So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:
New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.
The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.
The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.
The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.
To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
Honestly? I just assumed they want to suppress horde armies for a sufficiently long period of time so that people who collect those armies become tempted to invest in one of the 'better' armies, then when the individual codex for each horde army comes out they'll give them special rules or stratagems to circumvent some of the 'anti-horde' elements of 9th (along with a general power-boost) to reinvigorate sales of that army.
Look at the SM supplements: They wanted to make SM better, but they couldn't give them just one buff, they had to give them Doctrines and Chapter-specific super-Doctrines and a new suite of Chaplain buffs and a new suite of Librarian buffs and a bunch of extra Stratagems and some new units and price changes, and ended up over-correcting. Same problem here, they wanted to nerf horde armies, but their design team is a federation of warring tribes so every single designer had to get their specific idea for nerfing hordes into the game to justify their presence on the team and it's going to end up over-correcting back again.
The most charitable interpretation I have presumes in playtesting sessions, people were able to stand on objectives unopposed by bringing 300 cultists or grots or Daemonettes or whatever and while yes, not the most killy, it may have been impossible to wipe out and score objectives in 5 turns against that many bodies sitting in defensive buff auras absent things like the Blast rules.
If this was not the case, even then I don't really believe that this is some underhanded and brilliant Just as Planned to sell models; I'm far more inclined to go with Hanlon's Razor on this one, e.g. there are rules writers not talking to one another who couldn't find their arses with 8 hands and an auspex.
The elimination of a kill primary and the reduction of the game to 5 turns means that if horde units aren't seriously discouraged, just taking several hundred models and sitting there all game doing nothing would win games. GW doesn't like that, because GW thinks that's not a good way to play the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: The elimination of a kill primary and the reduction of the game to 5 turns means that if horde units aren't seriously discouraged, just taking several hundred models and sitting there all game doing nothing would win games. GW doesn't like that, because GW thinks that's not a good way to play the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: The elimination of a kill primary and the reduction of the game to 5 turns means that if horde units aren't seriously discouraged, just taking several hundred models and sitting there all game doing nothing would win games. GW doesn't like that, because GW thinks that's not a good way to play the game.
Because it isnt.
Neither is cardhouse alphastrike buffstacking.
And yet gw put that in.
AnomanderRake wrote: Look at the SM supplements: They wanted to make SM better, but they couldn't give them just one buff, they had to give them Doctrines and Chapter-specific super-Doctrines and a new suite of Chaplain buffs and a new suite of Librarian buffs and a bunch of extra Stratagems and some new units and price changes, and ended up over-correcting. Same problem here, they wanted to nerf horde armies, but their design team is a federation of warring tribes so every single designer had to get their specific idea for nerfing hordes into the game to justify their presence on the team and it's going to end up over-correcting back again.
Which is nice and all until you realize that two of the most immediately powerful lists to hit 9th edition were 'As many intercessors as I can fit in a standard deployment zone' and 'as many nurglings as I can possibly get my hands on.
The thing a lot of people in this thread are missing is that hordes are still pretty darn good. Are they top tier competitive? No, but you can go into a game with a 300 model Nid list and unless your opponent throws down 9 wyverns and 3 thud guns, you'll probably do fine.
yukishiro1 wrote: The elimination of a kill primary and the reduction of the game to 5 turns means that if horde units aren't seriously discouraged, just taking several hundred models and sitting there all game doing nothing would win games. GW doesn't like that, because GW thinks that's not a good way to play the game.
Because it isnt.
Neither is cardhouse alphastrike buffstacking.
And yet gw put that in.
Or tack on rules for the tack on GOD.
Difference is that neither of those take 48 hours to get through a standard movement phase.
I suspect that the smaller table size might have something to do with horde discouragement, too... buuuuuut on the other hand, that might be giving too much credit.
Bear in mind that we haven't seen any new Codexes, yet. It looks to be a while before any of the horde armies get one, unfortunately... but the balance could well be redressed when they drop.
And as has been mentioned, horde armies aren't exactly bad right now. Comparing their OP-ness to Marines specifically is a little counter-intuitive, because Marines are so good right now that the comparison doesn't really prove anything. Ask yourself instead how hordes were doing against just about every other non-horde army, with exception to possibly Tau.
yukishiro1 wrote: The elimination of a kill primary and the reduction of the game to 5 turns means that if horde units aren't seriously discouraged, just taking several hundred models and sitting there all game doing nothing would win games. GW doesn't like that, because GW thinks that's not a good way to play the game.
Because it isnt.
I wasn't making a value judgment. What I think doesn't matter to GW. GW doesn't like lists that win by standing around and existing. The horde nerfs are because despite not liking those lists, GW's changes to the board size and mission structure in 9th made that sort of list very strong, so they reacted quite decisively by cutting it off at the knees. It might still work - because after all, the list is just about existing, so being cut off at the knees doesn't necessarily matter - but if it does, you can be sure GW will keep chopping until it doesn't any more.
I dunno, I kinda think if anything it's the opposite - tournament players are a lot more likely to respect the "I win by existing on the board" list than Little Timmy who gets deeply frustrated that all his pewpewing isn't winning him the game.
Sumilidon wrote: So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:
New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.
The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.
The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.
The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.
To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
I suspect this is being done for competitive play. The amount of crying that goes on at high level events about having to lug around 100+ models all day has necessitated the response of making all armies smaller. I am finding it painful to craft an army in 9th with my primaris marines because points as they are, I just can't fit in everything I want.
Even though some of the new rules hurt horde armies it seems unlikely that they were implemented primarily to harm horde armies, if that was even their purpose at all.
For example, the blast weapon rules seem to be an effort to make weapons behave in a more "realistic" way, inflicting greater casualties on densely packed enemies. Likewise, while the new unit coherency rules may restrict things that horde armies were good at (like daisy chaining a unit to stay in range of an aura, or spreading out to deny deep strike) it is more likely that their actual purpose is to make units deploy and move in a more realistic or visually pleasing manner.
Sumilidon wrote: So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:
New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.
The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.
The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.
The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.
To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
I suspect this is being done for competitive play. The amount of crying that goes on at high level events about having to lug around 100+ models all day has necessitated the response of making all armies smaller. I am finding it painful to craft an army in 9th with my primaris marines because points as they are, I just can't fit in everything I want.
But shouldn't "not being able to have everything we want" be a sign of good game design? Force us to make choicecs?
I don't see why horde armies are any less thoughtful or tactical than elite armies or anything else, such things aren't really determined by model count in 40k, unless one's perceptions of horde armies are just repeat iterations of the same large model count units. The game was also never designed or intended for play with clocks in mind.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't see why horde armies are any less thoughtful or tactical than elite armies or anything else, such things aren't really determined by model count in 40k, unless one's perceptions of horde armies are just repeat iterations of the same large model count units. The game was also never designed or intended for play with clocks in mind.
My definition would be 120 to 150 Boyz or more. Because there isn't much else you do other than push models forward and roll lots of dice. It's a novelty. Chess wasn't designed with clocks in mind, either, but they still use them in competitive games.
That's not much different than many other armies except there's just lots of models to move, tactically there's certainly often more going on than many gunline armies that'll throw buckets of dice without bothering to even move forward, or ultra elite armies that'll have the same total unit count just concentrated in smaller numbers of harder to kill models. 120-150 boyz is still probably 4-5 distinct elements of maneuver and often only comprise ~50% of the points in many Ork lists, meaning there's likely other elements doing different things.
Additionally, in Chess both sides have the same force, the clocks aren't impacting one side potentially more than the other in any way aside from player thought/reaction time.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
Sales. They sold so much during 8th that selling more isn't easy. Elites/solo models are less saturated. Thus time to sell those more.
Gw uses rules as way to adjust what sells and aren"t subtle about it.
Horde still works, its just balancing to make sure weapons meant to kill hordes can. In the past a flamer could hit 10+ models, a Blast weapon could hit up to 20 models.
Not its D6... sure a lot of guns got more shots in general but weapons design to kill hordes can now.
Coherency changes are there b.c people conga line with buffs can control 1/2 the board with 2-5 buffs from heroes. And to sell their movement trays.
If you think about it from a sales perspective. Horde armies are not newbie friendly. A newbie starting out in 40k can just buy one or two starter box, round out with some other cool elite or heavy support choices and have an army for a regular 40k army.
But if you want to start off immediately with a horde army as a newbie, think of the number of "same" troop boxes you have to buy.
And then assemble and paint the same models 100 times for a 100 model horde army...
So, my opinion is that GW feels that horde armies are not "newbie" friendly and don't help sales as much as other stuff. Also consider, Horde armies tend to just focus on troop choices and little of much else.
So, all the effort they put into making and releasing cool elite choices, fast attack choices, and heavy support choices in that army is wasted. Thats bad too from GW's perspective.
One final point. Horde armies are not great publicity for GW if they win tourneys. So player A took a all troop horde army and beat every other army out there in a tourney. Hey, here is this guy that beat out all other armies using just mostly troop choices. Its great trumpeting for him, but whats a newbie reading that news going to think? Why am I buying all these cool heavy choices or elite choices when I can just spam one troop choice in an army and win...
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
Sales. They sold so much during 8th that selling more isn't easy. Elites/solo models are less saturated. Thus time to sell those more.
Gw uses rules as way to adjust what sells and aren"t subtle about it.
If they do, I Do not think they are good at it. Not being Subtle is more to how awful at game design they can be.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
Sales. They sold so much during 8th that selling more isn't easy. Elites/solo models are less saturated. Thus time to sell those more.
Gw uses rules as way to adjust what sells and aren"t subtle about it.
If they do, I Do not think they are good at it. Not being Subtle is more to how awful at game design they can be.
Yeah, this idea has been debunked so many times. There are a lot of units that not only aren't good, but have never been good, and yet others that went OOP still not being good.
Sumilidon wrote: So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:
New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.
The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.
The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.
The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.
To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
because having unique different armies is apparently something GW hates
Sim-Life wrote: This is the Tournamenthammer edition. Tournament players hate hordes.
No this is the narrative edition. Narrative players hate balance so we cannot have balance. Thanks knife-ear podcast!
GW seems to take the "Timmy" view on games where they want their power units to be awesome and want things to do exactly what it says on the tin. Big stompy center piece units, named characters, and their pet factions being very powerful or able to do a lot of things. That said they lack the insight into how people think outside the box which is often why they make rules that people can easily find ways to use outside the designers intended purpose. They also lack that min/max optimized play perspective which is why they are often surprised at how tournament players approach the game or how the meta/balance shakes out (meta is a foreign concept it seems to them).
Hordes are exceptionally good in 9th, so something had to be done to help against them. The most important change is the coherency one, which prevents one 40 model unit to simply cover the entire battlefield, which was dumb.
The blast rule is a nerf against MEQ and PEQ units mostly, hordes didn't really care. There are very few blast weapons which are good against hordes, but a lot that love shooting at elite units. The blast rule practically caps MEQ, PEQ, bikes and gravis units at 5 models, making all those extremely good stratagems much worse.
I don't see Hordes suffering in this edition, even if they may have been weakened some. Overall, they took some hits but also took some buffs from mission structure and rule changes. Like the Morale changes provide a pretty large buff to large units, limiting runners to 1+ (1/6th or 1/3rd) and having a roll of 1 auto pass. It's much less leadership attrition than hordes suffered from before.
Blast consequences are also massively overestimated. Many of these weapons are anti-tank/elite and are inefficient choices against hordes anyway. Most of them are d3 or d6 shots, where the expected average additional kill is only a model or two.
Yeah, there are a couple stand out weapon systems that are extremely goods vs. 10+ model units but the overall impact is not nearly the death sentence some folks want to make it out as.
Sumilidon wrote: So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:
New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.
The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.
The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.
The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.
To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
I suspect this is being done for competitive play. The amount of crying that goes on at high level events about having to lug around 100+ models all day has necessitated the response of making all armies smaller. I am finding it painful to craft an army in 9th with my primaris marines because points as they are, I just can't fit in everything I want.
But shouldn't "not being able to have everything we want" be a sign of good game design? Force us to make choicecs?
Yes. But that's not exactly what I mean. I'm finding it hard to fill all of the roles that you would want in a well rounded SM army. I don't mind reducing, but it really does feel like some of these units are just way too expensive, unless I start playing 2500pt games..
Well, 8th Ed gave a bit of a boost to Horde units. With templates gone, they could freely bunch up without fear of Pie Plate Punishment or Flame Template Flagellation.
They could also be strung right out at maximum coherency for oddities of board control.
Blast and updated coherency rules mitigate those of course.
Now, have they swung the pendulum too far? I dunno, haven’t played 9th yet, and nobody has a suitably updated codex.
We can also, possibly, consider the origin of Hordes as know them in 40k. Essentially, that’s 3rd, when the restrictive FoC was first introduced. 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack and 3 Heavy Support, max.
Again, jump to 8th and 9th, the greater variety of FoC templates means we can still flood the board with models, but don’t have to do so in mega blob units. So there’s at least some argument that we don’t need to Horde in the way 3rd - 7th demanded.
Please note I am not drawing conclusions here. I’ve not properly played for years, so limiting my contribution to thoughts for others who are better informed to discuss.
I think the issue is that the people who make 40K are 40K geeks and they enjoy playing the game, so when they find horse armies are hard to defeat they get over excited and make rules to obliterate hordes. Same when they look at buffing SM, they get over excited and build this army of super soldiers.
They should employ people who don’t like playing 40K to test the game. You need to be totally unbiased when testing and feeding back and if your loving that your flamers can reach further or you old marines need to be shot twice to die then maybe you not going to report a fault.
People who proof read books read them backwards, this is my 40K version of that.
Of course I don’t know anyone at GW or anything about their testing process. But if they haven’t recruited anyone who is trained in progressive detailed analytical repetitive testing then I expect they aren’t doing it right.
I am trained in and have done software testing in the past. Playing with new software sounds like fun but that’s not testing. It’s boooooooooooring!
Unpopular take - blast is having a fairly negligible impact on hordes. Certain models are potentially a concern, but by and large the result is kind of meh. An awful lot of *blast* weapons do not want to be shooting hordes and they are inefficient no matter if they get maximum number of shots. (If they have nothing else to shoot at they may as well but still.)
Coherency is something you have to get used to, and not being able to string all across the map is a nerf - but most people didn't abuse it to the maximum extent anyway, and its not that much of a problem once you get used to it. (I think its a bit stupid - and could effect tournaments, but right now opponents are reasonably forgiving if you accidentally pull the wrong model, so its not that much of an issue.)
Which really just leaves the CA20 points changes. And tbh, I think that was a rush job by someone who didn't really care about any consequences. You can go for some post-hoc justifications (i.e. if grots were 3 points you'd stick 90 in your backfield every game to hug objectives and guarantee your primary unless they put in reasonable effort clearing them off...) but I think its more likely just a screw up rather than some great unifying vision of the game. A grot being 5 points doesn't mean anything more than a kabalite being 9 points. Its just a mistake that may or may not ever be fixed.
Also, something that just popped into my head and has not been touched at all:
Horde units are GREAT for doing mission actions. Their offensive output is usually low-to-none, anyways, so not only can they control large amounts of area... but they can score secondaries with little impact on their output. Not a small thing in the current edition.
Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
Sim-Life wrote: This is the Tournamenthammer edition. Tournament players hate hordes.
No this is the narrative edition. Narrative players hate balance so we cannot have balance. Thanks knife-ear podcast!
And these two quotes together is the definition of why you can't please everyone
(For the record, I love hordes and still wish they didn't kneecap them so hard, but hey - some units are both horde AND stupid durable, and those truly are a slog. Even I understand that half the fun of a horde army is seeing them all go pop.)
In my experience the hordes that have not been hit by bonkers points nerfs are performing just fine. Ork boyz, Plaguebearers and other lesser daemons, Tzaangors, GSC Acolytes, Guard infantry squads, etc.
Actions, the new primaries, coupled with new morale is the big thing that makes them better. The strength of a horde unit has always been getting your opponent to have to target them rather than your more expensive stuff, and how well they can survive and continue to help you win the game. It's much much harder to actually WIPE OUT a large unit now, because morale is not a reliable way to do it unless they've got literally a single model left on the board.
The guy in my area playing daemon-heavy nurgle soup is absolutely undefeated in the new edition. he uses ~750 points of deathguard for his killing of units that are a big threat to his units and absolutely squats on the board with a huge sea of plaguebearers and nurglings and he is just impossible to shift. He brings just enough firepower to the table to get rid of 1-2 dedicated anti-infantry vehicles like wyverns, TFCs, whatever, and the rest he just kind of ignores or ties up.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
This is such a silly argument tho. “Most blasts were on anti elite/tank weapons!” . Sure, so the blast rule has very little impact on those circumstances. It doesn’t change the fact that there is still plenty of very relevant blast weapons that want to shoot infantry.
I personally think hordes are fine, at least from what I’ve seen so far. But it’s just misinformation to pretend like blasts don’t matter, in fact it’s probably the most relevant change for hordes that is necessary to stop them completely running away with the meta.
Blast weapons are also not necessarily anti-infantry as their primary weapon. Blast weapons just represent weapons that are particularly devastating to anything they impact. How a LRBT shell targeting a large swarm of tyranids can only muster 2 hits just kind of defies reason.
There are games and lists that will not present a proper target to these iron behemoths of the battlefield... blast rule gives them a secondary role to fill so as to not be totally nullified at list creation. It may not be OPTIMAL to fire a LRBT at a swarm of Necron Warriors, but at least you can take comfort in that it is not a totally pointless endeavor as well.
Horde units have so many advantages, and these advantages usually work to the opposition of vehicles and elites. I know vehicles were the big focal point of the edition change, and I don't think vehicles would be nearly as potent if you just tap them with weak, disposable infantry for the entire game. While scoring primary objectives from ObSec and secondaries with mission actions. Cheap infantry is REALLY good in this edition, and that is finally being captured in their costs.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
This is such a silly argument tho. “Most blasts were on anti elite/tank weapons!” . Sure, so the blast rule has very little impact on those circumstances. It doesn’t change the fact that there is still plenty of very relevant blast weapons that want to shoot infantry.
I personally think hordes are fine, at least from what I’ve seen so far. But it’s just misinformation to pretend like blasts don’t matter, in fact it’s probably the most relevant change for hordes that is necessary to stop them completely running away with the meta.
I can only think of Wyverns honestly. Not much else which is good at taking down hordes. Maybe mortars.
Everything else can shoot at hordes if it does lack a better target, but they surely don't like it.
I'm not saying that the blast rule doesn't affect hordes, obviously it does, but I wouldn't avoid 30 model units just because of that, while you should really think twice before deploying an elite unit bigger than 5 models.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
This is such a silly argument tho. “Most blasts were on anti elite/tank weapons!” . Sure, so the blast rule has very little impact on those circumstances. It doesn’t change the fact that there is still plenty of very relevant blast weapons that want to shoot infantry.
I personally think hordes are fine, at least from what I’ve seen so far. But it’s just misinformation to pretend like blasts don’t matter, in fact it’s probably the most relevant change for hordes that is necessary to stop them completely running away with the meta.
I can only think of Wyverns honestly. Not much else which is good at taking down hordes. Maybe mortars.
Everything else can shoot at hordes if it does lack a better target, but they surely don't like it.
I'm not saying that the blast rule doesn't affect hordes, obviously it does, but I wouldn't avoid 30 model units just because of that, while you should really think twice before deploying an elite unit bigger than 5 models.
The one example that stands out to me are Plague Spitters. Lets use an example of 20 Termagants. A Bloat Drone with twin Plague Spitters is auto hitting with 12 shots, killing on 2s so statistically, 10 should die.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
This is such a silly argument tho. “Most blasts were on anti elite/tank weapons!” . Sure, so the blast rule has very little impact on those circumstances. It doesn’t change the fact that there is still plenty of very relevant blast weapons that want to shoot infantry.
I personally think hordes are fine, at least from what I’ve seen so far. But it’s just misinformation to pretend like blasts don’t matter, in fact it’s probably the most relevant change for hordes that is necessary to stop them completely running away with the meta.
I can only think of Wyverns honestly. Not much else which is good at taking down hordes. Maybe mortars.
Everything else can shoot at hordes if it does lack a better target, but they surely don't like it.
I'm not saying that the blast rule doesn't affect hordes, obviously it does, but I wouldn't avoid 30 model units just because of that, while you should really think twice before deploying an elite unit bigger than 5 models.
The one example that stands out to me are Plague Spitters. Lets use an example of 20 Termagants. A Bloat Drone with twin Plague Spitters is auto hitting with 12 shots, killing on 2s so statistically, 10 should die.
Aren't they Plague Weapons, rerolling Wound Rolls of 1?
Necron Warriors also aren't a swarm and they are very much hurt by high-AP weapons like a battle cannon and they pay a larger premium for their 5++ than Orks do, but once again the talking heads are saying Necron Warriors will be great this edition, I won't hold my breath.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
This is such a silly argument tho. “Most blasts were on anti elite/tank weapons!” . Sure, so the blast rule has very little impact on those circumstances. It doesn’t change the fact that there is still plenty of very relevant blast weapons that want to shoot infantry.
I personally think hordes are fine, at least from what I’ve seen so far. But it’s just misinformation to pretend like blasts don’t matter, in fact it’s probably the most relevant change for hordes that is necessary to stop them completely running away with the meta.
I can only think of Wyverns honestly. Not much else which is good at taking down hordes. Maybe mortars.
Everything else can shoot at hordes if it does lack a better target, but they surely don't like it.
I'm not saying that the blast rule doesn't affect hordes, obviously it does, but I wouldn't avoid 30 model units just because of that, while you should really think twice before deploying an elite unit bigger than 5 models.
The one example that stands out to me are Plague Spitters. Lets use an example of 20 Termagants. A Bloat Drone with twin Plague Spitters is auto hitting with 12 shots, killing on 2s so statistically, 10 should die.
Aren't they Plague Weapons, rerolling Wound Rolls of 1?
Yes, I completely forgot that so statistically, 12 dead
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Edit: Ignore most of what I wrote here. I got the 11+ rule wrong. 6+ is still quite weak though.
Quite a few of the blast weapons also dont get much out of the blast rule since its per weapon and not per die. So a 4d6 gun only really get any benefit out of the blast rule in the rare cases it rolls 5 or less on all 4 dice against an 11+ unit. Against a 6 man unit it does nothing. Same with a. 4d3 Gun against 6 man units. It actually does nothing even if you were to roll only ones.
This really prevents a lot of the artillery from being that good against hordes. Mostly things like missile launchers with a single D6 that now can actually fire the frag round against units and not just use krak against everything.
Klickor wrote: Quite a few of the blast weapons also dont get much out of the blast rule since its per weapon and not per die. So a 4d6 gun only really get any benefit out of the blast rule in the rare cases it rolls 5 or less on all 4 dice against an 11+ unit. Against a 6 man unit it does nothing. Same with a. 4d3 Gun against 6 man units. It actually does nothing even if you were to roll only ones.
This really prevents a lot of the artillery from being that good against hordes. Mostly things like missile launchers with a single D6 that now can actually fire the frag round against units and not just use krak against everything.
I think you need to read the rules for blast again. A 4d6 gun gets 24 shots against a unit with 11+ models, a 4d3 gun gets no benefit against 6+ models, but it fires 12 shots against 11+ models.
Klickor wrote: Quite a few of the blast weapons also dont get much out of the blast rule since its per weapon and not per die. So a 4d6 gun only really get any benefit out of the blast rule in the rare cases it rolls 5 or less on all 4 dice against an 11+ unit. Against a 6 man unit it does nothing. Same with a. 4d3 Gun against 6 man units. It actually does nothing even if you were to roll only ones.
This really prevents a lot of the artillery from being that good against hordes. Mostly things like missile launchers with a single D6 that now can actually fire the frag round against units and not just use krak against everything.
I think you need to read the rules for blast again. A 4d6 gun gets 24 shots against a unit with 11+ models, a 4d3 gun gets no benefit against 6+ models, but it fires 12 shots against 11+ models.
Oh you are right. I got the 11+ one wrong since I just glanced over that one since it doesnt affect me in any way and thought it was worded the same as the 6+ one. I was wrong. If BA gets thunderfire cannons in october it might become relevant. As it is now I dont have any 11+ units or any blast weapons anyway.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
Incorrect.
Unless there's some rule in play concerning target priority, my troops weapons don't get a preference. I decide what to shoot at & with what. And if I deem that to be a hoard? Then I'll hit it with enough of whatever's needed/in range/in LoS to accomplish the job.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Soooo..mostly Imperial and Chaos stuff...got it
I'm sorry, what on that list besides frag grenades is available to chaos? Remember, gw killed R&H, those guard weapons are gone from the spikey hordes.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Soooo..mostly Imperial and Chaos stuff...got it
I mean in the holy trinity of Imperium - Chaos - Xenos, I think you’ll find amongst the playerbase most the weight sits on the first one and then trickles to the second one. So it’s meta dependant but almost definitely something you should take into account list building.
In fact most Xenos have some relevant blast weapons, the only reason I didn’t list them is because Xenos aren’t really as relevant as Imperium tbh and I just reached for the first examples on hand
AnomanderRake wrote: Squad per slot. If you want more Guardsmen you either need to stretch detachments or run Conscripts (50 model squads).
Just a real quick comment as I read the thread:
Conscripts haven't been able to do 50 model squads since the Codex dropped in 8th. Going from the Index to Codex dropped them down to 20 models base and then 30 models max.
They also cannot be targeted by "Consolidate Squads" stratagem, unless there's an FAQ I've missed, because it specifies Infantry Squads not infantry squads.
Sorry if you think I'm picking on you here Anomander, it just really stuck out at me. This is the kind of thing that I am usually talking about when I comment with regards to some people still not 'getting' what Guard are doing with regards to their core unit(the 10 model strong, no variable size beyond a Stratagem Infantry Squads) and why I thought the whole Horde+Blast thing was kinda daft.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Soooo..mostly Imperial and Chaos stuff...got it
I'm sorry, what on that list besides frag grenades is available to chaos? Remember, gw killed R&H, those guard weapons are gone from the spikey hordes.
Well i guess we can throw havoc launchers on everything i guess.
AnomanderRake wrote: Squad per slot. If you want more Guardsmen you either need to stretch detachments or run Conscripts (50 model squads).
Just a real quick comment as I read the thread:
Conscripts haven't been able to do 50 model squads since the Codex dropped in 8th. Going from the Index to Codex dropped them down to 20 models base and then 30 models max.
They also cannot be targeted by "Consolidate Squads" stratagem, unless there's an FAQ I've missed, because it specifies Infantry Squads not infantry squads.
Sorry if you think I'm picking on you here Anomander, it just really stuck out at me. This is the kind of thing that I am usually talking about when I comment with regards to some people still not 'getting' what Guard are doing with regards to their core unit(the 10 model strong, no variable size beyond a Stratagem Infantry Squads) and why I thought the whole Horde+Blast thing was kinda daft.
could be they'll bring back large consrcipt squads in the 9E Guard 'dex mind you.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Soooo..mostly Imperial and Chaos stuff...got it
I'm sorry, what on that list besides frag grenades is available to chaos? Remember, gw killed R&H, those guard weapons are gone from the spikey hordes.
This is a shonky argument and you know it. I’m no Chaos expert, but off the top of my head, you’ve also got Frag Missiles, Havoc Launcher, Vindicators, Battle Cannons, Blasmaster, Blight Grenades etc. Full list on page 359 of the rule book.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Soooo..mostly Imperial and Chaos stuff...got it
I'm sorry, what on that list besides frag grenades is available to chaos? Remember, gw killed R&H, those guard weapons are gone from the spikey hordes.
This is a shonky argument and you know it. I’m no Chaos expert, but off the top of my head, you’ve also got Frag Missiles, Havoc Launcher, Vindicators, Battle Cannons, Blasmaster, Blight Grenades etc. Full list on page 359 of the rule book.
Yes, but none of those are on Nitro Zeus's list, which is what I was referring to. There's lots of Xenos weapons on that page as well. Want a list of those? Pick a species.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Wyverns, Mortars, Airfrag projectors, Aeldari Missile Launchers, normal ass frag grenades, Fragstorm Aggressors, Thunderfire Cannons, etc etc
Plenty of blast weapons that hit hordes. People aren’t filling their anti-infantry slots with LRBT, blast on those weapons is just an added bonus for the few times it might be relevant.
