
30 wound rolls [90]
5 rerolls [95]

 p5freak wrote:

How do 10 intercessors get 40 shots with auspex scan ? They get 20 with bolt rifles, and 30 with auto bolt rifles.
Rapid Fire Strat.


I knew you would say rapid fire strat. You cant use rapid fire in the opponents turn, only in your shooting phase. Read the rules first, before posting incorrect numbers.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:41:32


Post by: Jidmah


 p5freak wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


lol, you are aware that the orkz literally don't do half the stuff you complained about taking time yet you rolled more reactionary dice then the bloody unit would roll for attacks yes that is hyperbolic but still-

Thats weird, because one ork player does it exactly like i described. 2x30 boys advance towards me, 1 unit of 30 boys gets da jumped, sometimes they make the charge, sometimes they dont. 10 intercessors with auspex scan cant kill 30 boys.

So, why don't you just tie down/countercharge those boyz who made the charge and gun down the rest? Maybe you just need to rethink your strategy?

50 intercessors roll less dice than 200 orks, even with reroll everything, and reroll 1s to wound.

Only if you willfully ignore the fact that intercessors shoot multiple times per game, while most boyz fight only once before dying.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:42:06


Post by: Martel732


I think you guys are using the wrong horde army as an example. Many hordes are fine. But IG hordes move individual squad of 10, roll for numbers of shots, rerolll numbers of shots because every tank is made on catachan, issue orders, get rerolls on hits sometimes, etc.

Also, one of the powerful marine types, the Box BA archetype, doesn't shoot all.

I think this problem is too varied to be generalized as vanilla marine vs Ork.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


lol, you are aware that the orkz literally don't do half the stuff you complained about taking time yet you rolled more reactionary dice then the bloody unit would roll for attacks yes that is hyperbolic but still-

Thats weird, because one ork player does it exactly like i described. 2x30 boys advance towards me, 1 unit of 30 boys gets da jumped, sometimes they make the charge, sometimes they dont. 10 intercessors with auspex scan cant kill 30 boys.

So, why don't you just tie down/countercharge those boyz who made the charge and gun down the rest? Maybe you just need to rethink your strategy?

50 intercessors roll less dice than 200 orks, even with reroll everything, and reroll 1s to wound.

Only if you willfully ignore the fact that intercessors shoot multiple times per game, while most boyz fight only once before dying.


Gotta work that tripiont bro. Nothing say "Ork" like only putting one model within charge range on the charge turn!


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:43:16


Post by: Jidmah


 p5freak wrote:
Thats not whats going to happen. If the marine player gets T1 the ork player will set up his boys more than 36" away. 50 intercessors will roll 0 dice.

Once again, please remind me how he sets up 36" away and still has a 100% chance to charge T2?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Gotta work that tripiont bro. Nothing say "Ork" like only putting one model within charge range on the charge turn!

I know, but with the strategy his opponent seems to be running, there is one unit of boyz stuck to a unit of intercessors after T1 and two somewhere in mid-field barreling towards them. In that case all my regular marine opponents concentrate fire on the mobs still upfield and them charge everything with a pair of fists into the tripointing boyz mob to finish it off - best case they leave one or two alive and are save from shooting themselves. Primaris with shock assault are no joke for boyz.
That's basically why you usually hide two mobs and put one in the tellyporta - boyz don't survive crossing the board against marines, and deep striking T2 is still better than moving across the board.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:52:52


Post by: JNAProductions


Alright, my bad. So 850 points of Marines is maybe only DOUBLE the 1,400 points of Orks then.

Man, that makes a WORLD of difference, don't it?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:54:18


Post by: Jidmah


 xeen wrote:
I think you exactly right. If you watch the Table Top Tactics guys vox cast talking about play testing 9th (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObLM6O6Aglc) you can see a consistent theme from GW. Play the game faster. The Blast rule is just an extension of that. It 1. helps reduce large squads faster (reducing the number of models being moved, dice rolled etc.) and 2. discourages you from relying on large squads as the base of your army as you know they will get killed quicker, harder to hide etc. Now you can debate whether this is fair or not to the player who wants to bring 3 x 30 mobs of whatever, but clearly GW is trying to discourage this for, what I think, is the purpose of faster games.

The easiest way to discourage ork players from taking 3 mobs of 30 would be making boyz mobs of 12 or 20 viable so we can go back to trukkboyz and battlewagon boyz. *wanting to play 30 boyz* has nothing to do with it, the rules right now force you to play 30 boyz or 0.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 16:54:47


Post by: Ice_can


 Mr.Omega wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 Mr.Omega wrote:
Personally I've found the blast weapon adjustments to be baffling, for a couple reasons.
Spoiler:

For one, in my entire time playing 8th I very rarely saw anyone play a horde army, especially compared to my experience with previous editions. That I can recall, in 8th I only ever lost to someone playing a horde once and it was an Ork army that worked around the super mobility of old Ghazghkull, Da Jump and Storm Boys. I vaguely recall it being before the Astra Militarum Codex dropped but I'm not sure.

Secondly, especially from the perspective of someone that plays Guard, I've found hordes to be pretty terrible this edition since the moment the Commissar nerf dropped. I ranted at length about this in another thread a while back, but the gulf in effectiveness and efficiency between Guardsmen and something like Custodes is so ridiculously big that unless you're going to try squeeze like 200 Guardsmen on the board and bore your opponent into submission the only reason to take 50-80 Guardsmen or is because you want more chaff to throw onto objectives and more bubblewrap to guard fire support with. I certainly stopped taking any upgrades, priests and extra officers after my experience with custodes. Some people raised the point that the same issue exists with Primaris, which I'm not going to argue against anymore tbh.

They made it impossible to take combined squads, nerfed Conscripts into uselessness, and then gave Commissars a big fat nerf as well. It was understandable that there needed to be some changes what with the nonsense of 150 pt, 50 man fearless conscript blobs at the start of the edition, but instead of carefully adjusting it and fixing it, GW just took a sledgehammer to the whole issue and piled on so many nerfs that noone in their right mind would even bother with the playstyle anymore.

Oh and finally, between the abundance of multi-shot weapon units (hello, aggressors) that wipe the floor with hordes anyway, and the fact that I spent the better part of this edition dumping well over half of my points into tanks and artillery to pretty good success, it comes across as completely pointless to me. I started playing Russ spam at the very end purely to counter annoying elite model armies with supertough fire support (Knights, Callidus tanks, etc) and now as a free bonus that list is now well suited to curbstomping hordes seeing as how every one of my Russes now gets an automatic 12 shots against any mob of greater than 10 dudes. Oh and as another bonus my tanks can shoot into melee with merely a -1 to hit too now so any poor person playing hordes against me can't even rely on the oldest trick in the book in tying up my stuff in melee, which in a number of tournament games against non-hordes this edition otherwise basically signalled the end of the match for me.

Since about last April I've mainly been playing X-wing purely because I'm tired of the monotony of the game. Every single tournament the main challenge had been working out how to spam high strength/ap/damage guns harder than my opponent can and then gambling that I blew up their heaviest thing before they blew up my heaviest Russes.

I played one game in January I believe where in the first round I lost initiative against a guy with a Knight Crusader, 2-3 Callidus tanks and minimum investment skitarii. It was a clustered urban board with heavy obscurement on one side and I ended up losing my 200+ pt Knight Commander Pask in an executioner on turn one because the Crusader was within range of him by a margin of one inch with the melta and because he fired before Pask did. I then lost at least another Russ to the Callidus tanks. And that signalled game over basically with the rest being going through the motions. Probably the most competitive list I faced this edition that I can remember.

And the reason I had a lot of success this edition is because about 80% of the time I was the one making other people feel like they were going through the motions because I deleted 400~ pts of hard hitters on turn one instead.

But no according to GW the pressing issue is hordes and that multi-shot high strength/ap/damage weapons aren't powerful enough.

Sigh.




Your also playing on of the armies best suited to spamming Mass Random shot,high strength, medium damage shooting.

If you take grinding advance away from Russ's as most other armies have to contend with and it becomes flat D6 shots without catachan rerolls etc D6 shot weapons are avoided like the plage as they aren't currently reliable.

Saying you don't have that issue when you play the army thats been handed the most ways to mitigate bad rolls isnt a shock.




Um, what? The point I'm making is that I was taking random shot weapons for use against high toughness and elite targets and now for no good reason the blanket change means they're extremely effective against hordes too.

The fact that its a blanket change is what makes it so silly. Its disproportionate. Yes I'm well aware there are weapons in other armies that are probably hot garbage without the buff. Pointing out that I don't believe that every Leman Russ I take should suddenly double as high grade anti-horde doesn't mean I don't think those other random shot weapons shouldn't be balanced, adjusted and fixed.


Great IG don't have the same issue with their Blast weapons costing way to many points for unterly random and often underwelming results.

Try throwing D6 shotd at S4/5 Ap0/-1 and D1 and feel like thats worth 30-50 points

Compair that to your 22point 2xD6 S8 Ap-2 Dd3 weapon and you see the issue
Would you still play a Russ without this rule if gribding advance was FAQ out of the game?
This is part of the issue as Grinding advance is forcing GW to leave more overcosted weapons in the game aslong as Gridning Advance exsists. It prevents a number of these weapons being fixed for non Russ Imperial/Choas vehicals.



Also at a certain point you can't really just keep making a weapon cheaper, certainly some instances of weapons, gaining this rule should results in a large points increase, however some instances I can see certain weapons still needing points decreases even with this "buff"


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:04:05


Post by: the_scotsman


 Jidmah wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I think you exactly right. If you watch the Table Top Tactics guys vox cast talking about play testing 9th (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObLM6O6Aglc) you can see a consistent theme from GW. Play the game faster. The Blast rule is just an extension of that. It 1. helps reduce large squads faster (reducing the number of models being moved, dice rolled etc.) and 2. discourages you from relying on large squads as the base of your army as you know they will get killed quicker, harder to hide etc. Now you can debate whether this is fair or not to the player who wants to bring 3 x 30 mobs of whatever, but clearly GW is trying to discourage this for, what I think, is the purpose of faster games.

The easiest way to discourage ork players from taking 3 mobs of 30 would be making boyz mobs of 12 or 20 viable so we can go back to trukkboyz and battlewagon boyz. *wanting to play 30 boyz* has nothing to do with it, the rules right now force you to play 30 boyz or 0.


Yeah, daily reminder that my trukk boyz mob went from 75pts in 7th to 162pts in 8th, with less damage, less durability and less mobility.

There's a reason ork players put 500 models on the board and it ain't because we enjoy doing that.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:05:43


Post by: tulun


Hordes can slow down the game for sure, but this is mostly due to inexperience on how to move / position your models which is improved with practice. A lot of Ork players play 200+ models and stay under clock in a 3 hour ITC game.

Re-rolls are by far the worst part of the game, especially if you don't use a dice app. And elite armies can have VERY complex turns, such as a complex order to how you do your dozen psychic powers. Mistakes can cost you a couple extra models might cost you the game.

Basically, rules bloat, re-rolls, and general complexity make the game take longer. If people just move tray their horde units, I don't see what the problem is. Most hordes also don't have long range guns, and are easily blown off the board by popular armies.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:08:23


Post by: the_scotsman


tulun wrote:
Hordes can slow down the game for sure, but this is mostly due to inexperience on how to move / position your models which is improved with practice. A lot of Ork players play 200+ models and stay under clock in a 3 hour ITC game.

Re-rolls are by far the worst part of the game, especially if you don't use a dice app. And elite armies can have VERY complex turns, such as a complex order to how you do your dozen psychic powers. Mistakes can cost you a couple extra models might cost you the game.

Basically, rules bloat, re-rolls, and general complexity make the game take longer. If people just move tray their horde units, I don't see what the problem is. Most hordes also don't have long range guns, and are easily blown off the board by popular armies.


And, regardless, why should an action taking a longer time mean GW should make it weaker to discourage people from doing it?

Gw obviously wants horde units in the game - they exist in like 10 different factions and they continuously talk about how kewl it is when the badass space marines mow down hordes of orks or whatever.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:21:17


Post by: xeen


the_scotsman wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I think you exactly right. If you watch the Table Top Tactics guys vox cast talking about play testing 9th (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObLM6O6Aglc) you can see a consistent theme from GW. Play the game faster. The Blast rule is just an extension of that. It 1. helps reduce large squads faster (reducing the number of models being moved, dice rolled etc.) and 2. discourages you from relying on large squads as the base of your army as you know they will get killed quicker, harder to hide etc. Now you can debate whether this is fair or not to the player who wants to bring 3 x 30 mobs of whatever, but clearly GW is trying to discourage this for, what I think, is the purpose of faster games.

The easiest way to discourage ork players from taking 3 mobs of 30 would be making boyz mobs of 12 or 20 viable so we can go back to trukkboyz and battlewagon boyz. *wanting to play 30 boyz* has nothing to do with it, the rules right now force you to play 30 boyz or 0.


Yeah, daily reminder that my trukk boyz mob went from 75pts in 7th to 162pts in 8th, with less damage, less durability and less mobility.

There's a reason ork players put 500 models on the board and it ain't because we enjoy doing that.


I did not say this was the best way to accomplish faster games, just I think this is GWs logic. I think they want large squads to get blasted into pieces much quicker which is going to discourage a lot of armies from using big squads. Orks are not the only army that uses hoards by the way, and I don't think it is specifically aimed at Orks as it also hurts large cultist squads, IG sqauds etc. I do think it hurts Orks worse than most armies as a lost of those other armies can switch to playing more vehicles, monsters, elite units etc. My TS/CSM lists are certainly not taking big groups of Tgors or cultists in the near future.

I also didn't say I agree with this, or that I think hordes are that much slower compared to other units. I said I like that they are trying the speed up the game in general.

I am also a little worried as a TS player what they are going to do in the psychic phase to speed that up.

I also said I feel bad for hoard players. I think Orks in particular are probably going to get burned by this disproportionately, unless they get a real favorable shake on the point adjustments, and even then I think play big squads is going to be much harder in 9th.

I guess the point I was trying to get across to the main post is that, yes, I think GW's quest to speed up the game includes making hoards less viable, and I would certainly not go out an buy a bunch of models to make hoard units right now and wait on the full rules, and probably wait a few months after to see how it really shakes out (for all we know blast is a 200% increase in points and therefore probably not going to get much play).


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:30:14


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Hopefully GW didn't miss the forest for the trees.

The problem isn't horde armies. The problem is number of dice. Horde armies do tend to have lots of dice, but they are only related, not the same.

I remember back in the day when I was incredulous that the Assault Cannon had 4 shots after I started playing earnestly in 3rd. "Wow!" I thought. "It must fire much faster than a regular machine gun, given that heavy stubbers and heavy bolters (the machine guns of the time) are only 3 shots."

A full strength 10-man marine squad may've had two flamers (combi and regular) and a heavy weapon (sometimes. We'll call it a missile launcher because it was free back in the day). That was, at the time, a good amount of combat power if you weren't hunting tanks and it'd get, what, 24 shots if both flamers hit 5 models (a solid but not maximum or minimum flamer template).

Rate of fire is just bonkers in 8th, and it contributes to the overall lethality problem.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:32:36


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
tulun wrote:
Hordes can slow down the game for sure, but this is mostly due to inexperience on how to move / position your models which is improved with practice. A lot of Ork players play 200+ models and stay under clock in a 3 hour ITC game.

Re-rolls are by far the worst part of the game, especially if you don't use a dice app. And elite armies can have VERY complex turns, such as a complex order to how you do your dozen psychic powers. Mistakes can cost you a couple extra models might cost you the game.

Basically, rules bloat, re-rolls, and general complexity make the game take longer. If people just move tray their horde units, I don't see what the problem is. Most hordes also don't have long range guns, and are easily blown off the board by popular armies.


And, regardless, why should an action taking a longer time mean GW should make it weaker to discourage people from doing it?

Gw obviously wants horde units in the game - they exist in like 10 different factions and they continuously talk about how kewl it is when the badass space marines mow down hordes of orks or whatever.


There's a line between I have some horde units in my army and I have an army that is hordes. The former is a tool on the tool belt; the latter is boring and monotonous irrespective of the army's dynamic as a whole.

The blast problem is likely overblown as the numbers don't really show a severe swing against these units - nevermind the analysis of what happens when guns that were primary anti-tank shoot hordes instead. So, the time for blast weapons to shine would be against an all horde army versus an army that was not previously geared to fight hordes, but has a plethora of blast.

Consider also the chance for reroll auras to get reduced down to affecting one unit - perhaps named characters still affecting 2 or more. If the prevalence of rerolls decreases then the safety of hordes increases.

Horde units will be viable. For lists that employ horde armies though? Far too many questions left to answer.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:37:16


Post by: Hankovitch


the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, daily reminder that my trukk boyz mob went from 75pts in 7th to 162pts in 8th, with less damage, less durability and less mobility.

There's a reason ork players put 500 models on the board and it ain't because we enjoy doing that.


Yeah, speaking very specifically of orks, horde armies are played because that is literally the only way to come close to effectiveness. Most ork elite/specialist units have a 6+ save. Almost all their shooting units are BS5. Mek guns get spammed because of their incredible BS4 accuracy.

Gorkamorkanauts, dreads, kans, battlewagons and gunwagons, freebootas and nobs, are all underpowered and overcosted compared to what they have to fight. I would love to bring more toys and fewer boyz, but when I do they literally accomplish nothing before being blown off the table turn 1.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:40:58


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
tulun wrote:
Hordes can slow down the game for sure, but this is mostly due to inexperience on how to move / position your models which is improved with practice. A lot of Ork players play 200+ models and stay under clock in a 3 hour ITC game.

