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.

So, for starters, I am quite familiar with 8th ed rules, and have played a couple times, as orks with boyz blobs. I'm having fun, and still think it's a good game, but I keep hearing people on here saying hordes are OP, and I'm frankly a bit confused.

I mean, boyz are the same price, 6ppm, same stats mostly, but got an extra strength. pretty nice.

And the KFF got a 3" radius buff, and painboyz have a 3" 'partially-within' 6+ FNP bubble. Latter isn't exactly game-breaking, but both together is a nice combo.

And, to be honest, when I read about being able to advance and charge with the warboss, the KFF/painboy combo, then about wierdboys giving +1 A, then ghaz giving +1A, THEN 20+ strong groups of boyz getting +1A, at str 4 and the same price, I too thought that boyz were going to be strong.

And the news about flamers and blasts and whatnot not being nearly as effective (no more 2 flamer guys out of a drop pod getting 17 hits with no saves) only bolstered that opinion.

Then I played a couple games.

First and foremost, if you play with hordes, you may as well not even play with cover. It doesn't slow you down, and it doesn't help your army. The ENTIRE infantry squad has to be in cover to gain a benefit (which isn't ever going to happen), and even then it's a measly +1. Enemies simply shooting through cover, RAW, provides no save. Same for intervening models.

Then, factor in that a TON of weapons got increased shots, or just straight up double shots. Twin assault cannons - 12 shots. Twin hurricane bolters (at rapid fire range) - 24 shots. Kastellan robots - 18 shots APIECE, plus reroll shooting with cawl nearby. Storm bolters - 4 shots (for no particular reason, they weren't even twin linked). The list goes on and on. And instead of getting a usual 5 to 4 up save, now I get a 6 up, if that, if not for the KFF.

So, lots of units got a lot more shooty, and hordes primary saving grace, cover saves, basically got thrown out the window. And then there's the whole fall back mechanic, which opens up your boyz to a whole sea of dakka once you make it into combat.

Lastly, boyz honestly seem worse than ever before at anti-vehicle, which, in fairness, is reasonable. It's not their job. For example, it took about 20 boyz three separate charges on a wyvern to NOT kill it. I think I finished it off with a dakkajet. They're still plenty choppy and do well at anti-infantry, but if you expect to take down knights and dreads with boyz, you're going to be disappointed.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining or saying 'BURN YOUR ORK ARMY', however, if you expect to just stomp anything with nothing but a bunch of boyz you're probably going to have a bad time.

Am I missing something? Running/charging, KFF/painboy, and effective immunity to morale for boyz (with the right character combos) sounds strong on paper, until you realize that cover is no help and even KFF/painboy saves are barely enough to keep up with how up-gunned it seems everything's gotten.

I mean, for example, a friend filmed a batrep with me, and out of 60 boyz with the warboss/KFF/painboy/waaagh banner combo, all were dead by turn 3, or maybe 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI0yEcKnPhM&t=149s

I just posted this in the joke thread, but, basically: there is no such thing as an anti-horde weapon in 40k anymore. Those Assault Cannons you mention are actually incredibly specialized anti-MEQ weapons. Boyz are a little special because they cost 50% more than Guardsmen or gants and are paying for T4 instead of a better save, but here was some math on Guardsmen vs Marines:

An anti-horde weapon is one that is most efficiently used to kill hordes. Like old-timey flamers. Low strength meant that they were only good at wounding things with low toughness, AP5 meant that they ignored armor saves against light infantry, and the template meant that they could hit more models in bigger units on smaller bases. Flamers were actually really good at killing hordes -- you'd kill more points of Guardsmen per shot than you would points of much more expensive but individually more durable models like Space Marines.

But now, stuff like a bolter or a mortar or a Space Marine's fist is actually just anti-MEQ. An S4 AP- hit expects to kill 1.78 points of Guardsmen and 2.17 points of Marines (22% better against Marines). A Whirlwind is even more specialized for MEQ-killing because of its higher strength. The supposedly anti-horde castellan launcher fires S6 AP- shots. A S6 AP- hit expects to kill 2.22 points of Guardsmen and 2.89 points of Marines (30% better against Marines). The Whirlwind castellan launcher is better against Marines than against termagants with their 6+ save. Sure, a Lascannon is in some sense better at killing Guardsmen than a bolt pistol is, but that's not an efficient use of a Lascannon.

