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.

Hi Folks,

Another thread got me thinking. Hordes are a bit of a "problem" in 8th edition as there are few ways to deal with them that are efficient, without also being efficient tank busters. Twin-linked Assault Cannons, for instance are good against hordes but also good against everything else due to high volume.

Using the current game mechanics, I got to thinking that damage against hordes could be directly improved by creating a morale modifier. That way, easy to kill models like Guardsmen, Cultists, Boyz and Gaunts that naturally suffer higher numbers of wounds would then take additional wounds in the morale phase, where MEQ and Vehicles and MC would be unlikely to take high volumes of wounds.

I'm thinking about what should be dedicated anti infantry weapons, like flamers. If they had a rule where every wound counted as 2 for morale purposes, and you inflict 3 wounds, you'd have a +6 modifier to your morale roll.

A rule like this would give some weapons a crowd clearing effect without significantly increasing the potency against elite, tough stuff.

What do y'all think?

For general use I'd possibly disagree. But certain weapons like flamers. I'd consider it a possibility. It helps lower the effectiveness of hordes. But also is something that makes Flamers more useful since the 8" Range makes them very situational. Furthermore, on a more fluff front, charging at a flamethrower is something that's got to get some people to give up.

Yeah, I was thinking about it as a special rule. I'd like to see weapons that are "just" good against chaff but not also good against elites.

Kind of like the opposite of mortal wounds being good against elites, morale wounds (with modifiers) could be an answer to hordes within the existing mechanics of the game.

Add this "horrific wounds" ability to weapons that need to be better against chaff units and they should be noticeably better at that task, with minimal improvement vs "good" stuff.

Problem is it just opens up leadership modification as a tactic where your taking massive casualties even in 5 man squads because of massive stacked modifiers.

The real fix is to fix the fact that templates don't scale.
8th broke templates, the simple answer is template weapons should be D3 for most and a few at D6 shots per 5 models in a unit.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking about it as a special rule. I'd like to see weapons that are "just" good against chaff but not also good against elites.

Kind of like the opposite of mortal wounds being good against elites, morale wounds (with modifiers) could be an answer to hordes within the existing mechanics of the game.

Add this "horrific wounds" ability to weapons that need to be better against chaff units and they should be noticeably better at that task, with minimal improvement vs "good" stuff.

The thing is, there are already weapons with modifiers for engaging hordes, they're just too few and far between.
~ The Leviathan's Grav Bombard does +D3 shots for every 5 models in the target unit
~ Stompa Deth Kannons increase their rate of fire from Heavy D6 to Heavy 2D6 when firing at a unit with 20 models or more

The problem is that there are few such weapons easily at the disposal of youre average troops infantry squad. I would happily see flamers increase their rate of fire when firing into large units; getting 3 hits is fair enough on a ten man tactical squad, but since a D6 to hit is supposed to replace the old teardrop template, when firing into a close packed gaunt brood or ork mob, it was rare you didnt get twice that many hits.

Problem is it just opens up leadership modification as a tactic where your taking massive casualties even in 5 man squads because of massive stacked modifiers.

Plus a lot of horde armies are largely immune to morale. Tyranids or Enforcer-heavy Renegades, for example.

To be honest, I don't see FW in my meta, so I've never seen the weapons you mention. I'd like to see infantry portable options. Flamers, Heavy Bolters, Storm Bolters to a degree... I'd like to see options to help armies deal with screeners.

I'm also not worried about Ld modification becoming a viable tactic... you still need to spend points / effort on that instead of just shooting more shots at someone.


With 8th allowing everything to wound anything, more shots are better against Chaff and Elites. The only mechanic I can see that bypasses that is to amplify damage against targets that would normally take larger numbers of wounds from "fewer" shots. I'm kind of fixed on the flamer, at the moment. If we figure 6 hits from flamers, that would do an average of one failed save to MEQ, and if we treated that as 2, they still wouldn't take morale casualties from that.

On the other hand, vs GEQ, we would see an average of 2-3 wounds getting through, which would translate to a 4 to 6 modifier for that attack. With the +4, they're apt to take another wound and with +6 you'd be nearly wiping out the squad, most of the time.

Yes, you'd probably need a pair of flamers, but Tac Squads and Assault Squads are quite capable of that, as are many other options.