Re-rolls are by far the worst part of the game, especially if you don't use a dice app. And elite armies can have VERY complex turns, such as a complex order to how you do your dozen psychic powers. Mistakes can cost you a couple extra models might cost you the game.

Basically, rules bloat, re-rolls, and general complexity make the game take longer. If people just move tray their horde units, I don't see what the problem is. Most hordes also don't have long range guns, and are easily blown off the board by popular armies.


And, regardless, why should an action taking a longer time mean GW should make it weaker to discourage people from doing it?

Gw obviously wants horde units in the game - they exist in like 10 different factions and they continuously talk about how kewl it is when the badass space marines mow down hordes of orks or whatever.


There's a line between I have some horde units in my army and I have an army that is hordes. The former is a tool on the tool belt; the latter is boring and monotonous irrespective of the army's dynamic as a whole.

The blast problem is likely overblown as the numbers don't really show a severe swing against these units - nevermind the analysis of what happens when guns that were primary anti-tank shoot hordes instead. So, the time for blast weapons to shine would be against an all horde army versus an army that was not previously geared to fight hordes, but has a plethora of blast.

Consider also the chance for reroll auras to get reduced down to affecting one unit - perhaps named characters still affecting 2 or more. If the prevalence of rerolls decreases then the safety of hordes increases.

Horde units will be viable. For lists that employ horde armies though? Far too many questions left to answer.


I'll be honest with you, I think you're HEAVILY grasping at straws if you really think that the new necron thing indicates that all aura abilities will be reworked to work like that.

That would be an INCREDIBLE number of datasheets to alter. And, for that matter, it would negatively impact marine armies. So unless they start slowly rolling that out with the codex releases, I do not see it happening the way you describe.

I also do not see how the new blast rule, the new elite-favoring terrain rules, the new rule causing vehicles to ignore melee combat, the new elite-favoring missions, and anything else would draw any kind of distinction between horde "armies" and horde "units". I would figure that a single unit of 30 boyz with these new rules that have been previewed at 9-10ppm would be just as useless as an army made up of such pointless models. Honestly, Blasts are more of an insult than an injury at that point - GW just handing out a buff to models that are already borderline broken like TFCs because a couple guys in the studio liked making pchoo pchoo noises, which they've highlighted as the main impetus behind the rule.

Horde units are more likely screwed because now you can just plop down a leman russ punisher behind a building turn 1, take 2nd turn with it safely out of sight, then just roll out and mow down orks continuously with nothing short of total destruction of the tank stopping it from shooting 40 shots per turn.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:44:38


Post by: Daedalus81


Hankovitch wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, daily reminder that my trukk boyz mob went from 75pts in 7th to 162pts in 8th, with less damage, less durability and less mobility.

There's a reason ork players put 500 models on the board and it ain't because we enjoy doing that.


Yeah, speaking very specifically of orks, horde armies are played because that is literally the only way to come close to effectiveness. Most ork elite/specialist units have a 6+ save. Almost all their shooting units are BS5. Mek guns get spammed because of their incredible BS4 accuracy.

Gorkamorkanauts, dreads, kans, battlewagons and gunwagons, freebootas and nobs, are all underpowered and overcosted compared to what they have to fight. I would love to bring more toys and fewer boyz, but when I do they literally accomplish nothing before being blown off the table turn 1.


I'm anticipating (depending on your interpretation of the rule) the day that a Morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines. The pain can go both ways.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:44:42


Post by: yukishiro1


Honestly, like almost everything else in recent 40k balance history, the problem is power creep by marines. Primaris was one of the biggest mistakes GW ever made. You can basically trace all the major problems with 8th edition balance to the way Primaris marines raised the power level of a single infantry model. Before Primaris, Space Marines are moderately better on a model-for-model basis than other factions, but not dramatically so. After Primaris, other factions' troops had to be reduced dramatically in cost to keep Space Marine forces at the same model size (because GW didn't want you having to buy less models), with the result that what used to be a 100-model horde in previous editions is now a 200-model horde at the same points. And this in turn led to power creep on weapons, because now you need to be able to chew through 200 models with your 40-model space marine army. Hence all the rerolls, extra attacks, and extra shots liberally dolled out to Space Marines after the 8th edition launch.

You can go much deeper into this topic, and why it has led to a race to the bottom among non-space marine factions...but the basic fact is that Primaris marines break the game.

And, in typical GW fashion, GW has responded to this in 9th by...doubling down on Primaris, and (based on what we know now) just making hordes bad through all sorts of rules changes designed to punish people for doing the natural thing you do when confronted by something like Primaris.

GW has created Frankenstein's monster and they just don't seem to know what to do about it.





Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:48:59


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hankovitch wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, daily reminder that my trukk boyz mob went from 75pts in 7th to 162pts in 8th, with less damage, less durability and less mobility.

There's a reason ork players put 500 models on the board and it ain't because we enjoy doing that.


Yeah, speaking very specifically of orks, horde armies are played because that is literally the only way to come close to effectiveness. Most ork elite/specialist units have a 6+ save. Almost all their shooting units are BS5. Mek guns get spammed because of their incredible BS4 accuracy.

Gorkamorkanauts, dreads, kans, battlewagons and gunwagons, freebootas and nobs, are all underpowered and overcosted compared to what they have to fight. I would love to bring more toys and fewer boyz, but when I do they literally accomplish nothing before being blown off the table turn 1.


I'm anticipating (depending on your interpretation of the rule) the day that a Morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines. The pain can go both ways.


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:52:43


Post by: Martel732


Primaris were pure garbage early in 8th.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:53:31


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:56:33


Post by: yukishiro1


Martel732 wrote:
Primaris were pure garbage early in 8th.


Right, but that's kinda the point. When you kick up the per-model power level of one faction's base model without doing the same to other factions, you end up with a balance nightmare. Early in 8th GW erred too far in the direction of deflating points costs on everybody else's armies; later in 8th they erred too far on the side of boosting space marines' ability to chew through those deflated and therefore bloated armies, but the point isn't so much the balance of Primaris vis a vis other factions in the abstract, it's what they had to do to try to address the balance conundrum they had created.


The 8th edition super-horde is a side-effect of GW's Frankenstein Monster, just like the deadliness of 8th edition (i.e. "volume of fire" and/or everybody getting 50 bajillion attacks in close combat) is also a side-effect of the same thing. When Space Marines get more power per model but everybody else stays the same, you end up with 2x as many of everybody else, but then that means the marines need more shots and attacks to deal with the 2x as much as everyone else, but then that means you end up with even more of those things, but then you end up with...you see the cycle.

The basic 40k "engine" using D6 just doesn't naturally do very well at balancing armies of vastly different model sizes.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 17:58:29


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man squads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:02:52


Post by: Tycho


Hopefully GW didn't miss the forest for the trees.


From everything we've seen so far - they absolutely DID miss the forest ...


As we all know - it's strats, rate of fire, and rerolls that are the time killers. RoF applies to all armies but is easily fixed with a dice roller app. The other two are fixed only by changing the core rules. They aren't changing those rules. They're doubling down on those while making light and medium infantry borderline pointless. I'm no great Ork player - my Orks are a "fun" army that sees a table maybe once a year, but 9th does seem to be stacking up to NOT be their edition. I don't see how they're going to work without a complete and total re-write from the ground up given what we've seen so far - which would of course invalidate the "all codexes will be compatible claim". But as I've said before, I don't think that was ever an achievable goal anyway. Not with the approach they appear to be taking at any rate.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:04:03


Post by: Daedalus81


I think what you and I saw on the stream is being interpreted differently as they *in no way* indicated a 3D3 weapon getting no benefit - especially as they used it *as an example*.

So, then GW will be adding the Blast rule to weapons that will never see a benefit from it? I strongly doubt that.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:11:12


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think what you and I saw on the stream is being interpreted differently as they *in no way* indicated a 3D3 weapon getting no benefit - especially as they used it *as an example*.

So, then GW will be adding the Blast rule to weapons that will never see a benefit from it? I strongly doubt that.


You don't get no benefit from it. You get a benefit of max shots if your target is over 11 models.

They said, on stream, that certain weapons wouldn't benefit from the 6+ rule but wuld still benefit from the 11+ rule. i think they mentioned the sisters tank specifically.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:11:51


Post by: tulun


Tycho wrote:
Hopefully GW didn't miss the forest for the trees.


From everything we've seen so far - they absolutely DID miss the forest ...


As we all know - it's strats, rate of fire, and rerolls that are the time killers. RoF applies to all armies but is easily fixed with a dice roller app. The other two are fixed only by changing the core rules. They aren't changing those rules. They're doubling down on those while making light and medium infantry borderline pointless. I'm no great Ork player - my Orks are a "fun" army that sees a table maybe once a year, but 9th does seem to be stacking up to NOT be their edition. I don't see how they're going to work without a complete and total re-write from the ground up given what we've seen so far - which would of course invalidate the "all codexes will be compatible claim". But as I've said before, I don't think that was ever an achievable goal anyway. Not with the approach they appear to be taking at any rate.


I'm only an Ork player. I'm not overly stressed out, as honestly, fielding 120+ boys isn't particularly a fun way to play anyway.

I just hope our more mechanized style is costed aggressively enough so we can still throw down. Saga gave Orks a ton of great options.

But my incentive to play boys seems pretty low, given gak like aggressors can now guarantee 144 shots if they shoot twice, with full re-rolls to hit. Even if I stack a KFF and painboy, that easily wipes out a 30 man boy squad on average, and they are currently 37 points each. I have no idea who costs this stuff, because that is BANANAS. It's enough shooting that they can bloody anything besides T8 models.

The deadliness of certain models / units is just beyond 11 at this point.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:12:46


Post by: Nurglitch


I think horde armies would be better served by recycling units onto the table rather than having more models in those units.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:18:06


Post by: the_scotsman


Nurglitch wrote:
I think horde armies would be better served by recycling units onto the table rather than having more models in those units.


too bad das ist verboten for some reason unless you pay reinforcement points, completely negating the point of all those abilities.

Or maybe.

Wild idea, crazy idea:

maybe shooting units should not be able to just wipe the ever loving gak out of whatever they look at for no really adequately explored reason? Maybe a squad of 10 basic marines should not have a stratagem to toss 40 fething S4 Ap-1 shots down the table with full rerolls to hit coming out of a 68pt basic bitch HQ? Maybe 37pt models shouldn't get 18 shots apiece? Maybe we didn't need to add the rule to allow thunderfire cannons that are already firing twice and cutting movement in half to get max shots for free against anything but a min size boyz squad?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:34:01


Post by: tulun


the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man squads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.


"Werner: In the absence of dedicated indirect fire units, the best way to (literally) get around line-of-sight-blocking terrain is by making use of the myriad movement abilities that Necrons have at their disposal. The Doom Scythe, in particular, can use its speed and freedom of movement to get eyes on a valuable target from across the table, then obliterate it with its death ray. What’s more, as a Blast weapon, the death ray will be effective against large enemy units as well as enemy vehicles – you’ll automatically get your maximum of three shots against units of six of more, which will be great for zapping Space Marines."

This gun is d3. From the latest warhammer community article about necrons.

Question answered. Very, very odd, that apparently LARGER blasts don't get a bonus from 6-10, but go absolutely ham 11+, but that's apparently what they went with. Another disincentive to go beyond 10, and it's interesting a lot of very, very powerful d3 guns are going to just smash elite space marines. Look at what Smasha guns do (for example) if they auto get 3 shots at 33 points each.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:34:44


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think what you and I saw on the stream is being interpreted differently as they *in no way* indicated a 3D3 weapon getting no benefit - especially as they used it *as an example*.

So, then GW will be adding the Blast rule to weapons that will never see a benefit from it? I strongly doubt that.


You don't get no benefit from it. You get a benefit of max shots if your target is over 11 models.

They said, on stream, that certain weapons wouldn't benefit from the 6+ rule but wuld still benefit from the 11+ rule. i think they mentioned the sisters tank specifically.


Ok, fair enough. You may very well be correct and I have my head up my ass.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 18:53:05


Post by: the_scotsman


tulun wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man squads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.


"Werner: In the absence of dedicated indirect fire units, the best way to (literally) get around line-of-sight-blocking terrain is by making use of the myriad movement abilities that Necrons have at their disposal. The Doom Scythe, in particular, can use its speed and freedom of movement to get eyes on a valuable target from across the table, then obliterate it with its death ray. What’s more, as a Blast weapon, the death ray will be effective against large enemy units as well as enemy vehicles – you’ll automatically get your maximum of three shots against units of six of more, which will be great for zapping Space Marines."

This gun is d3. From the latest warhammer community article about necrons.

Question answered. Very, very odd, that apparently LARGER blasts don't get a bonus from 6-10, but go absolutely ham 11+, but that's apparently what they went with. Another disincentive to go beyond 10, and it's interesting a lot of very, very powerful d3 guns are going to just smash elite space marines. Look at what Smasha guns do (for example) if they auto get 3 shots at 33 points each.


D3 shot weapons get the maximum number of shots because the maximum number of shots for a D3 weapon is 3.

I definitely agree that it is bizarre that they tried to make a scaling rule and instead, exactly like with characters, created a bizarre, highly spiky situation where the second you hit 11 models gak goes absolutely off the wall.

But they seemed to like that. They even higlighted on stream how cool it was when you use the grenade throwing stratagem on a unit of guardsmen to, for 1CP, allow them to throw 60 shots.

A 40pt unit - lets be charitable and say a probably 60pt or 70pt unit - can put down 60 shots for a single command point, and this was highlighted as a cool feature, rather than a bug, of 9th ed.

Imagine playing a normal 300pt game of, say, infinity, and taking a single 9pt model, some sort of conscript or something. And you use some little ability he has, and you go to a bag and pull out SIXTY GODDAMN DICE to resolve that ability.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 19:49:22


Post by: tulun


the_scotsman wrote:


D3 shot weapons get the maximum number of shots because the maximum number of shots for a D3 weapon is 3.

I definitely agree that it is bizarre that they tried to make a scaling rule and instead, exactly like with characters, created a bizarre, highly spiky situation where the second you hit 11 models gak goes absolutely off the wall.

But they seemed to like that. They even higlighted on stream how cool it was when you use the grenade throwing stratagem on a unit of guardsmen to, for 1CP, allow them to throw 60 shots.

A 40pt unit - lets be charitable and say a probably 60pt or 70pt unit - can put down 60 shots for a single command point, and this was highlighted as a cool feature, rather than a bug, of 9th ed.

Imagine playing a normal 300pt game of, say, infinity, and taking a single 9pt model, some sort of conscript or something. And you use some little ability he has, and you go to a bag and pull out SIXTY GODDAMN DICE to resolve that ability.


Yeah, I wager you're correct here. People complaining hordes are the problem when random 50-60 point units can cheaply roll a bucket of dice, probably with re-rolls is way more problematic.

And frankly, this level of deadliness is WHY hordes can be slow in the movement phase. A single misplaced model, exposed to line of sight, can result in the squad getting wiped out. 1 boy, his hand slightly outstretched, can eat 144 re-rollling to hit, re-rolling 1 to wound, str 4 shots. From 6 models.

I think people need to get their heads out of their asses if they think that isn't the real problem of 8th edition. Back when I first started playing in 3rd edition, 144 shots might represent 3 ROUNDS or more of shooting from my army, not 222 points of a single unit, which can do it again in overwatch.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:01:20


Post by: Daedalus81


tulun wrote:


Yeah, I wager you're correct here. People complaining hordes are the problem when random 50-60 point units can cheaply roll a bucket of dice, probably with re-rolls is way more problematic.

And frankly, this level of deadliness is WHY hordes can be slow in the movement phase. A single misplaced model, exposed to line of sight, can result in the squad getting wiped out. 1 boy, his hand slightly outstretched, can eat 144 re-rollling to hit, re-rolling 1 to wound, str 4 shots. From 6 models.

I think people need to get their heads out of their asses if they think that isn't the real problem of 8th edition. Back when I first started playing in 3rd edition, 144 shots might represent 3 ROUNDS or more of shooting from my army, not 222 points of a single unit, which can do it again in overwatch.


I presume we're talking about aggressors which are pretty slow and have few options to close the distance and get double shots. Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.

That said I wouldn't be sad to see reroll auras move to 'select one unit' during the command phase. And for all we know aggressors will go up and boyz will stay the same.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:09:12


Post by: Spoletta


Necron warriors have de facto retained the old cost, so they are clearly using this scaling up as another balance pass.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:11:49


Post by: yukishiro1


They're all interrelated. Rate of fire is what it is because hordes got such an increase in model number. Hordes got such an increase in model number because they had to balance out primaris and the only way to do so was to deflate points costs for every army besides space marines. But that meant space marines had to get massive rate of fire so they could blow up those huge hordes. Etc etc.

It's all a big spiral that comes back to the decision to redo space marines.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:14:14


Post by: Martel732


yukishiro1 wrote:
They're all interrelated. Rate of fire is what it is because hordes got such an increase in model number. Hordes got such an increase in model number because they had to balance out primaris and the only way to do so was to deflate points costs for every army besides space marines. But that meant space marines had to get massive rate of fire so they could blow up those huge hordes. Etc etc.

It's all a big spiral that comes back to the decision to redo space marines.



I can see that point, but marines were hot garbage in 7th without 500 pts of free stuff. Marines had stopped functioning.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:23:36


Post by: tulun


 Daedalus81 wrote:


I presume we're talking about aggressors which are pretty slow and have few options to close the distance and get double shots. Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.

