Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blndmage wrote:
I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

From my understanding of the competitive side of the game, hordes aren't dominating the scene there. In more casual settings, I run Horde like lists and generally lose to harder lists.

Hordes are generally fluffy and fun, I've never seen one do super well competitively, but for the enjoyment you get from playing with/against them, the story, the visuals on the table, it never fails to be awesome!

I 100% agree.

Hordes are powerful in three turns games, which aren't regular 40k games. A green tide with 210 orks struggles to avoid tabling in a real game despite doing well in tournaments cause time limitations.

 Blackie wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

From my understanding of the competitive side of the game, hordes aren't dominating the scene there. In more casual settings, I run Horde like lists and generally lose to harder lists.

Hordes are generally fluffy and fun, I've never seen one do super well competitively, but for the enjoyment you get from playing with/against them, the story, the visuals on the table, it never fails to be awesome!

I 100% agree.

Hordes are powerful in three turns games, which aren't regular 40k games. A green tide with 210 orks struggles to avoid tabling in a real game despite doing well in tournaments cause time limitations.

I think you may be misinterpreting the term "horde" here.

As far as this thread goes, "horde" refers to the ability for certain unit entries to reach critical mass with minimal/negligible point expenditure. For example, AM could spend 200 points on 50 1W models and absolutely swamp the table so that it's mathematically impossible provide a meaningful counter to it at the same point cost.

Bharring wrote:
Angel,
What are your thoughts on such per-models-in-unit rules?

The simplest one I've seen is to cap the shots of blasts/templates at the number of models in the unit.

Another idea is a dX per Y models in the unit.

A third idea is to roll a 6+ for each model in the unit - for each success you get one shot.

What are your comparative opinions of those ideas?

My gut feeling is that flamers and blasts aren't hitting enough models. At the same time, I can see an argument that a flamer should be able to deal wounds based on mass- don't tell me that covering a grot in flame and covering an ogryn in flame should both have the potential to deal 1 wound.

I don't think a solution that makes multiwound units more durable than an equivalent wounds single wound infantry is a positive step.

I would go cap the shots of blasts/templates at the number of wounds in the unit.
A flamer that would have found time to hit 6 guardsmen could have done a double pass on 3 primaris or terminators.

 =Angel= wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Angel,
What are your thoughts on such per-models-in-unit rules?

The simplest one I've seen is to cap the shots of blasts/templates at the number of models in the unit.

Another idea is a dX per Y models in the unit.

A third idea is to roll a 6+ for each model in the unit - for each success you get one shot.

What are your comparative opinions of those ideas?

My gut feeling is that flamers and blasts aren't hitting enough models. At the same time, I can see an argument that a flamer should be able to deal wounds based on mass- don't tell me that covering a grot in flame and covering an ogryn in flame should both have the potential to deal 1 wound.

I don't think a solution that makes multiwound units more durable than an equivalent wounds single wound infantry is a positive step.

I would go cap the shots of blasts/templates at the number of wounds in the unit.
A flamer that would have found time to hit 6 guardsmen could have done a double pass on 3 primaris or terminators.

Flamers arn't the issue its Battle Cannons being as good against tanks as against marines as againt terminators same for Basilisics etc. And worse agains chaff that we are saying need a limited number of hits per model

 skchsan wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

From my understanding of the competitive side of the game, hordes aren't dominating the scene there. In more casual settings, I run Horde like lists and generally lose to harder lists.

Hordes are generally fluffy and fun, I've never seen one do super well competitively, but for the enjoyment you get from playing with/against them, the story, the visuals on the table, it never fails to be awesome!

I 100% agree.

Hordes are powerful in three turns games, which aren't regular 40k games. A green tide with 210 orks struggles to avoid tabling in a real game despite doing well in tournaments cause time limitations.

I think you may be misinterpreting the term "horde" here.

As far as this thread goes, "horde" refers to the ability for certain unit entries to reach critical mass with minimal/negligible point expenditure. For example, AM could spend 200 points on 50 1W models and absolutely swamp the table so that it's mathematically impossible provide a meaningful counter to it at the same point cost.