The game may need an overall reduction in "Immune to Morale" effects, but I think it would work fairly easily within the existing framework of 40k.

I'm not a fan of making flamers anti-horde. They were invented for clearing trenches, so they should get bonuses against units in cover (e.g. guaranteed 6 attacks against units in cover and ignore cover save).

That said, I believe the problem with "hordes" is the fact that elite infantry lack the necessary quantity of shots to hurt them all. Having more punch, but fewer shots, helps much more against elites than it does against chaff. So there just needs to be more weapons with a high number of attacks but no AP. So basically more storm bolters, or abilities that increase number of shots.
Consider, also, that hordes suffer much more from morale already. The number of bolter shots required to kill 6 Guardsmen only kills 2 Marines (24 pts vs 26 pts). Except, between the two, the Guard are far more likely to lose models to morale. A roll of 2+ loses another model and a 5+ loses the whole squad, while the marines fail on a 6+ which they reroll.

Now, I did have a neat idea for making melee even more brutal than it already is which might work with what you want: Units that fail a morale check while within 1" of enemy models must double the number of models removed as a result of the check.
So if you kill, say, 6 guardsmen in shooting, you can try to guarantee a "rout" by charging them. Even if you don't kill any in melee, a morale roll of 3+ routs the entire squad. Or you can kill those 6 guardsmen in melee to get the same result. Meanwhile, marines are almost immune to those tactics (well, more resistant at least).

Another idea, would be to make "blast" weapons have a maximum number of shots equal to the number of models in the enemy unit. You could just tag this on to the notes section of the weapon. e.g. this weapon cannot inflict more hits than there are models in the enemy unit. (or something like that).

The thing with more shots is you run into the Assault Cannon "problem" where high volume translates to good damage output against everything, horde or elite.

Limiting hits against small units seldom pans out, but makes single model units like tanks and MC unnaturally resilient to battle cannons and the like. Regardless, it does nothing to speed the deaths of screening units that I think are undervalued in 8th edition's point scheme.

locarno24 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking about it as a special rule. I'd like to see weapons that are "just" good against chaff but not also good against elites.

Kind of like the opposite of mortal wounds being good against elites, morale wounds (with modifiers) could be an answer to hordes within the existing mechanics of the game.

Add this "horrific wounds" ability to weapons that need to be better against chaff units and they should be noticeably better at that task, with minimal improvement vs "good" stuff.

The thing is, there are already weapons with modifiers for engaging hordes, they're just too few and far between.
~ The Leviathan's Grav Bombard does +D3 shots for every 5 models in the target unit
~ Stompa Deth Kannons increase their rate of fire from Heavy D6 to Heavy 2D6 when firing at a unit with 20 models or more

The problem is that there are few such weapons easily at the disposal of youre average troops infantry squad. I would happily see flamers increase their rate of fire when firing into large units; getting 3 hits is fair enough on a ten man tactical squad, but since a D6 to hit is supposed to replace the old teardrop template, when firing into a close packed gaunt brood or ork mob, it was rare you didnt get twice that many hits.

Pretty much this. Morale actually does a pretty good job of punishing hordes rather than elite squads, in my eyes. It sounds like what you really want is anti-horde weapons that aren't also anti-elite weapons, and scaling the number of hits seems like a good way to do that. Make flamers 1d6 + 1 hits for every 5 models in the enemy unit (rounding up), for instance. Let more "blast" weapons roll more dice or have extra automatic shots when shooting at a larger squad.

I will say that I'm okay with weapons that are "really good" against hordes still being "good" against other targets. If someone pays X points for an upgrade, I generally want them to be able to get some use out of it even if it's an anti-Y upgrade while I'm playing a Z army. It's just that the anti-horde specialist weapons should feel like they're actually better against hordes.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The thing with more shots is you run into the Assault Cannon "problem" where high volume translates to good damage output against everything, horde or elite.

Limiting hits against small units seldom pans out, but makes single model units like tanks and MC unnaturally resilient to battle cannons and the like. Regardless, it does nothing to speed the deaths of screening units that I think are undervalued in 8th edition's point scheme.

So the issue is point cost?