That said I wouldn't be sad to see reroll auras move to 'select one unit' during the command phase. And for all we know aggressors will go up and boyz will stay the same.



I'm largely picking on them because they are probably one of, if not the most egregious example, which now should average even more shots in 9th edition.

The CP cost for a chapter master is... irrelevant. It's an auto take. You'd be stupid not to do it. It's far too good. If it becomes only 1 unit as you suggest, that would be a huge positive. Still very good, just not obscene.

Although this kind of rate of fire feels cool, it definitely goes against their philosophy of "play the game faster", and it seems silly to pick on hordes as a general issue for slowing the game down as it has been suggested in this thread.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:23:38


Post by: yukishiro1


Martel732 wrote:

I can see that point, but marines were hot garbage in 7th without 500 pts of free stuff. Marines had stopped functioning.


I don't disagree, but there were a lot of solutions to that that didn't involve the arms race they set off.

GW's basic mechanics (D6, roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save) work well enough when you have armies with vaguely similar stats and vaguely similar model counts. But it just can't scope with skew. And what they did in 8th was skew the whole game to try to make marines more attractive, when they should have just fixed marines in a more traditional way.

But to get back to the original question:

No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:26:53


Post by: Martel732


I can see the argument for that. Having basic guys with 2W doesn't seem that crazy though when weapons get multiple damage now.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:41:37


Post by: yukishiro1


I think that's what GW thought too. And it might not have been, had they stayed at 2W intercessors. But then the snowball started going down the hill and getting bigger and bigger and before you knew it you had 250 man nid lists and space marine infantry squads of 6 models putting out 140 shots with full hit rerolls and rerolls of 1s to wound and IF artillery lists where by far the most important thing in the game was rolling to see who got to go first.









Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:44:53


Post by: tulun


yukishiro1 wrote:


But to get back to the original question:

No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.


Even worse.

You can have armies with just 3-5 models (IE: Knights only) face off against 200-300+ models.

Good luck balancing that scale.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:45:19


Post by: Tyel


I'm going to find it funny if hordes turn out to be mad overpowered in 9th because the missions turn out to all be about holding objectives and so sticking lots of obsec bodies down who can then *perform actions* or something instead of shooting for more victory points is an obvious way to win.

Its not what I'd expect to happen, but still.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:46:55


Post by: Martel732


Tyel wrote:
I'm going to find it funny if hordes turn out to be mad overpowered in 9th because the missions turn out to all be about holding objectives and so sticking lots of obsec bodies down who can then *perform actions* or something instead of shooting for more victory points is an obvious way to win.

Its not what I'd expect to happen, but still.


That's kinda how CA 2019 plays. Hordes are WAY better than in ITC.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:56:51


Post by: Tycho


I don't disagree, but there were a lot of solutions to that that didn't involve the arms race they set off.

GW's basic mechanics (D6, roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save) work well enough when you have armies with vaguely similar stats and vaguely similar model counts. But it just can't scope with skew. And what they did in 8th was skew the whole game to try to make marines more attractive, when they should have just fixed marines in a more traditional way.

But to get back to the original question:

No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.


Agree horde armies aren't bad, but rate of fire is probably 3rd or 4th on the list of things that are causing the game to take too long, and it's pretty easily solved w/a dice app, so again, this is trying to "solve" the problem by avoiding the actual answer - Strategems and re-rolls are the top two things causing the game to take too long, and any attempt to solve game length w/out addressing those two points will be wasted time in the end.


I'm only an Ork player. I'm not overly stressed out, as honestly, fielding 120+ boys isn't particularly a fun way to play anyway.

I just hope our more mechanized style is costed aggressively enough so we can still throw down. Saga gave Orks a ton of great options.

But my incentive to play boys seems pretty low, given gak like aggressors can now guarantee 144 shots if they shoot twice, with full re-rolls to hit. Even if I stack a KFF and painboy, that easily wipes out a 30 man boy squad on average, and they are currently 37 points each. I have no idea who costs this stuff, because that is BANANAS. It's enough shooting that they can bloody anything besides T8 models.

The deadliness of certain models / units is just beyond 11 at this point.


Yep. Same here. The reason Orks are just my "fun" project army is specifically because I hate carting around all the boys and grots. I'm very much a "toys before boyz" Ork builder. The problem is that, when you try to build an ork list that relies more heavily on non-boys units, you instantly start to see why the army A. doesn't function w/out a million CP, and B. is largely over-costed outside of the troops slots. So my concern is that, if our stuff is already too expensive, the new edition is looking to essentially reduce/eliminate light infantry, armies will be 50-200pts (depending on who you ask) smaller, AND everything is going UP in points across the board - it doesn't paint a very rosey picture does it?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:57:20


Post by: Tyel


Martel732 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I'm going to find it funny if hordes turn out to be mad overpowered in 9th because the missions turn out to all be about holding objectives and so sticking lots of obsec bodies down who can then *perform actions* or something instead of shooting for more victory points is an obvious way to win.

Its not what I'd expect to happen, but still.


That's kinda how CA 2019 plays. Hordes are WAY better than in ITC.


That's what I think - I know others disagree.

Now admittedly it doesn't make me think an unmodified cultist is going to be worth 6 points if a Primaris is worth 20 and necron warriors are 12 - but I guess we can see.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 20:58:50


Post by: Blackie


yukishiro1 wrote:


No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.


There's nothing bad in playing with armies with different model counts, what's really bad is the power creep that one faction can have, horde or elite it doesn't matter.

Fighting hordes is actually a lot of fun, everyone loves killing enemy models and removing 50 dudes is more satisfying that removing 5 or 10; what it isn't fun at all are those unkillable models like knights that soak an entire 1 or even 2 turns of firepower from the full list. Even at a lower scale, those models that have too many layers of saves for their points cost and simply refuse to die are also very annoying.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 21:00:10


Post by: Martel732


It's still possible that hordes get a discount on the base price. I don't know what they are doing.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 21:12:45


Post by: Castozor


Without knowing the full rules it is hard to say, but judging by what we have seen so far I have even less regrets shelving my Orks for a DG army. I played with a bunch of boys because that was the only way to consistently win games, not because I particularly enjoy shoving around 120+ models.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 21:16:04


Post by: yukishiro1


 Blackie wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:


No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.


There's nothing bad in playing with armies with different model counts, what's really bad is the power creep that one faction can have, horde or elite it doesn't matter.

Fighting hordes is actually a lot of fun, everyone loves killing enemy models and removing 50 dudes is more satisfying that removing 5 or 10; what it isn't fun at all are those unkillable models like knights that soak an entire 1 or even 2 turns of firepower from the full list. Even at a lower scale, those models that have too many layers of saves for their points cost and simply refuse to die are also very annoying.


But there is a problem with playing armies with different model sizes in GW's ruleset. The basic way GW's rules are set up simply does not allow for a game between a horde of 250 nids and 3 knights to be balanced. There is just too much skew, and GW's mechanics don't handle skew well. It's just the math of how the D6 base hit/wound/save paradigm works out, particularly once you start throwing in rerolls or, even worse, bonuses to hit and especially to wound.

GW's rule work well for roughly equivalent forces. But as soon as the numbers start getting too fundamentally different, it breaks down, and you start having to introduce snowballing mechanics like 6 aggressors shooting 140 shots or morale immune 4-point cultists to try to compensate for one another, and the result is the arms race we've seen in 8th between volume of fire and bodies.





Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 21:19:10


Post by: Martel732


3 pt fearless conscripts lol.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/15 21:41:12


Post by: Jidmah


It's funny how half this page's arguments against hordes falls apart when you realize that ork boyz have been cheaper than what they cost now for over a decade and ork players were still running less of them than they are now. A 5th edition 1500 points horde army would have 80-100 boyz and would be considered nigh impossible to kill.
Saying that hordes got cheaper to match the increase in firepower is just flat out wrong.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 01:24:27


Post by: Tycho


It's funny how half this page's arguments against hordes falls apart when you realize that ork boyz have been cheaper than what they cost now for over a decade and ork players were still running less of them than they are now. A 5th edition 1500 points horde army would have 80-100 boyz and would be considered nigh impossible to kill.
Saying that hordes got cheaper to match the increase in firepower is just flat out wrong.


Also notice the lack of responses to anyone who points out specific reasons as to why Hordes are not the reason the game takes long ...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 01:42:47


Post by: Amishprn86


I played hordes in 5th with nids. Hordes had to move more times than they do now (You moved in the movement phase and you move if you don't shoot in the shooting phase). There was well over 20x more core rules too back then that made the game take long, aka Blasts, guessing distance, moral phase steps, rolling for terrain when moving over it, DSing scattering, just scatter dice in general, Tank shocks, and much more (8th has almost no rules compare to 3rd-7th).

I had 90-120 models back then, and I still play with about the same models.

How is it that games take longer now than back then with a lot more movement steps and rules that slowed the game down even more so that it is now, but games are slower now than back then? hmm....

Yes it was 1850pts compare to 2k. But like it was said already, there was still a lot of things on the table. Armies were a lot cheaper, Rhino were 35pts ffs. It was common to have 5 or 7 Drop Pods with 3 other vehicles and still 50 Marines on the table. For my nids 5th compare to 8th I still had Flyrants, 90-100 gants/genestealers, multi hive guard units, its basically the same list with same model other than i actually took Spore Pods b.c they unlike now were worth it (Who dafa thought a 80pt Drop Pod is worth it in nids? for 35pts back in the day you saw a couple, 1 for the Doom at least).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TO ADD: Here is a at least 10yr old game from 5th when Tervigon and Flyrant just got their models album of a game. I even took a Trygon. This is 1850pts

View post on imgur.com


Flyrant
2 Tervigons
Termagants 30 starting on the table (I birth some out thats why it looks like more than 30)
Hormagants 2x20
Genestealers x20
Doom + Pod
Hive guard x6
Gargloyles 2x10
Trygon Prime
1850pts

In 8th that is 1760 without the Doom (He was 90pts) so its 1850

WOW. So my 5th list is the same models and points as my 8th list if i took the same army.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 07:20:42


Post by: Blackie


yukishiro1 wrote:


But there is a problem with playing armies with different model sizes in GW's ruleset. The basic way GW's rules are set up simply does not allow for a game between a horde of 250 nids and 3 knights to be balanced. There is just too much skew, and GW's mechanics don't handle skew well. It's just the math of how the D6 base hit/wound/save paradigm works out, particularly once you start throwing in rerolls or, even worse, bonuses to hit and especially to wound.

GW's rule work well for roughly equivalent forces. But as soon as the numbers start getting too fundamentally different, it breaks down, and you start having to introduce snowballing mechanics like 6 aggressors shooting 140 shots or morale immune 4-point cultists to try to compensate for one another, and the result is the arms race we've seen in 8th between volume of fire and bodies.



Maybe it's true for 3 vs 250 games. But it certainly isn't with 40-50 vs 100-150 games. I can have two armies at the same level with my collection of models: a 40-50 models SW force and a 100-150 ork one. They'd be basically equally competitive against any TAC list and also against each other.

Aggressors shooting 140 shots isn't an answer to counter some issue with balance, it's a way to sell the new models. SM have a bazillion of kits in their catalogue so any new release must be amazing on battle, otherwise it will be an easy pass. Those aggressors would be good even if they fired "just" 50-60 shots, but then they wouldn't be superior to already existing units that could do the same job for the same points.

If anything I think the high volume of fire is a response on the new mechanics that put things that used to be 3-5 HP (and could be instant killed by a single shot) at 10-18W if not more, plus saves that they didn't have before. An ork trukk, paper thing since the beginning of times, would be extremely tough in 7th and older editions with its current profile. Horde dudes are the same as always instead, some even worse or more expensive.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 10:08:31


Post by: Gitdakka


This might be a stupid thing to ask but I have wondered this with dakka for years. Regarding hordes, a lot of you spell it hoards. Is this a mistake or is it like a joke/meme since we are hoarders of plastic minis? I mean it is a decent funny meme if it is intended, but also I cant help to feel this bad chill running down my spine everytime I read it as a consistent misspelling. Please help me...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 10:09:30


Post by: the_scotsman


yukishiro1 wrote:
They're all interrelated. Rate of fire is what it is because hordes got such an increase in model number. Hordes got such an increase in model number because they had to balance out primaris and the only way to do so was to deflate points costs for every army besides space marines. But that meant space marines had to get massive rate of fire so they could blow up those huge hordes. Etc etc.

It's all a big spiral that comes back to the decision to redo space marines.



Yeah why back in previous editions when ork boyz were 2ppm cheaper you couldnt field nearly as many.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 10:20:27


Post by: Crispy78


Gitdakka wrote:
This might be a stupid thing to ask but I have wondered this with dakka for years. Regarding hordes, a lot of you spell it hoards. Is this a mistake or is it like a joke/meme since we are hoarders of plastic minis? I mean it is a decent funny meme if it is intended, but also I cant help to feel this bad chill running down my spine everytime I read it as a consistent misspelling. Please help me...


Not any joke as far as I'm aware, just people mis-spelling a homonym. Rogue / rouge is another really common one.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 10:27:39


Post by: tneva82


 Amishprn86 wrote:
I played hordes in 5th with nids. Hordes had to move more times than they do now (You moved in the movement phase and you move if you don't shoot in the shooting phase). There was well over 20x more core rules too back then that made the game take long, aka Blasts, guessing distance, moral phase steps, rolling for terrain when moving over it, DSing scattering, just scatter dice in general, Tank shocks, and much more (8th has almost no rules compare to 3rd-7th).

I had 90-120 models back then, and I still play with about the same models.

How is it that games take longer now than back then with a lot more movement steps and rules that slowed the game down even more so that it is now, but games are slower now than back then? hmm....

Yes it was 1850pts compare to 2k. But like it was said already, there was still a lot of things on the table. Armies were a lot cheaper, Rhino were 35pts ffs. It was common to have 5 or 7 Drop Pods with 3 other vehicles and still 50 Marines on the table. For my nids 5th compare to 8th I still had Flyrants, 90-100 gants/genestealers, multi hive guard units, its basically the same list with same model other than i actually took Spore Pods b.c they unlike now were worth it (Who dafa thought a 80pt Drop Pod is worth it in nids? for 35pts back in the day you saw a couple, 1 for the Doom at least).


a) 90-120 models isn't horde. Double that for real horde.
b) models move easily 4 times in a turn. Then if there's psychic spells and/or stratagems it can easily be 7 times.
c) rules might look simple but they are not quick in 8th
d) rerolls and ridiculous amount of shots. In 5th ed there wasn't gun firing 40 times in shooting phase. There wasn't unit that takes in average almost 200 dice roll all told(plus opponent's save rolls) to sort out.

50 marines is tiny army in these days. And 90-120 tyranids isn't even horde.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 10:37:52


Post by: Amishprn86


tneva82 wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
I played hordes in 5th with nids. Hordes had to move more times than they do now (You moved in the movement phase and you move if you don't shoot in the shooting phase). There was well over 20x more core rules too back then that made the game take long, aka Blasts, guessing distance, moral phase steps, rolling for terrain when moving over it, DSing scattering, just scatter dice in general, Tank shocks, and much more (8th has almost no rules compare to 3rd-7th).

I had 90-120 models back then, and I still play with about the same models.

How is it that games take longer now than back then with a lot more movement steps and rules that slowed the game down even more so that it is now, but games are slower now than back then? hmm....

Yes it was 1850pts compare to 2k. But like it was said already, there was still a lot of things on the table. Armies were a lot cheaper, Rhino were 35pts ffs. It was common to have 5 or 7 Drop Pods with 3 other vehicles and still 50 Marines on the table. For my nids 5th compare to 8th I still had Flyrants, 90-100 gants/genestealers, multi hive guard units, its basically the same list with same model other than i actually took Spore Pods b.c they unlike now were worth it (Who dafa thought a 80pt Drop Pod is worth it in nids? for 35pts back in the day you saw a couple, 1 for the Doom at least).


a) 90-120 models isn't horde. Double that for real horde.
b) models move easily 4 times in a turn. Then if there's psychic spells and/or stratagems it can easily be 7 times.
c) rules might look simple but they are not quick in 8th
d) rerolls and ridiculous amount of shots. In 5th ed there wasn't gun firing 40 times in shooting phase. There wasn't unit that takes in average almost 200 dice roll all told(plus opponent's save rolls) to sort out.

50 marines is tiny army in these days. And 90-120 tyranids isn't even horde.


By your terms 120 models isn't a horde. But to me it is. Also Those Tervigons poop out 20+ models turn 1 and maybe more turn 2.

On point bcd, thats my point. There were more movements on average per game turn in hordes than in 8th (even in kraken Nids with a Swarmlord you can move 2 units a 2nd time, but in 5th all units moved a second time b.c you had to roll runs in a different phase), yes rules are nothing the same, DUH, 5th had more stupid rules that slowed the game down as i said, and correct 8th has insane amount of re-rolls thats my point. When things like Aggressors are on the table with re-rolls no horde will role as many dice.

My point is that my 5th game is easily done in 2hrs, my 8th not easily in 3hrs.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 11:16:50


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.


Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 11:44:51


Post by: Eldarsif


Regarding the comment of slowness in 8th edition games there is on factor I don't see mentioned often: split-fire.

During early 8th my friend played a lot of AM vs. my Asuryani, and I started to hate those games because shooting for AM took forever. Mostly because when given the option to split fire your opponent now has a gazillion weapons to aim and decide upon. This, in my opinion tends to slow the game a lot. This was of course not a factor in earlier editions as you had to commit your firepower in an either or manner.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 11:57:16


Post by: the_scotsman


 Eldarsif wrote:
Regarding the comment of slowness in 8th edition games there is on factor I don't see mentioned often: split-fire.