Soooo..mostly Imperial and Chaos stuff...got it
I'm sorry, what on that list besides frag grenades is available to chaos? Remember, gw killed R&H, those guard weapons are gone from the spikey hordes.
This is a shonky argument and you know it. I’m no Chaos expert, but off the top of my head, you’ve also got Frag Missiles, Havoc Launcher, Vindicators, Battle Cannons, Blasmaster, Blight Grenades etc. Full list on page 359 of the rule book.
Yes, but none of those are on Nitro Zeus's list, which is what I was referring to. There's lots of Xenos weapons on that page as well. Want a list of those? Pick a species.
Hrud.
...
In all seriousness, it looks like Nitro just pulled a list together with around a half-dozen items from their short-term memory. No malice in that, nor in Blndmage's comment.
If we look at vict0988's post from earlier in the thread, there are plenty of Xenos and Chaos options in both the anti-infantry category and the anti-everything category - though I need to stop reading the high-capacitance railgun as the high-cappuccino railgun.
Can we knock this particular tangent on the head now?
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
Incorrect.
Unless there's some rule in play concerning target priority, my troops weapons don't get a preference. I decide what to shoot at & with what. And if I deem that to be a hoard? Then I'll hit it with enough of whatever's needed/in range/in LoS to accomplish the job.
Sorry to break this to you, but your weapons do get a preference. There are things they are good at and things they are not good at. Just because You decide to shoot at a grot squad with a rift cannon, it doesn't make it good against that target. Your argument is nonsense.
I don't have a problem with GW hating hordes, PROVIDED that they give the armies that traditionally play hordes an alternative way to play.
And yes, horde armies got gak-ed.
"But blast weapons became more expensive". No gak sherlock, so did the horde models. A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A unit of 30 hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Only the hormagaunts do exactly what they did before and the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
As for the morale change being in favor of hordes, the two most popular horde armies (orks and tyranids) don't care about morale in the first place so the change wasn't made for them and it does not work as a consolation for them.
If the troop slot of the Ork codex is just boyz or grotz, then what the frack is the Ork player supposed to fill his list with?
If the Tyranid troop slot has termagants, hormagaunts, genestealers (all of which play more than 10 models per unit), why should I have to put all of them up my private parts and just play warriors and rippers, just because GW decided that horde armies can gak themselves AND they offer no alternative?
Playing horde does not mean I field 300 termagants and nothing else. People only fielded 300 termagants because most options in the Nid codex is gak and because that was the only way to survive the marine onslaught. It was a reaction, not an action.
I want to be able to play a nice all around list with monsters, some long range shooters, couple of melee threats and yes, 60-80 gribbles running around contesting objectives because that's how Tyranids are designed to play. But then I begin the game with my gribbles dead on board, not because the opponent tailored his list to match me, but because the same things he brought before sudenly became perfect in killing gribbles.
Spoletta wrote: Most of the anti hordes blasts have been severely increased in cost. The few good reamining ones (mostly the AM ones) rapresent only a small percentage of the blast weapons. The vast majority of it prefer targeting elite targets.
Incorrect.
Unless there's some rule in play concerning target priority, my troops weapons don't get a preference. I decide what to shoot at & with what. And if I deem that to be a hoard? Then I'll hit it with enough of whatever's needed/in range/in LoS to accomplish the job.
Sorry to break this to you, but your weapons do get a preference. There are things they are good at and things they are not good at. Just because You decide to shoot at a grot squad with a rift cannon, it doesn't make it good against that target. Your argument is nonsense.
No, the weapons don't get a vote. There may be targets they are designed to be better (or worse) at killing, but they don't get to choose the target. Apparently that's player agency, or something, not weapon agency.
If your weapons do appear to be voting, I recommend seeking medical help.
It's simple actually. a battlecannon is good when shooting at heavy targets (well it's not really good at anything but it was made for killing heavy targets). But now against hordes it gets 6 shots for free. So it is good at shooting heavy targets and -if need be- it is also decent at shooting hordes as well.
Suddenly, if your army was already bringing 4 - 5 battle cannons, you might as well get by bringing less anti-horde options because when you need to, you got 24-30 shots available.
I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise of the thread, TBH. I think hordes are likely going to turn out to be just fine. There's a perception issue at work because there are a couple of rules that specifically affect hordes and it's certainly true some horde units were hit pretty hard in the points update, but some non-horde units were also screwed over by that debacle too.
In reality I think the meta will likely settle somewhere in the middle, possibly leaning towards more elite armies, with hordes being viable in some situations and for some armies because the super-efficient anti-horde weapons (of which there are fewer than people think) simply won't be very common in most lists because they're usually not that efficient at killing non-horde units. The Wyvern is the best example here. It's got a terrifying number of shots against hordes, but that's only relevant if you ever have to face one. It's been a good 3 editions since I last saw one, I think, and that's not likely to change while their cost remains too high to include one in the hope you end up facing horde that you can't deal with using weapons that are better all-rounder choices.
Slipspace wrote: I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise of the thread, TBH. I think hordes are likely going to turn out to be just fine. There's a perception issue at work because there are a couple of rules that specifically affect hordes and it's certainly true some horde units were hit pretty hard in the points update, but some non-horde units were also screwed over by that debacle too.
In reality I think the meta will likely settle somewhere in the middle, possibly leaning towards more elite armies, with hordes being viable in some situations and for some armies because the super-efficient anti-horde weapons (of which there are fewer than people think) simply won't be very common in most lists because they're usually not that efficient at killing non-horde units. The Wyvern is the best example here. It's got a terrifying number of shots against hordes, but that's only relevant if you ever have to face one. It's been a good 3 editions since I last saw one, I think, and that's not likely to change while their cost remains too high to include one in the hope you end up facing horde that you can't deal with using weapons that are better all-rounder choices.
You got that backwards. You haven't seen horde armies for three editions BECAUSE things like Wyverns exist. Not that Wyvern won't justify its presence because there are no horde armies.
As for the horde vs non horde armies getting screwed by points debacle:
A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A suad of hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Difference is, hormagaunts do exactly the same thing they did before, but the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I don't have a problem with GW hating hordes, PROVIDED that they give the armies that traditionally play hordes an alternative way to play.
And yes, horde armies got gak-ed.
"But blast weapons became more expensive". No gak sherlock, so did the horde models. A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A unit of 30 hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Only the hormagaunts do exactly what they did before and the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
As for the morale change being in favor of hordes, the two most popular horde armies (orks and tyranids) don't care about morale in the first place so the change wasn't made for them and it does not work as a consolation for them.
If the troop slot of the Ork codex is just boyz or grotz, then what the frack is the Ork player supposed to fill his list with?
If the Tyranid troop slot has termagants, hormagaunts, genestealers (all of which play more than 10 models per unit), why should I have to put all of them up my private parts and just play warriors and rippers, just because GW decided that horde armies can gak themselves AND they offer no alternative?
Playing horde does not mean I field 300 termagants and nothing else. People only fielded 300 termagants because most options in the Nid codex is gak and because that was the only way to survive the marine onslaught. It was a reaction, not an action.
I want to be able to play a nice all around list with monsters, some long range shooters, couple of melee threats and yes, 60-80 gribbles running around contesting objectives because that's how Tyranids are designed to play. But then I begin the game with my gribbles dead on board, not because the opponent tailored his list to match me, but because the same things he brought before sudenly became perfect in killing gribbles.
And what if a Custodes player wants to play cheap hoards? Armies can't do everything that's just a fact of life for 40k (even Marines can't do everything, we don't exactly have a cheap hoard unit and rumor has it scouts are moving into elites)
All BLAST does it make weapons that used blast templates back before 8th edition goty rid of them, once more, more effective vs large formations of troops. that's something 8th edition screwed up and GW is correcting.
TLDR, 9th edition isn't anti-hoard, 8th edition was just pro-hoard
Wot? A custodes army isn't meant or designed to be a horde army. An Ork and a Nid army are meant to be played as hordes. It's in their rulebook, it's in their fluff, it's in their past 25 years of history. I also can't play 2+ supersoldiers in my Nid army but that's part of how the army plays, and I didn't see any weapon changes to specifically ruin super terminator type armies.
No, the blast weapon does not revert back to previous template editions at all. First of all blast templates needed to roll for scatter. Second there was no way that a small blast from , say, a battle cannon could hit 6 termagants if they were not clamped on each other, and third a small blast from said battle cannon would hit the same number of 3-4 termagants out of a unit of 30 as it would hit 3-4 marines out of a group of 7-8.
And if 8th edition was so pro-horde, where were all them horde armies dominating the tournament scene?
BrianDavion wrote: TLDR, 9th edition isn't anti-hoard, 8th edition was just pro-hoard
There's a sort of argument that can be made for the CA missions being pro-horde - but tournaments rarely if ever worked out this way.
I think there is a powerful argument that *blast* makes it unlikely horde could ever be meta dominant - but arguably that hasn't changed. In 8th if you knew something like 40% of lists were going to be Green Tide, you can easily tailor a list with most factions that would expect to clear 90~ boys a turn which would stack the odds in your favour.
Its just that... most of the time you didn't encounter that. The number of horde lists at a tournament probably didn't get much above 10-15%. If you wanted to win you'd therefore be much more sensible tailoring for knights, Ynnari or flyer spam (or both), and then Marines, other Marines and Marines. The reason I think you regularly saw a green tide style build get through (although very rarely win the whole thing) was that if you are packing nothing but Damage 2 or higher weapons, you often can't clear enough boyz in time.
The fear was that every army could just say pack in a few missile launchers and go "right, can destroy any horde lists, now back to working out how to crack marines/custodes/death guard etc." I don't think that's proven the case - although obviously its early days. Things like Wyverns may be an issue - but then wyverns are terrible against those tougher, seemingly stronger lists, so I'm not sure how meta relevant they are going to be. Similar story for say mortars.
Which would suggest the issue will be list tailoring against your friendly local player who you know is bringing a horde - but arguably that's been an issue at least all through 8th and arguably forever.
As someone who regularly plays a Guard horde, blast weapons aren't what wakes me up sweating in the middle of the night. It's certain Space Marine units that have just so much anti-infantry firepower (like aggressors. Those things are just insane). That's where the real danger lies. Perhaps Wyverns and the like could do some real damage as well, but they're not the main threat in the current meta.
Dolnikan wrote: As someone who regularly plays a Guard horde, blast weapons aren't what wakes me up sweating in the middle of the night. It's certain Space Marine units that have just so much anti-infantry firepower (like aggressors. Those things are just insane). That's where the real danger lies. Perhaps Wyverns and the like could do some real damage as well, but they're not the main threat in the current meta.
The problem with Blast is that you now simply don't have to take aggressors in the list any more. You can build a list full of krak missiles to mess with heavy units, and still have a metric frackton of frag shots if you happen to meet the occasional horde army out there.
Much as I hate the thunderfire, it went from having 8 shots to having 12 against hordes. A havoc launcher is really good in 9th. For 5 pts I can get 6 str 5 shots against hordes. But I could get 3.5 anyways and it was still useless against tanks so I can live with that. But if I build a list with 12 krak missiles and 6 battle cannons, I do pretty damn good against heavy and if I ever meet the orks, I still have 120 shots per turn from these weapons alone.
I don't think blast weapons pay enough points for the versatility they just got.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Wot? A custodes army isn't meant or designed to be a horde army. An Ork and a Nid army are meant to be played as hordes. It's in their rulebook, it's in their fluff, it's in their past 25 years of history. I also can't play 2+ supersoldiers in my Nid army but that's part of how the army plays, and I didn't see any weapon changes to specifically ruin super terminator type armies.
No, the blast weapon does not revert back to previous template editions at all. First of all blast templates needed to roll for scatter. Second there was no way that a small blast from , say, a battle cannon could hit 6 termagants if they were not clamped on each other, and third a small blast from said battle cannon would hit the same number of 3-4 termagants out of a unit of 30 as it would hit 3-4 marines out of a group of 7-8.
And if 8th edition was so pro-horde, where were all them horde armies dominating the tournament scene?
the bit about custodes not being hoard is kinda my point. complaining that Orks don't have an option for running elites instead of Boyz is the same as complainining custodes don't have a hoard option.
as for 8th being pro-hoard, I do remember times when guard where running top. that changed yes, but as early as the Index days I recall commenting that we needed a blast keyword to make blast weapons a choice for dealing with hoards. because what we had was artillery dealing 1d6 hits vs a machine gun that had 6 shots.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Wot? A custodes army isn't meant or designed to be a horde army. An Ork and a Nid army are meant to be played as hordes. It's in their rulebook, it's in their fluff, it's in their past 25 years of history. I also can't play 2+ supersoldiers in my Nid army but that's part of how the army plays, and I didn't see any weapon changes to specifically ruin super terminator type armies.
No, the blast weapon does not revert back to previous template editions at all. First of all blast templates needed to roll for scatter. Second there was no way that a small blast from , say, a battle cannon could hit 6 termagants if they were not clamped on each other, and third a small blast from said battle cannon would hit the same number of 3-4 termagants out of a unit of 30 as it would hit 3-4 marines out of a group of 7-8.
And if 8th edition was so pro-horde, where were all them horde armies dominating the tournament scene?
the bit about custodes not being hoard is kinda my point. complaining that Orks don't have an option for running elites instead of Boyz is the same as complainining custodes don't have a hoard option.
as for 8th being pro-hoard, I do remember times when guard where running top. that changed yes, but as early as the Index days I recall commenting that we needed a blast keyword to make blast weapons a choice for dealing with hoards. because what we had was artillery dealing 1d6 hits vs a machine gun that had 6 shots.
On custodes vs Orks, the point is that 9th edition developed new rules specifically designed to kill hordes better, then it slapped said rule onto more than 150 different weapons in the game. But they didn't develop any new rule specifically designed to kill custodes better.
Also my problem with blast is that the weapons that got it do not pay any premium points for being able to kill stuff better. And if an already anti-infantry weapon got blast that's one thing, just doing the same thing a little better. But I can honestly now just make a list with nothing else other than 30 missile launchers, and while you would expect that I would be doing great against heavy and getting screwed vs hordes, suddenly WAIT! I also have 180 shots per turn against hordes now basically for free. So now I don't need to bring dedicated anti-infantry at all (which would be useless against heavy armies).
Guard was being top not by playing hordes but by playing all the tanks and scion plasma drops. And Guard power only lasted for like 2 months or so at the beginning of the edition anyways.
TLDR, 9th edition isn't anti-hoard, 8th edition was just pro-hoard
Nonsense. 8th edition was, like any other edition, pro SM. Which aren't an horde army at all.
Among all broken combos of 8th only a few ones were horde oriented. I remember Guilliman and his goons, 5 stormravens, the castellan, aeldari cheese, etc.
the bit about custodes not being hoard is kinda my point. complaining that Orks don't have an option for running elites instead of Boyz is the same as complainining custodes don't have a hoard option.
Comparing orks with custodes isn't right. Orks are a major army and a stand alone faction while custodes are a small subfaction and belong to the widest big faction. Compare orks with SM and custodes with harlequins or something like that.
The point about orks is that they can either run horde troops and get hit by 9th rules that punish large squads or go elites with less CPs or pure tax units, as a small amount of boyz (1-2 30 man mobs or multiple smaller squads) don't work very well. Custodes don't run tax units, nor they are punished by 9th edition rules for being elite oriented. And they are a faction with way lesser units and options than orks.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I don't have a problem with GW hating hordes, PROVIDED that they give the armies that traditionally play hordes an alternative way to play.
And yes, horde armies got gak-ed.
"But blast weapons became more expensive". No gak sherlock, so did the horde models. A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A unit of 30 hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Only the hormagaunts do exactly what they did before and the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
As for the morale change being in favor of hordes, the two most popular horde armies (orks and tyranids) don't care about morale in the first place so the change wasn't made for them and it does not work as a consolation for them.
If the troop slot of the Ork codex is just boyz or grotz, then what the frack is the Ork player supposed to fill his list with?
I
I've been doing fine with Boyz, in either horde or trukk boy form.
You got that backwards. You haven't seen horde armies for three editions BECAUSE things like Wyverns exist. Not that Wyvern won't justify its presence because there are no horde armies.
That doesn't make sense. Since I never saw a Wyvern their effect on the meta is irrelevant. It's not enough for an option to exist, it has to be good enough to include in a TAC army in order to have any real effect on the meta. 8th saw its fair share of horde armies doing well at various points too, from the IG Conscript hordes to Plaguebearer spam and even the very early Razorwing Flock and Horror spam lists, hordes were pretty effective at various times and not so good at others.
I suspect the same will remain true in 9th. The core rules themselves aren't as hostile to hordes as some people think and the practicalities of army building for the meta will mean most of the really good anti-horde weapons won't be taken unless hordes really start to swing the meta in their favour. In which case that'd be fine, kinda like how D2 weapons suddenly became so much more important once Primaris actually got good.
I don't really know that there was a huge hit to horde armies, honestly. I've been playing Tyranids, and I play 30 hormogaunts, 30 termagaunts, 30 gargoyles, and 20 genestealers with the big bugs to go with them (cause that's how I see them play) and the board control of a 30 model unit is really strong in 9th.
Yes, they are more expensive, yes blast weapons hurt, but I think it HAS to be that way given the smaller board and the importance of objectives and obsec as a rule.
I don't think they're as bad as people make them out to be. I've been testing larger hordes, and there does seem to be a point where it's just too much, but typically in that 130 model range, unless your opponent is taking a bunch of punisher leman Russ commanders, its been very difficult to chew through.
Backed up with some big bugs, either hiveguard (though maybe just a bit too expensive now, I'm not sure, they're still really good) or tyrannofexes (3 of them with big flamer things is freaking hilarious) having that many obsec models does put your opponent in quite the target priority situation. Kill the big bugs that can get work done, or kill the little ones that will win them the game?
I don't know man, I think they are better than people think. Hell, I think Tyranids are WAY better than people think they are.
You got that backwards. You haven't seen horde armies for three editions BECAUSE things like Wyverns exist. Not that Wyvern won't justify its presence because there are no horde armies.
That doesn't make sense. Since I never saw a Wyvern their effect on the meta is irrelevant. It's not enough for an option to exist, it has to be good enough to include in a TAC army in order to have any real effect on the meta. 8th saw its fair share of horde armies doing well at various points too, from the IG Conscript hordes to Plaguebearer spam and even the very early Razorwing Flock and Horror spam lists, hordes were pretty effective at various times and not so good at others.
I suspect the same will remain true in 9th. The core rules themselves aren't as hostile to hordes as some people think and the practicalities of army building for the meta will mean most of the really good anti-horde weapons won't be taken unless hordes really start to swing the meta in their favour. In which case that'd be fine, kinda like how D2 weapons suddenly became so much more important once Primaris actually got good.
Yeah I've actually kept track. I have taken 11+ model units into every single game of 9th ed so far, have played against ZERO melee armies (all space marine subtypes, unsurprisingly enough) and have had a weapon get additional hits from the Blast rule 2 times. Once, a battlecannon rolled a 1 and got 3 instead (and promptly missed 2 shots because it was a defiler) and once a thunderfire cannon got full hits on a unit of Hellions.
Slipspace wrote: I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise of the thread, TBH. I think hordes are likely going to turn out to be just fine. There's a perception issue at work because there are a couple of rules that specifically affect hordes and it's certainly true some horde units were hit pretty hard in the points update, but some non-horde units were also screwed over by that debacle too.
In reality I think the meta will likely settle somewhere in the middle, possibly leaning towards more elite armies, with hordes being viable in some situations and for some armies because the super-efficient anti-horde weapons (of which there are fewer than people think) simply won't be very common in most lists because they're usually not that efficient at killing non-horde units. The Wyvern is the best example here. It's got a terrifying number of shots against hordes, but that's only relevant if you ever have to face one. It's been a good 3 editions since I last saw one, I think, and that's not likely to change while their cost remains too high to include one in the hope you end up facing horde that you can't deal with using weapons that are better all-rounder choices.
You got that backwards. You haven't seen horde armies for three editions BECAUSE things like Wyverns exist. Not that Wyvern won't justify its presence because there are no horde armies.
As for the horde vs non horde armies getting screwed by points debacle:
A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A suad of hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Difference is, hormagaunts do exactly the same thing they did before, but the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
You are double wrong.
First of all the thunderfire cannon increased by 48 points, not 30.
Secondly what matters is the percentage increase. Hormagaunts increased by 20%, TFC increased by 52%. It is now passable against hordes (28% return) and bad against all other targets, so you will not see them as much as you did in 8th.
Secondly what matters is the percentage increase. Hormagaunts increased by 20%, TFC increased by 52%. It is now passable against hordes (28% return) and bad against all other targets, so you will not see them as much as you did in 8th.
This is wrong. What matters is how much the unit costs now. Consider armies that need 3x5 man squads to fill up a battallion vs those ones which rely on 3x30 man squads. Even if those 5 dudes increased in percentage way more than the horde units it'd be like a +30/45 points on the entire list vs +90 points.
An infantry model could go up by 2 or 3 points without affecting the army by much because it just needs a few of those bodies. Going up by 1 is significant when the army doesn't work outside bringing 90+ of those "cheap" models.
The +1ppm on ork boyz is a bigger nerf than the +3ppm on intercessors.
I don't think they're as bad as people make them out to be. I've been testing larger hordes, and there does seem to be a point where it's just too much, but typically in that 130 model range, unless your opponent is taking a bunch of punisher leman Russ commanders, its been very difficult to chew through.
130 models aren't an horde at 2000 points. An horde is 180+ models, tipycally 220-300.
could be they'll bring back large consrcipt squads in the 9E Guard 'dex mind you.
I don't see them doing that without stripping the <Regiment> tag, finally, from Conscripts and degrading their saves or the like.
But hey, what do I know. Whoever keeps spearheading the Guard book seems intent on making them into a NPC faction despite what people say here about them being OP.
Slipspace wrote: I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise of the thread, TBH. I think hordes are likely going to turn out to be just fine. There's a perception issue at work because there are a couple of rules that specifically affect hordes and it's certainly true some horde units were hit pretty hard in the points update, but some non-horde units were also screwed over by that debacle too.
In reality I think the meta will likely settle somewhere in the middle, possibly leaning towards more elite armies, with hordes being viable in some situations and for some armies because the super-efficient anti-horde weapons (of which there are fewer than people think) simply won't be very common in most lists because they're usually not that efficient at killing non-horde units. The Wyvern is the best example here. It's got a terrifying number of shots against hordes, but that's only relevant if you ever have to face one. It's been a good 3 editions since I last saw one, I think, and that's not likely to change while their cost remains too high to include one in the hope you end up facing horde that you can't deal with using weapons that are better all-rounder choices.
You got that backwards. You haven't seen horde armies for three editions BECAUSE things like Wyverns exist. Not that Wyvern won't justify its presence because there are no horde armies.
As for the horde vs non horde armies getting screwed by points debacle:
A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A suad of hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Difference is, hormagaunts do exactly the same thing they did before, but the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
You are double wrong.
First of all the thunderfire cannon increased by 48 points, not 30.
Secondly what matters is the percentage increase. Hormagaunts increased by 20%, TFC increased by 52%. It is now passable against hordes (28% return) and bad against all other targets, so you will not see them as much as you did in 8th.
Percentage increase would only make sense if there was a consensus that in the previous edition the units were balanced. Otherwise it's moot. If the Thunderfire was undercosted in 8th (and it was) it makes sense to get more of a hike now. If the hormagaunts were overcosted in 8th (and they were) it doesn't really make sense for them to get any price hike now but here we are anyways.
Additionally, one unit of 30 hormas won't make a horde list (yet still will get punished by said thunderfire just the same). For the horde you will need 200 hormagaunts plus support, which means that the horde aspect itself went up by 200 pts. So you could bring 4 thunderfire cannons if you wanted and you would still be getting a better deal than the horde list.
Plus, one thunderfire is still enough to double tremor shells two enemy units out of the game AND still get to actually screw up with horde lists anyways.
My point is, I don't think any of the blast weapons (all 150+ of them) are paying enough points premium for the upside of being able to completely smash large units.
A thunderfire went up 30 pts. A suad of hormagaunts also went up 30 pts. Difference is, hormagaunts do exactly the same thing they did before, but the thunderfire got max shots against them for basically free.
TFC went up 49.
topaxygouroun i wrote: It's simple actually. a battlecannon is good when shooting at heavy targets (well it's not really good at anything but it was made for killing heavy targets). But now against hordes it gets 6 shots for free. So it is good at shooting heavy targets and -if need be- it is also decent at shooting hordes as well.
Suddenly, if your army was already bringing 4 - 5 battle cannons, you might as well get by bringing less anti-horde options because when you need to, you got 24-30 shots available.
This misses a lot. If your opponent was nothing but hordes then, sure, you have "less" to worry about. But if there is a mix of hordes and big targets are you shooting BC at hormagaunts still?
130 models is nothing. on 5ppm units that's 650 pts. You still have 1350 pts to put in your list.
You know what 130 models is? 3 terma/horma units and 2 units of stealers. That's it. Baseline troops selection of a Tyranid army. Haven't even counted hive guard monsters and HQ at all.
This misses a lot. If your opponent was nothing but hordes then, sure, you have "less" to worry about. But if there is a mix of hordes and big targets are you shooting BC at hormagaunts still?
I can shoot at both and be good against both. And for this kind of versatility, blast weapons should be costed higher.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
Instead of us imagining one why don't you write one? How many armies can realistically take a TAC list with 30 missile launchers in it? You need to pay for the units to take those weapons as well as the weapons themselves. I don't think SM can get anywhere near 30 without compromising the rest of the army. IG might be able to, but they're BS4 and fragile. You seem really hung up on what the worst case scenario could be for hordes without taking into account the need for armies to be balanced against all types of lists and targets. It might look like taking nothing but missile launchers gives you the best of both worlds, but that generalist niche has been their thing since 1st edition and they've rarely been the best choice in any army in all that time. They've also rarely been terrible. I don't think they're going to start being OP now.
Yeah, seriously. Run like, the most classic possible ork list, Goffs with Ghazghkull, Weirdboy with Warpath, Painboy, Waaagh Nob and a KFF mek and then just a ton of boyz. With a few units like meks/kommandos dedicated to dropping in to be annoying and score secondaries, you'll find it's a ridiculously strong list even against the meta big-bads. AP-2 Intercessors? Eh, I got T4, 5++ and 6+FNP, and I can spend CP to resurrect boyz squads.
The new missions force your opponent to come towards the middle or they just absolutely auto-lose. If they sit in their DZ and grind you out for 5 turns, the end of the game will be like "Welp, looks like the score is 85, and you scored....30 from "Hold 1 Objective" and "Kill Boyz" secondary. GG!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Honestly, hordes are extremely strong in this edition due to the missions.
The rules to counter hordes like blast or coherency barely make up for that.
If you wanna play 200+ Ork boyz or Gaunts or so, give it a shot. Trust me, you'll win far more games than you expect.
Also the number of times I have had a 10-man squad reduced down to like 4 models, fail morale and lose 1-2 guys, and those 2 dudes remaining secure an objective and they're both the special/heavy weapons from my squad.... *Chef's Kiss*
The problem is the pants on head stupid point adjustment, which heavily screws people who aren't like me and don't have huge collections, so they can't just be like "well, looks like Aberrants, Metamorphs, and Genestealers were priced by a chimp throwing its gak at a number chart on a wall, guess my big melee bomb is going to be Acolytes and the rest of the army is going to be mounted up Neophytes for the forseeable future!"
Percentage increase would only make sense if there was a consensus that in the previous edition the units were balanced.
Previous -- 91 points of TFC killed 22 points of horms (4 to 5) -- 24%
Current -- 140 points of TFC kills 40 points of horms (6 to 7) -- 28%
So you can see a slight increase in effectiveness, but this occurs only at 11+. Any other targets weakens how useful the TFC has become. It still has other utility so it should still be popular.
The end result is nothing oppressive though. You could presume a CPT/LT nearby, but I don't expect that to be a workable strategy in this edition.
I can shoot at both and be good against both. And for this kind of versatility, blast weapons should be costed higher.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
Opportunity cost. You wouldn't be able to make a functional list with that level of weapon counts though. You could stack blast and guard against hordes, but then you would be potentially lacking weapons like MM, which are far more effective than a krak missile.