Let's do a volume of fire test:
20 S4 AP 0 shots hitting guardsmen and marines

GEQ: 20*2/3*2/3= 8.89 dead ( 35.5 points killed)
MEQ: 20*1/2*1/3= 3.33 dead ( 43.3 points killed)

Now if Guardsmen are bumped to 5 ppm: 44.45 points killed.
Or, If marines go down to 12 pts: 39.96 pts killed

Also with 9 Guardsmen dead, the other flees, which brings it up to 40 pts killed, (or 50 pts at 5ppm)
With 3 marines down, they'll most likely pass the morale check. So if we drop marines by 1 point, the durability is pretty close here. If Guard go up 1 pt, then marines are more durable.

Compare to 12 S6 AP -1 hits:

GEQ: 12*5/6*5/6= 13.89 (55.5 points killed, or 69.44 points at 5ppm)
MEQ: 12*2/3*1/2= 4 ( 52 points killed, or 48 points at 12 ppm)

Strangely enough, marines are more durable against assault cannons than guard AND less susceptible to morale. So what's the problem?

Edit: redoing math for assault cannon, ignore last statement:

GEQ: 12*5/6*5/6= 8.334 (33.33 points killed, or 41.67 points at 5ppm)
MEQ: 12*2/3*1/2= 4 ( 52 points killed, or 48 points at 12 ppm)

So currently, the more AP a weapon has, the better it is against elites. So the only possible anti-horde is low strength, no AP but high volume of shots. The rest is just points.
In the first example, the 20 S4 attacks did a bit better against 5ppm guard than 13 ppm marines. Throw in morale, and you are killing a lot more points of guardsmen than marines (since it's easier to reach the morale threshold against Guard than marines). If Marines also go to 12 points, you now have a very clear anti-horde weapon while assault cannons straddle the "good against everything" fence.

You screwed up the Assault Cannon GEQ math.

12*5/6*5/6=8.33, NOT 13.89.

I guess what I'm missing is something analogous to Mortal wounds for elite stuff.

I play Guard as my main army. In the past, there has been a struggle to protect Big stuff from being engaged. I lik that I'm able to play Guard in a way I find pretty accurate to the fluff in that combined arms works well and that Infantry and Armour have both perform different but mutually supporting roles.

I just find the infantry are a little too good at their job, so I am trying to think of ways to make it easier for elite armies to chew through the screens.

I remember playing against Necrons in 7th, feeling like it was just a pointless grind to play them. I worry my opponents would feel a similar dissatisfaction with the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You screwed up the Assault Cannon GEQ math.

12*5/6*5/6=8.33, NOT 13.89.

oops, it seems you're right. I thought something was off... gonna fix it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:

I just find the infantry are a little too good at their job, so I am trying to think of ways to make it easier for elite armies to chew through the screens.

That's really just because guard are undercosted.

I gotta disagree with the general notion that 'hordes are a problem' since I think its healthy to see the game offer a meta where infantry focus is actually viable. That said, I do think there are Elite armies that are just not suited to fight them with certain kinds of builds and the options to deal with massed infantry is your own army of massed infantry.

Messing with morale sounds overly complicated and wouldn't help against armies that are notoriously resilient to the morale phase. I believe you simply need to see the rule for wound spillover extended to more types of weaponry. Heck, make it the new concept for Blast weapons! D3 wounds and D6 wound weapons could then still have an effect on the horde build.

The trouble with this is, as always, orks. Orks die at the same rate as guardsmen but cost 50% more. Any rule that wipes out extra IG hits orks 150% as hard. How would that in any way be reasonable?

Just make boyz & guardsmen 5 points. Fixes everything.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The trouble with this is, as always, orks. Orks die at the same rate as guardsmen but cost 50% more. Any rule that wipes out extra IG hits orks 150% as hard. How would that in any way be reasonable?

Just make boyz & guardsmen 5 points. Fixes everything.

But orkz tend to hit harder (in melee at least). I would say 5 pts for guard and keep 6 pts for boyz (same as guard veterans).

Though a useful change to morale IMO would be to double morale losses while in close combat as follows:
- If a unit fails a morale check while within 1" of enemy models then you must double the number of models removed as a result of the test.