During early 8th my friend played a lot of AM vs. my Asuryani, and I started to hate those games because shooting for AM took forever. Mostly because when given the option to split fire your opponent now has a gazillion weapons to aim and decide upon. This, in my opinion tends to slow the game a lot. This was of course not a factor in earlier editions as you had to commit your firepower in an either or manner.


Eh. Honestly, I like split fire being a standard thing. So many units GW designs have varied weaponry and having that rule made certain units with specialized weaponry just the best for many, many editions.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 12:37:13


Post by: Kitane


Split-fire is a good thing, it's just mentally exhausting to watch the resolution on large models like Castellan knights or Primaris tanks, where you have to listen to a long shopping list of dumb and forgettable(TM) names, targets assignments, and then go over everything again, this time with actual rolling.

Bonus points for each random shot weapon on the shopping list.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 12:49:32


Post by: Amishprn86


For large point units its perfectly fine to watch them do it IMO b.c its 250-500pts, its the same firing if it was MSU units.

But when you have units like Kabals with 6 units 4 rifles and 1 blaster, its very annoying for both players. B.c the 4-8 poison shots does almost nothing and the blaster has a 50/50 chance of doing nothing too. Its so underwhelming on both sides.

I played a 12 venom list once and it was stupidly long to play and stupidly annoying for both sides.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 13:05:04


Post by: Unit1126PLL


My favorite thing is the split targets with forgettable names indeed.

"So I'm firing the ironstorm hailstubber at *this* squad, the talonbolt ironhail at this other squad, the lastalon ironbreaker at this tank, and the ironhail stormgun at the last squad."

later:

"Wait, didn't you shoot that at this other squad?"
"No, I fired the hailstorm irontalon at the other squad, while the talonbreaker ironbolter fired at this OTHER squad."


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 13:19:04


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My favorite thing is the split targets with forgettable names indeed.

"So I'm firing the ironstorm hailstubber at *this* squad, the talonbolt ironhail at this other squad, the lastalon ironbreaker at this tank, and the ironhail stormgun at the last squad."

later:

"Wait, didn't you shoot that at this other squad?"
"No, I fired the hailstorm irontalon at the other squad, while the talonbreaker ironbolter fired at this OTHER squad."


It's also kind of impossibly bizarre to me that GW seems to think creating new weapons with unique rules that they then have to keep track of is better than having a consistent wargear list that means units with nearly identical looking weaponry act differently in game.

We actually have a single faction with boltguns, boltguns with a little handle toward the front, slightly longer boltguns, boltguns with a scope, boltguns with THREE scopes, and boltguns with a scope and silencer and those guns do WILDLY different stuff, ranging from hitting you with S4 AP- D1 rapid fire 1 24" range to 36" range S4 AP-2 D3 damage with a mortal wound on a 6.

And they even decide to make them uniquely named and statted weapons even when the difference between them is basically negligible and could be handled with an ability on the datasheet. Do we really need bolt carbines, oculus bolt carbines and marksman bolt carbines to have 3 different stat blocks? Really?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 13:36:02


Post by: Eldarsif


the_scotsman wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
Regarding the comment of slowness in 8th edition games there is on factor I don't see mentioned often: split-fire.

During early 8th my friend played a lot of AM vs. my Asuryani, and I started to hate those games because shooting for AM took forever. Mostly because when given the option to split fire your opponent now has a gazillion weapons to aim and decide upon. This, in my opinion tends to slow the game a lot. This was of course not a factor in earlier editions as you had to commit your firepower in an either or manner.


Eh. Honestly, I like split fire being a standard thing. So many units GW designs have varied weaponry and having that rule made certain units with specialized weaponry just the best for many, many editions.


Don't get me wrong, I love split-fire. It's just a thing I noticed slowed down shooty horde armies a lot.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 13:55:19


Post by: Tyel


the_scotsman wrote:
It's also kind of impossibly bizarre to me that GW seems to think creating new weapons with unique rules that they then have to keep track of is better than having a consistent wargear list that means units with nearly identical looking weaponry act differently in game.

We actually have a single faction with boltguns, boltguns with a little handle toward the front, slightly longer boltguns, boltguns with a scope, boltguns with THREE scopes, and boltguns with a scope and silencer and those guns do WILDLY different stuff, ranging from hitting you with S4 AP- D1 rapid fire 1 24" range to 36" range S4 AP-2 D3 damage with a mortal wound on a 6.

And they even decide to make them uniquely named and statted weapons even when the difference between them is basically negligible and could be handled with an ability on the datasheet. Do we really need bolt carbines, oculus bolt carbines and marksman bolt carbines to have 3 different stat blocks? Really?


I can't work out if its just "will towards creep" on the part of the designers (whether its putting together models or rules), or just a severe lack of faith that anyone using old weapons will be cool and therefore sell.

Maybe they think its easier to grasp than everyone just having a boltgun and a bunch of special rules to represent they use it differently, have special ammo or whatever.
Although we saw seemingly endless sadness when they did that with the Kelermorph.
(Tbh Marines are the worst but everyone is going the same way. Doesn't look like the new Necrons are going to use a lot of old weapon profiles barring the old gauss flayer.)


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:23:26


Post by: the_scotsman


Tyel wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
It's also kind of impossibly bizarre to me that GW seems to think creating new weapons with unique rules that they then have to keep track of is better than having a consistent wargear list that means units with nearly identical looking weaponry act differently in game.

We actually have a single faction with boltguns, boltguns with a little handle toward the front, slightly longer boltguns, boltguns with a scope, boltguns with THREE scopes, and boltguns with a scope and silencer and those guns do WILDLY different stuff, ranging from hitting you with S4 AP- D1 rapid fire 1 24" range to 36" range S4 AP-2 D3 damage with a mortal wound on a 6.

And they even decide to make them uniquely named and statted weapons even when the difference between them is basically negligible and could be handled with an ability on the datasheet. Do we really need bolt carbines, oculus bolt carbines and marksman bolt carbines to have 3 different stat blocks? Really?


I can't work out if its just "will towards creep" on the part of the designers (whether its putting together models or rules), or just a severe lack of faith that anyone using old weapons will be cool and therefore sell.

Maybe they think its easier to grasp than everyone just having a boltgun and a bunch of special rules to represent they use it differently, have special ammo or whatever.
Although we saw seemingly endless sadness when they did that with the Kelermorph.
(Tbh Marines are the worst but everyone is going the same way. Doesn't look like the new Necrons are going to use a lot of old weapon profiles barring the old gauss flayer.)


I mean, all the sisters use standard wargear for their units, even the fancy new gals and the new configuration of the penitent engine. They gave it standard heavy bolters and gave the model itself a rule that allowed it to move and fire heavy - because GW has been playing 5d chess and designing all the recent codexes with 9th in mind don'tchaknow.

But yeah, new admech, mostly new weapons (save for power maul and the blast pistol on the sergeant that basic skitarii can take). New marines, eveyrthing's gotta have a fancy new adjective-noun variant of a basic weapon.

LONG RANGE MELTA RIFLES on the space marine fire dragons.

ASSAULT HEAVY LIGHT PLASMA ERADICINAZORS on the primaris hellbuttdamns (you know they're cool and edgy because their name does a swear)

is that a twin autocannon on the new dreadnought? No, it's a TWIN IRONHAIL autocannon, which means it gets...2 more shots for some reason? So does Ironhail mean more shots? It means more AP when you make a stubber Ironhail....


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:28:40


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.


Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.


Are they looking to do that or is that just the popular interpretation on incomplete info? They recently handed marines a bunch of nerfs and dropped the points on every other army (which created a race to the bottom that they're attempting to fix). GW isn't stupid or malicious. It would be unfortunate if a strong personality drove some of the changes even if they're unintentionally marine focused, but I'm betting there is more to the picture here. I mean when in the history of ever would you have expected GW to raise points across the board?

Lots of people keep saying it's a drive to sell elite models, but what exactly has been dominating the game? Not hordes, certainly. Previously you could stick Cents in a building and not be able to see them as they charged through the walls (ITC). That isn't a thing any longer. What about marines? In cover they're certainly strong, but this is the same cover they got before. Nothing changed. What did change is detachments - marines often took a lot of characters of late - all these chapter masters, lts, chaplains, character dreads...those spots are some level of a premium now.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:36:21


Post by: tulun


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.


Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.


Are they looking to do that or is that just the popular interpretation on incomplete info? They recently handed marines a bunch of nerfs and dropped the points on every other army (which created a race to the bottom that they're attempting to fix). GW isn't stupid or malicious. It would be unfortunate if a strong personality drove some of the changes even if they're unintentionally marine focused, but I'm betting there is more to the picture here. I mean when in the history of ever would you have expected GW to raise points across the board?

Lots of people keep saying it's a drive to sell elite models, but what exactly has been dominating the game? Not hordes, certainly. Previously you could stick Cents in a building and not be able to see them as they charged through the walls (ITC). That isn't a thing any longer. What about marines? In cover they're certainly strong, but this is the same cover they got before. Nothing changed. What did change is detachments - marines often took a lot of characters of late - all these chapter masters, lts, chaplains, character dreads...those spots are some level of a premium now.


What's stopping you from taking 2 detachments?

You take the standard 2 batallions, or say... if Supreme detachment is cheaper, 1 bat, 1 sup, if you really just need HQs.

You're now at 15 or 16 CP overall in the game, as opposed to 13 form double bat.

New detachment rules are a BUFF to space marine armies, even if they have to take a second detachment.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:41:42


Post by: Daedalus81


tulun wrote:


What's stopping you from taking 2 detachments?

You take the standard 2 batallions, or say... if Supreme detachment is cheaper, 1 bat, 1 sup, if you really just need HQs.

You're now at 15 or 16 CP overall in the game, as opposed to 13 form double bat.

New detachment rules are a BUFF to space marine armies, even if they have to take a second detachment.


You start at 12. SupCom will not likely be cheaper than Bat. A double bat will start you at 9 CP. Chapter Master puts you at 7. Then 8 for your first turn. Now I imagine you'll want to get your stuff closer - deepstrike, relics, extra traits, and other shenanigans. Where does that land you? 5 or 6 CP or even less? It isn't so simple.




Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:41:57


Post by: Spoletta


Overall more yes, but you start with a lot less.

If as we expect those detachments come at a 2CP cost, you start with 10. Half of those get burned in pre-match stratagems.

This means that in the first two turns you can use around 3 stratagems in total.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:45:29


Post by: Tyel


13 versus 9/10/11/12/13.

Your alpha strike is going to be down 3 CP, but I'm not sure that's the end of the world.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 14:54:44


Post by: Daedalus81


Tyel wrote:
13 versus 9/10/11/12/13.

Your alpha strike is going to be down 3 CP, but I'm not sure that's the end of the world.


Depends on unit costs and if you need strats to get the same performance. Aggressors will likely go up just like Intercessors. Will characters go up, too? What is the new cost of the Agressor/Cpt/Lt combo? And how do all other units relate to that in cost?

A lot of marine lists also relied on 3 detachments to fit Eliminators or some other specialized spam and many of them employed that through allies, which presumably costs even more CP. It even sounds like successors and mainline chapters will count as allies.

Marine lists will change - a lot.





Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 15:19:10


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.


Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.


Are they looking to do that or is that just the popular interpretation on incomplete info? They recently handed marines a bunch of nerfs and dropped the points on every other army (which created a race to the bottom that they're attempting to fix). GW isn't stupid or malicious. It would be unfortunate if a strong personality drove some of the changes even if they're unintentionally marine focused, but I'm betting there is more to the picture here. I mean when in the history of ever would you have expected GW to raise points across the board?

Lots of people keep saying it's a drive to sell elite models, but what exactly has been dominating the game? Not hordes, certainly. Previously you could stick Cents in a building and not be able to see them as they charged through the walls (ITC). That isn't a thing any longer. What about marines? In cover they're certainly strong, but this is the same cover they got before. Nothing changed. What did change is detachments - marines often took a lot of characters of late - all these chapter masters, lts, chaplains, character dreads...those spots are some level of a premium now.


mhmm, mhmm, counterpoint, 15 minutes ago they were just laughing about how a min squad of the new primaris bikers are throwing 19 S4 AP-1 attacks on the charge and have 4W.

Say how do we sell these new bikes that look almost exactly the same as the old bikes with a microscopic scale increase?

Hmm I know what if we just took what they do and kind of double all the numbers? How many attacks does an intercessor on a bike make, 2 more than a custode bike right? Probably sounds about right?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 15:54:03


Post by: addnid


 Blackie wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:


No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.


There's nothing bad in playing with armies with different model counts, what's really bad is the power creep that one faction can have, horde or elite it doesn't matter.

Fighting hordes is actually a lot of fun, everyone loves killing enemy models and removing 50 dudes is more satisfying that removing 5 or 10; what it isn't fun at all are those unkillable models like knights that soak an entire 1 or even 2 turns of firepower from the full list. Even at a lower scale, those models that have too many layers of saves for their points cost and simply refuse to die are also very annoying.


too many layers of saves is no fun AND it really slows the game down to no end. I remeber 7th ed smash captain iron hands, it took for ever (and in the end he lost like 2-3 wounds if you were lucky)


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 16:32:14


Post by: the_scotsman


Yeah, everyone hates playing against factions where they're able to kill stuff, it's why nobody ever asks why more people aren't playing non-marine factions and knights are the most popular army for people to go up against.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 16:36:25


Post by: Sim-Life


 Gregor Samsa wrote:
The problem with hordes is, imo, largely a result of scale and abstraction. Even with hordey armies: orks/nids etc... there aren't enough models they can bring to really function as a "horde" relative to the amount of shots/firepower Space Marines can bring.

As usual with GW, the problem lies in having every xeno faction being largely a foil for Space Marines to annihilate in epic lore stories.

With the points increase in 9th, I think this will only get worse. What will happen with less models over all is that hordes would feel even less of a horde, largely because of the very relevant housekeeping issues (takes a lot of time to move and arrange hundreds of models on a board).

So it seems that unless the horde keyword confers some very gamey effects, 40k is spinning its wheels in exactly the same place it has always been: way too many space marines making for boring and tactically uninspired play styles.

Ultimately, because GW is a business, I don't fault them. They supply people's demand for fantasy juice. At some point the cycle has to be broken.

As in:

For the love of the Warp:

Stop
Buying
Space
Marines

I have a small Dark Angels faction, which I never, ever use, largely because...It is just enough with the space marines.

Cheers!


Its a funny thing cause almost everyone who starts the hobby starts with space marines and as they get more involved in the lore move onto other armies that appeal to them more. Happens many times. Many such cases. Good!


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:28:11


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:

mhmm, mhmm, counterpoint, 15 minutes ago they were just laughing about how a min squad of the new primaris bikers are throwing 19 S4 AP-1 attacks on the charge and have 4W.

Say how do we sell these new bikes that look almost exactly the same as the old bikes with a microscopic scale increase?

Hmm I know what if we just took what they do and kind of double all the numbers? How many attacks does an intercessor on a bike make, 2 more than a custode bike right? Probably sounds about right?


Was that on the hobby stream? Primaris are also 'slightly larger' so I fail to see the issue there.

And in what way does any of this matter? Do we know their point cost is? What is the max unit size? (Dollars to donuts they'll max at 6 models) What are the wargear options?

2A, +1A for charging (also on mini-marines), +1A for CS (also on mini-marines), AP1 from the new CS (seems like this would also be on mini-marines based on how they've talked about CS). So unless the bikes are granting some extra attacks ("improved suspension") on the charge they're at 4A a piece plus a sarge bonus.

A bike was previously 21 points. This thing will easily be 40 before considering point increases. 250 to 350 points for firepower nowhere near the level of Aggressors and then a moderate pile of S4 melee.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:30:47


Post by: skchsan


The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:43:15


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

Keep dreaming. Guardsmen will be 6ppm, just like cultists. Wait and see.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:48:28


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

Keep dreaming. Guardsmen will be 6ppm, just like cultists. Wait and see.


I could envision 4/5ppm IS *IF* there is some horde rule that cultists benefit from that IS cannot achieve. IS, after all, require a CC to get full potential.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:50:42


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

mhmm, mhmm, counterpoint, 15 minutes ago they were just laughing about how a min squad of the new primaris bikers are throwing 19 S4 AP-1 attacks on the charge and have 4W.

Say how do we sell these new bikes that look almost exactly the same as the old bikes with a microscopic scale increase?

Hmm I know what if we just took what they do and kind of double all the numbers? How many attacks does an intercessor on a bike make, 2 more than a custode bike right? Probably sounds about right?


Was that on the hobby stream? Primaris are also 'slightly larger' so I fail to see the issue there.

And in what way does any of this matter? Do we know their point cost is? What is the max unit size? (Dollars to donuts they'll max at 6 models) What are the wargear options?

2A, +1A for charging (also on mini-marines), +1A for CS (also on mini-marines), AP1 from the new CS (seems like this would also be on mini-marines based on how they've talked about CS). So unless the bikes are granting some extra attacks ("improved suspension") on the charge they're at 4A a piece plus a sarge bonus.

A bike was previously 21 points. This thing will easily be 40 before considering point increases. 250 to 350 points for firepower nowhere near the level of Aggressors and then a moderate pile of S4 melee.