Yeah, but that only applies to guardsmen. The thread is another rant against AM, isn't it?

Anything else can be countered, and to be honest even guardsmen are not even remotely the most effective unit in the game. Those 50W at 200 points are certainly very effective but is AM unbeatable? The answer is no, or not anymore at least, even if that 50W can't be killed without investing way more points of stuff. I've won against AM lists that fielded 100+ guardsmen with all my armies in this edition. Note that you don't have to table the opponent but to score one more point than your opponent to win the game.

Soups may be too powerful, and in fact they are, but hordes are even too weak and should be improved IMHO.

 skchsan wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

From my understanding of the competitive side of the game, hordes aren't dominating the scene there. In more casual settings, I run Horde like lists and generally lose to harder lists.

Hordes are generally fluffy and fun, I've never seen one do super well competitively, but for the enjoyment you get from playing with/against them, the story, the visuals on the table, it never fails to be awesome!

I 100% agree.

Hordes are powerful in three turns games, which aren't regular 40k games. A green tide with 210 orks struggles to avoid tabling in a real game despite doing well in tournaments cause time limitations.

I think you may be misinterpreting the term "horde" here.

As far as this thread goes, "horde" refers to the ability for certain unit entries to reach critical mass with minimal/negligible point expenditure. For example, AM could spend 200 points on 50 1W models and absolutely swamp the table so that it's mathematically impossible provide a meaningful counter to it at the same point cost.

Wait, are you saying that my Grot army, currently at less than 900 points, that has 180 Grots and 7 Orks, should dominate games because it's theoretically impossible to kill them all? That just isn't true, there are many factors that go into Horde lists, Morale being crucial. Some hordes, like Nids, can manage this easily, until key units are taken out, but there always a lynchpin.

I think clarity is important here. Which hordes are a problem exactly?
If it's only imperial guard, the codex needs to be looked at, not the core rules.

 Blndmage wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

From my understanding of the competitive side of the game, hordes aren't dominating the scene there. In more casual settings, I run Horde like lists and generally lose to harder lists.

Hordes are generally fluffy and fun, I've never seen one do super well competitively, but for the enjoyment you get from playing with/against them, the story, the visuals on the table, it never fails to be awesome!

I 100% agree.

Hordes are powerful in three turns games, which aren't regular 40k games. A green tide with 210 orks struggles to avoid tabling in a real game despite doing well in tournaments cause time limitations.

I think you may be misinterpreting the term "horde" here.

As far as this thread goes, "horde" refers to the ability for certain unit entries to reach critical mass with minimal/negligible point expenditure. For example, AM could spend 200 points on 50 1W models and absolutely swamp the table so that it's mathematically impossible provide a meaningful counter to it at the same point cost.

Wait, are you saying that my Grot army, currently at less than 900 points, that has 180 Grots and 7 Orks, should dominate games because it's theoretically impossible to kill them all? That just isn't true, there are many factors that go into Horde lists, Morale being crucial. Some hordes, like Nids, can manage this easily, until key units are taken out, but there always a lynchpin.

No, it's precisely the ability for your 180 grots and 7 runtherds to be able to tie up the opponents army while rest of your army gets set up. Obviously in case of orks, your screen could actually hinder your melee heavy hitters from reahing their targets.It will depend on what the rest of your 1,100 pts are made of to determine the level of "OP-ness" of your 900 pt grots n herds. Back to my example, 200 pts of guardsmen, made of 5x 10 man squads will soak up AT LEAST half of other non-horde army to put a decent dent on them. It'll require more if they're buffed by other characters.

It is mathematically easier to down 200 pts worth of troops, elites, hq, heavy, FA of elite army than it is to down horde of same pts worth. This is because expendability is the keyword in determining toughness of a unit in 8th ed.

Because anything can hurt everything in 8th ed, more dice you can roll, the better the unit in general.