130 models is nothing. on 5ppm units that's 650 pts. You still have 1350 pts to put in your list.
You know what 130 models is? 3 terma/horma units and 2 units of stealers. That's it. Baseline troops selection of a Tyranid army. Haven't even counted hive guard monsters and HQ at all.
This misses a lot. If your opponent was nothing but hordes then, sure, you have "less" to worry about. But if there is a mix of hordes and big targets are you shooting BC at hormagaunts still?
I can shoot at both and be good against both. And for this kind of versatility, blast weapons should be costed higher.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
130 models is an horde in any way you want to cut it.
Also, don't try to crawl your way out of it. You said that the TFC was left equally efficent compared to 8th. You were shown that you were wrong. Point closed, let's move with the thread.
viable horde (gaurd) for this edition (also viable ANTI horde)
Spoiler:
creed company commander astropath platoon commander 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
company commander psyker primaris astropath platoon commander 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
company commander psyker primaris astropath platoon commander 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher 10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
That leaves you 330 points to tailor the list (try to pick things that don't care a GREAT deal about command points) but I suggest something like 3 heavy weapon squads (armed with missle launchers) 3 scout sentinals (armed with missle launchers) 1 commisar (armed with your basic bolt pistol and powersword, cause that's maybe the first model I ever made). Or, just as viably, 3 command squads with 4 grenade launcher each 3 special weapons squads with 3 melta each. ministerium priest 5 powerswords among various troops or officers.
That last option, you can spring the meltas from board edge on turn 2, the first one, you get a brigadge + battalion so you end up with 14+2-3= 13 command points, just unheard of in 9th with a horde, and 9 missle launchers on the first turn (tended by creed himself) rerolling all misses? Is not too shabby as an opener.
Viola. you got your 180 troops, which is, well, objective secured. Odds are high the enemy will try to "thin the ranks" and succeed, but he will have to work to thin all those ranks before you score whatever you want from him. You can also do an surprising amount of damage to a target that isn't expecting that sort of stuff, when you lock old grudges on that pesky 6 aggressor squad, and proceed to shoot it with 27 missles, all but maybe 3 of them at +1 to hit (interlocked fields of fire, horde style) which is enouhg to bring you up to an average of 12 hits even while moving very quickly, or more like 20 hits if you are so nervous you really want the aggressors gone. Relic of lost cadia comes into play on turn 1, granting reroll 1's to hit and wound for your army when on the move. A few units will get movemovemove'd AND be able to shoot, with laurels of command to stack orders, so you can snag forward objectives and still plink away. Again, you don't have to WIN the armor duel phase of the game, you just cherry pick targets that threaten to kill lots of horde, and target those, leaving an enemy well suited to blowing up knights with his meltas and lascannons who is no longer a big threat to your horde.
I reckon its viable as much as anything in this crazy world of 9.alphatest
130 models is nothing. on 5ppm units that's 650 pts. You still have 1350 pts to put in your list.
You know what 130 models is? 3 terma/horma units and 2 units of stealers. That's it. Baseline troops selection of a Tyranid army. Haven't even counted hive guard monsters and HQ at all.
This misses a lot. If your opponent was nothing but hordes then, sure, you have "less" to worry about. But if there is a mix of hordes and big targets are you shooting BC at hormagaunts still?
I can shoot at both and be good against both. And for this kind of versatility, blast weapons should be costed higher.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
130 models is an horde in any way you want to cut it.
Also, don't try to crawl your way out of it. You said that the TFC was left equally efficent compared to 8th. You were shown that you were wrong. Point closed, let's move with the thread.
In fact Daedalus showed that it actually is better when using the blast rule:
Previous -- 91 points of TFC killed 22 points of horms (4 to 5) -- 24%
Current -- 140 points of TFC kills 40 points of horms (6 to 7) -- 28%
Dukeofstuff wrote: viable horde (gaurd) for this edition (also viable ANTI horde)
Spoiler:
creed
company commander
astropath
platoon commander
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
company commander
psyker primaris
astropath
platoon commander
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
company commander
psyker primaris
astropath
platoon commander
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
10 gaurd with grenade and missle launcher
That leaves you 330 points to tailor the list (try to pick things that don't care a GREAT deal about command points) but I suggest something like
3 heavy weapon squads (armed with missle launchers)
3 scout sentinals (armed with missle launchers)
1 commisar (armed with your basic bolt pistol and powersword, cause that's maybe the first model I ever made).
Or, just as viably,
3 command squads with 4 grenade launcher each
3 special weapons squads with 3 melta each.
ministerium priest
5 powerswords among various troops or officers.
That last option, you can spring the meltas from board edge on turn 2, the first one, you get a brigadge + battalion so you end up with 14+2-3= 13 command points, just unheard of in 9th with a horde, and 9 missle launchers on the first turn (tended by creed himself) rerolling all misses? Is not too shabby as an opener.
Viola. you got your 180 troops, which is, well, objective secured. Odds are high the enemy will try to "thin the ranks" and succeed, but he will have to work to thin all those ranks before you score whatever you want from him.
You can also do an astonishing amount of damage to a target that isn't expecting that sort of stuff, when you lock old grudges on that pesky 6 aggressor squad, and proceed to shoot it with 27 missles, all but maybe 3 of them at +1 to hit (interlocked fields of fire, horde style) which is enouhg to bring you up to an average of 12 hits even while moving very quickly, or more like 20 hits if you are so nervous you really want the aggressors gone. Relic of lost cadia comes into play on turn 1, granting reroll 1's to hit and wound for your army when on the move. A few units will get movemovemove'd AND be able to shoot, with laurels of command to stack orders, so you can snag forward objectives and still plink away.
I reckon its viable as much as anything in this crazy world of 9.alphatest, and the soft whine of disappointed marine players (their muddled brains not understanding the damage they recieved) will probably make GW go back and raise gaurd infantry to six each, then seven, in a desperate bid to stop this sort of thing (you know, marines not winning by facerolling on the floor while saying "I are marinees, I wins."
Yep, as your opponent I would gladly go for Thin+Assassinate+Abhor in this game. I just kill the 3 Astropaths and I can score an easy 27 points.
27 missile launchers in the list means, assuming nothing moves and everything rerolls 1s (unrealistic, but whatever) means you can take down not quite 2 of my talos pain engines with a full volley. I've got like 12 of those in a competitive coven venomspam list, and I can kill 9 of those missile launchers ludicrously easily.
I have plenty of infantry, but it's all mounted in -1 to hit 5++ transports and it's all 5 man squads because of course it is, that costs me nothing.
It's a pretty decent list but you're signing yourself up for an opponent having a pretty easy time maxing their secondaries, so I hope they aren't able to keep you from scoring by blowing away the infantry squads you put on objectives. You also have to choose between your squads being effective in combat and where they need to be.
It is like... playing the mission totally turned math hammer on top of its head. No longer can a unit's value be abstracted into one number that was generated by calculating how many wounds it can do or take. Math hammer does not now, nor has it ever, scored objectives. And with the premium being placed on that during 9th edition... you can have the most tuned and killy army and still lose the game consistently.
It doesn't matter that the TFC is 4% more efficient at killing horm hordes... as those horm hordes are scoring probably in the neighborhood of 500% (exaggerated number) more mission points - which wins games far more often than punching 4% over your points cost.
I merely intended that list as an example of a viable (not perfect) horde off the top of my head. Its got some strengths and some weaknesses, and your list would probably just consume it, but some lists would have trouble getting at the psykers in the third row. So I reckon it viable, not perfect, but viable.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
Instead of us imagining one why don't you write one? How many armies can realistically take a TAC list with 30 missile launchers in it? You need to pay for the units to take those weapons as well as the weapons themselves. I don't think SM can get anywhere near 30 without compromising the rest of the army. IG might be able to, but they're BS4 and fragile. You seem really hung up on what the worst case scenario could be for hordes without taking into account the need for armies to be balanced against all types of lists and targets. It might look like taking nothing but missile launchers gives you the best of both worlds, but that generalist niche has been their thing since 1st edition and they've rarely been the best choice in any army in all that time. They've also rarely been terrible. I don't think they're going to start being OP now.
Just for giggles I made the list for ya
Ultra Smurfs: Brigade. 2k points
HQ:
Captain
LT
LT
Troops:
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
Elites:
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
Fast Attack:
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Heavy Support:
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Grand Total 29 Missile Launchers and 3 Typhoon Missile Launchers which are basically 2 ML each.
That is 35 Missiles a turn or 210 S4 frag shots a turn. With LTs nearby a # will be getting reroll 1s to wound (very important for horde clearance) while 1 captain is giving reroll 1s to hit. I also gave the Captain storm of fire WL trait so he can give -1 AP to some of those shots
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ohh, and that is 73 Infantry and 3 vehicles. So it has a fairly large footprint on the board and you can easily play objectives
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
Instead of us imagining one why don't you write one? How many armies can realistically take a TAC list with 30 missile launchers in it? You need to pay for the units to take those weapons as well as the weapons themselves. I don't think SM can get anywhere near 30 without compromising the rest of the army. IG might be able to, but they're BS4 and fragile. You seem really hung up on what the worst case scenario could be for hordes without taking into account the need for armies to be balanced against all types of lists and targets. It might look like taking nothing but missile launchers gives you the best of both worlds, but that generalist niche has been their thing since 1st edition and they've rarely been the best choice in any army in all that time. They've also rarely been terrible. I don't think they're going to start being OP now.
Just for giggles I made the list for ya
Ultra Smurfs: Brigade. 2k points
HQ:
Captain
LT
LT
Troops:
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
Elites:
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
Fast Attack:
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Heavy Support:
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Grand Total 29 Missile Launchers and 3 Typhoon Missile Launchers which are basically 2 ML each.
That is 35 Missiles a turn or 210 S4 frag shots a turn. With LTs nearby a # will be getting reroll 1s to wound (very important for horde clearance) while 1 captain is giving reroll 1s to hit. I also gave the Captain storm of fire WL trait so he can give -1 AP to some of those shots
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ohh, and that is 73 Infantry and 3 vehicles. So it has a fairly large footprint on the board and you can easily play objectives
A 30 Devilgaunt Squad gets 90 S4 shots, can get reroll 1s to wound natively and can use the Fire Twice strat for 180 total shots out of one squad. That's equal to 30 Frag Missiles getting 6 shots each.
I think the point leaks put that unit at 270. 1620 for 6 squads, with one Firing Twice is 630 S4 shots.
Imagine a list with 30 missile launchers. Perfectly good against vehicle lists. Still gets 180 frag shots against hordes. Happy life of the generalist should be costed premium.
Instead of us imagining one why don't you write one? How many armies can realistically take a TAC list with 30 missile launchers in it? You need to pay for the units to take those weapons as well as the weapons themselves. I don't think SM can get anywhere near 30 without compromising the rest of the army. IG might be able to, but they're BS4 and fragile. You seem really hung up on what the worst case scenario could be for hordes without taking into account the need for armies to be balanced against all types of lists and targets. It might look like taking nothing but missile launchers gives you the best of both worlds, but that generalist niche has been their thing since 1st edition and they've rarely been the best choice in any army in all that time. They've also rarely been terrible. I don't think they're going to start being OP now.
Just for giggles I made the list for ya
Ultra Smurfs: Brigade. 2k points
HQ:
Captain
LT
LT
Troops:
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 scouts w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
Elites:
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
5 Sternguard w/sergeant and Missile Launcher
Fast Attack:
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Land Speeder: Heavy Bolter and Typhoon Missile Launcher
Heavy Support:
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Devastator Squad: Sergeant and 4 Missile Launchers
Grand Total 29 Missile Launchers and 3 Typhoon Missile Launchers which are basically 2 ML each.
That is 35 Missiles a turn or 210 S4 frag shots a turn. With LTs nearby a # will be getting reroll 1s to wound (very important for horde clearance) while 1 captain is giving reroll 1s to hit. I also gave the Captain storm of fire WL trait so he can give -1 AP to some of those shots
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ohh, and that is 73 Infantry and 3 vehicles. So it has a fairly large footprint on the board and you can easily play objectives
A 30 Devilgaunt Squad gets 90 S4 shots, can get reroll 1s to wound natively and can use the Fire Twice strat for 180 total shots out of one squad. That's equal to 30 Frag Missiles getting 6 shots each.
I think the point leaks put that unit at 270.
18" vs 48" and BS 4+ vs 3+ and captain rerolls, and T3 1W 6+ save vs marine statlines and shooting twice makes it basically a 540 pt unit and strips the shoot twice from your hive guard but yeh. Also the devilgaunts cannot kill tanks if need be the way 35 krak missiles can.
Insectum7 wrote: 30 Krak Missiles vs. T7 3+ at BS3+ net 31 wounds
630 S4 BS4+ vs. Same gets 34.9 wounds, haha.
T8 and 2+ really hurt the Devourer fire though.
Holy mother
I suspect even we don't die to the Blast, the new shiny assault intercessors will have a lot to say and do to our horde gak trying to score at the middle of the table. But let's see what happens.
Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover
Automatically Appended Next Post: as far as RO3, I just threw it together on the fly didn't put much thought into it you can just change out 2 of those units to get a host of other SM options with similar functionality.
Purifying Tempest wrote: It is like... playing the mission totally turned math hammer on top of its head. No longer can a unit's value be abstracted into one number that was generated by calculating how many wounds it can do or take. Math hammer does not now, nor has it ever, scored objectives. And with the premium being placed on that during 9th edition... you can have the most tuned and killy army and still lose the game consistently.
It doesn't matter that the TFC is 4% more efficient at killing horm hordes... as those horm hordes are scoring probably in the neighborhood of 500% (exaggerated number) more mission points - which wins games far more often than punching 4% over your points cost.
math hammer isn't everything, but it sure beats blindly guessing.
SemperMortis wrote: Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover
I didn't say it was a good army, I just said it was a lot of S4 shots.
Btw as a Jorm player I can Deep Strike and get them to Ignore Cover too. I think there's some other bonus from Psychic Awakening too, but I don't recall what it is.
Deals 52 wounds to MEQs before any reroll bonuses though.
haha, speaking as a fellow horde player (orkz) if you can ever get that to happen i would be floored. I usually only get a fraction of my boyz in range to either shoot or swing in CC.
SemperMortis wrote: Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover
I didn't say it was a good army, I just said it was a lot of S4 shots.
Btw as a Jorm player I can Deep Strike and get them to Ignore Cover too. I think there's some other bonus from Psychic Awakening too, but I don't recall what it is.
Deals 52 wounds to MEQs before any reroll bonuses though.
MFs marines can still auspex scan you before you speak your piece tho. Better keep them in units of 20 and put them in eggs?
I haven't played devilgants since 6th edition, don't make me start now
SemperMortis wrote: Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover
I didn't say it was a good army, I just said it was a lot of S4 shots.
Btw as a Jorm player I can Deep Strike and get them to Ignore Cover too. I think there's some other bonus from Psychic Awakening too, but I don't recall what it is.
Deals 52 wounds to MEQs before any reroll bonuses though.
MFs marines can still auspex scan you before you speak your piece tho. Better keep them in units of 20 and put them in eggs?
I haven't played devilgants since 6th edition, don't make me start now
Auspex Scan only has a 12" range, but the Devourer has 18"
SemperMortis wrote: Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover
I didn't say it was a good army, I just said it was a lot of S4 shots.
Btw as a Jorm player I can Deep Strike and get them to Ignore Cover too. I think there's some other bonus from Psychic Awakening too, but I don't recall what it is.
Deals 52 wounds to MEQs before any reroll bonuses though.
MFs marines can still auspex scan you before you speak your piece tho. Better keep them in units of 20 and put them in eggs?
I haven't played devilgants since 6th edition, don't make me start now
Auspex Scan only has a 12" range, but the Devourer has 18"
Nice, all that's missing is what will be the background song that will start rocking the moment you begin putting 30 devils one by one while locking eye contact with your opponent.
That's good to see, those lists look pretty bad on paper, why you would take Gretchin in those lists I don't know, if they continue to show up then GW stops looking bad and I will commend them. My prediction is that it might just be part of early edition trying different things and seeing what sticks before a list with 0 Gretchin ends up being the dominant Ork list. It seems like Eradicators were banned from the event, but those aren't exactly anti-horde. At the very most the player who brought 20 Gretchin wasted 40 pts, all the doomers who said Gretchin are terrible will be proven wrong once we start seeing 60+ Gretchin do well again or see 10+ Gretchin being a mainstay unit in competitive.
Seabass wrote: I don't really know that there was a huge hit to horde armies, honestly.
The introduction of blasts, the change to which models can fight in melee, the change to unit coherency for units with 6+ models, the ability to get out of a tri-point with a Stratagem.
The removal of Overwatch, the ability to lock units you're not on the same level as, reducing the size of the map and making Leadership less all or nothing has helped them. If no nerfs were made but all these buffs were made then horde units would either become much more expensive or undercosted, but the reduction in how many models can fight in particular seems like a quite unfun change.
SemperMortis wrote: haha, speaking as a fellow horde player (orkz) if you can ever get that to happen i would be floored. I usually only get a fraction of my boyz in range to either shoot or swing in CC.
yeah well, popping them up out of tunnels is pretty key to their delivery. Fun though!
Purifying Tempest wrote: It is like... playing the mission totally turned math hammer on top of its head. No longer can a unit's value be abstracted into one number that was generated by calculating how many wounds it can do or take. Math hammer does not now, nor has it ever, scored objectives. And with the premium being placed on that during 9th edition... you can have the most tuned and killy army and still lose the game consistently.
It doesn't matter that the TFC is 4% more efficient at killing horm hordes... as those horm hordes are scoring probably in the neighborhood of 500% (exaggerated number) more mission points - which wins games far more often than punching 4% over your points cost.
math hammer isn't everything, but it sure beats blindly guessing.
That is true enough, but my point is hemming and hawing over a TFC being 4% more points efficient vs hormagaunts is totally disregarding the fact that the horde unit is winning the game while the TFC is "removing more models per shot than that horma-horde is worth"... while not doing anything other than... killing models.
People put an extreme amount of faith in the numbers on a game, and all the numbers do is help us understand performance in a vacuum. Those numbers skew wildly when put onto the table and they meet contact with the variables provided by the game (objectives, terrain modifiers, etc.). Sure, an IG Infantryman is worth WAY more than a gretchin... but a gretchin can hold objectives just as easily... they can score primary and secondary points the same. So what are you REALLY paying for with those units? Killing potential or winning potential? That's probably a BIG part of why many troops (especially cheapy ones) went up more than other units across the board, even in the face of enemies having MORE tools to deal with them. It seems to me that these units are getting hit because they make winning easier. Seems like they should be a bit more expensive, and/or have additional ways to deal with them, doesn't it?
Purifying Tempest wrote: It is like... playing the mission totally turned math hammer on top of its head. No longer can a unit's value be abstracted into one number that was generated by calculating how many wounds it can do or take. Math hammer does not now, nor has it ever, scored objectives. And with the premium being placed on that during 9th edition... you can have the most tuned and killy army and still lose the game consistently.
It doesn't matter that the TFC is 4% more efficient at killing horm hordes... as those horm hordes are scoring probably in the neighborhood of 500% (exaggerated number) more mission points - which wins games far more often than punching 4% over your points cost.
math hammer isn't everything, but it sure beats blindly guessing.
That is true enough, but my point is hemming and hawing over a TFC being 4% more points efficient vs hormagaunts is totally disregarding the fact that the horde unit is winning the game while the TFC is "removing more models per shot than that horma-horde is worth"... while not doing anything other than... killing models.
People put an extreme amount of faith in the numbers on a game, and all the numbers do is help us understand performance in a vacuum. Those numbers skew wildly when put onto the table and they meet contact with the variables provided by the game (objectives, terrain modifiers, etc.). Sure, an IG Infantryman is worth WAY more than a gretchin... but a gretchin can hold objectives just as easily... they can score primary and secondary points the same. So what are you REALLY paying for with those units? Killing potential or winning potential? That's probably a BIG part of why many troops (especially cheapy ones) went up more than other units across the board, even in the face of enemies having MORE tools to deal with them. It seems to me that these units are getting hit because they make winning easier. Seems like they should be a bit more expensive, and/or have additional ways to deal with them, doesn't it?
Just want to point out here: Durability IS scoring potential.
IG and Gretchin have equivalent ability to stand on objectives or start actions...but IG have more toughness, better leadership, better save, and better access to defensive buffs and stratagems that help them stick around.
The only thing a unit of Gretchin has over a unit of IG is the larger squad cap...but then we get into Conscripts, where that distinction just falls apart.
The other area where it falls apart is that if you're really talking about the minimum cost to put something on the table, you REALLY ought to be talking about the minimum cost to put a UNIT, not a MODEL on the table. there are many many UNITS - that can hold the same objective, do the same action - even within the ork codex that are much cheaper than 50pts, and offer additional capabilities. A Mek, for example, is fully 1/2 the point cost of a unit of Gretchin, can hold the same objective, perform the same action, and if you stand him next to several mek gunz he offers you the capability to repair (which he can do in addition to performing an Action since it isn't an aura and isn't an attack) and he's got character protection. And as a single model, he's also much easier to tuck somewhere totally out of line of sight. A minimum size unit of Kommandos is 45pts, and gains the ability to deep strike, opening up the possibility to perform additional actions and score additional secondaries that the gretchin, who will evaporate as soon as they walk into LOS, just have no prayer of achieving.
This "you're paying for scoring" is a garbage talking point on all the most egregiously overcosted units of 9th. Your'e not paying for scoring with gretchin. You're not paying for scoring with cultists. You're not paying for scoring with Eldar Guardians. You're not paying for scoring with Brimstones. You're not paying for scoring with Kabalite Warriors or wyches. There are many competing units within the exact same codexes that are infinitely better at the job of scoring than any of those units are - always cheaper, sometimes deep striking, sometimes character protected, sometimes single model multiwound that can hide, sometimes faster.
Theres no rationalization that explains 8pt boyz vs 5pt gretchins, besides what the designers themselves said was a major goal for 9th overall in one of the very first previews for 9th:
"We wanted to change up what was good and what was optimal, so people would have an opportunity to get those units out that maybe hadn't been seeing as much play over the last edition."
That is true enough, but my point is hemming and hawing over a TFC being 4% more points efficient vs hormagaunts is totally disregarding the fact that the horde unit is winning the game while the TFC is "removing more models per shot than that horma-horde is worth"... while not doing anything other than... killing models.
People put an extreme amount of faith in the numbers on a game, and all the numbers do is help us understand performance in a vacuum. Those numbers skew wildly when put onto the table and they meet contact with the variables provided by the game (objectives, terrain modifiers, etc.). Sure, an IG Infantryman is worth WAY more than a gretchin... but a gretchin can hold objectives just as easily... they can score primary and secondary points the same. So what are you REALLY paying for with those units? Killing potential or winning potential? That's probably a BIG part of why many troops (especially cheapy ones) went up more than other units across the board, even in the face of enemies having MORE tools to deal with them. It seems to me that these units are getting hit because they make winning easier. Seems like they should be a bit more expensive, and/or have additional ways to deal with them, doesn't it?
Gotta address this. the TFC isn't 4% more efficient at killing horms now. It went from 24 to 28%, that is a 16.6% increase in efficiency. While not a huge amount, that is a bit sad considering how good the TFC's were last edition and how mediocre Horms were.
Onto my precious grotz. This isn't a valid argument when adjusting points for balance. "Well they are both really cheap and can sit on something so therefore they are balanced". A Grot serves 3 purposes in a game usually. 1: Area denial, 2: Objective holder and 3: Bullet sponge. With the rather drastic increase in price (66%) they are no longer efficient at doing any of those nor are they as good at it compared to a host of other Ork units now. It currently takes A bit more than 2 Bolter hits to guarantee 1 dead Ork Boy, its slightly more than 1 to kill a Grot (Wounding on 4s vs wounding on 2) So the boy is significantly more durable pt for pt than a Grot now, in 8th a Grot was less than 1/2 the price of a boy, now its more than half. So why bring grots when I can use a Boy for the exact same things and its more durable and can push out some damage? The only thing left that a grow can do is be a bullet sponge for a single unit a turn by using a stratagem...not really worth it anymore.Not to mention that Grotz don't get to benefit from a Klan Kulture (IG regiment).
A Guardsman can sit his happy butt on an objective all game long and plink away with his S3 24' lasgun, and can be equipped with special and heavy weapons so they can reach out and touch someone all game long, they are harder to wound and have a better armor save. In a pinch they can be given orders from a CC or PC to increase their damage potential. A grot can do none of that with his 12' pistol so the BS4+ on him is wasted because there is no way to upgrade the weapon to anything useful, nor give them a special weapon to man. If a Grot unit could upgrade to become an artillery battery that would be epic though
So arguing that a Grot is just as useful as a Guardsman is a bad argument.
There is simply no valid balance argument for a why a grot costs the same as a guardsmen. The argument isn't balanced-based, it's "GW doesn't like armies full of grots but it does like armies full of guardsmen." It's the same reason that a cultist costs *more* than a guardsmen while being worse in every way.
And largely, I agree with GW. Tides of gretchin or cultists or really anything can be fun now and then... but at a certain point it can easily go from "a fun list to match against" to "fairly abusive and not worth the frustration". They have to balance that, and if that means point them out of that capability or make more efficient weapons to combat that... so be it.
What humors me is a couple years back there was so many incendiary threads about "slow playing hordes of models = easy GT wins" to now... "Hordes are no longer viable!" Which way do we want it? Or are we just hunting for the next easy way to win games? I get the feeling "balance" isn't what is really being sought out here. Really deep down at the root of the argument, I don't think bland balance is what we're looking for.
I am also arguing that the point cost is more a matter of the unit role instead of it being a compilation of numbers crunched together. Tyranids also have double-move stratagems as well, don't they? And a lot of other movement-enhancing shenanigans? Just because they lack MMM doesn't mean they're bad bad bad. At the end of the day, Hormagaunts hold objectives just as well as an Infantry Squad... as they're both cheap, ObSec units... and there's so much more that goes into them beyond that to make each unit individually more or less desirable. Most notably, IS max at 10, Horma-hordes can go higher if I am not mistaken.
The only way you're achieving balance is if we're all playing with the same units doing the same actions with the same capabilities and defenses. Everyone wants their models to do something special, yet we all want everything to be equal against everything else. Not going to happen :(
Though, I doubt any minds will be swayed and it feels like we just want to toss more salt onto the salt pile for why 9th is the worst edition ever created... so I'll politely bow out and continue playing real games, instead
Purifying Tempest wrote: What humors me is a couple years back there was so many incendiary threads about "slow playing hordes of models = easy GT wins" to now... "Hordes are no longer viable!" Which way do we want it? Or are we just hunting for the next easy way to win games? I get the feeling "balance" isn't what is really being sought out here. Really deep down at the root of the argument, I don't think bland balance is what we're looking for.
Pretty sure there's a middle ground between 'easy GT wins' and 'no longer viable'. 'Viable, but not overpowered' sounds like the right label. It's a false dichotomy to say it has to be one or the other.
I think it's also a cop-out to say that balance can only be achieved if everything is identical. I've played some enormously asymmetrical games that were still balanced very well. You are right, bland equivalence is not the goal; but balance in terms of roughly equal but different capabilities is what makes for a fun game. Ogre and Starship Troopers come to mind as some fairly well-balanced games where the two sides are wildly different.
Purifying Tempest wrote: I am also arguing that the point cost is more a matter of the unit role instead of it being a compilation of numbers crunched together. Tyranids also have double-move stratagems as well, don't they? And a lot of other movement-enhancing shenanigans? Just because they lack MMM doesn't mean they're bad bad bad. At the end of the day, Hormagaunts hold objectives just as well as an Infantry Squad... as they're both cheap, ObSec units... and there's so much more that goes into them beyond that to make each unit individually more or less desirable. Most notably, IS max at 10, Horma-hordes can go higher if I am not mistaken.
For the sake of accuracy: Tyranids have a single stratagem to allow them to move again, but take a mortal wound on a 1 for each model, and cannot shoot or charge. The Kraken subfaction has a stratagem to double the result of an Advance roll. Both of these are better employed on things like monsters, not hordes.