Their bikes grant them an additional +2A on the charge for reasons.

it matters because it is hilariously, patently obvious that GW is simply pushing every single new thing as "the biggest and the best" and then the new thing after that as "The bigestest and the besterest" and it immediately leads to extremely comical results.

marine bike 1A
OK that means the fancy-pantsy ravenwing bike needs 2A
Hmm not enough attack better give them all a bonus so 3A
Custode bikes come out gotta make sure those are 4A
New primaris special snowflake outriders gotta bump that bad boy up to 6A!

Say, how are we comparing to other factions now? How about I don't know Harlequins? oh, two of them on a bike throw 1/2 the attacks of the new primaris extra special big boy bikers?

This is the unrelenting escalating stupidity of primaris marines. GW spent 4 editions making marines, then special marines (BA And SW), then specialer marines (GK), then secret super all-veteran batman marines (DW), then marines so mariney they've got shiny golden codpieces and shoulderpads on their shoulderpads (Custodes) and now we have to one up THOSE fething guys with the new-new-new-new-NEW marines, or else nobody would think they're the biggest or the best anymore! It's gotten to the point where the comparison of the stats of the models in the very same box is just absolutely comical - they previewed the new necron warrior gun option and the shiny new PISTOL that the primaris lieutenant had was a stronger statline. Because of course he can't have a regular plasma pistol, we've made 18 primaris lieutenant models with plasma pistols so he's got to have a neo-volkite schmatulator.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:53:49


Post by: Vaktathi


Generally speaking, even with cheap guardsmen, people aren't bringing gargantuan numbers of them, it's a rare guard army that sports triple digits worth of guardsmen. Typically, once there's enough to cover detachment requirements and screening needs, everything else is spent on tanks.

I suspect if they have any saving grace going forward as a "horde" unit, it'll be because they naturally operate as large numbers of medium and small units, 5-10 strong, not in unit sizes large enough for new blast weapons and the like to really dish out the hurt or because they'll be inordinately cheap.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:54:13


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

Keep dreaming. Guardsmen will be 6ppm, just like cultists. Wait and see.
We'll see. I would not be surprised if guardsmen survive the culling like last time GW tried to even out the horde issue.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:56:12


Post by: the_scotsman


Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 17:59:22


Post by: skchsan


the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.
This would be OK if every unit with comparable statline & abilities across the game were costed the same, but we've seen in the past IG is somehow immune to pt increases (apart from the BS3+ plasmagun nerf).


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:09:40


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:


Their bikes grant them an additional +2A on the charge for reasons.

it matters because it is hilariously, patently obvious that GW is simply pushing every single new thing as "the biggest and the best" and then the new thing after that as "The bigestest and the besterest" and it immediately leads to extremely comical results.

marine bike 1A
OK that means the fancy-pantsy ravenwing bike needs 2A
Hmm not enough attack better give them all a bonus so 3A
Custode bikes come out gotta make sure those are 4A
New primaris special snowflake outriders gotta bump that bad boy up to 6A!

Say, how are we comparing to other factions now? How about I don't know Harlequins? oh, two of them on a bike throw 1/2 the attacks of the new primaris extra special big boy bikers?

This is the unrelenting escalating stupidity of primaris marines. GW spent 4 editions making marines, then special marines (BA And SW), then specialer marines (GK), then secret super all-veteran batman marines (DW), then marines so mariney they've got shiny golden codpieces and shoulderpads on their shoulderpads (Custodes) and now we have to one up THOSE fething guys with the new-new-new-new-NEW marines, or else nobody would think they're the biggest or the best anymore! It's gotten to the point where the comparison of the stats of the models in the very same box is just absolutely comical - they previewed the new necron warrior gun option and the shiny new PISTOL that the primaris lieutenant had was a stronger statline. Because of course he can't have a regular plasma pistol, we've made 18 primaris lieutenant models with plasma pistols so he's got to have a neo-volkite schmatulator.


Your whole concept falls flat on its face, because the new marine bikes do not meet the level of Custodes.

Bananas are 2+/4++ T6 with 4 attacks that are S6 AP3 D3 reroll wounds on the charge with WS2. Not to mention three times the shots with BS2. If your bar for better is a couple of S4 attacks then I dunno what to say.

What we got was a doubled up bike. Twice the wounds, twice the attacks (except in shooting), and likely twice the points. It just looks better.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:17:19


Post by: Gadzilla666


the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

But that's a loyalist marines primaris model. They need to be powerful and costed cheaply compared to all of us mooks. The "good guys" need to look awesome next to the other factions. How else do you expect all these new models to sell? They need to mow down all those evil hordes that totally dominated 8th at their expense.

Honestly, they may be 60ppm, but I doubt it. Loyalist marines will continue to dominate until other factions get their 9th edition codexes.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:18:07


Post by: Ice_can


Except this things pump out 4 Shots at 30 inches with AP-1 flat, Ap-2 turn 2&3 with Ap -2 Swords turn 4+

These guys are looking like 50 points each area in 9th edition points while a Custodes biker is 90 in 8th, likely to be almost double the points for nothing like double the performance as Primaris are being heavily under pointed since Codex 2.0


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:19:08


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


Their bikes grant them an additional +2A on the charge for reasons.

it matters because it is hilariously, patently obvious that GW is simply pushing every single new thing as "the biggest and the best" and then the new thing after that as "The bigestest and the besterest" and it immediately leads to extremely comical results.

marine bike 1A
OK that means the fancy-pantsy ravenwing bike needs 2A
Hmm not enough attack better give them all a bonus so 3A
Custode bikes come out gotta make sure those are 4A
New primaris special snowflake outriders gotta bump that bad boy up to 6A!

Say, how are we comparing to other factions now? How about I don't know Harlequins? oh, two of them on a bike throw 1/2 the attacks of the new primaris extra special big boy bikers?

This is the unrelenting escalating stupidity of primaris marines. GW spent 4 editions making marines, then special marines (BA And SW), then specialer marines (GK), then secret super all-veteran batman marines (DW), then marines so mariney they've got shiny golden codpieces and shoulderpads on their shoulderpads (Custodes) and now we have to one up THOSE fething guys with the new-new-new-new-NEW marines, or else nobody would think they're the biggest or the best anymore! It's gotten to the point where the comparison of the stats of the models in the very same box is just absolutely comical - they previewed the new necron warrior gun option and the shiny new PISTOL that the primaris lieutenant had was a stronger statline. Because of course he can't have a regular plasma pistol, we've made 18 primaris lieutenant models with plasma pistols so he's got to have a neo-volkite schmatulator.


Your whole concept falls flat on its face, because the new marine bikes do not meet the level of Custodes.

Bananas are 2+/4++ T6 with 4 attacks that are S6 AP3 D3 reroll wounds on the charge with WS2. Not to mention three times the shots with BS2. If your bar for better is a couple of S4 attacks then I dunno what to say.

What we got was a doubled up bike. Twice the wounds, twice the attacks (except in shooting), and likely twice the points. It just looks better.



So it's just cool that every other faction in the game including custodes gets +1W for their bikers and once again primaris marines throw a pile of dice every turn and make everything else in the game look ridiculously weak? That's normal now? We're a couple editions removed from "space wolves are just marines +1, they get free chainswords AND boltguns? Chainswords and boltguns, ridiculous!" and now we've got the new assault intercessors with their assault 2 bolt carbines and 4 AP-1 melee attacks on the charge and everyone is just like... "Meh, I guess a basic tactical marine is just a genestealer with a boltgun for a dick, that's fine. Loyalist space marines just fight like a pair of chaos space marines I guess, nobody's gonna use them because they can't squat 30" away from enemy troops and make Tau blush with how good they are at being stationary gun turrets. Speaking of which cant wait to find out the stats for the new space marine stationary gunship and GW's reasoning for why it's got BS2+ rerollable and an extra special twin autocannon that gets 18 shots."


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:19:58


Post by: Ice_can


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

But that's a loyalist marines primaris model. They need to be powerful and costed cheaply compared to all of us mooks. The "good guys" need to look awesome next to the other factions. How else do you expect all these new models to sell? They need to mow down all those evil hordes that totally dominated 8th at their expense.

Honestly, they may be 60ppm, but I doubt it. Loyalist marines will continue to dominate until other factions get their 9th edition codexes.

I doubt that will change much and it sounds like we can expect a far slower release schedule than we had for 8th so whoever gets the last update is going to be playing a very different game than those with oth edition books.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:30:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

But that's a loyalist marines primaris model. They need to be powerful and costed cheaply compared to all of us mooks. The "good guys" need to look awesome next to the other factions. How else do you expect all these new models to sell? They need to mow down all those evil hordes that totally dominated 8th at their expense.

Honestly, they may be 60ppm, but I doubt it. Loyalist marines will continue to dominate until other factions get their 9th edition codexes.


Like how Aggressors started at W2? Or Primaris didn't have an extra attack on the charge? Or an AP1 CS? And they couldn't get two shots at full range if they stood still? And no fancy traits of doctrines?

Those good guys? Are we now suddenly expecting GW to walk back all the changes that made marines more worthwhile even if they went overboard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:


So it's just cool that every other faction in the game including custodes gets +1W for their bikers and once again primaris marines throw a pile of dice every turn and make everything else in the game look ridiculously weak? That's normal now? We're a couple editions removed from "space wolves are just marines +1, they get free chainswords AND boltguns? Chainswords and boltguns, ridiculous!" and now we've got the new assault intercessors with their assault 2 bolt carbines and 4 AP-1 melee attacks on the charge and everyone is just like... "Meh, I guess a basic tactical marine is just a genestealer with a boltgun for a dick, that's fine. Loyalist space marines just fight like a pair of chaos space marines I guess, nobody's gonna use them because they can't squat 30" away from enemy troops and make Tau blush with how good they are at being stationary gun turrets. Speaking of which cant wait to find out the stats for the new space marine stationary gunship and GW's reasoning for why it's got BS2+ rerollable and an extra special twin autocannon that gets 18 shots."


A pile of dice as compared to what? What were Centurions throwing for dice? Why is it offensive to see bikes trade the dice of aggressors for speed and durability?

Two Primaris Intercessors do what now? Four AP1 shots from 30" and 6 S4 attacks on W4...for...40 points. For what reason would you take a W3 bike that has the same number of shots and melee attacks and likely costs more points and won't see cover as much as Intercessors?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:48:15


Post by: Insectum7


Primaris are straight up bad for faction balance.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:52:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

But that's a loyalist marines primaris model. They need to be powerful and costed cheaply compared to all of us mooks. The "good guys" need to look awesome next to the other factions. How else do you expect all these new models to sell? They need to mow down all those evil hordes that totally dominated 8th at their expense.

Honestly, they may be 60ppm, but I doubt it. Loyalist marines will continue to dominate until other factions get their 9th edition codexes.


Like how Aggressors started at W2? Or Primaris didn't have an extra attack on the charge? Or an AP1 CS? And they couldn't get two shots at full range if they stood still? And no fancy traits of doctrines?

Those good guys? Are we now suddenly expecting GW to walk back all the changes that made marines more worthwhile even if they went overboard?

All of them? No. But instead of continuing to buff them and give them "newer better" units constantly maybe they should start fixing some other factions. Loyalist marines have the second newest codex in the game and continue to get attention. Gw needs to hurry up updating other factions. And no, pa didn't do it for most. Even the new core rules they've previewed either benefit loyalists or are something they already have the tools to sidestep.

All Loyalist Marines All The Time is getting old.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 18:54:35


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

But that's a loyalist marines primaris model. They need to be powerful and costed cheaply compared to all of us mooks. The "good guys" need to look awesome next to the other factions. How else do you expect all these new models to sell? They need to mow down all those evil hordes that totally dominated 8th at their expense.

Honestly, they may be 60ppm, but I doubt it. Loyalist marines will continue to dominate until other factions get their 9th edition codexes.


Like how Aggressors started at W2? Or Primaris didn't have an extra attack on the charge? Or an AP1 CS? And they couldn't get two shots at full range if they stood still? And no fancy traits of doctrines?

Those good guys? Are we now suddenly expecting GW to walk back all the changes that made marines more worthwhile even if they went overboard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:


So it's just cool that every other faction in the game including custodes gets +1W for their bikers and once again primaris marines throw a pile of dice every turn and make everything else in the game look ridiculously weak? That's normal now? We're a couple editions removed from "space wolves are just marines +1, they get free chainswords AND boltguns? Chainswords and boltguns, ridiculous!" and now we've got the new assault intercessors with their assault 2 bolt carbines and 4 AP-1 melee attacks on the charge and everyone is just like... "Meh, I guess a basic tactical marine is just a genestealer with a boltgun for a dick, that's fine. Loyalist space marines just fight like a pair of chaos space marines I guess, nobody's gonna use them because they can't squat 30" away from enemy troops and make Tau blush with how good they are at being stationary gun turrets. Speaking of which cant wait to find out the stats for the new space marine stationary gunship and GW's reasoning for why it's got BS2+ rerollable and an extra special twin autocannon that gets 18 shots."


A pile of dice as compared to what? What were Centurions throwing for dice? Why is it offensive to see bikes trade the dice of aggressors for speed and durability?

Two Primaris Intercessors do what now? Four AP1 shots from 30" and 6 S4 attacks on W4...for...40 points. For what reason would you take a W3 bike that has the same number of shots and melee attacks and likely costs more points and won't see cover as much as Intercessors?


You are highlighting the problem here. Primaris stuff HAS to continually top itself, and it HAS to top existing marine stuff, so it becomes this escalating scale of ridiculousness that devolves into pure comedy.

The longest-range static gunline troop in the game throws 3A per model, uh oh, what the actual feth are we going to do to make people want to use these mobile bikers, or this melee version? We're going to have to make them actually ludicrous or nobody is going to even give them a second thought!

The Space Marine obsolescence curve has gotten so bonkers that there are PRIMARIS MARINE models you'd never consider taking because they're so out of date! What does a reiver do that the half-dozen other plastic kits they've shoved out since then in the exact same role of boltgun/melee primaris trooper doesn't do better? How could you possibly go about creating a role for reivers to fill that isn't taken up by the 4 different kinds of intercessor and 2 different kinds of infiltrator? Everything has to keep escalating and escalating and escalating because they just. can't. stop. won't. stop. making. new. space. marines!


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 20:24:07


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:

You are highlighting the problem here. Primaris stuff HAS to continually top itself, and it HAS to top existing marine stuff, so it becomes this escalating scale of ridiculousness that devolves into pure comedy.

The longest-range static gunline troop in the game throws 3A per model, uh oh, what the actual feth are we going to do to make people want to use these mobile bikers, or this melee version? We're going to have to make them actually ludicrous or nobody is going to even give them a second thought!

The Space Marine obsolescence curve has gotten so bonkers that there are PRIMARIS MARINE models you'd never consider taking because they're so out of date! What does a reiver do that the half-dozen other plastic kits they've shoved out since then in the exact same role of boltgun/melee primaris trooper doesn't do better? How could you possibly go about creating a role for reivers to fill that isn't taken up by the 4 different kinds of intercessor and 2 different kinds of infiltrator? Everything has to keep escalating and escalating and escalating because they just. can't. stop. won't. stop. making. new. space. marines!


Let's step back and review the alternate reality. Outriders with W3 and A4. What makes you think Outriders would be more worthwhile than Inceptors with better shooting and slightly worse melee? And what makes it worth considering them over aggressors as a shooting or melee platform? Two piddly attacks doesn't change the calculus. A wound might though.

Your characterization of 'absolutely ludicrous' is way off base. As for Reivers? Wait to see what the attrition rules will be and if GW can live up to the promise. Infiltrators and Incursors are not an escalation - both are also more points. Suppressors are not an escalation. Redemptors "escalated", but got a damage table and still no one uses them, so it is really? Invictors are under costed - you got me there, but then points are going up... Impulsors "escalate", but barely see use, because few armies choose to deliver primaris to melee.

I get that you don't like that Primaris 'come with more stuff', but its sort of necessary to even make Primaris a worthwhile concept to begin with.

The biggest problem with marines is all the extra rules they get. What GW intends to do there I have no idea, - Blood Angel Outrides will be very good, but then we finally have some significant unit presenting a melee threat for marines that does not require a stratagem or WL trait to get them there.







Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 21:17:22


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I get that you don't like that Primaris 'come with more stuff', but its sort of necessary to even make Primaris a worthwhile concept to begin with.
Viola! That's because they're NOT a good concept to begin with.

Buuuut Imagine instead of making them 2W, they were T5 and we kept the old wound chart. S3 wounds them on 6+, S4 on a 5+ and S5 on a 4+. Then Outrider could ave been T6 2W and so on. You cut down on the inflation necessary to engage them, which in turn leaves more breathing room for the other units in the game. But you still make them doubly tough vs. Guardsmen, and so the old Marine's vs. horde scenario works out better.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 21:33:35


Post by: the_scotsman


Why do we need to make primaris a worthwile comcept? Why can these not just be a new biker model? Why do we need constant marine releases that add to the impossibly bloated marine range rather than just replacing outdated sculpts like every other faction is perfectly content with?

Do these new necron warriors need to be a new unit that exists alongside normal warriors but with better base stats and some stupid new gimmick to justify their existence? Why not have every unit just metastasize into the meta with similar but just different enough stats so youll buy it and a new way to cause mortal wounds on a 6?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 21:35:04


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I get that you don't like that Primaris 'come with more stuff', but its sort of necessary to even make Primaris a worthwhile concept to begin with.
Viola! That's because they're NOT a good concept to begin with.

Buuuut Imagine instead of making them 2W, they were T5 and we kept the old wound chart. S3 wounds them on 6+, S4 on a 5+ and S5 on a 4+. Then Outrider could ave been T6 2W and so on. You cut down on the inflation necessary to engage them, which in turn leaves more breathing room for the other units in the game. But you still make them doubly tough vs. Guardsmen, and so the old Marine's vs. horde scenario works out better.