A Heavy Bolter -- something which has historically been the go-to anti-horde heavy weapon -- is ridiculously specialized for MEQ killing now. A S5 AP-1 hit expects to kill 2.22 points of Guardsmen and 4.33 points of Marines (95% better!).

The game badly needs weapon options which are efficient for killing light infantry. If you want to equip a squad to be great for killing Guardsmen and gants, you should be able to do that. This basically requires either special rules or a points increase to light infantry, though, since even S3 AP- is better at killing Marines than Guardsmen -- even a frag grenade is more efficiently used against MEQs, though it's close. You have to go down to S2 AP- before you get something which is more efficiently used against Guardsmen, and that's still less efficient against Conscripts than Marines.

Hordes aren't necessarily OP, but they are incredibly irritating. There are theoretical downsides to hordes (leadership, cover) that are actually completely irrelevant (because of KFF, Aegis lines, Commissars/Nobz, etc.), which makes them feel kind of unfair, and a lot of them kept the same level of quantity of attacks when almost everyone else got knocked down somewhat (Orks used to have the same number of attacks as Striking Scorpions, but Orks are still three base/four on the charge while Striking Scorpions have been knocked down to two all the time, Conscripts are getting more shooting attacks than they used to...).

So I can't tell you whether they are or aren't OP, I can tell you they are frustrating and proving difficult to adjust to.

(Now Flash Gitz are absolutely OP; the four-point random ablative wound from the Ammo Runts is just stupid. Not only do you have to punch your way through the Battlewagon but then you have to kill ten single-wound models before you can even think of attempting to reduce the amount of shooting the squad gets, and they're somehow costed as T2 additional models despite the fact that you both use the Orks' Toughness and the Runts don't count against morale.)

Part of me just wants to think "About damn time hordes are good. Super-elite uberpowerful god-hammer deathstars have had their day for at least three editions now."

That said, I think the mathhammer here is a bit underwhelming and too theoretical.

I think another point in favor of Hordes is that this is still an objective based game, and objectives are determined by which side has the most models on it.
And both Horde armies basically ignore Morale so you have to kill every single model.

I don't think any of this is OP, but I can see how some would.

Personally, I am sad that Daemons can no longer have a Horde style Incursion. Not because summoning isn't free anymore, but because LD7 isn't high enough to support large 20+ daemon units and their LD buffs are a joke. But apparently Daemon Prince spam is even more of a thing than before.

-

Not going to lie, the way ammo runts work is incredibly useful (and yeah, pretty dumb), though I do hesitate to call them "OP".

I mean, I played with flash gitz and my ammo runts absorbed the fire from the opening volley of my opponent's storm talon's twin assault cannon. And that's pretty great, certainly better than losing 5 gitz, but then they were gone, and the gitz were back to good old 6+ saves which don't go terribly far.

Again, at least in my experience, it is not difficult, at all, to chew through orks, even with KFFs/painboyz. Without them, I doubt they'd stand a chance.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Not going to lie, the way ammo runts work is incredibly useful (and yeah, pretty dumb), though I do hesitate to call them "OP".

I mean, I played with flash gitz and my ammo runts absorbed the fire from the opening volley of my opponent's storm talon's twin assault cannon. And that's pretty great, certainly better than losing 5 gitz, but then they were gone, and the gitz were back to good old 6+ saves which don't go terribly far.

Again, at least in my experience, it is not difficult, at all, to chew through orks, even with KFFs/painboyz. Without them, I doubt they'd stand a chance.

In my experience of Flash Gitz I have to commit so much stuff to killing one battlewaggon that I don't have enough stuff left to kill the Flash Gitz inside, and then I lose so much stuff that I can't kill anything else for the rest of the game.

(Disclaimer: This is based on games involving experimental lists that haven't been thoroughly optimized, and a sufficiently small number of games that they may have been unduly influenced by an overabundance of sh***y die rolls, so I may be angrier at ammo runts than they really deserve.)

 Galef wrote:

And both Horde armies basically ignore Morale so you have to kill every single model.

-

I think my biggest disappointment of 8th is how little morale matters - even less than 7th, to be honest. When it was announced, I thought it would be neat for morale to matter, but elite armies like marines don't have large enough squads and reroll tests anyways, necrons are LD10 (on 1D6), IG have commisars, nids have synapse, orks have mob rule.....hell, they probably could have deleted the entire morale phase and could have had little difference on the game.

