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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what the hell do you want then? Do you think you should be able to just mow through squads with no problem?

Because that's what we had prior to this, where AP just flatout disallowed saves. Then it became all about cover and aura invulns.

If bolter is supposed to be a antihorde weapon, it needs more shots, not more AP. Bolt carbine/auto bolt rifle are antihorde guns. I mean they're still more point effective versus normal marines than guard, but everything is.

Bolters aren't antihorde weapons. Heavy Bolters are.

A situational point of AP, however, negates the nonsensical argument that yourself and others have put forward that a 5+ save on Guardsmen is "too much".

Nah, Flamers and HF's are

 Kanluwen wrote:

Bolters aren't antihorde weapons. Heavy Bolters are.

Except as it was pointed earlier in this thread, they aren't. Antihorde weapons need Strength 2, 3,4 or 6, no AP and many shots.

A situational point of AP, however, negates the nonsensical argument that yourself and others have put forward that a 5+ save on Guardsmen is "too much".

I have not made such argument. I said that guardsmen should be five point, but their stats are fine. Problem indeed that guardsmen are too hard to kill compared to the marines, but AP affects marines more than it affects guard. Thus giving more weapons AP widens the gap in favour of the guard, instead of narrowing it.

What if, and I know this is crazy, but what if Cover gave a -1-to-hit?

That would negatively impact Guard shooting more than Marine shooting. It'd make Termies in cover more durable to AP0 than Termies out of cover.

I haven't fully thought it through. And more to-hit modifiers would certainly require a the "6s always hit" rule we used to have (we should have it anyways). But I think it may be a good change.

Back to AP modifiers in general, giving Marines mini-Bladestorm doesn't sit right with me. Although if we did do a pass on AP reduction, I'd see Bladestorm going down a point of AP.

Marines are in a bad spot right now vs weapons all over the AP spectrum. It's not just anti-horde or anti-elite weapons they don't perform against.

Bharring wrote:
What if, and I know this is crazy, but what if Cover gave a -1-to-hit?

That would negatively impact Guard shooting more than Marine shooting. It'd make Termies in cover more durable to AP0 than Termies out of cover.

I haven't fully thought it through. And more to-hit modifiers would certainly require a the "6s always hit" rule we used to have (we should have it anyways). But I think it may be a good change.

Back to AP modifiers in general, giving Marines mini-Bladestorm doesn't sit right with me. Although if we did do a pass on AP reduction, I'd see Bladestorm going down a point of AP.

Marines are in a bad spot right now vs weapons all over the AP spectrum. It's not just anti-horde or anti-elite weapons they don't perform against.

This is true, but typically the better a gun is at killing things the more expensive it is and the lower number of shots it has. I don't think anyone had a problem with plasma killing marines in older editions. All units should die when the appropriate weapons of the correct type are focused on them. The issue with the low AP weapons that have high rates of fire (assault cannons, for example) is that they absolutely shred marines in a way they never have before in previous editions. When you couple this with the increase in durability lighter infantry got from the wound chart and AP changes, light infantry need to cost more than they do now because they are better, or something needs to be added to heavy infantry because they are worse. The issue right now that even the worst guns are "okay" at killing marines, and all the rest are good at it, while only a few guns in the game are even decent at killing guardsmen.

I personally don't like negative hit modifiers because they effect different armies more than others based on their starting BS, which isn't something that army can really control. I'd rather cover just give a 6+ FNP or something that would reduce all damage taken by any unit in cover from any weapon (unless it ignored cover) evenly. This is the first edition where roll modifiers have really come into play, and i feel like it is a giant mistake because it is inherently difficult to balance things when a +1 or -1 for one unit is a small debuff but a giant debuff to another, and it's made worse by the fact that things are priced as if that wasn't the case.

Also, things like Plas being the ideal for killing tanks makes it feel more gakky that they kill Marines, too. Because it's the same weapon, but you didn't pick it over a Melta because you're more invested in killing Marines than vehicles, but it's still just as good at killing Marines.... It would feel less gakky if picking Plas had more of a "cost" (and I don't just mean points).

I wonder if general survivability vs shooting would make more elite units feel more elite. Like, if we gave anyone a 4+ "nope" roll to all shooting wounds, across the board. Yes, you don't change the rate at which weapons are better or what defensive statlines are better. But with shooting all told being not as deadly, would the difference in defensive stats - and in Marines' case, CC capability - change some things? I'm not saying this would be a good rule, it's just a thought experiment. Now, it alone wouldn't fix things, because somehow Guardsmen currently beat Marines in CC.