Hormagaunts do not hold objectives as well as an Infantry Squad. They're more expensive per model (6 instead of 5), have a worse save (6+ instead of 5+), don't have access to a stratagem which improves their armor save (Guard can Take Cover), hordes are a double-edged sword thanks to Blast, and most importantly Hormagaunts have exactly zero combat utility while sitting on an objective.
Termagants are a better comparison to Infantry Squads, as they have comparable movement, same price, and similar shooting; but they're also short-ranged, still easier to kill, and don't have anything like Take Cover.
Most importantly, MMM is available army-wide, not as a single stratagem for a single unit. Grabbing an objective is all well and good, but the real power comes in being able to grab multiple objectives simultaneously, allowing you to retain the advantage even if your troops get shot off of one, and still bring all of your firepower to bear.
That's good to see, those lists look pretty bad on paper, why you would take Gretchin in those lists I don't know, if they continue to show up then GW stops looking bad and I will commend them. My prediction is that it might just be part of early edition trying different things and seeing what sticks before a list with 0 Gretchin ends up being the dominant Ork list. It seems like Eradicators were banned from the event, but those aren't exactly anti-horde. At the very most the player who brought 20 Gretchin wasted 40 pts, all the doomers who said Gretchin are terrible will be proven wrong once we start seeing 60+ Gretchin do well again or see 10+ Gretchin being a mainstay unit in competitive.
Hah. Those are exactly the kinds of lists I expected to see.
Kommandos for cheap secondary objective grabbing, Gretchin to hold the rear, and fast durable units to push middle.
SemperMortis wrote: Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover
Automatically Appended Next Post: as far as RO3, I just threw it together on the fly didn't put much thought into it you can just change out 2 of those units to get a host of other SM options with similar functionality.
No nid players walks Devilgants, they always are DS/Outflanked
Sumilidon wrote: So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:
New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.
The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.
The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.
The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.
To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.
Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?
Because they spent several editions accidentally giving hordes too much of a boost. A 150 point 10 man intercessor squad on an objective loses to an 11 man grot squad worth what, 50 points. They changed units of measure in the middle of the rules and didn't pay attention. We purchase units with points, then they scored objectives/points with models instead of some sort of unit value related to their cost. And it's GW, so they're going to overcorrect for an edition or two, then forget the whole thing, and return to not paying attention this so they can do it again.
It is a bit strange to be honest. GW has spent multiple editions of Warhammer fantasy giving hordes boosts. Getting leadership buffs for ranks, becoming stubborn and damn near unbreakable if you outnumber the enemy, additional ranks getting to fight if you have a big enough unit. AOS even gives price cuts if you have max size units in some cases and had some powerful buffs for taking big units like increased damage rolls and the like.
Yet in 40K the only real bonus all large units shared was increased access to special weapons that could in other units be given to every trooper. (see boyz with 1in10 rokkits vs tankbustas) Or in some very small cases being given large unit bonuses that were, okay. And you can take objectives better, though the idea of 1 troop grot being able to hold the objective against a unit of 10 elite terminators always makes me chuckle.
On the other hand, not sure if the blast rule will be a real killer, the difference between 3.5 battle cannon shots and 6 battle cannon shots (which have to roll to hit) isn't huge in most cases (big units of nobs and the like is an exception) if MSU is the way lists are built this edition then big units of troops will still hold some power. Until someone whips out the onslaught gatling gun of course.
I'm of the opinion that any number chosen by GW to represent what a "Horde" is in the rules, and thus grant additional rules for things like blast weapons or coherency, would have been arbitrary. It could have just as easily been 21+, or 31+, or 15+ or whatever. The majority of basic units in the game however come in squads of 5-10, so having it as 11+ does have some logic behind it. Some.
The only thing that I don't like is the inclusion of additional rules for units 6-10 in size. That was unnecessary and just adds further complications to the game.
For all my issues with terrain and LOS and vehicles and so on, the first 9th Ed rule I'd remove from the game entirely would be the coherency requirements for units sized 6-10.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm of the opinion that any number chosen by GW to represent what a "Horde" is in the rules, and thus grant additional rules for things like blast weapons or coherency, would have been arbitrary. It could have just as easily been 21+, or 31+, or 15+ or whatever. The majority of basic units in the game however come in squads of 5-10, so having it as 11+ does have some logic behind it. Some.
Depends on if GW took a coherent view.
There are fair number of models which gain a special rule if you take them in bigger units (and there could be more). If you covered this under the "horde rule", you could then have a certain interaction with blast.
Admittedly that potentially creates more things to learn - a horde of Genestealers is 11, while a horde or Termagaunts is 21 etc - but arguably that creates a more tailored and less arbitrary distinction.
(The real craziness would be offering points discounts on models taken in a "horde" - but that could get messy too.)
But then I don't think blast is meant to be balanced. Its an example of whimsy. "It sucks when I shoot my massive gun into a load of models I potentially only get 1 shot. Okay Timmy, have all the shots."
I feel if competitive players were in charge, random shot weapons would be up against the wall. Just make them all 2/4 shots etc and balance accordingly. "But my blast templates" - what is this, 2014?
As game design in 9th edition, board control is becoming much much more important than ever before, while hordes can just flood the board to deny oppoenents routes towards their objective, especially now the board is smaller than ever before. So I think that is the key motivation to nerf hordes by making them easier to kill via blast weapons and more restrictive on movment by unit coherrency.
Neophyte2012 wrote: As game design in 9th edition, board control is becoming much much more important than ever before, while hordes can just flood the board to deny oppoenents routes towards their objective, especially now the board is smaller than ever before. So I think that is the key motivation to nerf hordes by making them easier to kill via blast weapons and more restrictive on movment by unit coherrency.
Hordes also need to be able to stay alive for the whole enemy turn in order to claim said objectives. And with even trash units going to 5ppm (grotz, brimstone horrors) and all the shooting boosts, I find it hard to see how this will happen. Additionally the smaller board will make it easier for units like assault intercessors and teeth of terra captains to reach said horde units and mulch them to a pulp.
Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.
And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.
Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.
And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.
You say that like Orks can't do the same thing. And in neither case will that necessarily be a good list.
Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.
And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.
You say that like Orks can't do the same thing. And in neither case will that necessarily be a good list.
13*10 Guardsmen will almost certainly do better than 13x10 Gretchin/Boys, Gretchin because they do nothing and at best they can hold/activate an objective, Boys because there are several incentives for going big that they will miss out on and they are quite a bit more expensive. The total lack of AM performance so far in 9th is baffling to me when people can win with Gretchin.
Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.
And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.
Purifying Tempest wrote: And largely, I agree with GW. Tides of gretchin or cultists or really anything can be fun now and then... but at a certain point it can easily go from "a fun list to match against" to "fairly abusive and not worth the frustration". They have to balance that, and if that means point them out of that capability or make more efficient weapons to combat that... so be it.
Then why do you agree that guardsmen are ok at 5ppm when they have the stats and the efficiency of ork boyz or kabalite warriors, which are 8-9ppm?
About what defines an horde: 130 is tipycally twice the models of a SM army at 2000 points. I'd consider an horde an army that has 3x or even 4x more models than that average SM army as the standard SM model is 3x or 4x more resilient than the average horde infantry dude.
Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.
And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.
You say that like Orks can't do the same thing. And in neither case will that necessarily be a good list.
And yet, Unless you're fielding Conscripts, no unit will be going over 10 models in Astra Militarum. It was much worse when you could get a half dozen 10 man squads per FOC slot, but those guys are currently in the past. Orcs and Tyranids, however, have multiple units where one can field them in 30 model units, which is where the Horde rule applies.
You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style.
\
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
10 man squads of boyz are utter trash unless they also have a 65ppm trukk. 20ish squads of boyz are also sub optimal unless they ride in a 155ppm battlewagon, which also burns an heavy support choice.
10 man squads of guardsmen are perfect as they are, and they are actually 30 cheaper points than 10 man squads of boyz. 35-40 cheaper if the nob as a close combat weapon, which he'll likely want. 10 man guardsmen would be ok even at 8-9ppm (which is exactly how they should be), when they'd cost exacatly like a 10 man squad of boyz with or without a killsaw and still outclass the greenskins.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
10 man squads of boyz are utter trash unless they also have a 65ppm trukk. 20ish squads of boyz are also sub optimal unless they ride in a 155ppm battlewagon, which also burns an heavy support choice.
10 man squads of guardsmen are perfect as they are, and they are actually 30 cheaper points than 10 man squads of boyz. 35-40 cheaper if the nob as a close combat weapon, which he'll likely want. 10 man guardsmen would be ok even at 8-9ppm (which is exactly how they should be), when they'd cost exacatly like a 10 man squad of boyz with or without a killsaw and still outclass the greenskins.
I've seen this written several times, and I'd really like to know how my guardsmen in any way would outclass orks. And please, don't come with the boosted by a pile or orders stuff. That depends on very limited officers who tend to be prime targets in my experience. And besides, at the current points level, my guardsmen already get blasted off the table in huge amounts by the ever prevalent space marines who somehow get units that fire over a hundred shots and then re-roll everything too.
What humors me is a couple years back there was so many incendiary threads about "slow playing hordes of models = easy GT wins" to now... "Hordes are no longer viable!" Which way do we want it? Or are we just hunting for the next easy way to win games? I get the feeling "balance" isn't what is really being sought out here. Really deep down at the root of the argument, I don't think bland balance is what we're looking for.
Howabout balance? Why either extremes is desirable? Hordes shouldn't be autowin or autolose they are now. Balanced.
Gw went to light infantry is irrelevant. Why? Money. It's marketing trick. Nothing about balance(being irrelevant junk isn't balanced), nothing abott what's good for game.
Gw sold enough light infantry selling more to oversaturated market isn't feasible. Thus gw now forces those to junk category so players buy new units to replace them
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style.
\
Yep. Until market has room to sell light infantry gw will kill off light infantry rulewise. Gw doesn't want ork/ig/tyranid players using same old models instead of buying new models.
Get ork players drop 600pts boyz and 100 pts grots, that's 700pts room for new models to be bought
I've seen this written several times, and I'd really like to know how my guardsmen in any way would outclass orks. And please, don't come with the boosted by a pile or orders stuff. That depends on very limited officers who tend to be prime targets in my experience. And besides, at the current points level, my guardsmen already get blasted off the table in huge amounts by the ever prevalent space marines who somehow get units that fire over a hundred shots and then re-roll everything too.
Just look at the stats: T3 5+ is basically equal to T4 and 6+, but 2-4 shots at BS4+ make guardsmen capable of more damage than boyz which are mostly melee oriented. Oh and those boyz are also very dependant of characters' buffs, which are also more expensive than officers. So in practise in a whole game the same amount of guardsmen should likely inflict more damage than ork boyz.
Anything that blasts off the board your 5ppm guardmsen is also blasting off the board 8ppm boyz or 9ppm kabalite warriors with the same effort. Except the AM player is losing half the points of models.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I've seen this written several times, and I'd really like to know how my guardsmen in any way would outclass orks. And please, don't come with the boosted by a pile or orders stuff. That depends on very limited officers who tend to be prime targets in my experience. And besides, at the current points level, my guardsmen already get blasted off the table in huge amounts by the ever prevalent space marines who somehow get units that fire over a hundred shots and then re-roll everything too.
Just look at the stats: T3 5+ is basically equal to T4 and 6+, but 2-4 shots at BS4+ make guardsmen capable of more damage than boyz which are mostly melee oriented. Oh and those boyz are also very dependant of characters' buffs, which are also more expensive than officers. So in practise in a whole game the same amount of guardsmen should likely inflict more damage than ork boyz.
Anything that blasts off the board your 5ppm guardmsen is also blasting off the board 8ppm boyz or 9ppm kabalite warriors with the same effort. Except the AM player is losing half the points of models.
Also, 130 orks are 1040 pts.
130 guardsmen 650 pts.
And sure you can't allways have orders near such a blob, but adding in a commander or two would still tilt the point balance in favour of the guard.
I think you can make the case guardsmen are too cheap at 5 points (they could go up to 6) but I am highly suspect however on the claim that they are as good as boyz or Kabalites (who are way overcosted at 9 and should probably go down to 7).
For example if guard were 8 points, they'd get out-shot by shoota boyz, and they get completely mauled in close combat. They'd also stand up worse to S3 and S4 shooting. You can bring in orders etc, but on paper you'd have a strictly inferior unit versus anything but say heavy bolters.
There is also growing evidence, at least in the case of Orks, that Boyz are doing quite well in 9th, while Guard don't seem to be anywhere. (I suspect this is due to guard lists leaking secondary objectives rather than their potency - but that's the game now.)
Gw went to light infantry is irrelevant. Why? Money. It's marketing trick. Nothing about balance(being irrelevant junk isn't balanced), nothing abott what's good for game.
The new missions and emphasis on scoring objectives instead of castling up and blowing your opponent from the table seem generally well received as a good change to the game.
Preventing unbreakable, cheap obsec hordes from swarming the objective and win the game by not doing anything apart from not dying for a couple of rounds is something that the designers and internal game testers might have been aware of / caught up on during playtesting. They might have overshot for the start, but the easiest way to fix that is to adjust points for these models. Something that we might see in upcoming CA or codizes.
And I don't know man, seems to me the best way to make money would be to leave hordes as they are and give Space Marines a new, cheap unit they could spam and have to buy 10 for 45€ each. Something like a Crusader squad.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think Xenos armies will get a boost, say with Troupes, Wracks, Aspect Warriors, Genestealers, Crisis Stealth and whatnot getting 2W.
Crisis suits are already 3W but pay more than a Gravis model for T5 3w at 3+ save with worse BS on a shooting focused unit.
Stealth suits were already 2W too they just pay new tactical marine points for a worse statline without all the buffed out special rules of free attacks and AP.
My bad, Crisis Stealth. Haven't battled them for a longer time.
I hope GW finds a pattern so that ''heavily armored'' Xenos units get a boost of wounds.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I've seen this written several times, and I'd really like to know how my guardsmen in any way would outclass orks. And please, don't come with the boosted by a pile or orders stuff. That depends on very limited officers who tend to be prime targets in my experience. And besides, at the current points level, my guardsmen already get blasted off the table in huge amounts by the ever prevalent space marines who somehow get units that fire over a hundred shots and then re-roll everything too.
Just look at the stats: T3 5+ is basically equal to T4 and 6+, but 2-4 shots at BS4+ make guardsmen capable of more damage than boyz which are mostly melee oriented. Oh and those boyz are also very dependant of characters' buffs, which are also more expensive than officers. So in practise in a whole game the same amount of guardsmen should likely inflict more damage than ork boyz.
Anything that blasts off the board your 5ppm guardmsen is also blasting off the board 8ppm boyz or 9ppm kabalite warriors with the same effort. Except the AM player is losing half the points of models.
Also, 130 orks are 1040 pts.
130 guardsmen 650 pts.
And sure you can't allways have orders near such a blob, but adding in a commander or two would still tilt the point balance in favour of the guard.
That still doesn't make guardsmen worth the same as orks. Lots of light infantry currently is overpriced, and I would even go as far as saying that the guard is overpriced at the moment. Not compared to each other, but to the guys you will face most often: heavy infantry. Currently, all light infantry basically is useless in this game. At least a mob of orks has a chance to get an enemy unit off an objective with a charge, whereas my piddly lasguns don't do much at all (seriously, it requires 18 shots to put a single wound on an MEQ without him having any boosts, and with them having/going to two wounds, all that rolling basically becomes a waste of time.
And it's very important to keep in mind that guard infantry has one huge disadvantage compared to orks, they absolutely bleed secondary points to a far greater extent (although that now goes for many more horde-based armies). But I guess that in general the current system of secondaries doesn't really work, although it's not as bad as when they introduced Kill Points.
I know that everyone loves the guardsmen comparison. But let's be honest, has anyone ever lost a game because of a slugging match between guardsmen and boyz? (who, incidentally, have equal shooting and better melee). Of course, boyz currently are overcosted, as are units like kabalites. For boyz, I would have pegged them at 6, with kabalites at 7. For kabalites however I would say that the points aren't the main issue, that is that they don't really have much of a role in the current game. Last edition, it was only being able to ride in light vehicles and shoot from them, and that was about it. Now their vehicles are going to be much more fragile, so that playstyle basically died.
At least a mob of orks has a chance to get an enemy unit off an objective with a charge, whereas my piddly lasguns don't do much at all (seriously, it requires 18 shots to put a single wound on an MEQ without him having any boosts, and with them having/going to two wounds, all that rolling basically becomes a waste of time.
10 orks aren't better than 10 guardsmen in clearing units off objectives. You are probably considering 250 points of 30 orks probably joined by a bunch of characters to buff them vs 50 points of guardsmen (which would be 80 if they were 8ppm).
Take 30 guardsmen to remove units from objectives, they'll do the same job of ork boyz but they'll have more durability as they are 3 different squads (3x10 orks don't work unless they also have trukks, which would be another 195 points).
At least a mob of orks has a chance to get an enemy unit off an objective with a charge, whereas my piddly lasguns don't do much at all (seriously, it requires 18 shots to put a single wound on an MEQ without him having any boosts, and with them having/going to two wounds, all that rolling basically becomes a waste of time.
10 orks aren't better than 10 guardsmen in clearing units off objectives. You are probably considering 250 points of 30 orks probably joined by a bunch of characters to buff them vs 50 points of guardsmen (which would be 80 if they were 8ppm).
Take 30 guardsmen to remove units from objectives, they'll do the same job of ork boyz but they'll have more durability as they are 3 different squads (3x10 orks don't work unless they also have trukks, which would be another 195 points).
Concerning the shooting 2 s4 shots at 5+ are exactly the same as 2 s3 shots at 4+ when shooting at T4. (there is not difference between 1/3*1/2 and 1/2*1/3) The exploding hits make boy shooting better.
For clearing objectives, 2 S4 attacks hitting on 3+ each are way better than some guys with similar shooting and no melee punch to follow it up with.
30 guardsmen is something I repeatedly tried, and it isn't enough to take off even a small squad of intercessors. The only reason charging works is that it means that I get to sit on the objective to deny them scoring, before getting cleared off next turn. Orks (if properly costed, like I said, at something like 6 points) could do more.
Of course, the main issue actually isn't our light infantry, and the spread in costs between them could even work. But only if heavy infantry had been properly priced for what they do, and they very clearly aren't.
Blackie wrote: How? 2-4 S3 shots at BS4+ are better than 2 S4 shots at BS5+ with exploding 6s.
4 shots is better, 2 shots is worse.
Shoot a marine.
Guard: 2*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.1111
Ork: 2*1/3*7/6*1/2*1/3=0.1296.
Shoot a guardsman.
Guard: 2*1/2*1/2*2/3=0.333
Ork: 2*1/3*7/6*2/3*2/3=0.345.
Shoot an Ork.
Guard: 2*1/2*1/3*5/6=0.2777
Ork: 2*1/3*7/6*1/2*5/6=0.324
As it stands with Guard at 5 points and Orks at 8, guard are much better. In a world where they are both 8 points however this isn't the case. Shooting twice costs additional points - and you can start arguing the merits of getting into 12". As can also be seen shooting the guard kills more than shooting the Orks.
Meanwhile, punching a marine:
Guard: 1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
Ork: 2*2/3*1/2*1/3=0.222
Punching a guardsman:
Guard: 1*1/2*1/2*2/3=0.333
Ork: 2*2/3*2/3*2/3=0.593
I don't want to sound pedantic, but you realize, that guardsmen only have 2 shots within 12'' or if they are ordered FRFSRF. And the Sergant has only a pistol. Normally they have RF 1 weapons, so one shot, even though at a longer range than orks.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
Pyroalchi wrote: I don't want to sound pedantic, but you realize, that guardsmen only have 2 shots within 12'' or if they are ordered FRFSRF. And the Sergant has only a pistol. Normally they have RF 1 weapons, so one shot, even though at a longer range than orks.
I do, but people put assault on the table to make their point, without realizing that close combat may not even happen. Screeners and terrain obstacles exist and to reach combat a unit must move within a very short range, roll to succeed the charge and then even if they do only a fraction of the unit can actually fight.
Shooting is automatic, you just need to be in range: no roll for determine if the shooting phase happens or not and the entire squad is able to fight. Shooting twice multiple times with guardsmen is actually easier than charging with a considerable amount of boyz considering the entire game. Shoota boyz in particular, with their 2 attacks per model won't clear anything off an objective if they decide to charge.
In a real game guardsmen will get more points back than ork boyz, unless maybe orks have hundreds of points of characters to buff them. Like Ghaz, weirdboy, painboy, makari.
5ppm is the cost of a gretchin, which is T2 6+, ld4, has a 12'' pistol and no clan and faction bonuses. Even if it is considered overcosted, and should be cheaper, a guardsmen is definitely worth +3 or +4ppm comparing to such a unit.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
That is something I can understand being a massive difficulty. Cheap bodies are worth much more in an army of elites than in less elite army. And that makes comparisons even harder. Imagine Custodes being given a unit of grots. They would be willing to pay far more for them than other armies would because they fill a role that is otherwise absent. Cultists basically are in the same boat where they are much better in the army than they would have been in other armies. Which, incidentally, is why I would say that including them in the CSM list was a major mistake because there is no good way to balance cultists and basic chaos marines to each other so both are viable choices, and then making them externally balanced is even harder. Of course, this also is why allies is and was a bad idea to begin with.
BrianDavion wrote: I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
I think with MEQ going to two wounds you might get the distinction which GW couldn't reach in 8th edition.
They might, tentatively, walk back some of the cultist hate. Or at least they might if they were to ever bring out some new cultist models.
If you don't want me to field 300 grots in an army, give grots better rules. Obviously I'm not expecting to win tournaments with 300 grots, 5 mek gunz, and 12 killa kanz, it's a fluff themed list that I run for fun. But it's frustrating to have to think "Hmm, maybe I should run these as Guard instead" because the rules are just THAT bad.
Like I'm sorry, but
Twice the range
twice the shots
+1WS
+2LD
+2Sv
+1T
REALLY should be worth SOMETHING.
If people are worried about MSU squads of them being too cheap, do AOS horde pricing - First 10 grots 5ppm, second 10 grots 3ppm, third 10 grots 2ppm. 100points for 30 vs 90pts for 30 in 8th, you pay 10% more for the better morale rule in 9th.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm of the opinion that any number chosen by GW to represent what a "Horde" is in the rules, and thus grant additional rules for things like blast weapons or coherency, would have been arbitrary. It could have just as easily been 21+, or 31+, or 15+ or whatever. The majority of basic units in the game however come in squads of 5-10, so having it as 11+ does have some logic behind it. Some.
The only thing that I don't like is the inclusion of additional rules for units 6-10 in size. That was unnecessary and just adds further complications to the game.
For all my issues with terrain and LOS and vehicles and so on, the first 9th Ed rule I'd remove from the game entirely would be the coherency requirements for units sized 6-10.
My guess is - and I'm talking their motivation/expectation not how the world will actually work - this was to encourage combat squadding, and otherwise put more smaller units on the smaller board with the expected smaller army size.
I'm even wondering how long this has been coming with all the 3 or 3/6 units lately.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
Spoiler:
But the issue neither is cultists nor scouts tho. The issue is, that CSM or tacs for that matter, offer nothing substantial enough in the environment created by the game to actually be a consideration.
Both suffered from the 1 W syndrome, paying to much for a good sv value that you still can whiff and then you end up with a signficant investment dead.
Cultists or scouts don't pay that mach for no respectively some lackluster armor, but are not as hard a loss comparatively.
Also, especially cultists but other light infantry just don't work because GW can't write morale rules worth an actual gak. And let's not forget that weapons that could surpress units, are now gone. Making morale binary either squad wipe or just ignorable, by running msu.
Another issue is that GW just flat out often allows factions to break certain corerule restrictions, like morale through early 8th commisars. Without the appropriate pricetag involved.
Basically , IF gw would actually listen to the playtesters and actually let the ruleswriters work as a collective, or hell force them to, we would not get the vast differences all over the place for no reason needed.
Basically GW has removed any potential mechanic that might could've kept light infantry more balanced in their attempt to streamline, and at the same time made their armor system for no reason apparent non binary, making high SV elite units automatically alot worse.
And the only reason for that i can see is, that they have a Vision for every faction and subfaction they want to enforce, yet completely fail to make that work in the environment they created in the core rules. Hurting both those that have their own idea and those that share their vision for an army only to realise it doesn't work.
Another good exemple are archetype armies. Relying on specific synergies, like mechanised guard, or daemonengine lists.
The later is another perfect exemple, over valued invul for the most part and regen, lead to initially too high pts prices. and their lackluster output had issues especially on those daemonengines relying on shooting. The charachters actually intended to make them work ( warpsmith) completely failed at that because the engines he babysitted were to expensive, had too low output and were thrown in a meta, which has to regularly wipe a knight or two, which means that the durability advantage and regen just go out the window. so what does GW do? It releases the lord discordant. An immensily powerfull option, and casually tacks on an aura (think of them what you want....) on a model that want's to go out and stab stuff. And it is at this point you see the juxtaposition, Here it is, the solution to the lackluster output of daemonengines, in form of an aura. Stuck on a too competitively priced melee body... and instead of actually giving the aura to the warpsmith, and pricing him correctly making dakka fiends, defielers, and decimators actually hit stuff (in case of the later hit actually good.) you now had a body that basically you took 3 times to throw at an enemy or used / abused -1 to hit modifiers... Well, fething, done...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm of the opinion that any number chosen by GW to represent what a "Horde" is in the rules, and thus grant additional rules for things like blast weapons or coherency, would have been arbitrary. It could have just as easily been 21+, or 31+, or 15+ or whatever. The majority of basic units in the game however come in squads of 5-10, so having it as 11+ does have some logic behind it. Some.
Depends on if GW took a coherent view.
There are fair number of models which gain a special rule if you take them in bigger units (and there could be more). If you covered this under the "horde rule", you could then have a certain interaction with blast.
Admittedly that potentially creates more things to learn - a horde of Genestealers is 11, while a horde or Termagaunts is 21 etc - but arguably that creates a more tailored and less arbitrary distinction.
(The real craziness would be offering points discounts on models taken in a "horde" - but that could get messy too.)
But then I don't think blast is meant to be balanced. Its an example of whimsy. "It sucks when I shoot my massive gun into a load of models I potentially only get 1 shot. Okay Timmy, have all the shots."
I feel if competitive players were in charge, random shot weapons would be up against the wall. Just make them all 2/4 shots etc and balance accordingly. "But my blast templates" - what is this, 2014?
I disagree, this didn't have antyhing to do with the random nature. There are certain concepts GW loves and will continue to remove and bring back time after time until they get it right. Some of it is whimsy. See: Thudd Gun Template, Thunderfire Cannon? multiple blast deviation, etc. Blast is part of it. Truth be told I expect to see templates back in a starter set within a couple editions.
@ Blackie: I agree, I also don't see Guardsmen costing the same as Gretchin and neither think that Boyz deserve their current price tag. It's just that claiming Guardsmen would just "gut" Boyz as others wrote, argueing on the basis of them having 2-4 shots each as if that was their basic statline is... problematic. But I'm totally with you that I don't buy the counterargument that boyz are so much better in melee either when they have to get there first.
Blackie wrote: I'd consider an horde an army that has 3x or even 4x more models than that average SM army as the standard SM model is 3x or 4x more resilient than the average horde infantry dude.
So you're saying there are no horde armies? With Marines being roughly 15ppm and grots being 5 ppm, boys being around 8-10ppm, its kind of hard to reach that 4x threshhold when there aren't troops 1/4 the price of a SM troop.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
Spoiler:
But the issue neither is cultists nor scouts tho. The issue is, that CSM or tacs for that matter, offer nothing substantial enough in the environment created by the game to actually be a consideration.
Both suffered from the 1 W syndrome, paying to much for a good sv value that you still can whiff and then you end up with a signficant investment dead.
Cultists or scouts don't pay that mach for no respectively some lackluster armor, but are not as hard a loss comparatively.
Also, especially cultists but other light infantry just don't work because GW can't write morale rules worth an actual gak. And let's not forget that weapons that could surpress units, are now gone. Making morale binary either squad wipe or just ignorable, by running msu.
Another issue is that GW just flat out often allows factions to break certain corerule restrictions, like morale through early 8th commisars. Without the appropriate pricetag involved.
Basically , IF gw would actually listen to the playtesters and actually let the ruleswriters work as a collective, or hell force them to, we would not get the vast differences all over the place for no reason needed.