Curious why people think intervening models do not impact line-of-sight? You must be able to draw line of sight to your target, and you may only ignore models which are in your own unit.

 Elbows wrote:
Curious why people think intervening models do not impact line-of-sight? You must be able to draw line of sight to your target, and you may only ignore models which are in your own unit.

The trick is that the player owning the targets chooses who to allocate wounds to, but the rules specify that the models wounds are allocated to don't have to be in range or LOS. So, if you get 20 wounds on a group of boyz, and only one is in sight and LOS (even partially), up to 20 can die. The only way to be completely safe from shooting is for the ENTIRE target unit to be 100% out of LOS which generally can't happen with hordes.

And, best of all, in the above scenario where you're shooting at boyz but you can only see one's elbow, unless the entire target unit is entirely within cover, they also don't get a bonus to saves, because RAW, shooting through cover or intervening models has zero impact on the shooting phase - provided that you can at least partially see one model from the target unit.

I don't know, I think Morale has a big affect on 8E, but not necessarily in each game, but rather in list building.
For Orks and Nids, you want big untis and synapse creatures.
For Marines, you still want small units

Any other army that doesn't have Morale mitigation has to avoid the "critical mass" unit size that risks losing more models.
Windriders are an example that is near and dear to me and I have zero reason to take units above 3. At 3 models, I can lose 2 and the remaining 1 will only run on a '6'.
If I took bigger units, the enemy could kill more in each unit and let Morale claim the rest.

So Morale has a bigger impact on list building in this edition than before.

-

 Elbows wrote:
Curious why people think intervening models do not impact line-of-sight? You must be able to draw line of sight to your target, and you may only ignore models which are in your own unit.

Because it almost always doesn't matter.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I just posted this in the joke thread, but, basically: there is no such thing as an anti-horde weapon in 40k anymore. Those Assault Cannons you mention are actually incredibly specialized anti-MEQ weapons. Boyz are a little special because they cost 50% more than Guardsmen or gants and are paying for T4 instead of a better save, but here was some math on Guardsmen vs Marines:

An anti-horde weapon is one that is most efficiently used to kill hordes. Like old-timey flamers. Low strength meant that they were only good at wounding things with low toughness, AP5 meant that they ignored armor saves against light infantry, and the template meant that they could hit more models in bigger units on smaller bases. Flamers were actually really good at killing hordes -- you'd kill more points of Guardsmen per shot than you would points of much more expensive but individually more durable models like Space Marines.

But now, stuff like a bolter or a mortar or a Space Marine's fist is actually just anti-MEQ. An S4 AP- hit expects to kill 1.78 points of Guardsmen and 2.17 points of Marines (22% better against Marines). A Whirlwind is even more specialized for MEQ-killing because of its higher strength. The supposedly anti-horde castellan launcher fires S6 AP- shots. A S6 AP- hit expects to kill 2.22 points of Guardsmen and 2.89 points of Marines (30% better against Marines). The Whirlwind castellan launcher is better against Marines than against termagants with their 6+ save. Sure, a Lascannon is in some sense better at killing Guardsmen than a bolt pistol is, but that's not an efficient use of a Lascannon.

A Heavy Bolter -- something which has historically been the go-to anti-horde heavy weapon -- is ridiculously specialized for MEQ killing now. A S5 AP-1 hit expects to kill 2.22 points of Guardsmen and 4.33 points of Marines (95% better!).

The game badly needs weapon options which are efficient for killing light infantry. If you want to equip a squad to be great for killing Guardsmen and gants, you should be able to do that. This basically requires either special rules or a points increase to light infantry, though, since even S3 AP- is better at killing Marines than Guardsmen -- even a frag grenade is more efficiently used against MEQs, though it's close. You have to go down to S2 AP- before you get something which is more efficiently used against Guardsmen, and that's still less efficient against Conscripts than Marines.

This is a great example of a misleading mathematical model. You're making too many assumptions and simplifications (ignoring wargear/variations in point cost between different types of MEQ/GEQ, ignoring cover, ignoring morale, ignoring the BS of the firing model) for your numbers to have any sort of meaningful accuracy, and I also just generally disagree with "points killed per round of shooting by weapon" as a useful metric.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Galef wrote:

And both Horde armies basically ignore Morale so you have to kill every single model.