As for the negative hit modifiers affecting different armies differently, I consider that part of the goal. Making Marines handle shooting into cover better than Guardsmen (or Orkz) would be a plus, IMO.

The overheats could be more dangerous. Maybe the weapons need a load time to fire at full strenght, or can't fire at full strenght in every turn. Maybe they require coolants, which weight models carrying them down. A direct hit from a plasma at full strenght should be deadly, but what if the normal mode for plasma had the same stats as tau plasma?

At the same time GW could add real anti tank weapons, that require locking on a target, but do huge dmg.

At the same time melta could do the simiular damage without locking on, but with a much shorter range.

Sometimes I think GW just writes the rules for people to buy more models. One editions it is meltas as the best, another it is plasma, yet another grav guns are on everyone that can carry it. It doesn't look like a system, where GW knows how they want the weapons to work within given set of rules, and more like something along the lines of what weapon will the never players have problems to buy on the secondary market.

Bharring wrote:
Also, things like Plas being the ideal for killing tanks makes it feel more gakky that they kill Marines, too. Because it's the same weapon, but you didn't pick it over a Melta because you're more invested in killing Marines than vehicles, but it's still just as good at killing Marines.... It would feel less gakky if picking Plas had more of a "cost" (and I don't just mean points).

I wonder if general survivability vs shooting would make more elite units feel more elite. Like, if we gave anyone a 4+ "nope" roll to all shooting wounds, across the board. Yes, you don't change the rate at which weapons are better or what defensive statlines are better. But with shooting all told being not as deadly, would the difference in defensive stats - and in Marines' case, CC capability - change some things? I'm not saying this would be a good rule, it's just a thought experiment. Now, it alone wouldn't fix things, because somehow Guardsmen currently beat Marines in CC.

As for the negative hit modifiers affecting different armies differently, I consider that part of the goal. Making Marines handle shooting into cover better than Guardsmen (or Orkz) would be a plus, IMO.

The 4+ effectively FNP across the board and it just esentially doubles everyones durability to shooting and doesn't help balance. Shooting Vehicals become worthless, Marines are still destroyed by Guard, and Zerkers will be the new Super Cheese.

The only way this might work would be to give Power armour and Terminators a FNP of 5+ and Iron hands and Death Guard get +1 to their FNP's.

That's really the only way to make marines durable in a way that doesn't just require making them less points.
Even then I'm not sure it truly helps as they still die to 2D weapons much like plauge marines do currently. Though the Primaris statline would atleast be semi functional only a year after launch.

Karol wrote:
The overheats could be more dangerous. Maybe the weapons need a load time to fire at full strenght, or can't fire at full strenght in every turn. Maybe they require coolants, which weight models carrying them down. A direct hit from a plasma at full strenght should be deadly, but what if the normal mode for plasma had the same stats as tau plasma?

At the same time GW could add real anti tank weapons, that require locking on a target, but do huge dmg.

At the same time melta could do the simiular damage without locking on, but with a much shorter range.

Sometimes I think GW just writes the rules for people to buy more models. One editions it is meltas as the best, another it is plasma, yet another grav guns are on everyone that can carry it. It doesn't look like a system, where GW knows how they want the weapons to work within given set of rules, and more like something along the lines of what weapon will the never players have problems to buy on the secondary market.

Fixing plasma is as simple as having it always and only overheat on a natural roll of a 1 to hit, before rerolls. Vehicles and single model units should only take a single mortal wound, though.

Then Melta needs to probably be D6 damage, but never less than 3. The melta rule is fine.

Flamers should be 2d6 hits, but never do more hits than the number of models in the target unit, and ignore cover.

Grav should be an assault 2 weapon.

jcd386 wrote:
Fixing plasma is as simple as having it always and only overheat on a natural roll of a 1 to hit, before rerolls. Vehicles and single model units should only take a single mortal wound, though.

No. It would yet again favour cheap chaff over elites. Who cares if some IG mook fries himself? They can still overcharge with impunity. But Hellblasters, well, that's one of the few good Marine units nerfed to the ground.

This thread seems to be focusing a lot on Guardsmen, Tactical Marines, and Terminators, instead of all of the other horde/elite units out there.