The idea is to promote "breaking" squads by shock charges. This hurts morale sensitive units most (like Guard) while elite models (and even boyz) tend to pass the test. It even helps boyz a ton as they crash through terrified infantry! It would also be a neat way to make melee more potent against chaff without giving everyone an obscene number of attacks. Elite models would also be better able to leverage both their shooting and melee in the same phase: focus fire then break them in melee.

Dandelion wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The trouble with this is, as always, orks. Orks die at the same rate as guardsmen but cost 50% more. Any rule that wipes out extra IG hits orks 150% as hard. How would that in any way be reasonable?

Just make boyz & guardsmen 5 points. Fixes everything.

But orkz tend to hit harder (in melee at least). I would say 5 pts for guard and keep 6 pts for boyz (same as guard veterans).

Better in melee, and worse at shooting.

Shooting > Melee.

Therefore, if anything, orks should cost less, not more.

Unless you think 8e is the melee edition. Do you?

 JimOnMars wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The trouble with this is, as always, orks. Orks die at the same rate as guardsmen but cost 50% more. Any rule that wipes out extra IG hits orks 150% as hard. How would that in any way be reasonable?

Just make boyz & guardsmen 5 points. Fixes everything.

But orkz tend to hit harder (in melee at least). I would say 5 pts for guard and keep 6 pts for boyz (same as guard veterans).

Better in melee, and worse at shooting.

Shooting > Melee.

Therefore, if anything, orks should cost less, not more.

Unless you think 8e is the melee edition. Do you?

A shoota boy vs guardsman (shooting at each other):
Shoota: 2*1/3*2/3*2/3= 8/27 (.29 W)
Guard: 1*1/2*1/3*5/6= 5/36 (.13 W) / Rapid fire 10/36 (.26 W)

Seems the shoota boy outshoots the guardsman whenever he is within 18". On top of having way better melee. So yes, Ork boyz should stay at 6 pts.

Sooo are we just ignoring the fact that a Guardsman can do the deadly "walk backwards while firing" maneuver to kite Boyz forever? Or they will inevitably sit in cover while the Ork carts his ass up field to try and take advantage of that awesome melee?

I'm a bit confused as to the OP on this topic. Hordes are not really a "problem" in 8th. Look at the consistent winners/top performers of the most competitive tournaments - Ynarri, Flyrant spam, Custodes - low model count armies. I wouldn't say horde armies have been dominating and with that the entire premise of this topic is wrong.

My experience with playing Guard is that limited model count armies are easy for me to metaphorically steamroll them.

Horde armies tend not to appear at tournaments due to time and travel constraints. Whereas garage gamers can take their time with giant masses (even not so massive) swarms of dudes.

I've found that bubble wrapping is frankly too easy this edition. I used to have to carefully manipulate my forces and make choices as to what needed protection. My opponents could carve out a spot to land deep strikers and the like with a reasonable amount of effort.

Now it seems like it's on easy mode. If the rest of the world is cool with things, that's cool. I was just thinking of ways to make anti-infantry weapons better.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sooo are we just ignoring the fact that a Guardsman can do the deadly "walk backwards while firing" maneuver to kite Boyz forever? Or they will inevitably sit in cover while the Ork carts his ass up field to try and take advantage of that awesome melee?

I'm a bit confused as to the OP on this topic. Hordes are not really a "problem" in 8th. Look at the consistent winners/top performers of the most competitive tournaments - Ynarri, Flyrant spam, Custodes - low model count armies. I wouldn't say horde armies have been dominating and with that the entire premise of this topic is wrong.

Mate, I wasn't doing an exhaustive comparison between the two. I get it, Orks have problems but shoota boyz have enough shooting to justify 6 pts a model, especially since they can gain better leadership and they have better melee than 13 pt marines AND within 12-18" shoota boyz have as much shooting as those marines. All for the price of being slower. Boyz are the only well priced unit the orks have, so I see no reason to change them.

TBH, since everything boils down again to talking about guardsmen, its obvious that the game has made cheaper troops simply too cheap.

+1 point increase to guardsmen fixes 60% of those issues.

 iGuy91 wrote:
TBH, since everything boils down again to talking about guardsmen, its obvious that the game has made cheaper troops simply too cheap.

+1 point increase to guardsmen fixes 60% of those issues.

and a 1-point drop for marines fixes 30% more.