Basically GW has removed any potential mechanic that might could've kept light infantry more balanced in their attempt to streamline, and at the same time made their armor system for no reason apparent non binary, making high SV elite units automatically alot worse.
And the only reason for that i can see is, that they have a Vision for every faction and subfaction they want to enforce, yet completely fail to make that work in the environment they created in the core rules. Hurting both those that have their own idea and those that share their vision for an army only to realise it doesn't work.
Another good exemple are archetype armies. Relying on specific synergies, like mechanised guard, or daemonengine lists.
The later is another perfect exemple, over valued invul for the most part and regen, lead to initially too high pts prices. and their lackluster output had issues especially on those daemonengines relying on shooting. The charachters actually intended to make them work ( warpsmith) completely failed at that because the engines he babysitted were to expensive, had too low output and were thrown in a meta, which has to regularly wipe a knight or two, which means that the durability advantage and regen just go out the window. so what does GW do? It releases the lord discordant. An immensily powerfull option, and casually tacks on an aura (think of them what you want....) on a model that want's to go out and stab stuff. And it is at this point you see the juxtaposition, Here it is, the solution to the lackluster output of daemonengines, in form of an aura. Stuck on a too competitively priced melee body... and instead of actually giving the aura to the warpsmith, and pricing him correctly making dakka fiends, defielers, and decimators actually hit stuff (in case of the later hit actually good.) you now had a body that basically you took 3 times to throw at an enemy or used / abused -1 to hit modifiers... Well, fething, done...
Well said.
My 2 cents on cultists in csm armies: Cultists were originally an Alpha Legion only thing. Giving them to all the Legions was a consequence of the succession of horribly bland codexes csm have received since the loss of the 3.5 codex which have only served to suck all the uniqueness out of The Legions. Cultists should return to being exclusive to the Alpha Legion and csm given rules to represent true Legionnaires. I didn't start playing Chaos Space Marines so that I could instead play Guardsmen Inferiororis. Hopefully the move to make all Heretic Astartes 2W is a step in this direction.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
Spoiler:
But the issue neither is cultists nor scouts tho. The issue is, that CSM or tacs for that matter, offer nothing substantial enough in the environment created by the game to actually be a consideration.
Both suffered from the 1 W syndrome, paying to much for a good sv value that you still can whiff and then you end up with a signficant investment dead.
Cultists or scouts don't pay that mach for no respectively some lackluster armor, but are not as hard a loss comparatively.
Also, especially cultists but other light infantry just don't work because GW can't write morale rules worth an actual gak. And let's not forget that weapons that could surpress units, are now gone. Making morale binary either squad wipe or just ignorable, by running msu.
Another issue is that GW just flat out often allows factions to break certain corerule restrictions, like morale through early 8th commisars. Without the appropriate pricetag involved.
Basically , IF gw would actually listen to the playtesters and actually let the ruleswriters work as a collective, or hell force them to, we would not get the vast differences all over the place for no reason needed.
Basically GW has removed any potential mechanic that might could've kept light infantry more balanced in their attempt to streamline, and at the same time made their armor system for no reason apparent non binary, making high SV elite units automatically alot worse.
And the only reason for that i can see is, that they have a Vision for every faction and subfaction they want to enforce, yet completely fail to make that work in the environment they created in the core rules. Hurting both those that have their own idea and those that share their vision for an army only to realise it doesn't work.
Another good exemple are archetype armies. Relying on specific synergies, like mechanised guard, or daemonengine lists.
The later is another perfect exemple, over valued invul for the most part and regen, lead to initially too high pts prices. and their lackluster output had issues especially on those daemonengines relying on shooting. The charachters actually intended to make them work ( warpsmith) completely failed at that because the engines he babysitted were to expensive, had too low output and were thrown in a meta, which has to regularly wipe a knight or two, which means that the durability advantage and regen just go out the window. so what does GW do? It releases the lord discordant. An immensily powerfull option, and casually tacks on an aura (think of them what you want....) on a model that want's to go out and stab stuff. And it is at this point you see the juxtaposition, Here it is, the solution to the lackluster output of daemonengines, in form of an aura. Stuck on a too competitively priced melee body... and instead of actually giving the aura to the warpsmith, and pricing him correctly making dakka fiends, defielers, and decimators actually hit stuff (in case of the later hit actually good.) you now had a body that basically you took 3 times to throw at an enemy or used / abused -1 to hit modifiers... Well, fething, done...
Well said.
My 2 cents on cultists in csm armies: Cultists were originally an Alpha Legion only thing. Giving them to all the Legions was a consequence of the succession of horribly bland codexes csm have received since the loss of the 3.5 codex which have only served to suck all the uniqueness out of The Legions. Cultists should return to being exclusive to the Alpha Legion and csm given rules to represent true Legionnaires. I didn't start playing Chaos Space Marines so that I could instead play Guardsmen Inferiororis. Hopefully the move to make all Heretic Astartes 2W is a step in this direction.
Um. please no? I like the cultists I have for my Thousand Sons made from Kairic Acolytes just fine, thanks? Maybe when GW finally gives support for Renegades and Heretics as their own army so they can be run as such, but currently Cultists are the only way to represent the most common and numerous fighting force Chaos has in realspace.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
10 man squads of boyz are utter trash unless they also have a 65ppm trukk. 20ish squads of boyz are also sub optimal unless they ride in a 155ppm battlewagon, which also burns an heavy support choice.
10 man squads of guardsmen are perfect as they are, and they are actually 30 cheaper points than 10 man squads of boyz. 35-40 cheaper if the nob as a close combat weapon, which he'll likely want. 10 man guardsmen would be ok even at 8-9ppm (which is exactly how they should be), when they'd cost exacatly like a 10 man squad of boyz with or without a killsaw and still outclass the greenskins.
I think Orks might find life in running BBs and Trukks with Boyz and the mobbing up and continually feeding 10 mans onto objectives that need support. The vehicles have fantastic melee presence so it isn't a horrible burden. People talk a lot about transports sitting on objectives. I can think of no better than one that is T8 with a 5++ where the occupants can still swipe from inside the transport.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
10 man squads of boyz are utter trash unless they also have a 65ppm trukk. 20ish squads of boyz are also sub optimal unless they ride in a 155ppm battlewagon, which also burns an heavy support choice.
10 man squads of guardsmen are perfect as they are, and they are actually 30 cheaper points than 10 man squads of boyz. 35-40 cheaper if the nob as a close combat weapon, which he'll likely want. 10 man guardsmen would be ok even at 8-9ppm (which is exactly how they should be), when they'd cost exacatly like a 10 man squad of boyz with or without a killsaw and still outclass the greenskins.
I think Orks might find life in running BBs and Trukks with Boyz and the mobbing up and continually feeding 10 mans onto objectives that need support. The vehicles have fantastic melee presence so it isn't a horrible burden. People talk a lot about transports sitting on objectives. I can think of no better than one that is T8 with a 5++ where the occupants can still swipe from inside the transport.
Trukk boyz have been supremely successful for me holding objectives. I have also seen them played in max blobs highly effectively.I just don't think there's a middle ground with boyz where they can be happy, I think it's either min or max and you shape your whole army around that decision.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
But the issue neither is cultists nor scouts tho. The issue is, that CSM or tacs for that matter, offer nothing substantial enough in the environment created by the game to actually be a consideration.
Both suffered from the 1 W syndrome, paying to much for a good sv value that you still can whiff and then you end up with a signficant investment dead.
Cultists or scouts don't pay that mach for no respectively some lackluster armor, but are not as hard a loss comparatively.
Also, especially cultists but other light infantry just don't work because GW can't write morale rules worth an actual gak. And let's not forget that weapons that could surpress units, are now gone. Making morale binary either squad wipe or just ignorable, by running msu.
Another issue is that GW just flat out often allows factions to break certain corerule restrictions, like morale through early 8th commisars. Without the appropriate pricetag involved.
Basically , IF gw would actually listen to the playtesters and actually let the ruleswriters work as a collective, or hell force them to, we would not get the vast differences all over the place for no reason needed.
Basically GW has removed any potential mechanic that might could've kept light infantry more balanced in their attempt to streamline, and at the same time made their armor system for no reason apparent non binary, making high SV elite units automatically alot worse.
And the only reason for that i can see is, that they have a Vision for every faction and subfaction they want to enforce, yet completely fail to make that work in the environment they created in the core rules. Hurting both those that have their own idea and those that share their vision for an army only to realise it doesn't work.
Another good exemple are archetype armies. Relying on specific synergies, like mechanised guard, or daemonengine lists.
The later is another perfect exemple, over valued invul for the most part and regen, lead to initially too high pts prices. and their lackluster output had issues especially on those daemonengines relying on shooting. The charachters actually intended to make them work ( warpsmith) completely failed at that because the engines he babysitted were to expensive, had too low output and were thrown in a meta, which has to regularly wipe a knight or two, which means that the durability advantage and regen just go out the window. so what does GW do? It releases the lord discordant. An immensily powerfull option, and casually tacks on an aura (think of them what you want....) on a model that want's to go out and stab stuff. And it is at this point you see the juxtaposition, Here it is, the solution to the lackluster output of daemonengines, in form of an aura. Stuck on a too competitively priced melee body... and instead of actually giving the aura to the warpsmith, and pricing him correctly making dakka fiends, defielers, and decimators actually hit stuff (in case of the later hit actually good.) you now had a body that basically you took 3 times to throw at an enemy or used / abused -1 to hit modifiers... Well, fething, done...
Well said.
My 2 cents on cultists in csm armies: Cultists were originally an Alpha Legion only thing. Giving them to all the Legions was a consequence of the succession of horribly bland codexes csm have received since the loss of the 3.5 codex which have only served to suck all the uniqueness out of The Legions. Cultists should return to being exclusive to the Alpha Legion and csm given rules to represent true Legionnaires. I didn't start playing Chaos Space Marines so that I could instead play Guardsmen Inferiororis. Hopefully the move to make all Heretic Astartes 2W is a step in this direction.
Um. please no? I like the cultists I have for my Thousand Sons made from Kairic Acolytes just fine, thanks? Maybe when GW finally gives support for Renegades and Heretics as their own army so they can be run as such, but currently Cultists are the only way to represent the most common and numerous fighting force Chaos has in realspace.
You gave the answer to the problem in your response. Bring back Renegades and Heretics! If legions want geq forces they should have the option to ally in a true Imperial Guard equivalent fighting force. Not inferior rabble.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
But the issue neither is cultists nor scouts tho. The issue is, that CSM or tacs for that matter, offer nothing substantial enough in the environment created by the game to actually be a consideration.
Both suffered from the 1 W syndrome, paying to much for a good sv value that you still can whiff and then you end up with a signficant investment dead.
Cultists or scouts don't pay that mach for no respectively some lackluster armor, but are not as hard a loss comparatively.
Also, especially cultists but other light infantry just don't work because GW can't write morale rules worth an actual gak. And let's not forget that weapons that could surpress units, are now gone. Making morale binary either squad wipe or just ignorable, by running msu.
Another issue is that GW just flat out often allows factions to break certain corerule restrictions, like morale through early 8th commisars. Without the appropriate pricetag involved.
Basically , IF gw would actually listen to the playtesters and actually let the ruleswriters work as a collective, or hell force them to, we would not get the vast differences all over the place for no reason needed.
Basically GW has removed any potential mechanic that might could've kept light infantry more balanced in their attempt to streamline, and at the same time made their armor system for no reason apparent non binary, making high SV elite units automatically alot worse.
And the only reason for that i can see is, that they have a Vision for every faction and subfaction they want to enforce, yet completely fail to make that work in the environment they created in the core rules. Hurting both those that have their own idea and those that share their vision for an army only to realise it doesn't work.
Another good exemple are archetype armies. Relying on specific synergies, like mechanised guard, or daemonengine lists.
The later is another perfect exemple, over valued invul for the most part and regen, lead to initially too high pts prices. and their lackluster output had issues especially on those daemonengines relying on shooting. The charachters actually intended to make them work ( warpsmith) completely failed at that because the engines he babysitted were to expensive, had too low output and were thrown in a meta, which has to regularly wipe a knight or two, which means that the durability advantage and regen just go out the window. so what does GW do? It releases the lord discordant. An immensily powerfull option, and casually tacks on an aura (think of them what you want....) on a model that want's to go out and stab stuff. And it is at this point you see the juxtaposition, Here it is, the solution to the lackluster output of daemonengines, in form of an aura. Stuck on a too competitively priced melee body... and instead of actually giving the aura to the warpsmith, and pricing him correctly making dakka fiends, defielers, and decimators actually hit stuff (in case of the later hit actually good.) you now had a body that basically you took 3 times to throw at an enemy or used / abused -1 to hit modifiers... Well, fething, done...
Well said.
My 2 cents on cultists in csm armies: Cultists were originally an Alpha Legion only thing. Giving them to all the Legions was a consequence of the succession of horribly bland codexes csm have received since the loss of the 3.5 codex which have only served to suck all the uniqueness out of The Legions. Cultists should return to being exclusive to the Alpha Legion and csm given rules to represent true Legionnaires. I didn't start playing Chaos Space Marines so that I could instead play Guardsmen Inferiororis. Hopefully the move to make all Heretic Astartes 2W is a step in this direction.
Um. please no? I like the cultists I have for my Thousand Sons made from Kairic Acolytes just fine, thanks? Maybe when GW finally gives support for Renegades and Heretics as their own army so they can be run as such, but currently Cultists are the only way to represent the most common and numerous fighting force Chaos has in realspace.
You gave the answer to the problem in your response. Bring back Renegades and Heretics! If legions want geq forces they should have the option to ally in a true Imperial Guard equivalent fighting force. Not inferior rabble.
Sure. That'd be fine. So long as the rules that make Chaos usable aren't locked behind having a "pure army" and bringing the daemon and renegade forces to make a fluffy chaos force aren't anchors around the neck of the list.
Everyone's got their opinion of what a "real army" of their faction should look like. To me, if my thousand sons army was just a legion of Rubrics, walking sorcerors and ahriman, it would look like the forces they'd bring to support them were missing.
alextroy wrote: You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.
I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.
But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style. \
This.
It's the same reason why GW kept on nerfing cultists to the near point of no synergy with most csm subfactions.
It's also a nice way to see why GW can't balance, because , they can't even enforce a army to look like it should through rules , because they simply don't know how the army actually works in the field. All through 8th until the very last days you saw cultists over CSM f.e., simply because you couldn't waste the pts on anything else.
I have a gut feeling GW kind of regrets the introduction of cultists to CSMs. a lighter cheaper troop unit tends to be a bad thing when you want the army to center around "doods in power armor" if the rumors of scouts moving to the elites section are true this is born out there too as scouts are a similer problem for Marines.
But the issue neither is cultists nor scouts tho. The issue is, that CSM or tacs for that matter, offer nothing substantial enough in the environment created by the game to actually be a consideration.
Both suffered from the 1 W syndrome, paying to much for a good sv value that you still can whiff and then you end up with a signficant investment dead.
Cultists or scouts don't pay that mach for no respectively some lackluster armor, but are not as hard a loss comparatively.
Also, especially cultists but other light infantry just don't work because GW can't write morale rules worth an actual gak. And let's not forget that weapons that could surpress units, are now gone. Making morale binary either squad wipe or just ignorable, by running msu.
Another issue is that GW just flat out often allows factions to break certain corerule restrictions, like morale through early 8th commisars. Without the appropriate pricetag involved.
Basically , IF gw would actually listen to the playtesters and actually let the ruleswriters work as a collective, or hell force them to, we would not get the vast differences all over the place for no reason needed.
Basically GW has removed any potential mechanic that might could've kept light infantry more balanced in their attempt to streamline, and at the same time made their armor system for no reason apparent non binary, making high SV elite units automatically alot worse.
And the only reason for that i can see is, that they have a Vision for every faction and subfaction they want to enforce, yet completely fail to make that work in the environment they created in the core rules. Hurting both those that have their own idea and those that share their vision for an army only to realise it doesn't work.
Another good exemple are archetype armies. Relying on specific synergies, like mechanised guard, or daemonengine lists.
The later is another perfect exemple, over valued invul for the most part and regen, lead to initially too high pts prices. and their lackluster output had issues especially on those daemonengines relying on shooting. The charachters actually intended to make them work ( warpsmith) completely failed at that because the engines he babysitted were to expensive, had too low output and were thrown in a meta, which has to regularly wipe a knight or two, which means that the durability advantage and regen just go out the window. so what does GW do? It releases the lord discordant. An immensily powerfull option, and casually tacks on an aura (think of them what you want....) on a model that want's to go out and stab stuff. And it is at this point you see the juxtaposition, Here it is, the solution to the lackluster output of daemonengines, in form of an aura. Stuck on a too competitively priced melee body... and instead of actually giving the aura to the warpsmith, and pricing him correctly making dakka fiends, defielers, and decimators actually hit stuff (in case of the later hit actually good.) you now had a body that basically you took 3 times to throw at an enemy or used / abused -1 to hit modifiers... Well, fething, done...
Well said.
My 2 cents on cultists in csm armies: Cultists were originally an Alpha Legion only thing. Giving them to all the Legions was a consequence of the succession of horribly bland codexes csm have received since the loss of the 3.5 codex which have only served to suck all the uniqueness out of The Legions. Cultists should return to being exclusive to the Alpha Legion and csm given rules to represent true Legionnaires. I didn't start playing Chaos Space Marines so that I could instead play Guardsmen Inferiororis. Hopefully the move to make all Heretic Astartes 2W is a step in this direction.
Um. please no? I like the cultists I have for my Thousand Sons made from Kairic Acolytes just fine, thanks? Maybe when GW finally gives support for Renegades and Heretics as their own army so they can be run as such, but currently Cultists are the only way to represent the most common and numerous fighting force Chaos has in realspace.
You gave the answer to the problem in your response. Bring back Renegades and Heretics! If legions want geq forces they should have the option to ally in a true Imperial Guard equivalent fighting force. Not inferior rabble.
That's not the issue, Legions should have cannonfodder auxilia available, imo.
The issue is that the environment created by the core rules makes everything but cultists in the troop slot a joke option for the player.
It doesn't even matter technically if you just decide to yeet the cultists at this stage, because people would just revert to pre cultists army style, aka 10-15 csm in msu without anything hiding in Bawkses, and that also doesn't fill what GW envisions for CSM which should be a core unit according to GW's idea of what a CSM army should look like. Because as mentioned 1 W sv 3+ units don't fit in the picture of the overal meta when everyone and their mother can lower SV values and they didn'^t even when that wasn't the case and deadlyness and size creep wasn't as prevalent.
As for R&H and allying, that is a whole other level of issues overall.
including FWGW internal politicking, GW baseline sucking at ruleswriting and predicting how faction x makes the meta react in ways (or even cooperation seemingly between writers overall ) , or how allies affect the meta and push options out or in.
I've seen this written several times, and I'd really like to know how my guardsmen in any way would outclass orks. And please, don't come with the boosted by a pile or orders stuff. That depends on very limited officers who tend to be prime targets in my experience. And besides, at the current points level, my guardsmen already get blasted off the table in huge amounts by the ever prevalent space marines who somehow get units that fire over a hundred shots and then re-roll everything too.
We've already done the math pretty heavily, but basically IG at 5ppm will kill about their points cost in Orks without any buffs at all nor any special weapons. Add in little things like regiment bonus and a 25pt Platoon Commander and suddenly that guard squad is gutting ork boyz unless they themselves have heavy buffs which further skews the costs.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Blackie: I agree, I also don't see Guardsmen costing the same as Gretchin and neither think that Boyz deserve their current price tag. It's just that claiming Guardsmen would just "gut" Boyz as others wrote, argueing on the basis of them having 2-4 shots each as if that was their basic statline is... problematic. But I'm totally with you that I don't buy the counterargument that boyz are so much better in melee either when they have to get there first.
But maybe that's just some personal aversion.
You can get a Company Commander for 35pts or a Platoon commander for 25. A CC can issue orders to 2 Guard squads a turn and the PC 1. Put that in perspective. a 35pt buff can DOUBLE your ROF for 2 squads of infantry. So 2 Squads of Guard plus a CC is 135pts and can put out 36 shots a turn or 75 (3 pistols) at double tap range.
I don't think i've ever faced a IG opponent who wasn't running at least a few CC or PCs. The only reason you would't bring them is because you are running Tank Commanders which isn't a mark against Guardsmen or CC/PCs as much as its a statement that IG have a better competitive option to buff tanks instead of infantry.
I think Orks might find life in running BBs and Trukks with Boyz and the mobbing up and continually feeding 10 mans onto objectives that need support. The vehicles have fantastic melee presence so it isn't a horrible burden. People talk a lot about transports sitting on objectives. I can think of no better than one that is T8 with a 5++ where the occupants can still swipe from inside the transport.
2 BBs and 2 trukkz filled with boyz and ZERO upgrades is 868pts. So you have 2 T8 4+ models 2 T6 4+ models and 44 Boyz in 4 mobs. That isn't that much for almost half your army. Nor is it very durable vs most lists these days. If you wanted to run 3 and 3 its going to eat the majority of your army but it will at least be a bit more durable. But at that point you are out of Troop slots and that means your "reinforcements" are all 10 and 12 man squads which will get mulched in a game where you can have a 3 man unit of space marines unload 36+3D6 S4 shots a turn or another 5 man unit of space marines average 8 to 9 dmg a turn against the Battlewagons And none of that is with any rerolls, doctrines or Chapter buffs.
Dolnikan wrote: Which, incidentally, is why I would say that including them in the CSM list was a major mistake because there is no good way to balance cultists and basic chaos marines to each other so both are viable choices, and then making them externally balanced is even harder.
Sure there is. The problem with Cultists is that they have access to weapon upgrades and all the same stratagems as proper CSM, so they're capable of putting out non-negligible firepower, and that makes them direct competitors for role. You can load up on Cultists as your main troops because they can hold objectives and do damage; so there's nothing CSMs do that they don't.
Make them cheap meatshields that hold objectives but don't have access to force-multipliers like stratagems, and make CSM actually worth their price, and then you have a real choice- Cultists just to get bodies on the field, or CSMs to actually do damage.
As always this is a classic design space problem- there's not much for infantry to do in this game besides 'kill things', 'not die', and 'exist', so balancing similar units within a codex is difficult. At least in the case of CSM and Cultists, they can give CSM the first two and Cultists the third.
Uh nobody uses cultists to do damage, nor do they use CSM for that. The reason you see cultists instead of CSM is because they're both terrible at anything besides obsec so you may as well take 10 cheaper models than 5 more expensive ones.
Cultists are fine, the problem is that CSM are terribly useless junk.
Cultists ever having had access to Veterans of the Long War never made sense. Can't speak for the other Chaos SM strats, as I don't think I've got either copy of that book, but thematically that was a mis-step.
Who's going to use vets on cultists? I agree it makes little sense, but you're not going to waste your 1 vets a phase on the worst unit in your army except in extremely bizarre circumstances.
yukishiro1 wrote: Who's going to use vets on cultists? I agree it makes little sense, but you're not going to waste your 1 vets a phase on the worst unit in your army except in extremely bizarre circumstances.
I mean, it was used a lot to wound T4 or 5, 6, and 7 things as well as or better than boltguns, and to wound T8+ things way better that boltguns ever would, for a cheaper points cost. Of course bolters would wound better with VOTLW as well, but aren't nearly as cheap (basically 3-1 advantage cultists until recently)
2 BBs and 2 trukkz filled with boyz and ZERO upgrades is 868pts. So you have 2 T8 4+ models 2 T6 4+ models and 44 Boyz in 4 mobs. That isn't that much for almost half your army. Nor is it very durable vs most lists these days. If you wanted to run 3 and 3 its going to eat the majority of your army but it will at least be a bit more durable. But at that point you are out of Troop slots and that means your "reinforcements" are all 10 and 12 man squads which will get mulched in a game where you can have a 3 man unit of space marines unload 36+3D6 S4 shots a turn or another 5 man unit of space marines average 8 to 9 dmg a turn against the Battlewagons And none of that is with any rerolls, doctrines or Chapter buffs.
BWs and BBs are among the toughest models out there when under KFF. You can go Ard Case on a BW for 25 points less and bring 20.
Orks have tons of stuff to spread the table and keep Eradicators from all getting to the same target easily. They also have good flyers and great artillery to counter-battery threatening units. Taking under half the army for stuff that holds objectives well isn't a huge problem given how cheap a lot of the other stuff is.
2 BBs and 2 trukkz filled with boyz and ZERO upgrades is 868pts. So you have 2 T8 4+ models 2 T6 4+ models and 44 Boyz in 4 mobs. That isn't that much for almost half your army. Nor is it very durable vs most lists these days. If you wanted to run 3 and 3 its going to eat the majority of your army but it will at least be a bit more durable. But at that point you are out of Troop slots and that means your "reinforcements" are all 10 and 12 man squads which will get mulched in a game where you can have a 3 man unit of space marines unload 36+3D6 S4 shots a turn or another 5 man unit of space marines average 8 to 9 dmg a turn against the Battlewagons And none of that is with any rerolls, doctrines or Chapter buffs.
BWs and BBs are among the toughest models out there when under KFF. You can go Ard Case on a BW for 25 points less and bring 20.
Orks have tons of stuff to spread the table and keep Eradicators from all getting to the same target easily. They also have good flyers and great artillery to counter-battery threatening units. Taking under half the army for stuff that holds objectives well isn't a huge problem given how cheap a lot of the other stuff is.
So 2 BWs not BBs with Ard Case and 2 Trukkz with 62 boyz and 2 Big Mekz with KFF, so again, no upgrades except Deff Rollas for the BWs to make them at least useful at something besides eating fire = 1086pts, so 914 left to fill out the rest of your army. I mean...at that point you are basically telling your opponent "Kill these trukkz easily from long range" then they can pick off the infantry. 2 battlewagons aren't intimidating and even at T9 with a 5++ they aren't going to last long, especially if your opponent has any kind of dedicated anti-vehicle CC elements.
I just don't see that as being overly competitive. Once the boyz actually hop out to hold the objective they are effectively dead because as mentioned before, SM's have a plethora of anti-infantry fire power readily available. It really depends I guess on what you do with the last 900pts you have left.
SemperMortis wrote: So 2 BWs not BBs with Ard Case and 2 Trukkz with 62 boyz and 2 Big Mekz with KFF, so again, no upgrades except Deff Rollas for the BWs to make them at least useful at something besides eating fire = 1086pts, so 914 left to fill out the rest of your army. I mean...at that point you are basically telling your opponent "Kill these trukkz easily from long range" then they can pick off the infantry. 2 battlewagons aren't intimidating and even at T9 with a 5++ they aren't going to last long, especially if your opponent has any kind of dedicated anti-vehicle CC elements.
I just don't see that as being overly competitive. Once the boyz actually hop out to hold the objective they are effectively dead because as mentioned before, SM's have a plethora of anti-infantry fire power readily available. It really depends I guess on what you do with the last 900pts you have left.
I assume the rest of the list would be buggies and possibly a Burnabomba. In that case, if the enemy was ignoring them and shooting at your Trukks instead you'd be very happy.
You can get a Company Commander for 35pts or a Platoon commander for 25. A CC can issue orders to 2 Guard squads a turn and the PC 1. Put that in perspective. a 35pt buff can DOUBLE your ROF for 2 squads of infantry. So 2 Squads of Guard plus a CC is 135pts and can put out 36 shots a turn or 75 (3 pistols) at double tap range.
I don't think i've ever faced a IG opponent who wasn't running at least a few CC or PCs. The only reason you would't bring them is because you are running Tank Commanders which isn't a mark against Guardsmen or CC/PCs as much as its a statement that IG have a better competitive option to buff tanks instead of infantry.
The only reason you wouldn't bring a CC or PC is if you're unfamiliar with how the army is organized.
Literally, Tempestor Primes cannot Order <Regiment> units. By that same vein, <Regiment> Officers cannot buff Tempestus units.
BWs and BBs are among the toughest models out there when under KFF. You can go Ard Case on a BW for 25 points less and bring 20.
Orks have tons of stuff to spread the table and keep Eradicators from all getting to the same target easily. They also have good flyers and great artillery to counter-battery threatening units. Taking under half the army for stuff that holds objectives well isn't a huge problem given how cheap a lot of the other stuff is.