To add a bit of math here, consider a case where 200 pts of grots get locked in combat with 200 pts of berserkers, one of the most problematic melee unit in the game currently. This is highly theoretical but bear with me for a sec.

Grots with WS+5, S2, T2, Sv +6 vs berserkers with WS+3, S5, T4, Sv+3 will yield:
Grots, with 66.67 W, will take zerkers 9.48 turns to completely wipe them without retaliation. (.0817 WPP @ 17 PPM) while zerkers, with 11.76 W, will take grots 4.08 turns (.0062 WPP @ 3 PPM) to wipe them. Systematicallg, hordes are an issue.

TLDR Version:

Guardsmen should be 5ppm

That makes a problem in itself. Cause you've just incentivized more soup by making AM guardsmen cheaper.

That just opens up another problem.

Hordes, by it's nature. is hard to stop without some means of anti horde. But if your running an TAC list then you should account for this, at least.

doing overkill on things leads to bigger problems down the road, like the fact that elite armies would suffer more under this ruling. Or the fact that you would be promoting anti tank/anti Armour weapons as an anti horde solution, when in reality it shouldn't (remember from past editions people)

As i can see it. Bringing in a rule to specifically address hordes leads to more problems in terms of everything else. Unless you would want to change the fundamental rules (Morale, Weaponry) then this discussion will go nowhere.

In terms of rules, i could see specific weapons getting more hits per models in the unit, or address morale damaging weapons (wounds caused by this weapon give a -1 penalty to morale for each unsaved wound caused) like say flamers or "shock" weaponry. Things that are designed to suppress or destroy whole lines of infantry. Artillery is another example

ATM, such rules would be too much of a change for the current ruleset

 skchsan wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

From my understanding of the competitive side of the game, hordes aren't dominating the scene there. In more casual settings, I run Horde like lists and generally lose to harder lists.

Hordes are generally fluffy and fun, I've never seen one do super well competitively, but for the enjoyment you get from playing with/against them, the story, the visuals on the table, it never fails to be awesome!

I 100% agree.

Hordes are powerful in three turns games, which aren't regular 40k games. A green tide with 210 orks struggles to avoid tabling in a real game despite doing well in tournaments cause time limitations.

I think you may be misinterpreting the term "horde" here.

As far as this thread goes, "horde" refers to the ability for certain unit entries to reach critical mass with minimal/negligible point expenditure. For example, AM could spend 200 points on 50 1W models and absolutely swamp the table so that it's mathematically impossible provide a meaningful counter to it at the same point cost.

Wait, are you saying that my Grot army, currently at less than 900 points, that has 180 Grots and 7 Orks, should dominate games because it's theoretically impossible to kill them all? That just isn't true, there are many factors that go into Horde lists, Morale being crucial. Some hordes, like Nids, can manage this easily, until key units are taken out, but there always a lynchpin.

No, it's precisely the ability for your 180 grots and 7 runtherds to be able to tie up the opponents army while rest of your army gets set up. Obviously in case of orks, your screen could actually hinder your melee heavy hitters from reahing their targets.It will depend on what the rest of your 1,100 pts are made of to determine the level of "OP-ness" of your 900 pt grots n herds. Back to my example, 200 pts of guardsmen, made of 5x 10 man squads will soak up AT LEAST half of other non-horde army to put a decent dent on them. It'll require more if they're buffed by other characters.

It is mathematically easier to down 200 pts worth of troops, elites, hq, heavy, FA of elite army than it is to down horde of same pts worth. This is because expendability is the keyword in determining toughness of a unit in 8th ed.

Because anything can hurt everything in 8th ed, more dice you can roll, the better the unit in general.

To add a bit of math here, consider a case where 200 pts of grots get locked in combat with 200 pts of berserkers, one of the most problematic melee unit in the game currently. This is highly theoretical but bear with me for a sec.