-

I think my biggest disappointment of 8th is how little morale matters - even less than 7th, to be honest. When it was announced, I thought it would be neat for morale to matter, but elite armies like marines don't have large enough squads and reroll tests anyways, necrons are LD10 (on 1D6), IG have commisars, nids have synapse, orks have mob rule.....hell, they probably could have deleted the entire morale phase and could have had little difference on the game.

It does matter if you can snipe out the Commissars/Nobz/Synapse, but that tends to require too much investment in the sniping. And synapse creatures have the advantage of sometimes coming as monsters that you can't casually snipe out.

 Galef wrote:
I don't know, I think Morale has a big affect on 8E, but not necessarily in each game, but rather in list building.
For Orks and Nids, you want big untis and synapse creatures.
For Marines, you still want small units

Any other army that doesn't have Morale mitigation has to avoid the "critical mass" unit size that risks losing more models.
Windriders are an example that is near and dear to me and I have zero reason to take units above 3. At 3 models, I can lose 2 and the remaining 1 will only run on a '6'.
If I took bigger units, the enemy could kill more in each unit and let Morale claim the rest.

So Morale has a bigger impact on list building in this edition than before.

-

Eh, I wouldn't say list building has been effected massively by morale: even in the random pickup games I've seen, between people who are new to the game and don't know/care about morale, there have only been a couple of times where a unit took damage from morale. As a Night Lords player, the inability to wipe enemy units by simply giving the enemy a look that says "if you don't fall down dead right now I'm gonna stick my arm inside of you, up to the shoulder, and yank until you are turned inside out so that I may use you as a meat cape" is quite frustrating. (Not saying this should be the norm but it might have been nice to put together a list like this if you pay the price of not being able to deal with single model units)

The way I've been seeing morale is that while it's an always on mechanic it really is more of a late game mechanic.
Sure at the start of the game the synapse web has everyone thoroughly covered and all the boys are at 30 strong and ignoring it all.
However, after several turns the web is wearing thin and patchy, all the boys are down to counts where 5 wounds would be a big swing on the test and that's where it really makes the impact.

As someone who loves Hordes I don't feel like they're OP, yet. There's still a lot of ground to cover. I think Hordes have a big advantage in terms of many weapons being bad against them, that's always been their advantage. They also do Missions well but honestly it remains to be seen what Missions are common. The "Score at the end of the game" Missions are irrelevant regardless of build with the exception of the Relic, sometimes. Most games you just obliterate each other and there's a poorly created "table your opponent and you win" rule which shouldn't exist.

Hordes have problems bringing their numbers to bear in all situations and can have issues with Leadership. I think 'Nids are weaker than Orks/IG on the Leadership side as it's a lot easier to deal with Synapse. Hordes also have problems with armor, this is something I've really been struggling with concerning foot Orks. If you bring stuff that helps Hordes against armor it's very easy to pick it out unless it's a Character.

Hordes definitely have a place, we'll just see how much of one. I mean besides Conscript Spam, that list just is OP.

The meta clearly points to hordes. As people have said there are many efficient ways to shoot vehicles/MC, 2-3 wound models or very expensive 1 wound models. Its hard to deal with cheap models that pack good saves.

With that said I still think the meta is evolving. I feel people need to start taking anti-horde weapons en mass before they say its just broken.

But yeah, I think small elite forces are screwed in the current game.

Personally I don't think Hordes are OP; there seems to be many legitimate ways to deal with them.

The problem lies in that all of the ways to deal with them seem tedious at best. I get the feeling that they might end up like the Necrons in 7th edition with the Reclamation Legion; not really that powerful, just incredibly frustrating to play against.

Not to mention there's no longer that catharsis factor when dealing with hordes; it's incredibly satisfying to go through a round of shooting with a single unit and watch your opponent remove swathes of models. It's the complete opposite to do that and your opponent only ticks off the first layer.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

It does matter if you can snipe out the Commissars/Nobz/Synapse, but that tends to require too much investment in the sniping. And synapse creatures have the advantage of sometimes coming as monsters that you can't casually snipe out.

I think you're overplaying the whole "investment in the sniping" bit.