Well the T8 5++ forktress is a good upgrade but it costs 1CPs and it's allowed only on a single model. Giving 5++ to a battlewagon/bonebreaka with Deff rolla is very difficult considering the aura rule that forces the entire model to be under it, as the vehicle is pretty big; a solution is to embark a big mek with KFF in it but it isn't cheap and only works on that vehicle while he's embarked. The only mobile source of KFF is the Wazbom Blastajet.
That "tons of stuff" also eats up CPs and deatchment slots. Fielding two detachments for having more HS options and buffing vehicles with CPs can actually work but it starves an army that is extremely CPs dependant.
Cheap for orks is a thing of the past. The only real cheap units in the army are Deffkoptas, Mek, Smasha Gunz and Kommandos. Not all of them are competitive choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Blackie: I agree, I also don't see Guardsmen costing the same as Gretchin and neither think that Boyz deserve their current price tag. It's just that claiming Guardsmen would just "gut" Boyz as others wrote, argueing on the basis of them having 2-4 shots each as if that was their basic statline is... problematic.
Yeah, I just think that Guardsmen and Boyz are basically on par, that's why they should cost approx the same amount of points and I'm actually not opposed to Boyz being 8ppm. Gretchins are way weaker than Guardsmen and they should be significantly cheaper than them, and I wouldn't want 3ppm models either considering that points went up in 9th, but if Guardsmen go to 7,8, or 9ppm I could justify them being 5ppm. Or 6ppm cultists. That's it.
Blackie wrote: I'd consider an horde an army that has 3x or even 4x more models than that average SM army as the standard SM model is 3x or 4x more resilient than the average horde infantry dude.
So you're saying there are no horde armies? With Marines being roughly 15ppm and grots being 5 ppm, boys being around 8-10ppm, its kind of hard to reach that 4x threshhold when there aren't troops 1/4 the price of a SM troop.
I don't see many horde armies around yes. And that's too bad IMHO because I love playing against them. With orks I prefer something in between, with 90-120 models in total and not pure hordes of 200+ models but facing tons of enemies is more fun than facing 4-30 super buffed and unkillable ones.
Blackie wrote: I'd consider an horde an army that has 3x or even 4x more models than that average SM army as the standard SM model is 3x or 4x more resilient than the average horde infantry dude.
So you're saying there are no horde armies? With Marines being roughly 15ppm and grots being 5 ppm, boys being around 8-10ppm, its kind of hard to reach that 4x threshhold when there aren't troops 1/4 the price of a SM troop.
I don't see many horde armies around yes. And that's too bad IMHO because I love playing against them. With orks I prefer something in between, with 90-120 models in total and not pure hordes of 200+ models but facing tons of enemies is more fun than facing 4-30 super buffed and unkillable ones.
I don't think you quite understood my point. Demanding a 4:1 ratio to meet "horde status when the troops are a 3:1 ratio means your chosen 4:1 ratio could be improbable to impossible.
Do you really think so? A tipycal ork horde has 5 or 6 30 man squads of boyz, which are already 150-180 models, plus a few buffing characters. If they also have artillery, which matchs up footslogging lists very well, the list suddenly jumps to 200+ models considering that each mek gun is actually 6 models. Take 6 and that's 36 models for 240 points. A list with warboss, big mek/weirdboy, 6x30 boyz, 8 smasha gunz has 230 models and even reducing the troops to 5 squads in order to field more toys or supporting characters model count would still be over 200 bodies. Assuming that mek gunz and their crew count as a single model it's still 170-200 models. I've also played against 180+ tyranids in several games in older editions.
How many models has an average SM list? 50-60 at most it's my guess.
With 50-60 models armies it's far from being impossible to field armies with 3x or even 4x their model count. Note that many horde armies spam tons of troop models, while the elite oriented ones rely mostly on specialists, monsters and vehicles which are way more expensive than troops.
My point is that an army doesn't look like an horde if top of turn 2 there's the same number of models left than the elite army. Units from horde oriented army tend to die quickly and if they can't outnumber the elite army for the entire game they usually don't worth the effort and go elite or mechanized style themselves.
Blackie wrote: Do you really think so? A tipycal ork horde has 5 or 6 30 man squads of boyz, which are already 150-180 models, plus a few buffing characters. If they also have artillery, which matchs up footslogging lists very well, the list suddenly jumps to 200+ models considering that each mek gun is actually 6 models. Take 6 and that's 36 models for 240 points. A list with warboss, big mek/weirdboy, 6x30 boyz, 8 smasha gunz has 230 models and even reducing the troops to 5 squads in order to field more toys or supporting characters model count would still be over 200 bodies. Assuming that mek gunz and their crew count as a single model it's still 170-200 models. I've also played against 180+ tyranids in several games in older editions.
How many models has an average SM list? 50-60 at most it's my guess.
With 50-60 models armies it's far from being impossible to field armies with 3x or even 4x their model count. Note that many horde armies spam tons of troop models, while the elite oriented ones rely mostly on specialists, monsters and vehicles which are way more expensive than troops.
My point is that an army doesn't look like an horde if top of turn 2 there's the same number of models left than the elite army. Units from horde oriented army tend to die quickly and if they can't outnumber the elite army for the entire game they usually don't worth the effort and go elite or mechanized style themselves.
6 by 30 boys, Ghaz and a Weirdboy ( I figure Ghaz and a Weird Boy are roughly equivalent in cost to three buffing characters I wouldn't know how to make) are already 1650. 8 Mek Smashaguns gets you to almost 1875 (Rounding/Fudging for GW copyright) and 188(or 189) models - Mekgunz are Artillery, and the krew aren't really "models" with rules as the datasheet says (they have no stats, they can't get targetted etc) they're a fancy rules counter, not really a model much like the Armorium Cherubs etc. We still have to upgrade the Boss Nobs and 6 Power Klaws hits pretty close to 1950 for 190? 191? models compared to the 55-60 I usually average in my UM lists. You're barely 3x and not very close to 4x and have zero toys. My last list with 58 have Marneus, Tiggy, an Impulsor and a Redemptor. Of course the list I made before that was something like 16 models and nothing but toys as I made the Spear of Macragge with Chronus, a Techmarine, 2 Land Raiders (1 Crusader), 4(2 Dest 2Anhil) Predators, 4 (TLHB 2TLLC) Razorbacks, 2 Whirlwinds and 2 Landspeeders. It may not even be legal any more whatever the new rules for dedicated transports may be. Compared to that, my 58 model list is a horde. For my 58 model list, to get at least 4X you need 232 models which means you need to average 8.62 points per model which means Boys mobs #7 and most of 8 plus two more HQ's. - Two Brigades 2 barebones warbosses, one bigmek with ShokkAttack, one Weirdboy, 7x30 boys, 2x4 Mekguns with Bubblechukkas is about 2200 (again rounding/fudging) and only (96+126) 222 models.
the_scotsman wrote: If you don't want me to field 300 grots in an army, give grots better rules. Obviously I'm not expecting to win tournaments with 300 grots, 5 mek gunz, and 12 killa kanz, it's a fluff themed list that I run for fun. But it's frustrating to have to think "Hmm, maybe I should run these as Guard instead" because the rules are just THAT bad.
Like I'm sorry, but
Twice the range
twice the shots
+1WS
+2LD
+2Sv
+1T
REALLY should be worth SOMETHING.
If people are worried about MSU squads of them being too cheap, do AOS horde pricing - First 10 grots 5ppm, second 10 grots 3ppm, third 10 grots 2ppm. 100points for 30 vs 90pts for 30 in 8th, you pay 10% more for the better morale rule in 9th.
Utility is the key to solving such issues.
For example, you could just have gretchin get grot shields as a build-in rule. Suddenly they are worth more points despite being no more durable or killy.
Utility is the key to solving such issues.
For example, you could just have gretchin get grot shields as a build-in rule. Suddenly they are worth more points despite being no more durable or killy.
They're really not tho. At some point they're going to be so expensive you might as well just bring more models from the unit you wanted to protect in the first place.
It's the same deal with a Tervigon and termagants. Yes a Tervigon can replace 10 models in a unit every turn for free. It is also 200+ points and will replenish less than 200 pts over the course of the game. She will also explode and kill nearby termagants 100% when she dies. So really just screw it and bring more termagants instead.
Utility is the key to solving such issues. For example, you could just have gretchin get grot shields as a build-in rule. Suddenly they are worth more points despite being no more durable or killy.
They're really not tho. At some point they're going to be so expensive you might as well just bring more models from the unit you wanted to protect in the first place.
It's the same deal with a Tervigon and termagants. Yes a Tervigon can replace 10 models in a unit every turn for free. It is also 200+ points and will replenish less than 200 pts over the course of the game. She will also explode and kill nearby termagants 100% when she dies. So really just screw it and bring more termagants instead.
Nobody is saying Gretchin have to become 8 pts per model, but making Grot Shields a static ability or at least just a 0CP Stratagem would go a long ways towards making taking 40+ Gretchin viable again. At the same time you will not see 200+ Gretchin because they'll only be worth it in the numbers in which they are necessary to protect other models.Tervigons were good at the end of 8th, they featured in several top 4 GT lists IIRC. GW didn't want Gretchin to be under 5 pts because they were afraid of smaller boards getting flooded or something, well then they have to find rules that makes Gretchin worth bringing when they're 5 pts. Maybe they're already worth 5 pts, I don't understand why anyone takes them but they've already had several top placings at a GT which is baffling.
Utility is the key to solving such issues.
For example, you could just have gretchin get grot shields as a build-in rule. Suddenly they are worth more points despite being no more durable or killy.
They're really not tho. At some point they're going to be so expensive you might as well just bring more models from the unit you wanted to protect in the first place.
It's the same deal with a Tervigon and termagants. Yes a Tervigon can replace 10 models in a unit every turn for free. It is also 200+ points and will replenish less than 200 pts over the course of the game. She will also explode and kill nearby termagants 100% when she dies. So really just screw it and bring more termagants instead.
Nobody is saying Gretchin have to become 8 pts per model, but making Grot Shields a static ability or at least just a 0CP Stratagem would go a long ways towards making taking 40+ Gretchin viable again. At the same time you will not see 200+ Gretchin because they'll only be worth it in the numbers in which they are necessary to protect other models.Tervigons were good at the end of 8th, they featured in several top 4 GT lists IIRC. GW didn't want Gretchin to be under 5 pts because they were afraid of smaller boards getting flooded or something, well then they have to find rules that makes Gretchin worth bringing when they're 5 pts. Maybe they're already worth 5 pts, I don't understand why anyone takes them but they've already had several top placings at a GT which is baffling.
Ye it was definitely the gretchins that made those top placements possible. The sheer power of them.
They were brought because they were 3ppm to protect other units and that was by already paying CP for a stratagem. Now they're 5ppm per wound prevented AND they still have to pay for the stratagem. No GW did not think this through, they just slapped a global 5ppm is the cheapest you can pay in this game and didn't look back again.
Also, sorry but Tervigons have not been good since 5th edition. I don't know what kind of tournaments Tervigons managed to win in late 8th edition but I will respectfully reserve my judgement being what it is.
Daedalus81 wrote: BWs and BBs are among the toughest models out there when under KFF. You can go Ard Case on a BW for 25 points less and bring 20.
Orks have tons of stuff to spread the table and keep Eradicators from all getting to the same target easily. They also have good flyers and great artillery to counter-battery threatening units. Taking under half the army for stuff that holds objectives well isn't a huge problem given how cheap a lot of the other stuff is.
This might come as a shock, but I agree with you.
Eradicators are still a very dangerous unit to orks, because it's not trivial to remove gravis units for us and they will be taking out quite a couple of buggies before they go down, easily earning back their points. You'll definitely will have to play around them.
It's also not like they are without weaknesses. Split fire doesn't make sense at all, so if a unit steps up and blows a buggy sky high, it will be in charge range of any buggies surrounding it, and I'll gladly stick any of the buggies to a unit of eradicators to prevent it from shooting for the rest of the game. Unlike aggressors, they don't come with any relevant melee abilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: They were brought because they were 3ppm to protect other units and that was by already paying CP for a stratagem.
That is not true though. They primarily were brought because they were troops and generated CP which were then used to super-charge lootas, SSAG or tank bustas. With two of those being nerfed into the ground, less starting CP and the change to detachments preventing people from "splashing" bad moons for just a single stratagem, there really is no reason to bring gretchin besides not wanting to spend CP for your detachment.
Right now trukks(!) are way more point efficient than gretchin, which is why start seeing trukk boyz as the troops unit of choice.
I think I agree with Jidmah on why they were brought, but of course, it's complicated, I think some people were bringing Gretchin without the Lootas even. The value of having an Infantry unit to hold an objective has gone up, I'm assuming the inclusion of Gretchin in some 9th Orks lists has to do with secondary objectives, it would be super interesting to hear from some of those players if they will continue including them and how they made themselves worth their pts. It's not like it's a huge investment, and I think at most they've wasted 40 pts in their army on Gretchin by taking 2x10, it's still a weird inclusion IMO.
Putting them at 4 pts was as safe as could be, it's already a heavy 33% nerf. They also put in several stop-gaps to stop hordes from being too good in 9th, the CP change and the introduction of blasts, so several big units of Gretchin will never be meta because they get countered too hard by blasts, masses of small units will never be meta because it costs CP. Even leaving them at 3 pts would not have led to Gretchin spam becoming meta. People might take a lot if they were playing Orks, but it wouldn't dominate anything. Compare that to the danger of lowering the cost of what was previously the best anti-vehicle in the game in the same edition that you are massively increasing the power of vehicles? We could very well have walked into a new Castellan meta.
8th edition tournament lists are not easy to find but I previously posted a list from GenghisCon where Matt Evans got 3rd Place using a Tervigon, I remembered posting about more, but it's really just a question of when the cost is low enough, is it at 180, 150 or 100? Whatever the case is, there is no reason why GW cannot find it.
6 by 30 boys, Ghaz and a Weirdboy ( I figure Ghaz and a Weird Boy are roughly equivalent in cost to three buffing characters I wouldn't know how to make) are already 1650.
Standard warboss is a legit option, and it only costs 83 points. No need to bring Ghaz to make a full horde work. An ork horde is more about board control than killyness.
8 Mek Smashaguns gets you to almost 1875 (Rounding/Fudging for GW copyright) and 188(or 189) models - Mekgunz are Artillery, and the krew aren't really "models" with rules as the datasheet says (they have no stats, they can't get targetted etc) they're a fancy rules counter, not really a model much like the Armorium Cherubs etc.
They're not "real models" in the terms that they're once piece with the mek gun. Still need to field those 5 bases with real models, unlike the Cherub. 8 Mek gunz have 40 grot gunners on the board, not on paper. The mek gun is basically a vehicle and 5 infantry models as a single unit.
We still have to upgrade the Boss Nobs and 6 Power Klaws hits pretty close to 1950 for 190? 191? models compared to the 55-60 I usually average in my UM lists. You're barely 3x and not very close to 4x and have zero toys. My last list with 58 have Marneus, Tiggy, an Impulsor and a Redemptor. Of course the list I made before that was something like 16 models and nothing but toys as I made the Spear of Macragge with Chronus, a Techmarine, 2 Land Raiders (1 Crusader), 4(2 Dest 2Anhil) Predators, 4 (TLHB 2TLLC) Razorbacks, 2 Whirlwinds and 2 Landspeeders. It may not even be legal any more whatever the new rules for dedicated transports may be. Compared to that, my 58 model list is a horde. For my 58 model list, to get at least 4X you need 232 models which means you need to average 8.62 points per model which means Boys mobs #7 and most of 8 plus two more HQ's. - Two Brigades 2 barebones warbosses, one bigmek with ShokkAttack, one Weirdboy, 7x30 boys, 2x4 Mekguns with Bubblechukkas is about 2200 (again rounding/fudging) and only (96+126) 222 models.
The list I made was exactly 1978 points, and I've included killsaws for any nobz. Even counting mek gunz as single models, which actually aren't in terms of space occupied on the board, we're talking about 182 infantry models and 8 mek gunz. Which is already enough to be 3x and even 4x the model count on an average SM list. Note that I only conisdered the most expensive troop units, nothing prevents me from replacing 60 boyz with 100 gretchins putting the model count to 220 plus characters and artillery.
Also note that my example is a tipycal ork horde, not my personal one (I don't even play hordes), your examples consist in your specific SM lists instead. Most of the SM armies, especially those ones that are heavy on primaris (and they are the most common ones) have roughly 40 models in total including vehicles.
The ork list you propose is also not realistic, two warbosses are redundant, the SAG is overpriced at the moment, and no one plays Bubblechukkas, cheaper and more effective Smasha gunz are the way to go for this kind of lists. Ork hordes have no toys, just artillery because they provide firepower and they make anti tank weapons inefficient. They don't need toys to work, they're in fact a liability for an horde list. Some players even remove the artillery and bring nothing but infantry models like kommandos or more buffing characters like painboyz, big mek with KFF or a waaagh banner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: I think I agree with Jidmah on why they were brought, but of course, it's complicated, I think some people were bringing Gretchin without the Lootas even. The value of having an Infantry unit to hold an objective has gone up, I'm assuming the inclusion of Gretchin in some 9th Orks lists has to do with secondary objectives.
True, but one of the primary roles for gretchins in 8th was to provide CPs. Now they're useless for that purpose.
vict0988 wrote: I think I agree with Jidmah on why they were brought, but of course, it's complicated, I think some people were bringing Gretchin without the Lootas even. The value of having an Infantry unit to hold an objective has gone up, I'm assuming the inclusion of Gretchin in some 9th Orks lists has to do with secondary objectives, it would be super interesting to hear from some of those players if they will continue including them and how they made themselves worth their pts. It's not like it's a huge investment, and I think at most they've wasted 40 pts in their army on Gretchin by taking 2x10, it's still a weird inclusion IMO.
They suck at holding objectives though, especially with the objectives no longer being in cover and closer to the front lines, they are just a liability that can easily lose you multiple VP.
Most people (me included) bring gretchin because they are just the cheapest way to fill a battalion. While trukk boyz are hands down a better troops choice, you still pay an additional 100 point per unit - so it's really a competition between having useful troops or useless troops and a buggy or two more mek guns.
That is not true though. They primarily were brought because they were troops and generated CP which were then used to super-charge lootas, SSAG or tank bustas. With two of those being nerfed into the ground, less starting CP and the change to detachments preventing people from "splashing" bad moons for just a single stratagem, there really is no reason to bring gretchin besides not wanting to spend CP for your detachment.
Right now trukks(!) are way more point efficient than gretchin, which is why start seeing trukk boyz as the troops unit of choice.
I'm not much of a fan of eradicators. Especially if they get capped at 3 like Eliminators. I'd rather 10 sniper scouts than 6 (2x3) Eliminators - Rather have 10 shots, 10 wounds than 6 shots 24 wounds. As for the Eradicators, I'd go with Landspeeders, or Attack Bikes if I want Melta running around. I'm guessing the Eradicators will be roughly Aggressor priced (3 models Power level 5, Gravis) with a small discount for the melta rifle instead of boltstorms estimating Eradicators somewhere around 35, Aggressors around 40, and Attack bikes around 50 with about double the wounds, double the shots, and double the move.
Blackie wrote: Do you really think so? A tipycal ork horde has 5 or 6 30 man squads of boyz, which are already 150-180 models, plus a few buffing characters. If they also have artillery, which matchs up footslogging lists very well, the list suddenly jumps to 200+ models considering that each mek gun is actually 6 models. Take 6 and that's 36 models for 240 points. A list with warboss, big mek/weirdboy, 6x30 boyz, 8 smasha gunz has 230 models and even reducing the troops to 5 squads in order to field more toys or supporting characters model count would still be over 200 bodies. Assuming that mek gunz and their crew count as a single model it's still 170-200 models. I've also played against 180+ tyranids in several games in older editions.
How many models has an average SM list? 50-60 at most it's my guess.
With 50-60 models armies it's far from being impossible to field armies with 3x or even 4x their model count. Note that many horde armies spam tons of troop models, while the elite oriented ones rely mostly on specialists, monsters and vehicles which are way more expensive than troops.
My point is that an army doesn't look like an horde if top of turn 2 there's the same number of models left than the elite army. Units from horde oriented army tend to die quickly and if they can't outnumber the elite army for the entire game they usually don't worth the effort and go elite or mechanized style themselves.
6 by 30 boys, Ghaz and a Weirdboy ( I figure Ghaz and a Weird Boy are roughly equivalent in cost to three buffing characters I wouldn't know how to make) are already 1650. 8 Mek Smashaguns gets you to almost 1875 (Rounding/Fudging for GW copyright) and 188(or 189) models - Mekgunz are Artillery, and the krew aren't really "models" with rules as the datasheet says (they have no stats, they can't get targetted etc) they're a fancy rules counter, not really a model much like the Armorium Cherubs etc. We still have to upgrade the Boss Nobs and 6 Power Klaws hits pretty close to 1950 for 190? 191? models compared to the 55-60 I usually average in my UM lists. You're barely 3x and not very close to 4x and have zero toys. My last list with 58 have Marneus, Tiggy, an Impulsor and a Redemptor. Of course the list I made before that was something like 16 models and nothing but toys as I made the Spear of Macragge with Chronus, a Techmarine, 2 Land Raiders (1 Crusader), 4(2 Dest 2Anhil) Predators, 4 (TLHB 2TLLC) Razorbacks, 2 Whirlwinds and 2 Landspeeders. It may not even be legal any more whatever the new rules for dedicated transports may be. Compared to that, my 58 model list is a horde. For my 58 model list, to get at least 4X you need 232 models which means you need to average 8.62 points per model which means Boys mobs #7 and most of 8 plus two more HQ's. - Two Brigades 2 barebones warbosses, one bigmek with ShokkAttack, one Weirdboy, 7x30 boys, 2x4 Mekguns with Bubblechukkas is about 2200 (again rounding/fudging) and only (96+126) 222 models.
If I am taking a horde in 9th I will not be bringing Ghaz. And honestly I wouldn't be upgrading nobz or anyone else for that matter. Taking anything in a skew list that isn't part of the main aspect is a waste and gives your opponent something to use his heavy weapons on.
But here is the kicker the entire point of this thread is about the major hit to hordes. 4 years ago that same list was 360pts cheaper just from the boyz alone, and you were basically required to equip a PK but at the same time that PK could utterly destroy most vehicles in the game while the boyz acted as a gigantic meat shield for the nob with PK.
So hordes have become significantly more expensive and can inflict significantly less damage to vehicles now. And of course thats before we even mention the fact that they are now competing against SMs with twice as many wounds.
Breton wrote: ( I figure Ghaz and a Weird Boy are roughly equivalent in cost to three buffing characters I wouldn't know how to make)
If I am taking a horde in 9th I will not be bringing Ghaz. And honestly I wouldn't be upgrading nobz or anyone else for that matter. Taking anything in a skew list that isn't part of the main aspect is a waste and gives your opponent something to use his heavy weapons on.
But here is the kicker the entire point of this thread is about the major hit to hordes. 4 years ago that same list was 360pts cheaper just from the boyz alone, and you were basically required to equip a PK but at the same time that PK could utterly destroy most vehicles in the game while the boyz acted as a gigantic meat shield for the nob with PK.
So hordes have become significantly more expensive and can inflict significantly less damage to vehicles now. And of course thats before we even mention the fact that they are now competing against SMs with twice as many wounds.
As mentioned Ghaz and a weird boy was just a placeholder for 2-3 buffing characters. Also as mentioned later, you end up needing 7x30 boys to get close to 4X, which means you need 2 brigades (can't use 1 batallion because of compulsory elites/FA) which means 4 characters and Ghas was replaced with 2 bare bones warbosses, 1 weird boy and 1 big mek with SA gun (cheapest two HQ's.
You're not putting Klaws or anything on the nob? Do you even get a nob? Do you give them the special shootas/etc?
My attempt to create the list being sort of given to me aside, the math going the other direction doesn't matter what list I make, it has to average 8.62 points per model to hit 4X (232) the middle (my 58 model list) of a average 55-60 model SM list so picking 3-4x minimum for a horde list probably felt right, but upon inspection ends up a skosh high. Now the list I was working with has Boys at less than 8ppm But to get that average you need more than 55 boys per warboss, and almost as many again per Big Mek or Weirdboy. Before upgrades and tools. So you need pretty roughly 4x30 boys per Warboss/2ndHQ Even when boys were 7ppm, that's 1680 points of boys.
yukishiro1 wrote: Uh nobody uses cultists to do damage, nor do they use CSM for that. The reason you see cultists instead of CSM is because they're both terrible at anything besides obsec so you may as well take 10 cheaper models than 5 more expensive ones.
Cultists are fine, the problem is that CSM are terribly useless junk.
I had to chime in to agree with you. No one takes cultists to kill things.
As mentioned Ghaz and a weird boy was just a placeholder for 2-3 buffing characters. Also as mentioned later, you end up needing 7x30 boys to get close to 4X, which means you need 2 brigades (can't use 1 batallion because of compulsory elites/FA) which means 4 characters and Ghas was replaced with 2 bare bones warbosses, 1 weird boy and 1 big mek with SA gun (cheapest two HQ's.
You're not putting Klaws or anything on the nob? Do you even get a nob? Do you give them the special shootas/etc?
My attempt to create the list being sort of given to me aside, the math going the other direction doesn't matter what list I make, it has to average 8.62 points per model to hit 4X (232) the middle (my 58 model list) of a average 55-60 model SM list so picking 3-4x minimum for a horde list probably felt right, but upon inspection ends up a skosh high. Now the list I was working with has Boys at less than 8ppm But to get that average you need more than 55 boys per warboss, and almost as many again per Big Mek or Weirdboy. Before upgrades and tools. So you need pretty roughly 4x30 boys per Warboss/2ndHQ Even when boys were 7ppm, that's 1680 points of boys.
Still inaccurate, you're listbuilding orks as a tipycal SM player. You're also mistaken about deatchments and ignore the fact that YOUR specific SM list have more bodies than the tipycal ones.
So:
- There's no need of a brigade as a battallion is enough to bring 6 troops, which are 180 bodies and 1500 points at their most expensive loadout (all boyz, nobz with killsaws)
- There's no need to give weapons to nobz; as I said before hordes are about board control so keeping units as cheap as possible in order to field more stuff is a legit option. In such lists nobz (which are a free upgrade for boyz) are perfectly ok even with their 0 points stock loadout.
- There's no need of Ghaz or thousands of HQs. The battallion already provides three slots which are enough. 3 HQs without Ghaz cost just 230 points. Some possible buffing characters are elites.
- If you need a 4th, a 5th HQ or additional troops just add a patrol. No need to bring expensive tax units to fill up brigades.
- Hordes have lots of cheap troops, a tipycal SM list have way more specialists. Specialists cost way more points than troops. Outriders, Agrressors, Eradicators, etc all cost 4x or more than boyz.
- 200 bodies (say 180 troops, 2 HQs, 8 mek gunz, 10 kommandos) in total are exactly 4x against an army that has 50 bodies. Many SM lists have like 40, so a tipycal horde will be even 5x against many common SM lists. 3x is extremely easy to achieve even against your specific 58 man list.
My point is that a full horde oriented ork list was common and legit in older editions, now it's very unlikely to see one as this edition doesn't favor them. Same for tyranids and other armies that used to have the option of going full horde.
As mentioned Ghaz and a weird boy was just a placeholder for 2-3 buffing characters. Also as mentioned later, you end up needing 7x30 boys to get close to 4X, which means you need 2 brigades (can't use 1 batallion because of compulsory elites/FA) which means 4 characters and Ghas was replaced with 2 bare bones warbosses, 1 weird boy and 1 big mek with SA gun (cheapest two HQ's.
You're not putting Klaws or anything on the nob? Do you even get a nob? Do you give them the special shootas/etc?
My attempt to create the list being sort of given to me aside, the math going the other direction doesn't matter what list I make, it has to average 8.62 points per model to hit 4X (232) the middle (my 58 model list) of a average 55-60 model SM list so picking 3-4x minimum for a horde list probably felt right, but upon inspection ends up a skosh high. Now the list I was working with has Boys at less than 8ppm But to get that average you need more than 55 boys per warboss, and almost as many again per Big Mek or Weirdboy. Before upgrades and tools. So you need pretty roughly 4x30 boys per Warboss/2ndHQ Even when boys were 7ppm, that's 1680 points of boys.