Grots with WS+5, S2, T2, Sv +6 vs berserkers with WS+3, S5, T4, Sv+3 will yield:
Grots, with 66.67 W, will take zerkers 9.48 turns to completely wipe them without retaliation. (.0817 WPP @ 17 PPM) while zerkers, with 11.76 W, will take grots 4.08 turns (.0062 WPP @ 3 PPM) to wipe them. Systematicallg, hordes are an issue.

Veryncool and informative response!
Thank you!

One question, why the assumption that I'm playing 2,000 points? What if I'm playing 1,000 or 1,500? How does that change things?
Also Grots in units of 20+ get a =1 to hit, in both CC and shooting, how does that skew things?

 skchsan wrote:
Grots with WS+5, S2, T2, Sv +6 vs berserkers with WS+3, S5, T4, Sv+3 will yield:
Grots, with 66.67 W, will take zerkers 9.48 turns to completely wipe them without retaliation. (.0817 WPP @ 17 PPM) while zerkers, with 11.76 W, will take grots 4.08 turns (.0062 WPP @ 3 PPM) to wipe them. Systematicallg, hordes are an issue.

No true though.

204 points are 12 zerkers, who attack 37 times (12 of those attack AP0, all other AP-1), twice.
Each round of chain-axes kills 13.88 gretchin, the chainswords kill another 5.55, for a total of 19.33 gretchin. Due to LD 4, the minimum casualties they take from moral is 16, wiping one unit per round of combat.
So, if you declare two gretchin units as targets for your charge, you can kill 180 points of gretchin per turn with an equally expensive unit of khorne berzerkers.

But, runtherd! If the gertchin get supporting auras, why don't the Zerkers get any? Add a dark apostle to the zerkers and they will still wipe two units of gretchin per turn and most likely the runtherd as well.

In return, if the 180 points of gretchin get the charge, they kill exactly 5 khorne berzerkers, including the +1 to hit. Worst case they lose 3 additional models to moral.

Thought on flamers and other "auto hit" weapons.

Give then a second profile for a shorter range where they hit more models, doesn't change overwatch performance unless the enemy wants to get say within 6" or whatever you set it to - but when the models carrying it are on the offensive they can get closer to a horde.

Say a flamer going from 1d6 auto hits to 1d6+3

A few things from reading all of this:

The original suggestion might not work as intended, but i like the general idea.

Flamers definitely need some kind of buff. I think the best idea I've seen floating around is up the shots to 2D6 or 3D6 (depending on the flamer) but limit the number to the number of models or wounds in the unit.

I think most cheap horde units should cost more rather than have the elite ones cost less, though some elite ones do definitely need to cost less as well.

Back to original idea, what if:

If the strength of a weapon is more than double the toughness of a unit, the damage of the weapon does carry over, but the unit gets to roll their saves against this damage as normal.

Ice_can wrote:

The difference between 7th and 8th is too great to really do a direct comparison as I don't remember anyone ever fielding 300+ invantry and no vehicals as an army in 7th.
However even if they did with better infantry weapons sporting AP5 or AP6 shooting infantry weapons at infantry was effective and massed infantry fire didn't scare vehicals/monsters.

Also templates and blast weren't confined to targeting 1 unit in 8th they are now. If they took up 80 of their deployment zone you were hitting something even with scatter.
Infantry spam works because killing infantry efficently is a stuggle for a number of codex's in 8th.

Well then you never played against a Green tide list, nor did you watch the LVO where we had an ork player place decently by fielding 300 Ork boyz.

But again, i have seen multiple people ask a very relevant question. Where is this idea that "Hordes are too powerful" coming from? Because to my knowledge, no Horde army has done well in any major tournaments except the recent GW one where the player apparently slow played the entire time so games finished on turn 2-3. So when you say that Hordes are too powerful, what do you mean exactly because I have yet to see any real evidence that they are in fact "too powerful". I do see them doing their job, slowing down elite units and tarpitting them, so if you are upset that they are doing their exact function might I ask you to stop trying to ban them?

SemperMortis wrote:

Well then you never played against a Green tide list, nor did you watch the LVO where we had an ork player place decently by fielding 300 Ork boyz.