Characters with more than 10W can be targeted without Sniper weapons. Nobs, the unit version, don't get the special protection that Nobs with Waaagh! Banners(a character) would. The monster versions with Synapse(Swarmlords and Tervigons) are 12 and 14 Wounds respectively--meaning they can be targeted without needing sniper weapons or those units being the closest thing.

Which is another bit to take into consideration. Positioning. That rule for characters? It requires you to have other units near you for it to kick in.

Tyel wrote:
The meta clearly points to hordes. As people have said there are many efficient ways to shoot vehicles/MC, 2-3 wound models or very expensive 1 wound models. Its hard to deal with cheap models that pack good saves.

With that said I still think the meta is evolving. I feel people need to start taking anti-horde weapons en mass before they say its just broken.

But yeah, I think small elite forces are screwed in the current game.

I agree with small armies being bad. Everytime I see one go against something it loses unless it's another elite force and then the game is legitimately over by Turn 2. Stuff dies SO fast, expensive MEQ units just cannot make their points back. Taking that sort of list into a Horde in particular is a nightmare, unless maybe it's Knight spam.

Making units immune to morale tests was a mistake. It would have been far better for these buffing units to give them a flat buff to their leadership when taking morale tests.

10 morale conscripts because of a commissar nearby is fine. It's a huge boost and doesn't totally negate the mechanic, for instance.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I just posted this in the joke thread, but, basically: there is no such thing as an anti-horde weapon in 40k anymore. Those Assault Cannons you mention are actually incredibly specialized anti-MEQ weapons. Boyz are a little special because they cost 50% more than Guardsmen or gants and are paying for T4 instead of a better save, but here was some math on Guardsmen vs Marines:

An anti-horde weapon is one that is most efficiently used to kill hordes. Like old-timey flamers. Low strength meant that they were only good at wounding things with low toughness, AP5 meant that they ignored armor saves against light infantry, and the template meant that they could hit more models in bigger units on smaller bases. Flamers were actually really good at killing hordes -- you'd kill more points of Guardsmen per shot than you would points of much more expensive but individually more durable models like Space Marines.

But now, stuff like a bolter or a mortar or a Space Marine's fist is actually just anti-MEQ. An S4 AP- hit expects to kill 1.78 points of Guardsmen and 2.17 points of Marines (22% better against Marines). A Whirlwind is even more specialized for MEQ-killing because of its higher strength. The supposedly anti-horde castellan launcher fires S6 AP- shots. A S6 AP- hit expects to kill 2.22 points of Guardsmen and 2.89 points of Marines (30% better against Marines). The Whirlwind castellan launcher is better against Marines than against termagants with their 6+ save. Sure, a Lascannon is in some sense better at killing Guardsmen than a bolt pistol is, but that's not an efficient use of a Lascannon.

A Heavy Bolter -- something which has historically been the go-to anti-horde heavy weapon -- is ridiculously specialized for MEQ killing now. A S5 AP-1 hit expects to kill 2.22 points of Guardsmen and 4.33 points of Marines (95% better!).

The game badly needs weapon options which are efficient for killing light infantry. If you want to equip a squad to be great for killing Guardsmen and gants, you should be able to do that. This basically requires either special rules or a points increase to light infantry, though, since even S3 AP- is better at killing Marines than Guardsmen -- even a frag grenade is more efficiently used against MEQs, though it's close. You have to go down to S2 AP- before you get something which is more efficiently used against Guardsmen, and that's still less efficient against Conscripts than Marines.

I find this to be strange reasoning, as your math is focussing on "points killed" vs casualty removal. For one, high casualty rates mean tougher morale checks (at least for some). But the other key factor against hordes is the range of engadgement and their ability to bring numbers to bear (Thermopylae). 50 marines vs. 200 gaunts all at once is one thing, but 50 marines vs. 50 gaunts a turn for four turns is another. Weapons like the whirlwind help thin the numbers so that the engagement at close range is more favorable. Weapons like frag grenades raise the casualty rate even higher up close.

And lets not forget that every marine has a bolter too. You dont need specialist anti horde weapons when every model has an adequate anti infantry weapon.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

It does matter if you can snipe out the Commissars/Nobz/Synapse, but that tends to require too much investment in the sniping. And synapse creatures have the advantage of sometimes coming as monsters that you can't casually snipe out.

I think you're overplaying the whole "investment in the sniping" bit.