Still inaccurate, you're listbuilding orks as a tipycal SM player. You're also mistaken about deatchments and ignore the fact that YOUR specific SM list have more bodies than the tipycal ones.
So:
- There's no need of a brigade as a battallion is enough to bring 6 troops, which are 180 bodies and 1500 points at their most expensive loadout (all boyz, nobz with killsaws)
- There's no need to give weapons to nobz; as I said before hordes are about board control so keeping units as cheap as possible in order to field more stuff is a legit option. In such lists nobz (which are a free upgrade for boyz) are perfectly ok even with their 0 points stock loadout.
- There's no need of Ghaz or thousands of HQs. The battallion already provides three slots which are enough. 3 HQs without Ghaz cost just 230 points. Some possible buffing characters are elites.
- If you need a 4th, a 5th HQ or additional troops just add a patrol. No need to bring expensive tax units to fill up brigades.
- Hordes have lots of cheap troops, a tipycal SM list have way more specialists. Specialists cost way more points than troops. Outriders, Agrressors, Eradicators, etc all cost 4x or more than boyz.
- 200 bodies (say 180 troops, 2 HQs, 8 mek gunz, 10 kommandos) in total are exactly 4x against an army that has 50 bodies. Many SM lists have like 40, so a tipycal horde will be even 5x against many common SM lists. 3x is extremely easy to achieve even against your specific 58 man list.
My point is that a full horde oriented ork list was common and legit in older editions, now it's very unlikely to see one as this edition doesn't favor them. Same for tyranids and other armies that used to have the option of going full horde.
Wait... my list of 58 bodies was more than the range of 50-60 bodies you estimated for an average SM list?
Most of the SM armies, especially those ones that are heavy on primaris (and they are the most common ones) have roughly 40 models in total including vehicles.
15 of the 58 bodies in my list don't have a PRIMARIS keyword. Maybe 17, I'm not sure about the Impulsor or the Redemptor vehicles.
58x4=232. 2000/232=8.62 points per model. Your 6x30 at the old points per model with no upgrades is 1260 add your smashaguns? in your list 1524 188 models. You have 476 points for 44 models. you have 10.81 points per model to get 44 bodies on the board. You still can't get Stormboys with what you have left, but you could do Kommandos. Do horde armys usually have 42 Kommandos?
I did mispeak though, I switched the Mekguns to Smashaguns not Bubblechukkas, I had that inverted so the points totals I was using included Smashaguns not Bubblechukkas.
Only Kommandos will come in at under 8.
your examples consist in your specific SM lists instead
a list I made before this discussion to make sure it was typical and well within your guess of a typical SM list. Well, your original estimation.
My point is that a full horde oriented ork list was common and legit in older editions
And my point is your 4X model count doesn't figure like it's based on a whole lot of evidence just what "felt" right, much like the average SM list going from 50-60 to now 40 while we're doing the math.
With the old prices, using your own starting point of 6x30 boys, 8 Mekguns, and 2-3 buffing characters you're not getting to 4x your own estimated range.
If we're going to talk about the "hit" to horde armies, I just think we need to make sure what we remember is what was possible.
Edit to fix bad math on 299 vs 349, must have fumble fingered the calculator.
Well most of the SM armies around are primaris only or primaris mostly with 40-50 models in total. Yours, with almost 60, is not the average SM army With the word "average" I meant common.
SW lists I regularly play don't have more than 40-45 models in total (2-3 HQs, 5-6 vehicles, 5-10 wulfen, 20-25 power armour dudes) and there isn't a single primaris in them. "Just" 160-180 models are enough to be 4x the model count of many common elite armies, including SM ones.
58x4=232. 2000/232=8.62 points per model. Your 6x30 at the old points per model with no upgrades is 1260 add your smashaguns? in your list 1524 188 models. You have 476 points for 44 models. you have 10.81 points per model to get 44 bodies on the board. You still can't get Stormboys with what you have left, but you could do Kommandos. Do horde armys usually have 42 Kommandos?
Yeah, maybe. Tipycal competitive horde oriented ork lists have boyz, gretchins, mek gunz, characters and eventually stormboyz, kommandos and deffkoptas. Maybe deepstriking Meganobz, but not before 8th. I've seen many tournament lists with 30-45 kommandos. They match very well with Da Jumping boyz.
CEO Kasen wrote: The most charitable interpretation I have presumes in playtesting sessions, people were able to stand on objectives unopposed by bringing 300 cultists or grots or Daemonettes or whatever and while yes, not the most killy, it may have been impossible to wipe out and score objectives in 5 turns against that many bodies sitting in defensive buff auras absent things like the Blast rules.
If this was not the case, even then I don't really believe that this is some underhanded and brilliant Just as Planned to sell models; I'm far more inclined to go with Hanlon's Razor on this one, e.g. there are rules writers not talking to one another who couldn't find their arses with 8 hands and an auspex.
People laughed at me when I theorized exactly this. It was 360 grots a couple HQ's and I think some planes just to blow extra points. It was pretty much nothing but bare bones HQ's and Grots. Then I wondered how many shots an average army would need per turn to dislodge the grots off an objective. Even if I never killed a thing - but even 360 grots will kill SOMETHING - the number of shots an opposing army needed to make every turn was amazing. SM needed 60 wounds, which needed 90 hits which needed 135 shots per turn to kill all the grots in 6 turns. 135 shots per turn is almost 70 Intercessors doubletapping every time. Of course they only need to kill off the objectives they couldn't contest with ObSec so they needed actually needed less than that but not much. High ROF stuff was scary like a Heavy Onslaught Gatling cannon, but that was solved by charging the Redemptor. It doesn't get 12 CC attacks per turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Well most of the SM armies around are primaris only or primaris mostly with 40-50 models in total. Yours, with almost 60, is not the average SM army With the word "average" I meant common.
SW lists I regularly play don't have more than 40-45 models in total (2-3 HQs, 5-6 vehicles, 5-10 wulfen, 20-25 power armour dudes) and there isn't a single primaris in them. "Just" 160-180 models are enough to be 4x the model count of many common elite armies, including SM ones.
58x4=232. 2000/232=8.62 points per model. Your 6x30 at the old points per model with no upgrades is 1260 add your smashaguns? in your list 1524 188 models. You have 476 points for 44 models. you have 10.81 points per model to get 44 bodies on the board. You still can't get Stormboys with what you have left, but you could do Kommandos. Do horde armys usually have 42 Kommandos?
Yeah, maybe. Tipycal competitive horde oriented ork lists have boyz, gretchins, mek gunz, characters and eventually stormboyz, kommandos and deffkoptas. Maybe deepstriking Meganobz, but not before 8th. I've seen many tournament lists with 30-45 kommandos. They match very well with Da Jumping boyz.
How many models has an average SM list? 50-60 at most it's my guess.
You think with 180 boyz you have room for Grots (troops), Defkoptas(expensive), and Meganobs(Expensive)? Didn't we just do this math? You know it's ok to just say maybe 4X was too extreme to use as a dividing line for hordes and 2.5+ is probably a more accurate ratio?
I think it's likely that the horde nerfs were made in accordance with the upcoming changes to Space Marines, making them more elite. When a large part of the armies because an army with 2 wounds per model and a lower bodycount than before, this means that more people will take higher quality shots rather than higher quantity shots. And then hordes automatically become better, because little people have waveclearing weapons.
Of course whether this will be true or not won't be known until after the changes have rolled out. But I think looking at the meta of this weird in-between area between 9th and the space marine codices that was probably never supposed to have been is going to give wrong impressions.
Mellowlicious wrote: I think it's likely that the horde nerfs were made in accordance with the upcoming changes to Space Marines, making them more elite. When a large part of the armies because an army with 2 wounds per model and a lower bodycount than before, this means that more people will take higher quality shots rather than higher quantity shots. And then hordes automatically become better, because little people have waveclearing weapons.
Of course whether this will be true or not won't be known until after the changes have rolled out. But I think looking at the meta of this weird in-between area between 9th and the space marine codices that was probably never supposed to have been is going to give wrong impressions.
I still think the biggest reason is the shrinking tables. A 20 mm base has a 10mm radius, 10 mm is 0.39370079 inches, a round base with a 0.39370079inch radius is almost a half inch square of area. The Midsize table is 2640 square inches The ubiquitous deployment area ([44-24=]10x60) is 600 square inches - thats 1200 20mm bases packed end to end before terrain.
90 (guesstimate 1000 points) models on an Incursion board is 45 square inches of models, with a delpoyment zone of 300 square inches - about (1 in 6) 15 exactly%
120 models (which is probably where a horde army lands at 1250-1500) means one out of every 10 inches (10%) will be covered.
240 models almost assuredly would be enough points (2001+) to jump to 44x90 and 900 square inches of deployment zone getting you 1800 models end to end and cover (1 per 7.5) 13% of the deployment area
Now that's the low end as vehicles, characters and the like will have a larger base but your troops are going to be the bulk of your footprint.
Between cardboard Kill Team tabletops, scenery in the boxes, and minimal store hours they're trying to push the game onto your dining room table. I've seen an article about how much it costs a store to to pay the real estate rent on a gaming table. It's not cheap. Of course, not having customers because they can't find someone to play is kind of expensive too. On yet a third hand, the tables at your local strip mall where the kids from the card store play Magic are free if you don't mind getting some pad thai on the bottom of your kill team board. Luckily you can buy more.
Oh there's some balance to it too sure. I'd also expect to see 9th rework the points and/or abilities of these units even more. Grots might get a boost, Space Marines/Necrons/Elites might get even more expensive on a ratio comparable to the points per model horde are losing. They're going to do something to bring back POTMS if they're not killing off old marines sometime soon. I'd say this was a Beta test for 9th Ed codex point values allowing them to see what armies get made and how many models they have while they keep the ability testing in house.
And just to be even more wishy washy, I'll point out GW isn't always very good at this. We buy armies in points, and score objectives in model counts for several editions now and GW hasn't figured out that's a bad thing.
You think with 180 boyz you have room for Grots (troops), Defkoptas(expensive), and Meganobs(Expensive)? Didn't we just do this math? You know it's ok to just say maybe 4X was too extreme to use as a dividing line for hordes and 2.5+ is probably a more accurate ratio?
Kotpas are among the cheapest units in the codex. Actually they're exactly the cheapest unit in the codex after mini meks, and they've got plenty of use in order to score/deny points. Gretchins are a possible replacement for 1-2 mob of boyz to spare points for something else (like more characters or mek gunz), eventually they can be taken in addition of max boyz if the player wants an additional detachment, tipycally for a 4th or 5th HQ, that will be a patrol. Cheap and effective. Deep striking meganobz works for horde lists, we're talking about 200 points that can be spared somehow (an example: 2 HQs, 4x30 boyz, 2x30 gretchins, 5 meganobz, 6 Smasha gunz are 1898 points).
Math is simple. 180 boyz are already exactly 3x against a 60 bodies army, and even 3.5x+ compared to a 50 bodies one. Just with the basic troops. 2.5x would be referred to a mixed up list with both mechanized stuff and infantries, definitely not an horde. In my first post about the matter I've said that an horde should have 3x or even 4x the model count of a SM army, which means that 3x is already enough to consider the army an horde. 4x due to the fact than in older editions playing with more than 200 models against 50ish was not only possible, but also effective.
Maybe with the new SM codex things will change a little bit, we know that some units are going to get more wounds and higher points costs, so that 4x threshold would be easier to get again. Now I agree it's a bit hard to achieve, that's why I said pure hordes have become uncommon. In previous editions, includng 8th, it was way easier to achieve that 4x. Some competitive ork lists in 8th had 120-150 gretchins which were just 360-450 points.
Also the math used to be perfect and that again is the point. 2 editions ago I could field 30 boyz for 180pts, now its 240pts for the same model count. A 33% increase in price over 2 editions. Grotz last edition were 3pts and no are 5pts. A 66% increase in 1 edition. And in 8th I could field a grot horde backed up 30-60 boyz for extremely cheap, we are talking 360pts for 120 grotz. and another 420pts for 60 boyz. 780pts for 180 models leaving you with plenty of space to pack in 30 lootas, 45 Kommandos etc etc.
So again, the point was that IT USED TO BE 3x to 4x the model count to be a horde, but now with the GW price changes its significantly less which means hordes are basically gone because they die way to fast and can't be spammed as much due to price increases.
the_scotsman wrote: If you don't want me to field 300 grots in an army, give grots better rules. Obviously I'm not expecting to win tournaments with 300 grots, 5 mek gunz, and 12 killa kanz, it's a fluff themed list that I run for fun. But it's frustrating to have to think "Hmm, maybe I should run these as Guard instead" because the rules are just THAT bad.
Like I'm sorry, but
Twice the range
twice the shots
+1WS
+2LD
+2Sv
+1T
REALLY should be worth SOMETHING.
If people are worried about MSU squads of them being too cheap, do AOS horde pricing - First 10 grots 5ppm, second 10 grots 3ppm, third 10 grots 2ppm. 100points for 30 vs 90pts for 30 in 8th, you pay 10% more for the better morale rule in 9th.
Utility is the key to solving such issues.
For example, you could just have gretchin get grot shields as a build-in rule. Suddenly they are worth more points despite being no more durable or killy.
If they had grot shields as a 100% always-on datasheet rule, for sure I'd consider them a 5pt unit. Every game. I'd use about 30 of them in every footbased ork army.
Honestly, it'd be a fantastic way to allow ork specialist units like nobz, manz, tankbustas, freebootas etc to actually be in foot lists.
....but they don't have that. So they aren't worth that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mellowlicious wrote: I think it's likely that the horde nerfs were made in accordance with the upcoming changes to Space Marines, making them more elite. When a large part of the armies because an army with 2 wounds per model and a lower bodycount than before, this means that more people will take higher quality shots rather than higher quantity shots. And then hordes automatically become better, because little people have waveclearing weapons.
Of course whether this will be true or not won't be known until after the changes have rolled out. But I think looking at the meta of this weird in-between area between 9th and the space marine codices that was probably never supposed to have been is going to give wrong impressions.
Right, once space marine flamers have 12" range base we'll see tons more hordes than now.
If they had grot shields as a 100% always-on datasheet rule, for sure I'd consider them a 5pt unit. Every game. I'd use about 30 of them in every footbased ork army.
Honestly, it'd be a fantastic way to allow ork specialist units like nobz, manz, tankbustas, freebootas etc to actually be in foot lists.
....but they don't have that. So they aren't worth that.
I think they could be ok with grots shields that works on 4s as a datasheet rule, that can be buffed to 2+ by stratagem.
In older editions they could provide 5+ to the units behind them, in 3rd I always fielded the full 30 man squad for that purpose.
GW clearly overestimated the value of Gretchins by looking at the most competitive ork lists in 8th. Since they were spammed in mass they assumed they were excellent. But they were spammed mostly to provide tons of CPs, a useless purpose in 9th edition. Their profile and 9th mechanics simply don't justify 5ppm gretchins outside pure tax units to fill up mandatory slots. They need to be cheaper or gain better abilities.
I don't think GW actually looked at tournament results and thought "better nerf grotz" because how many ork lists with grots actually placed really well in comparison to the "Loyal 32" who didn't get hit with the nerf hammer.
If the BS reason for Grotz being maliciously assaulted with the nerf hammer is that they appeared in tournament lists a lot, than by that same logic Guardsmen should have been bumped to 10 or even 20pts a model because they owned the tournament scene for a year.
As explained before, the change to ork troops has nothing to do with balance.
GW simply wanted to shape the ork army to look more like they envision them (more toyz, less boyz) and for that reason nerfed the troops we kept bringing in masses.
Jidmah wrote: As explained before, the change to ork troops has nothing to do with balance.
GW simply wanted to shape the ork army to look more like they envision them (more toyz, less boyz) and for that reason nerfed the troops we kept bringing in masses.
I agree with you here Jid, I think Grotz and boyz got slapped down because GW wants more vehicles on the board and less infantry.
I think there's a connection to 8th (and maybe even previous editions) most common lists though. Grots were spammed like never before and any ork player had lots of boyz anyway, GW simply wanted to force players to buy kits representing models that weren't that common on the board.
If they release a new boyz kit, which is rumored to happen, GW will push for massed boyz builds at some time.
I don't think they have a specific shape of the army in mind, they just want to push/nerf stuff in order to sell more. Especially the most recent kits.
Yes, this get repeated a lot, but we are talking about the same company that accidentally made KFFs free and work in melee for half a year. A model that isn't even sold anymore. They don't have enough of a grasp on their own game to make such adjustments.
SemperMortis wrote: I don't think GW actually looked at tournament results and thought "better nerf grotz" because how many ork lists with grots actually placed really well in comparison to the "Loyal 32" who didn't get hit with the nerf hammer.
If the BS reason for Grotz being maliciously assaulted with the nerf hammer is that they appeared in tournament lists a lot, than by that same logic Guardsmen should have been bumped to 10 or even 20pts a model because they owned the tournament scene for a year.
Loyal 32 did get hit with the nerf hammer with the release of 9E. You no longer pack along a Loyal 32 for CP because well all start with X CP and then lose instead of gain CP to buy new detachments. That's not even the best argument to make. Loyal32, Grot, and other minimum cost CP farms went from all-but-free-CPs to now costing you CPs. The SM points tier armies can more or less make their entire army with little sacrifice of what they want in a single Batallion/Brigade so they're going to get the full 12 or so CP. "Horde" armies are going to lose CP faster than "elite" armies.
Loyal 32 did get hit with the nerf hammer with the release of 9E.
It's true that loyal32 got hit by the new detachment mechanics but in practise armies that used to rely on them got a massive help. In fact now they don't even need to pay the loyal32 tax to dispose of a lot of CPs. People that fielded the loyal32 are now happy for the change.
Gretchins haven't been hit only by that (note that 8th orks lists could easily get 18-23 CPs, now only 12+1/turn) but also due to a massive increase in their points cost. Not to mention blast and coherency rules which hurt units that are designed to be blobs of screeners.
In a battallion, the most common detachment for orks, there's space for 180 gretchins, and yet you now tipycally see 0 of them, and up to 30 at most. There's basically no need of fielding loyal32 for SM anymore, but gretchins could still be very useful for orks if only appropriately priced.
SM players got double bonus: lots of CPs and no need of loyal32 tax. Orks players got double nerf: less CPs and a unit invalidated.
(note that 8th orks lists could easily get 18-23 CPs,
SM players got double bonus: lots of CPs and no need of loyal32 tax. Orks players got double nerf: less CPs and a unit invalidated.
This was the point I just made. Padding Loyal 32's doesn't get you more CP's it costs you CPs. The Armies that frequently have to do multiple detachments are now being punished the same way armies that couldn't easily take multiple detachments were in the past its just going the other direction. Sadly GW knew they had a problem, they just didn't pay attention to what it was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Being "horde" has little to no impact on how much your units cost.
It frequently has an impact on how many FOC choices you need to spend those points, and how many detachments you need to get that many FOC choices.
Breton wrote: It frequently has an impact on how many FOC choices you need to spend those points, and how many detachments you need to get that many FOC choices.
Nonsense. Most horde units are more expensive than marine units fulfilling similar roles. The only reason to need more FoC slots is because you need multiple units with the same role.
Breton wrote: It frequently has an impact on how many FOC choices you need to spend those points, and how many detachments you need to get that many FOC choices.
Nonsense. Most horde units are more expensive than marine units fulfilling similar roles. The only reason to need more FoC slots is because you need multiple units with the same role.
How many points is a Guard Infantry Squad from the Loyal 32? I put "horde" and "Elite" in quotes to differentiate between roughly two different price tiers. Guard are not going in the "elite" box right? I previously - in the same quoted post - also referred to these two rough pricing schemes as "minimum cost" and "SM Points Tier" to try and use something other than "horde" and "elite" terms with all the semantic quibbling it would entail. I wish I would have continued that.
A player wishing to play ork boyz will pay ~250 for a unit walking on foot or ~145 for one riding a trukk. Lootas cost 300 points. Tank bustas are a unit that costs 315. Genestealers are 300. Horrors of Tzeench are 210. Plague Bearers are 270. You can't claim with a straight face that all of these are "elite" rather than "horde".
The issue is you incorrectly labeling your boxes. What you meant to say is "armies with many cheap units" and "armies with few, but expensive units". Neither is directly connected to the terms horde and elite.
Jidmah wrote: A player wishing to play ork boyz will pay ~250 for a unit walking on foot or ~145 for one riding a trukk. Lootas cost 300 points. Tank bustas are a unit that costs 315. Genestealers are 300. Horrors of Tzeench are 210. Plague Bearers are 270.
You can't claim with a straight face that all of these are "elite" rather than "horde".
The issue is you incorrectly labeling your boxes. What you meant to say is "armies with many cheap units" and "armies with few, but expensive units". Neither is directly connected to the terms horde and elite.
I have already freely admitted I regretted using Kleenex interchangably with facial tissue because I knew someone would be pedantic enough to complain Mountain Dew is both not Coke and not cola. You are absolutely correct.
SemperMortis wrote: I don't think GW actually looked at tournament results and thought "better nerf grotz" because how many ork lists with grots actually placed really well in comparison to the "Loyal 32" who didn't get hit with the nerf hammer.
If the BS reason for Grotz being maliciously assaulted with the nerf hammer is that they appeared in tournament lists a lot, than by that same logic Guardsmen should have been bumped to 10 or even 20pts a model because they owned the tournament scene for a year.
Loyal 32 did get hit with the nerf hammer with the release of 9E. You no longer pack along a Loyal 32 for CP because well all start with X CP and then lose instead of gain CP to buy new detachments. That's not even the best argument to make. Loyal32, Grot, and other minimum cost CP farms went from all-but-free-CPs to now costing you CPs. The SM points tier armies can more or less make their entire army with little sacrifice of what they want in a single Batallion/Brigade so they're going to get the full 12 or so CP. "Horde" armies are going to lose CP faster than "elite" armies.
You missed the entire point. If the rationale is that Grotz received a 66% increase in price because they were in a lot of tournament lists, why didn't the Loyal 32 go up a similar 66%?
I never brought up CP batteries or anything similar because that wasn't what I was highlighting.
I feel like they've made the decision that having a body on the field, even a grot, is worth 5 points. There's a minimum base cost for just taking up space.
I really think that guardsmen should have gone up, if only to 6 points, if Ork Boyz are still at 7.
Blndmage wrote: I feel like they've made the decision that having a body on the field, even a grot, is worth 5 points. There's a minimum base cost for just taking up space.
I really think that guardsmen should have gone up, if only to 6 points, if Ork Boyz are still at 7.
A grot with Less Toughness, Strength, lower save, worse weapon, lower morale and no ability to benefit from Kultures is now the same price as a guardsmen because as you say, GW thinks 5pts is the minimum. And boyz have gone to 8ppm not 7 anymore
You missed the entire point. If the rationale is that Grotz received a 66% increase in price because they were in a lot of tournament lists, why didn't the Loyal 32 go up a similar 66%?
I never brought up CP batteries or anything similar because that wasn't what I was highlighting.
No I got it, I just included the rest of the point. That they were in a lot of lists for cheap CP’s. You know, the same reason people were taking the loyal 32 in the comparison? To which I pointed out Loyal 32 did get hit with the nerf hammer. And I even pointed out they both got hit in a stupid way - repeating the same error in the opposite direction - linking CP in any way shape or form to list building beyond stratagems - that shows GW saw but didn’t understand the problem.
You missed the entire point. If the rationale is that Grotz received a 66% increase in price because they were in a lot of tournament lists, why didn't the Loyal 32 go up a similar 66%?
I never brought up CP batteries or anything similar because that wasn't what I was highlighting.
No I got it, I just included the rest of the point. That they were in a lot of lists for cheap CP’s. You know, the same reason people were taking the loyal 32 in the comparison? To which I pointed out Loyal 32 did get hit with the nerf hammer. And I even pointed out they both got hit in a stupid way - repeating the same error in the opposite direction - linking CP in any way shape or form to list building beyond stratagems - that shows GW saw but didn’t understand the problem.
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness. Especially because all the special detachments cost the same as a second battalion. And with special detachments I mean things like the vanguard and what have you that basically allow a player to pay less of a tax in troops. But then again, I don't really understand any of their logic with lots of things in general. What I do know however is that their rules decisions generally aren't aimed at selling more of specific things, just from looking at how random it all seems.
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.
It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.
It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.
I am not sure what you guys are talking about what mistake?
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.
It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.
I am not sure what you guys are talking about what mistake?
The detachment pricing.
What initially Battalions and brigades gave you comparatively too low benefits for fielding them due to the ammount of tax units, special detachments additonal cost now too few CP to not consider over tax heavier "core" detachments like brigades and battalions.
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.
It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.
I am not sure what you guys are talking about what mistake?
In 8th edition they screwed up by making the more Dets you take give you more CPs to use.
Now the more Dets you take the fewer CPs you have to use.
Armies were taking the Loyal 32 style batallions to farm extra CP. Now if you need to take a second Det to fill more Elite/FA/HS - or spend more points because the elite/FA/HS you do take doesn't blow through points fast enough, it costs you CP. This is going to be exacerbated if the predictions of a return to MSU due to Blast rules is correct.
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.
It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.
Well, the old idea at least made some sort of sense where you would get more command points for larger detachments that take more units to fill. Of course, that completely underestimated the power of soup which is why lots of people are still upset about guard because cheap bodies are amazing to support elites, especially if they also give extra command points to help boost the elites even further.
Their new mistake is that they don't really understand what different kinds of detachments are worth to buy. In fact, it stuns me that for instance the big detachments cost more, which, punishes taking more troops over taking detachments that take more of the juicy stuff. I understand that they want to limit soup in some way, but this doesn't achieve that. This actually gives the reverse incentive where it's best to go more and more into points-expensive elites.
Incidentally, that is a bad financial idea because those units tend to cost less [£ $ €]/point than cheaper troops. I also don't think that it's actually meant to promote marines. Historically, they really haven't been good at developing their rules to make them best-sellers. That status is based on completely different things than their rules.
What initially Battalions and brigades gave you comparatively too low benefits for fielding them due to the ammount of tax units, special detachments additonal cost now too few CP to not consider over tax heavier "core" detachments like brigades and battalions.
You get the refund on your first detachment. Okay, so due to the higher obligations you are unlikely to see a double battalion versus a battalion+spearhead. But I'm not sure why that matters beyond some sort of aesthetic desire.
What initially Battalions and brigades gave you comparatively too low benefits for fielding them due to the ammount of tax units, special detachments additonal cost now too few CP to not consider over tax heavier "core" detachments like brigades and battalions.
You get the refund on your first detachment. Okay, so due to the higher obligations you are unlikely to see a double battalion versus a battalion+spearhead. But I'm not sure why that matters beyond some sort of aesthetic desire.
Fairly simple, the Aesthetic is counting for GW.
Why else is a cultist 6 ppm when a guardsmen is 5 or a grot 5.
GW very much cares about the aesthetic identity of factions, to the point that they decide to feth over balance.
It also is an issue in regards to what is fielded, whilest battalions and brigades ensured a "healthier" mix (soup bypassed it to a degree but .......) of units in an army, there's now rather no reason to not just go all out on, say Aggressors, eliminators and eradicators, with some token intercissors.
Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.
It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.
Well, the old idea at least made some sort of sense where you would get more command points for larger detachments that take more units to fill. Of course, that completely underestimated the power of soup which is why lots of people are still upset about guard because cheap bodies are amazing to support elites, especially if they also give extra command points to help boost the elites even further.
Their new mistake is that they don't really understand what different kinds of detachments are worth to buy. In fact, it stuns me that for instance the big detachments cost more, which, punishes taking more troops over taking detachments that take more of the juicy stuff. I understand that they want to limit soup in some way, but this doesn't achieve that. This actually gives the reverse incentive where it's best to go more and more into points-expensive elites.
Incidentally, that is a bad financial idea because those units tend to cost less [£ $ €]/point than cheaper troops. I also don't think that it's actually meant to promote marines. Historically, they really haven't been good at developing their rules to make them best-sellers. That status is based on completely different things than their rules.