But again, i have seen multiple people ask a very relevant question. Where is this idea that "Hordes are too powerful" coming from? Because to my knowledge, no Horde army has done well in any major tournaments except the recent GW one where the player apparently slow played the entire time so games finished on turn 2-3. So when you say that Hordes are too powerful, what do you mean exactly because I have yet to see any real evidence that they are in fact "too powerful". I do see them doing their job, slowing down elite units and tarpitting them, so if you are upset that they are doing their exact function might I ask you to stop trying to ban them?

I would ask you to stop assigning sentiments to me that I haven't expressed.

I've seen and played against green tide in 8th edition.
I never played against green tide in 7th edition, it was all silly deathstars or friendly games.

In 8th edition quality of attack isn't as important as the volume. Hordes bring volumes of attacks at points costs that can't be countered by non hordes. If orks get the points drops that players are calling for like 4ppm ork boys this edition is going to be unplayable for non hordes.

If flamers etc didn't suck so hard they may aswell not exsist, I wouldn't find 4ppm guards men so objectionable. But right now killing such things efficently is not possible with a lot of lists.
Take DE as a case in point to make them competitive with guardsmen they destroy power armour with insane efficiency.

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Well then you never played against a Green tide list, nor did you watch the LVO where we had an ork player place decently by fielding 300 Ork boyz.

But again, i have seen multiple people ask a very relevant question. Where is this idea that "Hordes are too powerful" coming from? Because to my knowledge, no Horde army has done well in any major tournaments except the recent GW one where the player apparently slow played the entire time so games finished on turn 2-3. So when you say that Hordes are too powerful, what do you mean exactly because I have yet to see any real evidence that they are in fact "too powerful". I do see them doing their job, slowing down elite units and tarpitting them, so if you are upset that they are doing their exact function might I ask you to stop trying to ban them?

I would ask you to stop assigning sentiments to me that I haven't expressed.

I've seen and played against green tide in 8th edition.
I never played against green tide in 7th edition, it was all silly deathstars or friendly games.

In 8th edition quality of attack isn't as important as the volume. Hordes bring volumes of attacks at points costs that can't be countered by non hordes. If orks get the points drops that players are calling for like 4ppm ork boys this edition is going to be unplayable for non hordes.

If flamers etc didn't suck so hard they may aswell not exsist, I wouldn't find 4ppm guards men so objectionable. But right now killing such things efficently is not possible with a lot of lists.
Take DE as a case in point to make them competitive with guardsmen they destroy power armour with insane efficiency.

The last comment wasn't aimed at you but in general to everyone. In 7th, the formation was literally called "green tide" and its smallest incarnation was 101 Orkz for a total of 660ish points.

I agree in 8th that volume is important, as it has been in every previous edition. I don't know of a single ork player who wants Ork Boyz to be priced at 4ppm. I actually don't know any Ork players who want Ork boyz lowered in price at all. I do know that almost everyone ork player wants SIGNIFICANT price drops and buffs to other units so they are worth taking so we don't have to bring 150+ models to a game to even have a chance at winning. As for flamers sucking? well yeah compared to last edition where a few lucky flamer shots could inflict 20-30 wounds on a 10 man unit. As for sucking in general? not so much, and if you don't believe me then lets trade, you can have my Burna's and i'll take your flamers.

But yet again we are getting off my main point. How are hordes "Too Powerful"? I still haven't seen any horde list do well except for maybe IG using soup or just flooding hte board and using Basilisks and the like. So to my knowledge this is less a thread about nerfing hordes and yet another "Damn Imperial Guard are OP" thread.

To be honest my main issue is that GW apparently can't balance the most playtested and balanced edition ever.

I've never met a real life player calling for 4ppm boys, but I have seen some post here calling for them.

I realy wish GE had found some other mechanic to translate templates into 8th as their current idea is an unbalanced mess.

Some came off unusable poor and others came off so well they outclass all their alternatives.

Ice_can wrote:
To be honest my main issue is that GW apparently can't balance the most playtested and balanced edition ever.