Characters with more than 10W can be targeted without Sniper weapons. Nobs, the unit version, don't get the special protection that Nobs with Waaagh! Banners(a character) would. The monster versions with Synapse(Swarmlords and Tervigons) are 12 and 14 Wounds respectively--meaning they can be targeted without needing sniper weapons or those units being the closest thing.

Which is another bit to take into consideration. Positioning. That rule for characters? It requires you to have other units near you for it to kick in.

Possibly. I say "over-investment in sniping" because the way I've been using to quickly and reliably get rid of Commissars is two Vindicare Assassins, which are 180pts that put all of two S5 shots downrange a turn once they're out of characters to target. Shots with good AP/damage that ignore invuls and the cover modifier, yes, so they're not entirely purposeless without characters, but they're pretty expensive to take in a general-purpose list and find yourself plinking individual Orks or fishing for 5s to damage vehicles after the characters are all dead.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I find this to be strange reasoning, as your math is focussing on "points killed" vs casualty removal. For one, high casualty rates mean tougher morale checks (at least for some). But the other key factor against hordes is the range of engadgement and their ability to bring numbers to bear (Thermopylae). 50 marines vs. 200 gaunts all at once is one thing, but 50 marines vs. 50 gaunts a turn for four turns is another. Weapons like the whirlwind help thin the numbers so that the engagement at close range is more favorable. Weapons like frag grenades raise the casualty rate even higher up close.

And lets not forget that every marine has a bolter too. You dont need specialist anti horde weapons when every model has an adequate anti infantry weapon.

Well, two points about this. First, as many people have noted, horde armies typically have pretty easy access to ways to ignore morale. Second, with the removal of templates, hordes are now much more able to squeeze into small spaces.

The point is not about the absolute numbers -- even in that post I was focusing much more on the percentage differences -- but that there's been a huge change in the effectiveness of what are supposed to be anti-horde guns against hordes. Sure, maybe you can make an argument about how hordes are in some cases a little more vulnerable to morale (I'm not sure this is generally true, though). Or maybe you should penalize them for having so many models because kills thin the herd (though now you can pull casualties from wherever you want). These are details. A heavy bolter used to kill 3.75 Guardsmen in the time it would take it to kill a Marine. Now it's 1.67 Guardsmen per Marine. A regular bolter used to kill 4 Guardsmen per Marine. Now it's 2.67. Hordes are now hugely more durable in the face of anti-horde firepower, relative to Marines. You're not making up for differences like that with little things about positioning and tougher morale tests -- and remember that what's really important here is what's changed since the last edition. I just think it's really striking that you almost literally cannot find something that's more efficient for killing naked Guardsmen than Marines. This was very, very easy in previous editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I want to add that in general in games like this an important balancing mechanism is that it's possible to tailor a list to take on particular kinds of enemies. If the meta swings too far one way, people start including more counters, and that causes the meta to be self-correcting.

And so it's sort of worrying when there really aren't many choices you can make to strongly tailor your list against hordes. Like, an old-timey flamer might expect 4 or 5 hits, wounding on 3s, with no save. Flamers were an extremely specialized anti-horde weapon, and so they were great investments against hordes specifically. If your list was struggling against hordes you could add some of those and shore up your weaknesses.

That's just a lot harder to do now. If you're running up against lots of high cost per wound invulnerable saves, you bring mortal wounds -- these pay off in proportion to what the enemy is paying per wound. If you're up against lots of tanks, you bring lascannons and meltas -- these are strong enough to wound them, have good AP to beat their saves, and do multiple damage. If you're up against heavy infantry, you bring plasma, which can even kill the multi-wound stuff in one shot. These options are all pretty specialized. Mortal wounds are much less efficient against 13 point-per-wound tactical marines than against 25 point-per-wound characters. Lascannons are way too expensive to efficiently deal with regular infantry. Plasma guns don't really have the damage to threaten the biggest tanks and are too expensive for light infantry.

But there's not really anything you can bring to solidly counter a horde. The very best you can do is small arms, and ultimately these are about as good against a lot of other stuff. And so you can't expect to just add a few hundred points of small arms and make serious progress towards fixing your horde problem.

If the best counter to hordes is taking more tactical squads, I am all in on that. If this really shifts the meta towards more basic infantry on the table in general, esp in tournaments, i will sing the praises of 8th to the heavens.

*i dont mean to be glib, but im one handed and on my phone atm. Apologies.