More radio traffic on fewer radio nets further distracting your warlord? They should just make it X CP per points size army. I can't say CP has proven to be an especially effective stick and carrot for making players create the armies GW thinks we're supposed to make. People are far more willing to game the system to get more, than they are unwilling to ignore the system to make the army they want. I've already seen someone point out a Cap/Lt/Bubble Char giving two rerolls just earned back his entire Det's CP cost. By that I mean they were much happier to bring along a Loyal 32 than they were afraid of chucking any concern for CP and skewing a list. They need to quit trying to use CP to coerce it and return to the drawing board.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fairly simple, the Aesthetic is counting for GW.
Why else is a cultist 6 ppm when a guardsmen is 5 or a grot 5.
GW very much cares about the aesthetic identity of factions, to the point that they decide to feth over balance.
It also is an issue in regards to what is fielded, whilest battalions and brigades ensured a "healthier" mix (soup bypassed it to a degree but .......) of units in an army, there's now rather no reason to not just go all out on, say Aggressors, eliminators and eradicators, with some token intercissors.
I think guardsmen may be 5 points because Guard seem to be quite rubbish, and so nerfing them more would seem a bit unfair.
Obviously could be early game syndrome - but I am finding the sort of "Guard should be good, Orks are trash" takes from the experts running into reality and being quite inaccurate interesting.
As I think anyone would say, trying to see how a new meta works is incredibly difficult due to the interactions - but at some point you should be trying to explain what is happening on tables, not what should be happening.
I guess if you think everyone should take 6 troop units minimum then fair enough, but I'm not sure it should be an obligation. I don't think there's much evidence the number of troop units is materially decreasing on tables.
Well, the old idea at least made some sort of sense where you would get more command points for larger detachments that take more units to fill. Of course, that completely underestimated the power of soup which is why lots of people are still upset about guard because cheap bodies are amazing to support elites, especially if they also give extra command points to help boost the elites even further.
To be honest I prefer how detachment works now, the old mechanics could have been good but with one signficant change: CPs are faction locked. Soups are legal but the loyal32 only provides CPs for those 32 dudes unless the entire army is Astra Militarum. Imperium player can still bring them but for what they are (cheap screeners) not for what other units get (more CPs) if they are part of the list.
So in practise the old detachment system would work like the current one: you add more detachments if you want units from different books or more HQ/FA/HS slots.
ohh i agree with you, it shouldn't be an obligation and subfactions should play diffrently, but i just attempted to showcase why GW doesn't hink that way.
For gw it was not acceptable that an ORK army had more grots then boyz.
For chaos the same but with CSM to cultist ratio.
I guess if you think everyone should take 6 troop units minimum then fair enough, but I'm not sure it should be an obligation. I don't think there's much evidence the number of troop units is materially decreasing on tables.
I'm still waiting for GW to stop kicking the can down the road on armies that don't use troops as troops. I don't think I ever had more fun than when taking Belial/Samael turned DW/RW into troops. It wasn't particularly effective, but it was fun to make something completely different for a change.
I don't think the number of troops units will decline, but I think the number of troops (total and/or in those units) will. I think troops units are going to get smaller, and you may or may not have more of them. You're still going to have to sit on objectives with troops to score. But people think blast is going to make units smaller. The prices went up for a lot of armies. That's all going to combine to make troops units smaller to keep the toys in in the list.
Blndmage wrote: I feel like they've made the decision that having a body on the field, even a grot, is worth 5 points. There's a minimum base cost for just taking up space.
I really think that guardsmen should have gone up, if only to 6 points, if Ork Boyz are still at 7.
Which is a weird decision when scoring is entirely based on UNITS not BODIES, and I can go ahead and take a UNIT who is infinitely more effective than Grots at the job of scoring (Does other things, hides more effectively, is harder to kill, has character protection) for HALF the point cost.
People keep bringing this up and it keeps being a stupid argument, I'm sorry.
Do you really think having 10x bodies with obsec holding an objective matters at all when you can easily wipe that unit out with the boltguns from a 5-man space marine squad? You're never going to have grots holding an objective that's in any way contested.
Blackie wrote: AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.
This isn't a windup - I'm happy to be shown wrong - but at the few tournaments that have run and published results Guard seem to be nowhere.
As said, this could be an early thing, a meta thing, but its difficult to wave away.
Blackie wrote: AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.
This isn't a windup - I'm happy to be shown wrong - but at the few tournaments that have run and published results Guard seem to be nowhere.
As said, this could be an early thing, a meta thing, but its difficult to wave away.
Guard tanks have no invulns, Eradicators are OP against tanks without an invul, Eradicators are an underpriced unit which a lot of armies have access to so they are everywhere which leads to lots of dead Guard tanks. It will take someone building a list around something other than tanks before they win I think.
Blackie wrote: With 5ppm guardsmen eradicators will never be in melta range though.
They don't need to be, they are good enough at 24" range, I think the issue AM are facing is not taking enough Guardsmen and Company Commanders, but a 25% increase is no joke even if it pales in comparison to the hit Gretchin took.
Blackie wrote: AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.
This isn't a windup - I'm happy to be shown wrong - but at the few tournaments that have run and published results Guard seem to be nowhere.
As said, this could be an early thing, a meta thing, but its difficult to wave away.
Nowhere?
Atleast they still have entries, unlike most FW index armies.
Indeed, heavy bolters are now D2 and can kill 2W models outright. But they are also doubly effective to kill say lowly-armored tanks.
Necron Praetorians are also listed with there new D2 weapons. But who fields Praetorians these days?
Sorry, but this made me laugh. Top 9 Space Marine Killers.
Exocrine: 170pts for a 6 shot weapon that hits on 4s and wounds on 3s w/-3 AP so they still get a save (5+ if in cover). Averages 3.3 dmg vs T4 3+ models. or 1-2 dead Marines
HellChickens: 150-155pts for 4 S8 -1 D2 shots hitting on 4s wounding on 2s still allowing a 4+ save. Averages less than 1 dead Marine a turn. if you put a flamer on it its 3.5 shots wounding on 3s for 2.3 wounds against a 5+ save = 3 dmg, or 1.5 dead Marines.
Ravager: 160pts for 9 S5 -3AP D2 shots hitting on 3s. 6 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Marines, unless they are in cover than its 2.6
Demon Prince: 160pts (200 with wings). give it talons and make it Khorne and it can kill a whopping 3.3 Marines on average...in Close Combat.
Meganobz: 120pts for 12 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with 2dmg, if you can get them into close combat they can kill 5 Marines on average, but good luck getting them there intact, Movement is 4. So either Teleport them or you need a transport.
At this point I am going to stop because its a bit silly. The top 5, the best pt for pt Marine Killer is Meganobz who suffer from the fact that they are one of the slowest units in the game and when caught in the open die to the plethora of heavy weapons aimed at them, mostly because they lack any invuln save. The funniest for me was the Exocrine (Sorry Nid guys). I mean, it really depends on what kind of Marines you are shooting and you do get ranged attacks as opposed to having to be on top of the Marines but still...wow.
Which raises the question as to whether there are real answers to cost-effective 2W Marine-killing outside of Marines. Most Custodian units kill 2-3 Marines each in melee, but you need to get them into melee and your cheapest option is spear-Guard at 49pts/model. Five Stormtroopers with two plasma guns kill just under three Marines for 65pts, which isn't terrible. Five Dark Reapers kill around three Marines as well but cost 175pts to do it.
Indeed, heavy bolters are now D2 and can kill 2W models outright.
But they are also doubly effective to kill say lowly-armored tanks.
Necron Praetorians are also listed with there new D2 weapons.
But who fields Praetorians these days?
Sorry, but this made me laugh. Top 9 Space Marine Killers.
Exocrine: 170pts for a 6 shot weapon that hits on 4s and wounds on 3s w/-3 AP so they still get a save (5+ if in cover). Averages 3.3 dmg vs T4 3+ models. or 1-2 dead Marines
HellChickens: 150-155pts for 4 S8 -1 D2 shots hitting on 4s wounding on 2s still allowing a 4+ save. Averages less than 1 dead Marine a turn. if you put a flamer on it its 3.5 shots wounding on 3s for 2.3 wounds against a 5+ save = 3 dmg, or 1.5 dead Marines.
Ravager: 160pts for 9 S5 -3AP D2 shots hitting on 3s. 6 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Marines, unless they are in cover than its 2.6
Demon Prince: 160pts (200 with wings). give it talons and make it Khorne and it can kill a whopping 3.3 Marines on average...in Close Combat.
Meganobz: 120pts for 12 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with 2dmg, if you can get them into close combat they can kill 5 Marines on average, but good luck getting them there intact, Movement is 4. So either Teleport them or you need a transport.
At this point I am going to stop because its a bit silly. The top 5, the best pt for pt Marine Killer is Meganobz who suffer from the fact that they are one of the slowest units in the game and when caught in the open die to the plethora of heavy weapons aimed at them, mostly because they lack any invuln save. The funniest for me was the Exocrine (Sorry Nid guys). I mean, it really depends on what kind of Marines you are shooting and you do get ranged attacks as opposed to having to be on top of the Marines but still...wow.
Exocrines can claim a +1 to hit if they do not move or if they use a Stratagem. They are a very decent unit. Anything with a range other than melee should not get 50+% of its pts back in one turn without Stratagems.
Pretty sure Exocrines get to shoot twice if they don't move. Which is arguably terrible design in combination with the +1 to hit from standing still, as moving makes them 3/8 as good - which is... worse than going from BS 3+ to BS 5+ - but expecting to kill 4.44 marines doesn't seem terrible.
Given Ravagers probably single handedly heralded in Marines 2.0 (okay maybe not) its hard to see them as bad either.
Really only the Heldrake seems bad, because it is.
Tyel wrote: Pretty sure Exocrines get to shoot twice if they don't move. Which is arguably terrible design in combination with the +1 to hit from standing still, as moving makes them 3/8 as good - which is... worse than going from BS 3+ to BS 5+ - but expecting to kill 4.44 marines doesn't seem terrible.
Given Ravagers probably single handedly heralded in Marines 2.0 (okay maybe not) its hard to see them as bad either.
Really only the Heldrake seems bad, because it is.
the heldrakes and the aberrants are pretty foolish.
Sorry, but this made me laugh. Top 9 Space Marine Killers.
Seconded.
But what worries me when you play Xenos are heavy bolters that are upgraded to 2D.
With 2D they are doubly effective to take on light tanks such as Starweavers, Raiders, and what not.
I'm sort of blanking Aberrants from existence. In a world where 35 points gets you a Bladeguard, its clearly reasonable that 52 points gets you a guy with 2 wounds and a road sign.
I suspect if they were 22-24 points with a pick they'd be a reasonable anti-marine choice. But they are not, so they are bad.
You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.
I'm sort of blanking Aberrants from existence. In a world where 35 points gets you a Bladeguard, its clearly reasonable that 52 points gets you a guy with 2 wounds and a road sign.
I suspect if they were 22-24 points with a pick they'd be a reasonable anti-marine choice. But they are not, so they are bad.
It's also comical to me that in a world of bolters, bolt carbines, special issue bolters, bolt rifles, assault bolters, etc, the power pick held by the WS4+ S3 2A sergeant of a 1A GEQ infantry squad is STILL the same pts cost as the power pick held by the WS3+ S5 2A dedicated assault squad who also happens to get 2 bonus S5 AP- D1 rending attacks on top of the pick.
And the fact that that pick costs the stupid GEQ sergeant the same as a damn power fist. GSC weaponry is a bad joke.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.
I'm not sure the math works so well on that, actually. I have Devilgaunts, and every time I do the math on them they come out a little disappointing even though they can fire 90 S4 shots. Muti-damage comes out better because D2 is twice the kill and 2CP to reduce a .666 to a .5 is only a 25ish% reduction. Top that off with a generally better AP on the higher powered weapons and there's still plenty of merit to use them. The 2W really puts a damper on the S4 spam.
90 x.5 x .6 x .333 = 8.9w (the .6 is for gant capability of rerolling 1s to wound if they're a big squad) 240 points for the squad and they only remove four marine bodies.
16x .666 x .5 x .83 x2 = 8.84w (eight overcharged plasma guns still do the work of 30 Devourers when the Strat is played)
Plus, you can bait the Strat out on one unit and then blaze away at another, in which case those plasma shots get a lot more output.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.
I'm not sure the math works so well on that, actually. I have Devilgaunts, and every time I do the math on them they come out a little disappointing even though they can fire 90 S4 shots. Muti-damage comes out better because D2 is twice the kill and 2CP to reduce a .666 to a .5 is only a 25ish% reduction. Top that off with a generally better AP on the higher powered weapons and there's still plenty of merit to use them. The 2W really puts a damper on the S4 spam.
90 x.5 x .6 x .333 = 8.9w (the .6 is for gant capability of rerolling 1s to wound if they're a big squad) 240 points for the squad and they only remove four marine bodies.
16x .666 x .5 x .83 x2 = 8.84w (eight overcharged plasma guns still do the work of 30 Devourers when the Strat is played)
Plus, you can bait the Strat out on one unit and then blaze away at another, in which case those plasma shots get a lot more output.
Good point. I've done that before. I still hate that strategem though. It's kind of annoying to have a squad of intercessors magically become T14 when my Contemptor is trying to hack them into pieces.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.
I'm not sure the math works so well on that, actually. I have Devilgaunts, and every time I do the math on them they come out a little disappointing even though they can fire 90 S4 shots. Muti-damage comes out better because D2 is twice the kill and 2CP to reduce a .666 to a .5 is only a 25ish% reduction. Top that off with a generally better AP on the higher powered weapons and there's still plenty of merit to use them. The 2W really puts a damper on the S4 spam.
90 x.5 x .6 x .333 = 8.9w (the .6 is for gant capability of rerolling 1s to wound if they're a big squad) 240 points for the squad and they only remove four marine bodies.
16x .666 x .5 x .83 x2 = 8.84w (eight overcharged plasma guns still do the work of 30 Devourers when the Strat is played)
Plus, you can bait the Strat out on one unit and then blaze away at another, in which case those plasma shots get a lot more output.
Good point. I've done that before. I still hate that strategem though. It's kind of annoying to have a squad of intercessors magically become T14 when my Contemptor is trying to hack them into pieces.
Ahh, yeah. In CC that'd be waaaay more irritating since you're usually 100% committed to the combat. With shooting it's easy to bait it out with one unit and then fire at something else. Th only way to do that in combat is if you have multiple combats with multiple juicy targets and in my experience that's often not the case.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.
That's not how I remember the Stratagem working, it's also not really worth it on a unit of Intercessors, nor on the amazing reborn firstborn.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.
That's not how I remember the Stratagem working, it's also not really worth it on a unit of Intercessors, nor on the amazing reborn firstborn.
I could see it being very useful for objective holding purposes.
SemperMortis wrote: Meganobz: 120pts for 12 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with 2dmg, if you can get them into close combat they can kill 5 Marines on average, but good luck getting them there intact, Movement is 4. So either Teleport them or you need a transport.
At this point I am going to stop because its a bit silly. The top 5, the best pt for pt Marine Killer is Meganobz who suffer from the fact that they are one of the slowest units in the game and when caught in the open die to the plethora of heavy weapons aimed at them, mostly because they lack any invuln save.
MANz are a great unit right now though, and they actually do a really good job at killing marines. It's probably one of the few units that deserves to be on that list.
SemperMortis wrote: Meganobz: 120pts for 12 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with 2dmg, if you can get them into close combat they can kill 5 Marines on average, but good luck getting them there intact, Movement is 4. So either Teleport them or you need a transport.
At this point I am going to stop because its a bit silly. The top 5, the best pt for pt Marine Killer is Meganobz who suffer from the fact that they are one of the slowest units in the game and when caught in the open die to the plethora of heavy weapons aimed at them, mostly because they lack any invuln save.
MANz are a great unit right now though, and they actually do a really good job at killing marines. It's probably one of the few units that deserves to be on that list.
3 Manz = 120pts, if you teleport/da jump them, they have a less than 50% chance of getting into combat, if they fail they are dead. You won't be hitting Devestators or other elite troops, you will be hitting speed bump troops most likely. This costs either another unit (Weirdboy) or CP to do. if you drive them, its another 60+pts for a trukk. Assuming they can get into combat, they will kill 5 Marines on average as mentioned. They will then die the following turn. I can't remember what the new SM price is going to be but currently thats only 75pts.
I am not saying they are bad at killing beakies, but they aren't incredible reliable thanks to their slow speed and requirement to have another means of movement, either Da Jump, Teleporta or a transport and honestly, the few games of 9th i have played, especially against beakies....trukkz do not last and a 135pt investment for a naked Battlewagon is just too much.
If you deep strike MANz, you are running them as Evil Suns, so the chance of making the charge is rather high. Speed bumps are also marines, when they soup they lose their doctrines.
The other option is putting them in a forktress and just drive them to where you need them.
And no, they don't die the following turn unless a large number of units is shooting them - which means they are not shooting the buggies, bommers, mek guns and walkers that should be making up the rest of your army.
They are one of the best units for taking and holding objectives, and a marine player is pretty like to put marines on objectives.
Jidmah wrote: Semper, your info seems a bit outdated.
If you deep strike MANz, you are running them as Evil Suns, so the chance of making the charge is rather high. Speed bumps are also marines, when they soup they lose their doctrines.
The other option is putting them in a forktress and just drive them to where you need them.
And no, they don't die the following turn unless a large number of units is shooting them - which means they are not shooting the buggies, bommers, mek guns and walkers that should be making up the rest of your army.
They are one of the best units for taking and holding objectives, and a marine player is pretty like to put marines on objectives.
It has been awhile (Thanks COVID) what is the likelihood of a successful charge with MANZ as evil sunz? 60-70%? either way, how are they not dead against a Marine list the following turn? If the unit survives it falls back and gets hammered with a plethora of -AP weapons. Hell the Eradicators will just pop them , and make back their points in doing so mind you.
True they can serve as a distraction unit though. I just don't like throwing away 120pts just to kill a handful of tac marines and draw fire.
Both have 3 wounds a model, so T5 3+ Sv versus T4 2+ Sv is a wash against most weapons
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
9 S 5 with Power Claws is way better than 7 (plus Shock Assault) close combat attacks
So head-to-head Eradicators will beat MANs in shooting and MANs will crush Eradicators in close combat. Otherwise, it is a matter of target and if you can get into close combat.
So I ask again, what do you expect from 120 points?
Both have 3 wounds a model, so T5 3+ Sv versus T4 2+ Sv is a wash against most weapons
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
9 S 5 with Power Claws is way better than 7 (plus Shock Assault) close combat attacks
So head-to-head Eradicators will beat MANs in shooting and MANs will crush Eradicators in close combat. Otherwise, it is a matter of target and if you can get into close combat.
So I ask again, what do you expect from 120 points?
I haven't played against Orks in too long, how does Dakka Dakka Dakka work? Is it a Strat?
Both have 3 wounds a model, so T5 3+ Sv versus T4 2+ Sv is a wash against most weapons
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
9 S 5 with Power Claws is way better than 7 (plus Shock Assault) close combat attacks
So head-to-head Eradicators will beat MANs in shooting and MANs will crush Eradicators in close combat. Otherwise, it is a matter of target and if you can get into close combat.
So I ask again, what do you expect from 120 points?
I haven't played against Orks in too long, how does Dakka Dakka Dakka work? Is it a Strat?
6s always hit, and any natural 6 to-hit generates an extra shot with the same weapon.
There's a straight to make it a natural 5+ instead of just 6s.
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
12 kustom shootas with DDD means an average of 4 or 5 hits at S4 ap-, that will wound on 3s or 4s and allow armor saves. 6 meltas at BS3+ are 4 hits that would wound on 2s and negate any save, they are definitely better against hordes. And I'm not even counting re-rolls, which are easy to get for SM, while orks don't have any.
People sometimes forget that DDD is significant on high S high AP high D weapons, almost irrelevant on sluggas/shootas. 30 shootaboyz with DDD gain a gran total of 3 additional hits S4 ap-, rolling 70 dice in total.
It's also worth mentioning that a shooting unit will fire up to 5 times in a game, and safely from turn 1 while a CC oriented one will actually fight 1-2 turns per game and cannot cause damage in turn 1 tipycally. You can screen a charger, you can't screen a shooter.
Both have 3 wounds a model, so T5 3+ Sv versus T4 2+ Sv is a wash against most weapons
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
9 S 5 with Power Claws is way better than 7 (plus Shock Assault) close combat attacks
So head-to-head Eradicators will beat MANs in shooting and MANs will crush Eradicators in close combat. Otherwise, it is a matter of target and if you can get into close combat.
So I ask again, what do you expect from 120 points?
12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD ends up with 4.6 hits, against T4 that is 2.3 wounds which allows armor save, so against those Space Marines that is .77ish wounds on a Marine. Against a horde that is T3 its a bit better, about 3 wounds, against a 5+ save its 2 dead models. Against a T8 vehicle its .76 wounds which allow the 3+ save which means about .25 damage
Those 3 Eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and against T3 or T4 its 3.33 wounds which allow no save and then do D6 damage. So significantly better at Clearing hordes or SMs or any infantry for that matter. Against that T8 vehicle its 2 wounds that do D6 damage each...so a lot higher than the .25 dmg Meganobz do.
Now in CC you are right, those Meganobz are great...but of course they have to actually make it into combat to inflict any dmg which isn't as easy as it sounds
So yeah, If you think they are comparable, i'll gladly play a competitive game against you where I get Eradicators and you can have meganobz
Both have 3 wounds a model, so T5 3+ Sv versus T4 2+ Sv is a wash against most weapons
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
9 S 5 with Power Claws is way better than 7 (plus Shock Assault) close combat attacks
So head-to-head Eradicators will beat MANs in shooting and MANs will crush Eradicators in close combat. Otherwise, it is a matter of target and if you can get into close combat.
So I ask again, what do you expect from 120 points?
12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD ends up with 4.6 hits, against T4 that is 2.3 wounds which allows armor save, so against those Space Marines that is .77ish wounds on a Marine. Against a horde that is T3 its a bit better, about 3 wounds, against a 5+ save its 2 dead models. Against a T8 vehicle its .76 wounds which allow the 3+ save which means about .25 damage
Those 3 Eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and against T3 or T4 its 3.33 wounds which allow no save and then do D6 damage. So significantly better at Clearing hordes or SMs or any infantry for that matter. Against that T8 vehicle its 2 wounds that do D6 damage each...so a lot higher than the .25 dmg Meganobz do.
Now in CC you are right, those Meganobz are great...but of course they have to actually make it into combat to inflict any dmg which isn't as easy as it sounds
So yeah, If you think they are comparable, i'll gladly play a competitive game against you where I get Eradicators and you can have meganobz
wait wait, does that mean we have permission to start comparing Meganobz to the new 3w terminators? Let me start.
Megabads are worse in every single way.
6 Melta shots vs 12 Kustom Shoota shots with DDD means one kills vehicle/monsters/heavy infantry pretty well while the other is a bit better against hordes.
12 kustom shootas with DDD means an average of 4 or 5 hits at S4 ap-, that will wound on 3s or 4s and allow armor saves. 6 meltas at BS3+ are 4 hits that would wound on 2s and negate any save, they are definitely better against hordes. And I'm not even counting re-rolls, which are easy to get for SM, while orks don't have any.
People sometimes forget that DDD is significant on high S high AP high D weapons, almost irrelevant on sluggas/shootas. 30 shootaboyz with DDD gain a gran total of 3 additional hits S4 ap-, rolling 70 dice in total.
It's also worth mentioning that a shooting unit will fire up to 5 times in a game, and safely from turn 1 while a CC oriented one will actually fight 1-2 turns per game and cannot cause damage in turn 1 tipycally. You can screen a charger, you can't screen a shooter.
I mean, depending on the terrain layout you can screen shooters. Limits targets that unit can see but you can also keep a shooting unit alive much, much longer.
The concept of horde armies is to surround and outnumber the enemy with bodies, not to be tankier than the opponent. Hordes win games with board control mostly.
Now we have the unpleasant situation in which SM can actually bring a fair number of bodies which are also quite resilient. Another point to those who say horde armies are dead.
Another point to those who say horde armies are dead.
This is exactly my point.
How many more models (wounds) can you field in a horde army?
Well a horde army can have those 180 wounds just in Troops, meanwhile you've used up your Troops, AND your FA. You're also assuming Tacs/Assaults won't go up for a two wound cost. If you use costs of Intercessors and Vanguard Vets that's 1770 instead of 1440 for 180 Ork boyz no Grots. Half and half gets you to 1170. The difference between "horde" and infantry heavy SM got smaller but it hasn't been negated.
Another point to those who say horde armies are dead.
This is exactly my point.
How many more models (wounds) can you field in a horde army?
Now? The bare minimum to be defined as an horde army. Less than 200 models for a 2000 points game.
And with little to zero supporting stuff to make them work properly, because the humble cheap dude is not that cheap and expendable anymore. Combine that to all those 9th mechanics that hit large squads plus increased lethality even against troops and horde armies are no more.
Not Online!!! wrote: horde armies, with low SV, were dead when the first doctrines showed up in conjunction with bolter discipline.
it's been awhile but back in 7th and earlier didn't Marines have sufficant AP to ignore GEQ armor anyway?
Yes, but they had only 24" range, rapid-fired only within 12" and the cover save was a separate save, unaffected by AP.
By giving new marines bolters with 30" range the kill area has increased by ~55%.
By upgrading rapid-fire to work at the max range the bolter lethality skyrocketed.
Then the extra attacks for all marines made them too costly to effectively tarpit, doctrines allowed bolters to cut through remnants of armor saves (even in cover) and full rerolls minimized the impact of -1 to hit defensive auras.
Hordes were left naked, exposed, and with no way to withstand the storm besides invulnerable saves (rare) and FnP (also rare). Some horde lists weathered it better than others, but speaking for Nid and GSC, these were not the lucky ones.
I have not played a lot of 9th edition, but it seems to me that any unit with loads of models is good at capping points and objectives. Models with the infantery keyword innparticular can do actions.
Aslo, none of my models ever had a coversave in 8th edition. In 9th that is not the case. So they are more durable then they where.
Also, when the last offisial edition of Warhammer Fantasy wad around you had a lot of relly good and cool models. But they where very bad in the game. What was good was hordes of infatery. The only thing better then 40 skeletan warriors was 60 skeletan warriors. The only thing better then 20 tomb guards where 30 tomb guards. (Well teqnicaly 20 grave guards ad well as they had the same statline with better saves for the same points, but I digress.)
When AoS came around you have a much better mix of models on the table. In 8th edition it turned out the best thing any favtion could do was to take IG because they where more durable and a hier damage output then any othet model. And that was just a very boring aspect of 8th. 9th tryes to retefy that. Hordes are stil good inn 9th though.
If you use costs of Intercessors and Vanguard Vets that's 1770 instead of 1440 for 180 Ork boyz no Grots.
Now compare the armor saves and the difference will essentially be nothing.
Now compare the ROF.
Now compare the bubble buffs.
Now compare your 30ish points of 6 grots with 6 wounds win ObSec against my 100 or so points of 5 Intercessors with 10 wounds.
it'll go on and on. The horde and a few other things essentially pushed Marines to try and max their models/wounds. Assuming Rapid Fire every time all the time - a Tac Squad 10(or 20) wounds, more than 18 shots plus a special and a heavy box art flamer + ML is average 25 shots, 10 models vs Intercessors at about the same 20 wounds, 20 shots (or more if they go Assault Bolters).
That's less than 10 points per shot fired.
You only get 5 turns to shoot.
Even at 10 points per shot fired for easy math...
2000 points gets 200 shots per turn. 134 hits, 67 wounds average a 6+ save after all the cover/ap/etc hijinks is 58 wounds after. That's three turns of shooting. Leaving only two for the other 500-900 points of whatever wounds you have. Assuming you don't tarpit anything for the worse melee that will kill less. And you didn't take anything I need Anti Tank for that will be a lot more than 10 points per shot fired.
I already played this mental game. You take two batallions of 6x30 grots, and I can't kill grots faster than you can move them on the objective. If you put 3 units of grots on each of four objectives, that's 90 wounds to shoot off when I'm only dealing (grots have a lower T so) 89 wounds (no saves) that still leaves one Grot on the objective, and 90 each on the other three. After four turns you have one grot on each objective, plus whatever the rest of your army is doing.
Edit to Add: Also assuming you never shoot me back.
With the word "average" I meant common.