There's a whole pile of unintended consequences to that experiment. The 'inflation necessary to engage them' is commensurate with their cost. You don't suddenly struggle to kill an LRBT over a predator just because it is T8 unless your list lacks a proper answer to anti-tank. If you have D2 weapons for Primaris you have the proper weapon for bikes, but instead of killing two marines you kill one bike - and for every bike there will be two less (or more) Intercessors.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 21:38:00


Post by: the_scotsman


Theyve even started for getting to make full kits for them. Want to bet suppressors won't even be in marine codex 3.0 in two months?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 21:39:02


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I get that you don't like that Primaris 'come with more stuff', but its sort of necessary to even make Primaris a worthwhile concept to begin with.
Viola! That's because they're NOT a good concept to begin with.

Buuuut Imagine instead of making them 2W, they were T5 and we kept the old wound chart. S3 wounds them on 6+, S4 on a 5+ and S5 on a 4+. Then Outrider could ave been T6 2W and so on. You cut down on the inflation necessary to engage them, which in turn leaves more breathing room for the other units in the game. But you still make them doubly tough vs. Guardsmen, and so the old Marine's vs. horde scenario works out better.


There's a whole pile of unintended consequences to that experiment. The 'inflation necessary to engage them' is commensurate with their cost. You don't suddenly struggle to kill an LRBT over a predator just because it is T8 unless your list lacks a proper answer to anti-tank. If you have D2 weapons for Primaris you have the proper weapon for bikes, but instead of killing two marines you kill one bike - and for every bike there will be two less (or more) Intercessors.
I really don't see the problem with that, and you solve the problem of things like Heavy Bolters, heck, Bolters and Gauss Rifles, not being able to one-shot Primaris. Besides, you take D2 weapons because everything uses wounds now, including tanks. So D2 ramains useful regardless of whether Primaris are around or not.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:22:08


Post by: the_scotsman


As we all know, heavily pushing a T8 5++ superheavy to be a part of normal play had no consequence of escalating antitank weaponry and the mortal wound mechanic and in no way caused ordinary vehicles without invulns to feel super crappy to play.

So I cant see how making primaris a central part of the game could ever do that to infantry.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:27:12


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
As we all know, heavily pushing a T8 5++ superheavy to be a part of normal play had no consequence of escalating antitank weaponry and the mortal wound mechanic and in no way caused ordinary vehicles without invulns to feel super crappy to play.

So I cant see how making primaris a central part of the game could ever do that to infantry.


You know that it isn't anywhere near the scale of difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I really don't see the problem with that, and you solve the problem of things like Heavy Bolters, heck, Bolters and Gauss Rifles, not being able to one-shot Primaris. Besides, you take D2 weapons because everything uses wounds now, including tanks. So D2 ramains useful regardless of whether Primaris are around or not.


And then Primaris aren't 20 points. There is no way anyone would use them. They'd be far closer to the cost of mini-marines, which pushes them into the dust-heap. So, sure you can kill a Primaris with one bolter shot, but now there is 50% more of them.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:38:11


Post by: yukishiro1


Which is how it should have been. Primaris were just a really craven way for GW to replace the entire army list of its most-played army to force the players to rebuy the army a second time, while at the same time deflating everybody else's points costs so they have to buy more of their armies' models too.

But it's obviously too late now, primaris are here to stay and the damage to the game's rules is here to stay as well.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:43:22


Post by: Tyel


the_scotsman wrote:
As we all know, heavily pushing a T8 5++ superheavy to be a part of normal play had no consequence of escalating antitank weaponry and the mortal wound mechanic and in no way caused ordinary vehicles without invulns to feel super crappy to play.

So I cant see how making primaris a central part of the game could ever do that to infantry.


Knights skew things because T8/3+/5++ makes so many smaller units feel like a complete waste of time.

Primaris by contrast are just mooks with 2 wounds.
They are too good because they are too cheap.

Its very hard to stand here and say Intercessors were a problem from say the start of 8th until mid way through 2019.

But it turns out that
If you lower their points cost
and give them bolter discipline
and then give them another attack in the first round of combat
and let the sergeant have a thunder hammer so he hits more or less like a character who costs three times as many points and better than various factions can build,
and then give them improved chapter tactics and loads of extra stratagems and warlord traits and relics and other synergies, lets say IH which kind of nullified bolter discipline for the period but it meant you can jog around with heavy weapons hitting on 3s rerolling 1s.
And then give them easy access to a 5++/5+++ save auras and non-spells to boost their damage output even further.

At some point its not surprising you end up with a rather broken thing. Which GW have then attempted to claw back, but its been a pretty weak clawing.

But if you just said "screw it, Intercessors (and infiltrators and whatever) are now 40+ points a model, and the new bikes are 100 points a model etc", they wouldn't be bad for the game - because they'd just be crap.

2 wound infantry and 4 wound bikers are not some inherent problem with the game. The issue is getting those wounds and all the rest far too cheap.
Unfortunately its not clear GW is going to do anything about this - but still.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:50:52


Post by: yukishiro1


But that's ignoring why all those other things happened. All those other things happened because they were trying to make a 2W troop choice work, and to make that work, you need to vastly inflate their offense as well as their defense or you just end up with a troops choice that is hard to kill but doesn't actually do anything to kill anybody else. Which is not Space Marines (TM). And then you also end up with 3W and 4W elite infantry that has to have truly absurd levels of lethality for their points cost or there is just no point to them compared to the already lethal base troops.

The whole thing is just bad.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:52:09


Post by: Not Online!!!


Well they wanted to pay Off their Investment in the new primaris moulds .

Reminds me of the wratihknight debacle


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 22:56:23


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I really don't see the problem with that, and you solve the problem of things like Heavy Bolters, heck, Bolters and Gauss Rifles, not being able to one-shot Primaris. Besides, you take D2 weapons because everything uses wounds now, including tanks. So D2 ramains useful regardless of whether Primaris are around or not.

And then Primaris aren't 20 points.
Literally, so what?

The problem, the big FAT problem, is that Primaris are flat out better than a bunch of other units that they shouldn't be that much better than is some respective area/s. Of course if you equalize them, they will cost less in comparison.

Also, the value of a model varies on the rule set around it. If you wanted to make them valued up to 20 points or whatever arbitrary number you desire, you can design around that. Conversely, you can boost the value of supporting units and you'd also see fewer Primaris because other units would be viable as well. If LAnd Raiders and Terminators were more viable, you'd see less of the Power Armor swarm, and it would change the way the army manifested on the table. It's not like this is some impossible task.

Also, you're talking to a guy who think classics are plenty worth their points, so you're barking up the wrong tree saying they'd move to the dust bin.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:18:56


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
But that's ignoring why all those other things happened. All those other things happened because they were trying to make a 2W troop choice work, and to make that work, you need to vastly inflate their offense as well as their defense or you just end up with a troops choice that is hard to kill but doesn't actually do anything to kill anybody else. Which is not Space Marines (TM). And then you also end up with 3W and 4W elite infantry that has to have truly absurd levels of lethality for their points cost or there is just no point to them compared to the already lethal base troops.

The whole thing is just bad.



We don't even know their points cost yet...so I don't know how that assertion can be made.

Lethal base troops is hyperbole. An Intercessor did the exact same thing 6 months before the marine codex as it does now. Everyone just now thinks they're bonkers, because of all the things surrounding them and are unable to properly divest one issue from another. It isn't even Intercessors doing most of the work. It's eliminators, TFCs, cents/aggs, chaplain dreads, and other models (half of which are not primaris) able to abuse the edges of the rules available to them. Intercessors are not miracle workers.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:19:49


Post by: tulun


 Insectum7 wrote:

Also, you're talking to a guy who think classics are plenty worth their points, so you're barking up the wrong tree saying they'd move to the dust bin.


They are.

With all the buffs, super doctrines, doctrines, psychic powers (etc) stackable, I'm sure tac marines and their ilk are very, very good. Probably even top tier.

But it's just all of that, but better, for very few extra points.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:27:38


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:

Also, you're talking to a guy who think classics are plenty worth their points, so you're barking up the wrong tree saying they'd move to the dust bin.


There is far less difference between a T4 and T5 model than there is a W1 and W2 model.

What incentive do I have to use a 12 point T4 model over a 13 or 14 point T5 model with the same weapons? Conversely -- is it worth losing a wound for 8 points for more flexibility? There's a lot more distinction to be made there.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:29:09


Post by: Gadzilla666


No, they didn't "do the exact same thing 6 months before the marine codex as they do now". They didn't have doctrines, multi part chapter tactics, super doctrines, bolter discipline, or shock assault. They added all that and then dropped their price. That made them play just a little bit different. They piled on too many rules too fast, and made a troops choice that is better than many elites options. That's the problem. If intercessors were an elites choice they wouldn't be so bad.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:32:33


Post by: JNAProductions


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, they didn't "do the exact same thing 6 months before the marine codex as they do now". They didn't have doctrines, multi part chapter tactics, super doctrines, bolter discipline, or shock assault. They added all that and then dropped their price. That made them play just a little bit different. They piled on too many rules too fast, and made a troops choice that is better than many elites options. That's the problem. If intercessors were an elites choice they wouldn't be so bad.
It'd still be bad, since Imperial Marines don't really need CP to do their things.

They help, of course, but their units stand on their own, by and large. Compare that to a lot of other armies, and, well...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:42:04


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

Also, you're talking to a guy who think classics are plenty worth their points, so you're barking up the wrong tree saying they'd move to the dust bin.


There is far less difference between a T4 and T5 model than there is a W1 and W2 model.

What incentive do I have to use a 12 point T4 model over a 13 or 14 point T5 model with the same weapons? Conversely -- is it worth losing a wound for 8 points for more flexibility? There's a lot more distinction to be made there.
Of course the difference is smaller, that's by design. And lucky for you T isn't their only distinction. How much is an additional 6" of range, additional AP, additional attack worth?

Also, as mentioned above, they'd be exactly as additionally tough vs. Guardsmen, who would be wounding them on 6s.

We have an example, and that's Sternguard. They are 14 points, have an additional attack and better gun. They're a great unit. This change would be one less AP, but one higher toughness.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/16 23:48:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, they didn't "do the exact same thing 6 months before the marine codex as they do now". They didn't have doctrines, multi part chapter tactics, super doctrines, bolter discipline, or shock assault. They added all that and then dropped their price. That made them play just a little bit different. They piled on too many rules too fast, and made a troops choice that is better than many elites options. That's the problem. If intercessors were an elites choice they wouldn't be so bad.
It'd still be bad, since Imperial Marines don't really need CP to do their things.

They help, of course, but their units stand on their own, by and large. Compare that to a lot of other armies, and, well...

Oh believe me I know that. And now in 9th they'll have even more cp to buff those already solid on their own units. Whereas the rest of us need those strategems just to make our stuff work.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 00:14:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, they didn't "do the exact same thing 6 months before the marine codex as they do now". They didn't have doctrines, multi part chapter tactics, super doctrines, bolter discipline, or shock assault. They added all that and then dropped their price. That made them play just a little bit different. They piled on too many rules too fast, and made a troops choice that is better than many elites options. That's the problem. If intercessors were an elites choice they wouldn't be so bad.


No... - shock assault and bolter discipline existed before the dex. What do most chapter tactic do for a bolt rifle? You can super doc them to AP2, sure, but that isn't the argument made here. It is the general unit is over powered, which isn't true. Again - unable to divest the issues from the unit.

CA2018 has Intercessors @ 17 points - like 8 months before the dex:


Bolter Discipline was introduced a month later in January:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/21/21st-jan-introducing-better-beta-boltersgw-homepage-post-4/

Shock Assault came about a month before the dex, but I guess the points and the bolter weren't enough to edge them over but that did?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 00:27:05


Post by: Insectum7


^That's basically just a technicality.

The bonuses just exacerbated a problem that was already there, which is the relationship between base-Primaris and common units of other factions, specifically the ones that are also supposedly "elite".

Imo Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault brought Tacs up to about where they should be. Super Doctrines pushed them over the top. Intercessors are out of control.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 00:28:36


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:


We have an example, and that's Sternguard. They are 14 points, have an additional attack and better gun. They're a great unit. This change would be one less AP, but one higher toughness.



Sternguard makes the point for me. Sternguard exist in a zone, because there isn't enough room to make them not 14 points and still be usable. As it is they *smother* regular marines and the only reason they aren't used more is because they aren't troops. Raising the points will allow for the distinction to show more.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 00:35:54


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


We have an example, and that's Sternguard. They are 14 points, have an additional attack and better gun. They're a great unit. This change would be one less AP, but one higher toughness.

Sternguard makes the point for me. Sternguard exist in a zone, because there isn't enough room to make them not 14 points and still be usable. As it is they *smother* regular marines and the only reason they aren't used more is because they aren't troops. Raising the points will allow for the distinction to show more.
Sternguard are arguably a point too cheap. The fact that their SI Bolter is free on top of their base of 14 is a bit of an issue.

But I fail to see how that makes the theoretical T5 Intercessor a no-go.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 00:57:44


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
^That's basically just a technicality.

The bonuses just exacerbated a problem that was already there, which is the relationship between base-Primaris and common units of other factions, specifically the ones that are also supposedly "elite".

Imo Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault brought Tacs up to about where they should be. Super Doctrines pushed them over the top. Intercessors are out of control.


The bonuses the Intercessors are so damn minor. A 36" gun that can move and shoot? Yaaaay. Most people don't even USE the stock IH trait. The reroll ones is a minor buff that amounts to not taking a captain for the two units camping back-field. The new vehicle heavy rules takes the piss out of that half of the IH doctrine, which essentially buffs only infantry now.

An extra AP on turn 2? Yaaaay. A buff that neuters the rest of your army unless they have compatible weapons.

An extra hit on 6s? No one takes Intercessors in numbers that matter for this!

....and that's pretty much it. Nothing else buffs Intercessors in a noticeable way unless you expect them to throw fists - if you want to point to the 1 in a million TH Sarge @ LVO - even he didn't use those.

I get that those things make Intercessors "the best", but they're not the unit killing you.



 Insectum7 wrote:
Sternguard are arguably a point too cheap. The fact that their SI Bolter is free on top of their base of 14 is a bit of an issue.

But I fail to see how that makes the theoretical T5 Intercessor a no-go.


Suppose Sternguard were troops. Would you ever take tacs?




Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 01:02:57


Post by: Gadzilla666


Ok, technically bolter discipline and shock assault existed before the codex. That doesn't mean they still don't make intercessors better. Same for doctrines and super doctrines. What chapter tactics help bolt rifles? Master Artisans, bolter fusillade, and long range marksmen come to mind. The Imperial Fists one certainly helps. Salamanders (yeah that's just master artisans). Being able to fall back and still shoot with them certainly helps Ultramarines. But that's a leading question isn't it? Other chapter tactics help intercessors without affecting their shooting. Does always counting as in cover outside of 12 and being -1 to be hit while in cover not help? What about ignoring -1AP or a 6+++?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Suppose Sternguard were troops. Would you ever take tacs?



Suppose intercessors were elites, would you still take them?

And do you actually think that free AP isn't a good thing to have?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 01:17:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Does always counting as in cover outside of 12 and being -1 to be hit while in cover not help? What about ignoring -1AP or a 6+++?


They help, but no marine armies function around that. Heck most of them avoid Intercessors as much as possible except to get CP - many of them take scouts instead!

Suppose intercessors were elites, would you still take them?


That really depends on what my troops are and what purpose I need to fill. Likely not, because they just aren't that special.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 01:18:06


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^That's basically just a technicality.

The bonuses just exacerbated a problem that was already there, which is the relationship between base-Primaris and common units of other factions, specifically the ones that are also supposedly "elite".

Imo Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault brought Tacs up to about where they should be. Super Doctrines pushed them over the top. Intercessors are out of control.


The bonuses the Intercessors are so damn minor. A 36" gun that can move and shoot? Yaaaay. Most people don't even USE the stock IH trait. The reroll ones is a minor buff that amounts to not taking a captain for the two units camping back-field. The new vehicle heavy rules takes the piss out of that half of the IH doctrine, which essentially buffs only infantry now.

An extra AP on turn 2? Yaaaay. A buff that neuters the rest of your army unless they have compatible weapons.

An extra hit on 6s? No one takes Intercessors in numbers that matter for this!

....and that's pretty much it. Nothing else buffs Intercessors in a noticeable way unless you expect them to throw fists - if you want to point to the 1 in a million TH Sarge @ LVO - even he didn't use those.

I get that those things make Intercessors "the best", but they're not the unit killing you.

I don't think you understood my post. It's not the competitive value that I'm against, after all points is points. The issue, again, is how they compare to the supposedly "elite" units (even if they're troops) of other armies. Being flatly superior to a Necron Immortal is a problem. Being superior in every way to a Striking Scorpion is a problem. You're definitely underselling the super doctrines though. UM Intercessors in Tactical can move and shoot twice up to 30" with a -2. It's gross and unnecessary.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Sternguard are arguably a point too cheap. The fact that their SI Bolter is free on top of their base of 14 is a bit of an issue.

But I fail to see how that makes the theoretical T5 Intercessor a no-go.
Suppose Sternguard were troops. Would you ever take tacs?
They ain't, so I don't. But I actually might though, for various reasons. One of which being that the AP-2 isn't as big a deal when Tac Doctrine already gives me a -1. If I'm looking to have an equally resilient squad that's deploying special/heavy weapons, saving 2 ppm can get me where I want to be at fewer points. And like I said, 14 for Sternguard is kinda a steal. A free Combi-plasma upgrade for every five bodies, essentially. If they were 15 points there's an even harder decision. When I use Sternguard I usually just take a 10 man unit with SIBolters to get the maximum out of their Strat, and skip the weapon upgrades.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 01:27:57


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Suppose intercessors were elites, would you still take them?