I've never met a real life player calling for 4ppm boys, but I have seen some post here calling for them.

I realy wish GE had found some other mechanic to translate templates into 8th as their current idea is an unbalanced mess.

Some came off unusable poor and others came off so well they outclass all their alternatives.

I am fairly active in the ork community here and I have never even heard someone say 4ppm boyz is a good idea.

Is a boy better than a guardsmen? I guess.

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
To be honest my main issue is that GW apparently can't balance the most playtested and balanced edition ever.

I've never met a real life player calling for 4ppm boys, but I have seen some post here calling for them.

I realy wish GE had found some other mechanic to translate templates into 8th as their current idea is an unbalanced mess.

Some came off unusable poor and others came off so well they outclass all their alternatives.

I am fairly active in the ork community here and I have never even heard someone say 4ppm boyz is a good idea.

Same here. No one is calling for 4ppm boyz.

Martel732 wrote:
Is a boy better than a guardsmen? I guess.

Ironically, in a vacuum, no they aren't. At 120pts an Ork can field 19 ork boyz and a free nob, IG can field 27 guardsmen and 3 sergeants armed with lasguns and chainswords. As soon as the IG get in range the orkz start dying in droves, 30 shots, 15 hits, 5 wounds, 4 dead orkz. Orkz move and advance (8.5inches on average). IG move into Rapid fire range 60 shots, 30 hits 10 wounds 8 dead Orkz. Orkz take a leadership check at LD8 with 8 losses so they lose D6 more orkz so 3 more, they are now down to 5 models including a nob. Orkz move, shoot 5 shots 1.66 hits, 1.33 wounds 1 dead Guardsmen. Orkz charge, IG Overwatch 58 shots, 10ish hits on average 3 wounds and 2-3 more dead orkz. 3 orkz get in for 6 attacks at S4 and 4 attacks at S5 6 hits, 4 wounds and 3 dead Guardsmen. The absolute horde of remaining guardsmen then bum rush in and wipe out the remaining orkz.

So yep, guardsmen are better point for point. And yet again, I haven't heard of anyone calling for 4ppm Ork boyz, Hell I am an ork player and I don't want 5ppm orkz. What I really want is the ability to take FEWER MODELS and still be competitive. My current tournament list has 165 Boyz models, 25 grotz and 5ish character models. Even if I could take HALF that and be successful I would be happy.

If hordes are he problem some weapons should have attacks increased and damage decreased.
Instead of battle cannons being d6 shots and d3 damage it should be 6 shots at 1 damage. Autocannon should be heavy 4 and 1 damage, etc

This would start killing off chaff quicker HOWEVER this would severely screw infantry vs Armour balance.

IMHO hordes are NOT as big a problem as people say. Hordes are honestly not winning major tournies and aren’t that great.

gungo wrote:
If hordes are he problem some weapons should have attacks increased and damage decreased.
Instead of battle cannons being d6 shots and d3 damage it should be 6 shots at 1 damage. Autocannon should be heavy 4 and 1 damage, etc

This would start killing off chaff quicker HOWEVER this would severely screw infantry vs Armour balance.

IMHO hordes are NOT as big a problem as people say. Hordes are honestly not winning major tournies and aren’t that great.

Does that mean my ork equivalents get double that? So my version of Autocannons are Heavy 8? and my D6 weapons become 12? Sure, I am all about that. My Ranged weapons might actually accomplish something now.

The issue with changing all weapons like that is them you don't have certain guns being good at certain targets.

A las cannon being 1 shot 1d6 damage is good vs tanks, okay vs heavy infantry (3+ wounds is what i consider heavy), and bad against light infantry (1 wound).

If you made it 6 shots 1d then it would be good against pretty much everything. So people would just take tons of lascannons and nothing else. This would also add a lot of dice rolling to the game (though apps can help against that i suppose).