So far as I can see, it's not the hordes themselves that are OP. It's the buffs which can be provided to hordes, especially in the morale phase, that are OP.

3 ppm conscripts shouldn't be virtually immune to the battle shock phase. That's just unfair.

 Traditio wrote:
So far as I can see, it's not the hordes themselves that are OP. It's the buffs which can be provided to hordes, especially in the morale phase, that are OP.

3 ppm conscripts shouldn't be virtually immune to the battle shock phase. That's just unfair.

Eh, it gives assault marines something to do. Doesn't chainswording through a bolter/whirlwind depleted mob sound fun? It does to me.

Insectum7 wrote:Eh, it gives assault marines something to do. Doesn't chainswording through a bolter/whirlwind depleted mob sound fun? It does to me.

It's not worth it.

Here's what's going to happen, assuming a 30 man conscript blob with commissar.

3 assault marines with chainswords and boltpistols.
2 assault marines with flamers.

Deploy from rhino within a few inches of the conscripts.

Discharge flamers. Average damage:

7/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 28/9 unsaved wounds

2 bolt pistols fire:

2/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 16/27 unsaved wounds.

Toss frag grenade:

7/2 X 2/3 X 1/2 X 2/3 =28/36 unsaved wounds

Result in shooting phase:

About 5 unsaved wounds

Assault marines charge.

25 conscripts fire overwatch:

50/1 X 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 50/27, or about 2 unsaved wounds.

Flamer marines die.

Bolt pistol and chainsword marines attack:

7/1 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 56/27, or about 2 unsaved wounds.

23 conscripts counter-attack:

23/1 X 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 23/27

Close to one unsaved wound.

In the morale phase, commissar BLAMS a conscript.

On the following turn, conscripts ball back, get back in the fight, and rapidfire lasguns:

44/1 X 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 44/27

Just that one commissar blob, on average, will wipe most of the assault squad, an assault squad that costs 83 points, not counting the rhino.

How many points of conscripts did they kill? 8. 24 points worth of conscripts.

It's not fair.

Conscripts need to be more expensive, and commissars need to be nerfed. Get rid of the BLAM rule, or else, treat it like ATSKNF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, "Get Back in the Fight" needs to die. It' an unfair order. It shouldn't exist.

Also, IG should have to roll for their orders again. Auto-pass is too much of an advantage (especially given the fact that I don't even have chapter tactics any more!), and it unduly benefits conscripts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically, here is the problem with horde armies like IG:

IG is supposed to have very clear advantages (shooting) and disadvantages (merely average stats; very little close combat capabilities, weakness to morale tests).

Except, oh, wait, those disadvantages don't even matter, because they have special rules to pretty much completely ignore them.

8th ed IG are unfair in the same way that 7th ed. Tau were unfair.

 Traditio wrote:
So far as I can see, it's not the hordes themselves that are OP. It's the buffs which can be provided to hordes, especially in the morale phase, that are OP.

3 ppm conscripts shouldn't be virtually immune to the battle shock phase. That's just unfair.

Why not? They've always been effectively so.

In fact, in 7e, regular guardsmen can come in 50-man blobs, are basically morale-proof, and are even more devastating in shooting. I've shot to pieces Tervigons using Bring it Down! and evaporated terminators with First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!.

Conscripts and their characteristics are nothing new, and even getting their 5+ save they're not particularly survivable. As I said, the right gun for the job can absolutely rip through them.

Compared to a 50-man block of regular guardsmen, conscripts are cheaper but offer much poorer shooting and assault, but the same survivability. And that's the point. They're really not 200 points worth of destructive power. Also, compared to other things that are resilient and 200 points, like a Leman Russ Punisher Tank, they have about equal firepower, at best, at full strength. The Lasguns are mostly harmless. The conscripts, at full strength, in rapid fire range, can deal about 10 wounds a turn to Necron Warriors, which is pretty fair for 200 points. They won't beat the warriors if they do't get first salvo, but they can if they do. Marines will survive better than Necrons against conscripts, and chew through them fairly quickly too. Worth mention, so will Orks, and Tyranids, extremely quickly. Falling back from combat and getting "Get Back in the Fight" isn't a big deal because 1: the resulting devastated unit isn't really worth the order compared to "First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!" on an intact unit, and 2: it's a consolation prize for what's left of the unit.