That really depends on what my troops are and what purpose I need to fill. Likely not, because they just aren't that special.

Cool. Now compare them to other factions elite options: chosen, aspect warriors, incubi. Intercessors are better than all of those, but are troops. If loyalist marines troops aren't "special" enough to waste an elite slot on, but are superior to other factions elites, do you see the problem?


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 02:21:16


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Suppose intercessors were elites, would you still take them?


That really depends on what my troops are and what purpose I need to fill. Likely not, because they just aren't that special.

Cool. Now compare them to other factions elite options: chosen, aspect warriors, Necron Immortals. Intercessors are better than all of those, but are troops. If loyalist marines troops aren't "special" enough to waste an elite slot on, but are superior to other factions elites, do you see the problem?


Premise fails. Custodes. Internal balance matters as much as external. An army does not need an "Intercessor" to be good. You'd also find that those units are not currently drastically worse than intercessors - barring squaring heavily specialized aspects versus a generalist unit.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 02:22:57


Post by: JNAProductions


Custodes are also triple the points cost, with the shooting of a single Intercessor at best.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 02:24:09


Post by: Martel732


Custodes basically have no shooting for their cost.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 03:25:16


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Suppose intercessors were elites, would you still take them?


That really depends on what my troops are and what purpose I need to fill. Likely not, because they just aren't that special.

Cool. Now compare them to other factions elite options: chosen, aspect warriors, Necron Immortals. Intercessors are better than all of those, but are troops. If loyalist marines troops aren't "special" enough to waste an elite slot on, but are superior to other factions elites, do you see the problem?
Premise fails. Custodes. Internal balance matters as much as external. An army does not need an "Intercessor" to be good. You'd also find that those units are not currently drastically worse than intercessors - barring squaring heavily specialized aspects versus a generalist unit.
That's still missing the point. We're comparing them to traditional 'elite' troops that have historically been much closer in 'tier' to marines, as well as comparing them to other troops and looking at how well we should expect them to do in a fight.

The story used to be Marines, as generalists, had to shoot the punchy stuff and punch the shooty stuff. Or otherwise, should have to get the drop on a unit of Scorpions in order to do well, whereas in reverse, Scorpions had to get the drop on Marines in order to do well. I'm sure we could find examples in the fiction for both scenarios. The problem is, even if the Scorpions get the drop on Intercessors, and immediately engage in CC, the Intercessors just punch back and win, if I'm not mistaken (no Eldar book on me). That's not where we should want things to be.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 03:28:32


Post by: Martel732


Old stats mean nothing because those were under the overkill mechanism.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 03:29:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 JNAProductions wrote:
Custodes are also triple the points cost, with the shooting of a single Intercessor at best.


*sigh*

49 points = less than 3 Intercessors.

6 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 0.44 damage - It would take 3 Intercessors 7 rounds of shooting to kill a Custodian. Amazing.
9 * .666 * .333 * .167 = 0.33 damage - 9 turns to melee

Alternatively --

1 * .833 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 15 turns to shoot the Intercessors to death //assuming no rapid fire, ever
3 * .833 * .666 * .833 * 2 = 2.2 turns to melee them


So very clearly the Custodes is better in melee and it becomes a problem of the delivery and the system disincentivizing melee. Now that Custodes get the same CP without needing buddies? It might work out better.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 03:35:07


Post by: JNAProductions


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Custodes are also triple the points cost, with the shooting of a single Intercessor at best.


*sigh*

49 points = less than 3 Intercessors.

6 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 0.44 damage - It would take 3 Intercessors 7 rounds of shooting to kill a Custodian. Amazing.
9 * .666 * .333 * .167 = 0.33 damage - 9 turns to melee

Alternatively --

1 * .833 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 15 turns to shoot the Intercessors to death //assuming no rapid fire, ever
3 * .833 * .666 * .833 * 2 = 2.2 turns to melee them


So very clearly the Custodes is better in melee and it becomes a problem of the delivery and the system disincentivizing melee. Now that Custodes get the same CP without needing buddies? It might work out better.
My bad-I had forgotten the points cost of a basic Custodian.

Also, you did your melee math wrong-it's...

3 Attacks
5/6 hit
2/3 wound
5/6 unsaved
5/3 damage
For average damage of 2.31 damage a turn, or about three turns to kill the Intercessors. Admittedly, he'd have decent odds of not taking a wound in response, but that requires him to reach melee, which, as you noted, has the system working against you.

Edit: Also, couple of notes:

Marines get better buffs. RRAll to-hit and RR1s to-wound easily, as compared to RR1s to-hit from HQs and RR1s to-wound from a unique character only.

They also have Litanies. And, quite importantly, Doctrines.

And 51 points is, admittedly, more than 49 points. By just over 2%. They're close enough to 3 Intercessors for physics.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 07:14:27


Post by: Blackie


Tyel wrote:


Primaris by contrast are just mooks with 2 wounds.
They are too good because they are too cheap.


This, intercessors with their profile and all their rules aren't 20ppm, they're 25-30ppm. They could be ok at 20ppm if they had 1W. Many other primars are also undercosted, it feels bad when a standard primaris space marine force has the same number of models (and 10x the dice rolling) than an "elite heavy" ork army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Custodes are also triple the points cost, with the shooting of a single Intercessor at best.


They are priced appropriately, primaris just don't make any sense being that cheap.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 07:48:32


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Premise fails. Custodes. Internal balance matters as much as external. An army does not need an "Intercessor" to be good. You'd also find that those units are not currently drastically worse than intercessors - barring squaring heavily specialized aspects versus a generalist unit.

Maybe if a lot of mirror matchs are being played it is the case. To me external balance is a lot more important internal. It is much better to have one good build for a codex, then have each option equaly bad in your codex.


They could be ok at 20ppm if they had 1W. Many other primars are also undercosted, it feels bad when a standard primaris space marine force has the same number of models (and 10x the dice rolling) than an "elite heavy" ork army.


As someone who had access to plus 20pts troops with 1W armed with stormbolters and a melee weapon that intercessors do not have, I can tell you that 1W intercessors would not work.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 08:45:30


Post by: Tyel


 Daedalus81 wrote:
The bonuses the Intercessors are so damn minor. A 36" gun that can move and shoot? Yaaaay. Most people don't even USE the stock IH trait. The reroll ones is a minor buff that amounts to not taking a captain for the two units camping back-field. The new vehicle heavy rules takes the piss out of that half of the IH doctrine, which essentially buffs only infantry now.

An extra AP on turn 2? Yaaaay. A buff that neuters the rest of your army unless they have compatible weapons.

An extra hit on 6s? No one takes Intercessors in numbers that matter for this!

....and that's pretty much it. Nothing else buffs Intercessors in a noticeable way unless you expect them to throw fists - if you want to point to the 1 in a million TH Sarge @ LVO - even he didn't use those.

I get that those things make Intercessors "the best", but they're not the unit killing you.


Obviously Marines have been nerfed - but speaking historically this is surely wrong. The LVO winning list was rocking something like 40 intercessors - and many lists in that vein did the same.
And yes, many people took the regular stock IH trait. Because a 6+++, easily buffed in your castle to a 5+++ via Chief Apothecary, is amazing. Especially when you can also benefit from a 5++. Throw in say transhuman and you can spray them with lascannons or plasma and they still don't die unless you have a run of bad luck. The fact you were hitting on 3s rerolling 1s and then rerolling 1s (from GW's favourite datasheet) to wound while moving up the table with the stalker boltrifle, plus litanties, meant you don't even really need a Chapter Master (although various people stuck one in just because). Hitting on 5+ in overwatch is also amazing. Get a bit lucky and it massively skews games.

The change to doctrines makes this army a lot less effective - but this idea intercessors were/are and don't kill anything is just wrong. Suitably buffed they do loads of damage to everything and are very tough to shift.
Also, may be pedantic, but the TH Sarg killing 4 Shining Spears is about 1 in 64 rather than 1 in a million. And he's very likely to kill *something*.

But yes, to a degree the intercessor is a part of a package - and as said the change in doctrines is a nerf, which unfortunately the Covid outbreak has made difficult to quantify (although there seemed little sign in the two weeks or so afterwards that Marines were toast). If they were to remove the Chapter Master Stratagem, and Lieutenants went up to 100 points, those would represent further nerfs to the package. Make Tremor Shells (not even a Primaris unit) say 3 CP rather than 1 CP - rather than having gushing/giggling articles that point out due to the change in CP rules you can now use it every turn come rain or shine.

My point is that Intercessors were bad at 20 points without all these buffs and synergies they have now acquired. They were not obviously *bad for the game* then. So I don't find it justified to say they are inherently bad for the game.

I also don't really care about this whole "but muh Orks and Striking Scorpions should be as tough as Marines". I'm happy enough to accept sufficient fluff has Marines - especially Marines 2.0 - being tougher. There probably should be a term for the general weakening of Eldar - in fluff and on the table over the editions - but I got over that ages ago. The Avatar can be worfed only so many times.

But the issue is "I feel elite" - no, you feel overpowered because you are getting too much for your points. That's what feeling powerful in 40k is.

We see the mirror of this "oh the basic MEQ stat line doesn't work".
But that's rubbish. It basic CSM (or tacticals) were say 7 points, people would rock up with 150 of them, and they would be very difficult to shift, while shooting/charging everything off the table. I'm not sure they'd feel "elite" exactly, but they'd break the game.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 08:48:10


Post by: Bosskelot


2nd'ing Intercessors still being too cheap at 20. But even if they, and other Primaris, units were made more expensive the whole special rules bloat for Marines just feels really distasteful in general. The Outriders can't just be Primaris on bikes, they ALSO need a special rule giving them extra attacks on the charge. On top of the 6 special rules and chapter traits they get already. Because..... reasons............

It just makes every other army and unit in the game feel increasingly bland as time goes on. Whoop di doo all my Windriders can do is auto-roll a 6 for advancing. Really exciting unit.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 08:55:35


Post by: Not Online!!!


We see the mirror of this "oh the basic MEQ stat line doesn't work".
But that's rubbish. It basic CSM (or tacticals) were say 7 points, people would rock up with 150 of them, and they would be very difficult to shift, while shooting/charging everything off the table. I'm not sure they'd feel "elite" exactly, but they'd break the game.


Erm, you know, Red Corsair hordes actually work.
And that is an issue, i shouldn't need to blare "red September" whilest screaming Ura at the top of my lungs and throw what ammounts to 10'000 year old recruit blobs at my enemy but comparatively to SM2.0 it is actually required because the fast striking raiders that want to overwhelm, can't do that against sm2.0 because somwhere in the rules clusterfeth there is improved overwatch and FNP and ap..

So soviet mass assault tactics it is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Bosskelot wrote:
2nd'ing Intercessors still being too cheap at 20. But even if they, and other Primaris, units were made more expensive the whole special rules bloat for Marines just feels really distasteful in general. The Outriders can't just be Primaris on bikes, they ALSO need a special rule giving them extra attacks on the charge. On top of the 6 special rules and chapter traits they get already. Because..... reasons............

It just makes every other army and unit in the game feel increasingly bland as time goes on. Whoop di doo all my Windriders can do is auto-roll a 6 for advancing. Really exciting unit.


Not to mention that unlike many others, subfaction traits apply to all the units within the dex whilest others don't get that. And have inherently more parts to them than most other subfaction traits.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/17 15:57:45


Post by: Trasvi


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^That's basically just a technicality.

The bonuses just exacerbated a problem that was already there, which is the relationship between base-Primaris and common units of other factions, specifically the ones that are also supposedly "elite".

Imo Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault brought Tacs up to about where they should be. Super Doctrines pushed them over the top. Intercessors are out of control.


The bonuses the Intercessors are so damn minor. A 36" gun that can move and shoot? Yaaaay. Most people don't even USE the stock IH trait. The reroll ones is a minor buff that amounts to not taking a captain for the two units camping back-field. The new vehicle heavy rules takes the piss out of that half of the IH doctrine, which essentially buffs only infantry now.

An extra AP on turn 2? Yaaaay. A buff that neuters the rest of your army unless they have compatible weapons.

An extra hit on 6s? No one takes Intercessors in numbers that matter for this!

....and that's pretty much it. Nothing else buffs Intercessors in a noticeable way unless you expect them to throw fists - if you want to point to the 1 in a million TH Sarge @ LVO - even he didn't use those.

I get that those things make Intercessors "the best", but they're not the unit killing you.


A local has been rocking the tournament scene with a list of 60 IH intercessors backed up with 3 (character) dreads and a character castle.
60 dudes with 2W, 2+/5++/5+++ are absurdly difficult to move and 60 stalker bolt rifles are no joke.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/18 20:21:09


Post by: Bosskelot


 Bosskelot wrote:
2nd'ing Intercessors still being too cheap at 20. But even if they, and other Primaris, units were made more expensive the whole special rules bloat for Marines just feels really distasteful in general. The Outriders can't just be Primaris on bikes, they ALSO need a special rule giving them extra attacks on the charge. On top of the 6 special rules and chapter traits they get already. Because..... reasons............

It just makes every other army and unit in the game feel increasingly bland as time goes on. Whoop di doo all my Windriders can do is auto-roll a 6 for advancing. Really exciting unit.

Not to mention that unlike many others, subfaction traits apply to all the units within the dex whilest others don't get that. And have inherently more parts to them than most other subfaction traits.


Applying to every unit is really only applicable to CSM to be fair. And also being fair, other codexes got multi-bonus subfaction traits long before marines 2.0


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 07:02:31


Post by: AngryAngel80


I get this is about intercessors and I agree, they are good. I find the generalist nature of marines is being lost over time. It feels more like they want to give marines 0 real wargear options but make their generic set ups rock the house regardless.

I look at the new outriders, used to be the day I felt bikers were a finesse unit, needed some skills to use them well. These outriders though ? Are like amped up intercessors. Double the wounds, super fast, double the shooting, like triple the attacks with better AP.

It just feels like things are over all power creeping on up with Marines and that feeling started with the last codex they had. I'm not even trying to be a hater, I tend to really enjoy my Marines but the first born didn't ever feel like an auto win, some of these units ? Feel kinda close, especially in casual lists.

Stacked rules on buffed stat lines for cheap cost with generalist gear. I dunno, it starts to feel like too much and even the dream of balance died, was buried and they keep saying its alive and well.

I mean its sad Intercessors are looked at so poorly in a marine list when for most armies they'd be a cherished unit addition.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 07:13:34


Post by: p5freak


Trasvi wrote:

A local has been rocking the tournament scene with a list of 60 IH intercessors backed up with 3 (character) dreads and a character castle.
60 dudes with 2W, 2+/5++/5+++ are absurdly difficult to move and 60 stalker bolt rifles are no joke.


This has been nerfed. March of the ancients can only be used once per battle, since end of february. No more 3 character dreads. Devastator doctrine is now only active in the first turn, and switches to tactical doctrine T2.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 07:19:09


Post by: Jidmah


Well, good thing that FW didn't make any character dreads without the need for a stratagem that can also recite litanies, because that would be bad, right?



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 07:54:44


Post by: p5freak


 Jidmah wrote:
Well, good thing that FW didn't make any character dreads without the need for a stratagem that can also recite litanies, because that would be bad, right?



Right, that would be really bad We will see how those turn out, once the FW rules have been rewritten, and we know all the rules of 9th.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 09:02:08


Post by: addnid


I don't even want to field my dark angels (far from being my main army luckily) anymore these days (DA vs SM us just marines vs marines to me, a mirror match of the boring kind), they just feel too much. And they aren't even one of thre worst marine offenders.
I really wouldn't want to be a Ravenguard or an IH (or any of "these") player.

At least DA don't get full rerolls. DA intercessors don't get any doctrine/etc. bonus for being in CC, but honestly just shock troop giving an extra attack first round is enough to deal with hordes.

Horde troops really can't match intercessors ATM, hopefully 9th won't make this worse.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 11:29:48


Post by: Spoletta


Should be noted though that intercessors are getting hit by these new rules.

The blast rule is custom made for them. While using a bast weapon to shoot at grots is now more enticing because you score always max hits, you are still firing what usually is a high power weapon at cheap models. Intercessors on the other hand are already quite good targets of these weapons and like going in groups of 10, so the fact that the blast rule exist is a major nerf for them. Plasma cannons will clear them in no time.

You could say that they know need to just roll in 5 man squads, but they have really powerful stratagems that get neutered by this approach, not to mention that the big squads came in quite handy when you wanted to keep them under aura effects.

Also, 5 man squads are now extremely bad at protecting chars. You can sandwich your CM between 3x5 squads, but i only need to clear 9 intercessors and then your CM is dog food.

I really think that we should look at the full picture.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 11:50:20


Post by: Drager


Whether plasma clears intercessors depends on the intercessors. Iron hands with 5++/5+++ take a lot of plasma to kill. 4 plasma shots (average from plasma cannon with blast Vs 10 man squad) kills one intercessor on average with rerolls to hit and wound it's nearly 2, but not quite. Where are you getting the 7-10 plasma cannons you need to clear one squad? Can you get them for <60 points each including the chasis and support characters? Marines are a little mental ATM.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 12:02:18


Post by: Spoletta


I didn't say that they are now screwed and unplayable. I said that they were nerfed, and that is objective.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 12:22:15


Post by: Daedalus81


Drager wrote:
Whether plasma clears intercessors depends on the intercessors. Iron hands with 5++/5+++ take a lot of plasma to kill. 4 plasma shots (average from plasma cannon with blast Vs 10 man squad) kills one intercessor on average with rerolls to hit and wound it's nearly 2, but not quite. Where are you getting the 7-10 plasma cannons you need to clear one squad? Can you get them for <60 points each including the chasis and support characters? Marines are a little mental ATM.