That being said, i wouldn't hate it if some guns could do some extra damage to hordes if they were powerful enough, which is why i think my previous idea might not be terrible:

Caught in the blast: If the strength of a weapon is more than double the toughness of a unit, the damage of the weapon does carry over, but the unit gets to roll their saves against this damage as normal, ignoring the AP of the weapon.

This lets multi-damage weapons do a little extra damage to low wound models, without making them the go-to options for facing them.

jcd386 wrote:
The issue with changing all weapons like that is them you don't have certain guns being good at certain targets.

A las cannon being 1 shot 1d6 damage is good vs tanks, okay vs heavy infantry (3+ wounds is what i consider heavy), and bad against light infantry (1 wound).

If you made it 6 shots 1d then it would be good against pretty much everything. So people would just take tons of lascannons and nothing else. This would also add a lot of dice rolling to the game (though apps can help against that i suppose).

That being said, i wouldn't hate it if some guns could do some extra damage to hordes if they were powerful enough, which is why i think my previous idea might not be terrible:

Caught in the blast: If the strength of a weapon is more than double the toughness of a unit, the damage of the weapon does carry over, but the unit gets to roll their saves against this damage as normal, ignoring the AP of the weapon.

This lets multi-damage weapons do a little extra damage to low wound models, without making them the go-to options for facing them.

Again, where are hordes doing great in competitive games? because to my knowledge they aren't. The only time Horde does well is in local small tournaments, at LVO the best lists were soup, eldar and other nonsense, not horde.

Personally I think this is less about Hordes being OP and more about certain players/armies being upset that they can't handle horde skew lists if they take anti-vehicle spam lists.

Last tournament I went to one of my opponents was angry when he played me, specifically because I took 180 models and he brought a Lascannon Space Marine spam list. Had a similar thing happen a few days later when I played against an eldar player who brought a bunch of his best units like Dark Reapers and what not. So maybe instead of just bringing a bunch of heavy weapons to deal with Vehicles and monsters you should bring some anti-infantry weapons as well.

SemperMortis wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
The issue with changing all weapons like that is them you don't have certain guns being good at certain targets.

A las cannon being 1 shot 1d6 damage is good vs tanks, okay vs heavy infantry (3+ wounds is what i consider heavy), and bad against light infantry (1 wound).

If you made it 6 shots 1d then it would be good against pretty much everything. So people would just take tons of lascannons and nothing else. This would also add a lot of dice rolling to the game (though apps can help against that i suppose).

That being said, i wouldn't hate it if some guns could do some extra damage to hordes if they were powerful enough, which is why i think my previous idea might not be terrible:

Caught in the blast: If the strength of a weapon is more than double the toughness of a unit, the damage of the weapon does carry over, but the unit gets to roll their saves against this damage as normal, ignoring the AP of the weapon.

This lets multi-damage weapons do a little extra damage to low wound models, without making them the go-to options for facing them.

Again, where are hordes doing great in competitive games? because to my knowledge they aren't. The only time Horde does well is in local small tournaments, at LVO the best lists were soup, eldar and other nonsense, not horde.

Personally I think this is less about Hordes being OP and more about certain players/armies being upset that they can't handle horde skew lists if they take anti-vehicle spam lists.

Last tournament I went to one of my opponents was angry when he played me, specifically because I took 180 models and he brought a Lascannon Space Marine spam list. Had a similar thing happen a few days later when I played against an eldar player who brought a bunch of his best units like Dark Reapers and what not. So maybe instead of just bringing a bunch of heavy weapons to deal with Vehicles and monsters you should bring some anti-infantry weapons as well.

The issue is, when you look at the numbers, anti-horde weapons tend to do better against elite models.

That is almost universally true.

 JNAProductions wrote:

The issue is, when you look at the numbers, anti-horde weapons tend to do better against elite models.

Wouldn't the solution then be to make elite models tougher instead of trying to nerf something that doesn't need a nerf?

Can someone actually provide some evidence outside of anecdotes to show that hordes are too powerful and weapons that are designed to be strong against them need to be increased in potency?

Until the most basic premise of this question is proven the discussion around it is moot.