PC are D3 shots.

30 * .666 * .833 * .666 = 11 wounding hits before damage

5++ gets them a 44% to save one wound and 11% to save both. From here its just a gamble as to how many shots get wasted trying to get a second wound on an intercessor. Technically 7 should die, but that definitely won't happen. More like 3 or 4.

No damage spill over is the most brutal thing about 5+++.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 12:25:35


Post by: Drager


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Drager wrote:
Whether plasma clears intercessors depends on the intercessors. Iron hands with 5++/5+++ take a lot of plasma to kill. 4 plasma shots (average from plasma cannon with blast Vs 10 man squad) kills one intercessor on average with rerolls to hit and wound it's nearly 2, but not quite. Where are you getting the 7-10 plasma cannons you need to clear one squad? Can you get them for <60 points each including the chasis and support characters? Marines are a little mental ATM.


PC are D3 shots.

30 * .666 * .833 * .666 = 11 wounding hits before damage

5++ gets them a 44% to save one wound and 11% to save both. From here its just a gamble as to how many shots get wasted trying to get a second wound on an intercessor. Technically 7 should die, but that definitely won't happen. More like 3 or 4.

No damage spill over is the most brutal thing about 5+++.


Not an imperial player sorry for the mistake on them being Dd3. I though d6, which is why I underestimated the number of cannons. Makes the point much stronger, thanks. IH intercessors are insane.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 12:26:36


Post by: Daedalus81


Drager wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Drager wrote:
Whether plasma clears intercessors depends on the intercessors. Iron hands with 5++/5+++ take a lot of plasma to kill. 4 plasma shots (average from plasma cannon with blast Vs 10 man squad) kills one intercessor on average with rerolls to hit and wound it's nearly 2, but not quite. Where are you getting the 7-10 plasma cannons you need to clear one squad? Can you get them for <60 points each including the chasis and support characters? Marines are a little mental ATM.


PC are D3 shots.

30 * .666 * .833 * .666 = 11 wounding hits before damage

5++ gets them a 44% to save one wound and 11% to save both. From here its just a gamble as to how many shots get wasted trying to get a second wound on an intercessor. Technically 7 should die, but that definitely won't happen. More like 3 or 4.

No damage spill over is the most brutal thing about 5+++.


Not an imperial player sorry for the mistake on them being Dd3. I though d6, which is why I underestimated the number of cannons. Makes the point much stronger, thanks. IH intercessors are insane.


No worries. Though if he means Dark Age plasma then they're straight dead, but not everyone has that (read: almost nobody).



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 12:27:19


Post by: Spoletta


As a rule of thumb for 2 damage on a 2W with a 5+++, consider a 70% hits passing. Takes in consideration both the double save and the chances that the model was already damaged by the previous shot.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/19 12:36:33


Post by: Drager


Was working it out for Dark Technologist Disintegrators the other day. Those things are brutal, but still just kinda bounce off IH intercessors. 3*2/3*5/6*2/3 gives 60/54 wounding hits before damage. These things are damage 3, but they still have a 26% chance to survive, so we can assume 5 Disintegrators worth of fire will kill 4 guys. You need 12-13 to wipe the squad that's the most efficient DE can do and it's around 1000 points of dedicated transports.

Trying this with standard 2D Disintegrators is a slow road to sadness.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 02:39:51


Post by: Eldenfirefly


The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 02:47:33


Post by: Martel732


Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.


AGreed.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 04:26:13


Post by: Luke_Prowler


Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

My experience through all the editions I've play has been that people say they want anti-horde weapons to deal with hordes, and yet whenever the task of list building comes around you'll still see most of the weapons in them still be majority anti-tank and anti-elite weapons. If there is a proper anti-horde weapon in a list is's almost always something that pulls double duty (like ignores LoS). It seem like people are completely reluctant to take heavy bolters or equivalent and expect their basic infantry weapons to do the trick, and are still unwilling to change when that doesn't work...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 08:55:54


Post by: Not Online!!!


i for the lols of it made a round with a friend, i moved my 150 militia / cultist blob faster forward then he can roll aggressors including rerolls.

Tell me again, what is the issue here?


 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

My experience through all the editions I've play has been that people say they want anti-horde weapons to deal with hordes, and yet whenever the task of list building comes around you'll still see most of the weapons in them still be majority anti-tank and anti-elite weapons. If there is a proper anti-horde weapon in a list is's almost always something that pulls double duty (like ignores LoS). It seem like people are completely reluctant to take heavy bolters or equivalent and expect their basic infantry weapons to do the trick, and are still unwilling to change when that doesn't work...


That's why primaris TM and Space marines in general are now constantly under the influence of FRFSRF for the upper ranges of their weaponry.
And yes people are reluctant, but that has to do with a lot of people not accepting that the game turned ,due to the sizecreep and enabling of pure skew, into what is in essence Rock, paper, scissors.
Tac need to counter Knights, ergo more AT, less models and firepower against small armies, Hordes normally countered by tac got alot less issues through that and have had allready a good matchup against knights, hordes then countered suddendly tac because they weren't so much tac anymore but more along the lines of Antitank bigades.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 09:40:20


Post by: Blackie


Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.


Not everyone has rapid fire weapons though, orks don't have a single rapid option for example. Some factions have overpowered rapid fire platforms, yes, that is something that should be addressed. Blast weapons and flamers got hit by 8th because the edition's new mechanics reduced the number of shots these weapons used to have and also cut down their ap. Blast weapons seem to be buffed in 9th, I'd like flamers to get some love too.



Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 10:23:57


Post by: Tyel


A guardsman with a flamer on average gets a 100% return on say Ork Boyz or GSC Acolytes.

The issue is that a basic guy with a lasgun rapid firing gets a 50%~ return before any buffs/debuffs, so... its not really necessary. On top of the limitations of an 8" range.

But then if basic troops are bad, we end up in the dull old days of minimum units of min sized troops surrounded by heavy support options.

In general everything should be generally less lethal, and in turn things should be more specialised into anti horde/anti elite/anti armour/monster.

But that ship has probably sailed - and the usual lament, that I'm not sure people enjoy a game system where a lot of the time they don't do anything because the dice don't cooperate. (Yes yes, I know some people loved the metal boxes of 5th, you are lost on me.)


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 11:07:31


Post by: Spoletta


Flamers should get the "Always overwatch" rule.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/20 23:44:05


Post by: Daedalus81


I'll put this here, I guess.

If Fallback isnt a given this means a melee army will get to pick who fights first, after charger, on their opponent's turn.

Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them




Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/22 21:36:53


Post by: Catulle


the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man suads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.


I, for one, cannot *wait* for my min. unit of Guardians to be designated a horde if they have the audacity to bring a support platform along. Eldar hordes! Strong narrative emulated there, GW. Great work!


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 10:37:13


Post by: Nazrak


Catulle wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man suads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.


I, for one, cannot *wait* for my min. unit of Guardians to be designated a horde if they have the audacity to bring a support platform along. Eldar hordes! Strong narrative emulated there, GW. Great work!

Yeah, this is *really* weird. I feel like they haven't really thought through these size brackets, beyond "minimise the impact on the default Space Marine squad sizes", although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 12:20:19


Post by: the_scotsman


 addnid wrote:
I don't even want to field my dark angels (far from being my main army luckily) anymore these days (DA vs SM us just marines vs marines to me, a mirror match of the boring kind), they just feel too much. And they aren't even one of thre worst marine offenders.
I really wouldn't want to be a Ravenguard or an IH (or any of "these") player.

At least DA don't get full rerolls. DA intercessors don't get any doctrine/etc. bonus for being in CC, but honestly just shock troop giving an extra attack first round is enough to deal with hordes.

Horde troops really can't match intercessors ATM, hopefully 9th won't make this worse.


Sure they do, from Invulnerable Save Hat Man, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'll put this here, I guess.

If Fallback isnt a given this means a melee army will get to pick who fights first, after charger, on their opponent's turn.

Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them




You are assuming fall back isn't a given, which based on reading the stratagem that was previewed is a very interesting interpretation.

Since they did not actually define "Fall Back" within the context of that stratagem. It would seem to track that "Fall Back" is determined somewhere ELSE, unless you believe that the stratagem previewed indicates that GW is planning on invalidating all rules that allow for shooting/actions after fall back in the text of the stratagem that replaces Fall Back?

To me, the strat read pretty clearly as "Fall Back, but a crappier version that allows you to get out of tripointing if your opponent has done the currently competitive "pillow 'n punch" tactic with one of their melee units"


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 13:36:10


Post by: catbarf


the_scotsman wrote:
You are assuming fall back isn't a given, which based on reading the stratagem that was previewed is a very interesting interpretation.

Since they did not actually define "Fall Back" within the context of that stratagem. It would seem to track that "Fall Back" is determined somewhere ELSE, unless you believe that the stratagem previewed indicates that GW is planning on invalidating all rules that allow for shooting/actions after fall back in the text of the stratagem that replaces Fall Back?

To me, the strat read pretty clearly as "Fall Back, but a crappier version that allows you to get out of tripointing if your opponent has done the currently competitive "pillow 'n punch" tactic with one of their melee units"


I didn't interpret that post as referring to the Desperate Breakout stratagem, but just caveating in general that getting to fight first in the opponent's turn won't be very useful if they're able to walk out of combat before that can happen. We're still waiting to see if any changes have been made to the basic Fall Back, since yes, the wording on that stratagem strongly suggests that it is not the only way to fall back.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 15:05:30


Post by: warmaster21


Catulle wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.


So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?


A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man suads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.


I, for one, cannot *wait* for my min. unit of Guardians to be designated a horde if they have the audacity to bring a support platform along. Eldar hordes! Strong narrative emulated there, GW. Great work!


Hordes should have been designated as 20+, would fall in line with daemon infantry special rules turning on at 20+ models.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 15:25:57


Post by: Jidmah


There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 15:33:55


Post by: JNAProductions


 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.
Such as Genestealers and...


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 15:44:52


Post by: Castozor


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.
Such as Genestealers and...

Grots and poxwalkers come to mind. Either way turning into a horde at 11+ feels a bit too early, but only turning into a horde at 20 would be too late I feel. Still feel this change to blast weapons was unnecessary.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 15:45:43


Post by: JNAProductions


 Castozor wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.
Such as Genestealers and...

Grots and poxwalkers come to mind. Either way turning into a horde at 11+ feels a bit too early, but only turning into a horde at 20 would be too late I feel. Still feel this change to blast weapons was unnecessary.
Okay. I legitimately did not remember those.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 15:59:38


Post by: the_scotsman


I'm like 95% sure Surprisingly Dangerous in Large Numbers is 20+, not 10+.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/23 16:11:36


Post by: Castozor


Woops, seems you are right. I haven't taken mine in ages so I wrongly assumed they only go to 20 models.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/24 17:31:06


Post by: Dysartes


 Castozor wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.
Such as Genestealers and...

Grots and poxwalkers come to mind. Either way turning into a horde at 11+ feels a bit too early, but only turning into a horde at 20 would be too late I feel. Still feel this change to blast weapons was unnecessary.

Why do you think the change is unnecessary? I can understand thinking the implementation has issues, but let's be honest - weapons that had previous had a blast template seemed pretty under-utilised during 8th.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/24 17:32:57


Post by: tulun


This new morale thing has helped a bit.

So let's add that to the pile of "hordes might be okay"


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/29 16:44:33


Post by: Spoletta


https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7Dfq8Mq2S3RawF6Y.jpg

This here is the biggest reason why you will want big squads.

The same action can be performed only by a single unit per round, so if you want to make it, having 4x 5 man squads or a single 20 man squad will change a lot in terms of how easy it will be for your opponent to stop it.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/29 23:29:47


Post by: Mr.Omega


Spoletta wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7Dfq8Mq2S3RawF6Y.jpg

This here is the biggest reason why you will want big squads.

The same action can be performed only by a single unit per round, so if you want to make it, having 4x 5 man squads or a single 20 man squad will change a lot in terms of how easy it will be for your opponent to stop it.


Yeah no in much the same way that the refrain "just take the objectives when you're playing against Tau" has historically sounded great in theory but then falls apart in practice so often

The safer bet will always be to not be forced into a situation where it realistically makes a difference whether you had 5 or 10 men in a squad

Equally, cumulative turns of maxed out firepower on a 11+ model unit is not going to facillitate taking objectives when they can be ripped to shreds with minimal effort from the outset because of the blast weapon bonuses, morale changes and potentially even issues with the new coherency rules


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/29 23:43:35


Post by: Tyel


A possibly weird change could be if controlling an objective counts the models in a unit rather than models in 3" - but that seems like it could get broken quite quickly, and there is nothing to indicate that's where they are going.

The Raise The Banners High Action gives clear motivation to small units rather than big ones from my reading. Okay a unit of 5 models might get kicked off an objective - but nothing stops you putting 4 such units on the objective versus 1 big squad of 20. And the other 3 units can shoot in the turn you raise your flag.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/30 04:37:26


Post by: Spoletta


 Mr.Omega wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7Dfq8Mq2S3RawF6Y.jpg

This here is the biggest reason why you will want big squads.

The same action can be performed only by a single unit per round, so if you want to make it, having 4x 5 man squads or a single 20 man squad will change a lot in terms of how easy it will be for your opponent to stop it.


Yeah no in much the same way that the refrain "just take the objectives when you're playing against Tau" has historically sounded great in theory but then falls apart in practice so often

The safer bet will always be to not be forced into a situation where it realistically makes a difference whether you had 5 or 10 men in a squad

Equally, cumulative turns of maxed out firepower on a 11+ model unit is not going to facillitate taking objectives when they can be ripped to shreds with minimal effort from the outset because of the blast weapon bonuses, morale changes and potentially even issues with the new coherency rules



I have won many games against T'au doing exactly that, focusing on scoring. It works. No one forces you to face a castled opponent if you don't need it to win.
Talking about them specifically, killing a small unit with SMS is easy, a bigger one is not. They don't have much else in terms of no LoS shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
A possibly weird change could be if controlling an objective counts the models in a unit rather than models in 3" - but that seems like it could get broken quite quickly, and there is nothing to indicate that's where they are going.

The Raise The Banners High Action gives clear motivation to small units rather than big ones from my reading. Okay a unit of 5 models might get kicked off an objective - but nothing stops you putting 4 such units on the objective versus 1 big squad of 20. And the other 3 units can shoot in the turn you raise your flag.


And then the opponent shoots away your 5 model unit which was taking the action, and it was all for nothing. Only one unit per objective can raise the flag.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/30 06:01:56


Post by: McGibs


Raising the Banner starts at the end of your movement phase, and gets completed at the end of your turn. The enemy can't really do anything to stop it. They have to go an reclaim the objective to turn it off, they can't just shoot the unit that did the action (it already put up it's flag).

BUT, units taking actions cant advance, fallback, shoot or charge while they're doing them, so in the case of Raise the Banners, if you did it with a big expensive 30 man unit, you've now just sacrificed that units combat capability for the turn. I'm sure there will be other actions that make taking large units a bonus, but it sure ain't for that example one.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/30 07:02:06


Post by: Spoletta


 McGibs wrote:
Raising the Banner starts at the end of your movement phase, and gets completed at the end of your turn. The enemy can't really do anything to stop it. They have to go an reclaim the objective to turn it off, they can't just shoot the unit that did the action (it already put up it's flag).

BUT, units taking actions cant advance, fallback, shoot or charge while they're doing them, so in the case of Raise the Banners, if you did it with a big expensive 30 man unit, you've now just sacrificed that units combat capability for the turn. I'm sure there will be other actions that make taking large units a bonus, but it sure ain't for that example one.


Oh that's true I missed that.

So we are going to have actions that are completed in the same turn and actions that require you to make it through the round.... interesting.

I guess that a lot of the balance of 9th edition will be defined by the secondary missions available.


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/30 11:52:52


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:
 McGibs wrote:
Raising the Banner starts at the end of your movement phase, and gets completed at the end of your turn. The enemy can't really do anything to stop it. They have to go an reclaim the objective to turn it off, they can't just shoot the unit that did the action (it already put up it's flag).

BUT, units taking actions cant advance, fallback, shoot or charge while they're doing them, so in the case of Raise the Banners, if you did it with a big expensive 30 man unit, you've now just sacrificed that units combat capability for the turn. I'm sure there will be other actions that make taking large units a bonus, but it sure ain't for that example one.


Oh that's true I missed that.

So we are going to have actions that are completed in the same turn and actions that require you to make it through the round.... interesting.

I guess that a lot of the balance of 9th edition will be defined by the secondary missions available.


I mean, we do not actually know that there will be actions requiring you to make it thru the round. That's pure conjecture at this point from the folks who want to believe there's some bonus to taking larger units in light of the tremendous heap of gak that's been piled on them as if they're some kind of relevant in the current competitive meta


Are horde armies really all that bad? @ 2020/06/30 12:30:08


Post by: Ice_can


Well GW certainly led people down that garden path by previewing a mission that stated you had to hold the objective untill the start of your command phase to score the victory points.

However the newer previews contradict that heavily and allow people to score objectives with actions entirely in their own turn means you'll never be able to interact with them they just automatically get that bonus for holding that objective