Once again, I'd like to note that using a "Horde", "Line Infantry" and "Elite" keyword system could help refocus lots of weapons into a better niche. Anti Horde weapons such as Heavy Bolters might be 1d6+3 hits vs Horde Units, and 3 vs Line and 1d3 vs Elite, while Flamers can strike 2d6 hits on Horde, 1d6 on Line, and 1d3 on Elite, etc. Certain abilities (FRFSRF comes to mind) could give the buff vs Horde Units as well, instead of being against everything. In the end, you would end up with a situation where you have some tools specifically tailored to fighting Hordes (Flamers, Heavy Bolters, etc), Dedicated Anti-Elite weaponry (Plasma and the like), and then jack of all trade weapons like the Autocannon and its equivalents.

Yes it would require some rebalancing, but it seems better than deciding to give Tactical Marines +1 wound, the ability to ignore ap -1, and ap -1 guns (while ignoring non Space Marine elite infantry).

 Crimson wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Fixing plasma is as simple as having it always and only overheat on a natural roll of a 1 to hit, before rerolls. Vehicles and single model units should only take a single mortal wound, though.

No. It would yet again favour cheap chaff over elites. Who cares if some IG mook fries himself? They can still overcharge with impunity. But Hellblasters, well, that's one of the few good Marine units nerfed to the ground.

Then let's change Infantry Squads from "mooks" to something more akin to Skitarii infantry, with appropriate point costings.

This is the part that continually gets glossed over in the rush to complain about Infantry Squads. At too high of a points value, they're just Conscript Squads with less guys at more points, shooting slightly better, and with the option to pay for some gubbins.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Then let's change Infantry Squads from "mooks" to something more akin to Skitarii infantry, with appropriate point costings.

This is the part that continually gets glossed over in the rush to complain about Infantry Squads. At too high of a points value, they're just Conscript Squads with less guys at more points, shooting slightly better, and with the option to pay for some gubbins.

Why are you spouting nonsense again? Their stats are fine, their point cost is one point too low, and there is an entire separate thread dedicated to this topic.

Also, the unit you describe exists, it is called veterans, no one just takes them because infantry squads are too cheap.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Then let's change Infantry Squads from "mooks" to something more akin to Skitarii infantry, with appropriate point costings.

This is the part that continually gets glossed over in the rush to complain about Infantry Squads. At too high of a points value, they're just Conscript Squads with less guys at more points, shooting slightly better, and with the option to pay for some gubbins.

Why are you spouting nonsense again? Their stats are fine, their point cost is one point too low, and there is an entire thread dedicated to this topic.

Then maybe you should keep your statements about it there.

Also, the unit you describe exists, it is called veterans, no one just takes them because infantry squads are too cheap.

Also because Veterans are Elites and still a 5+ save.

If you want play Skitarii, you can do that, no need to change guard stats. (Or you could, if you didn't have your bizarre tech priest phobia.)

kurhanik wrote:
This thread seems to be focusing a lot on Guardsmen, Tactical Marines, and Terminators, instead of all of the other horde/elite units out there.

Realistically, the discussion will end up centering on those since everyone and their mother thinks they're some kind of tournament wizard and thus uses those examples.

Once again, I'd like to note that using a "Horde", "Line Infantry" and "Elite" keyword system could help refocus lots of weapons into a better niche. Anti Horde weapons such as Heavy Bolters might be 1d6+3 hits vs Horde Units, and 3 vs Line and 1d3 vs Elite, while Flamers can strike 2d6 hits on Horde, 1d6 on Line, and 1d3 on Elite, etc. Certain abilities (FRFSRF comes to mind) could give the buff vs Horde Units as well, instead of being against everything. In the end, you would end up with a situation where you have some tools specifically tailored to fighting Hordes (Flamers, Heavy Bolters, etc), Dedicated Anti-Elite weaponry (Plasma and the like), and then jack of all trade weapons like the Autocannon and its equivalents.

Yes it would require some rebalancing, but it seems better than deciding to give Tactical Marines +1 wound, the ability to ignore ap -1, and ap -1 guns (while ignoring non Space Marine elite infantry).

Realistically, I think this is a bit too complex for something that could be solved by looking at units that already exist or have existed.

We could give things like Heavy Bolters or Boltguns rules where when they cause a casualty, they inflict another wound to the unit(which won't create another casualty). Flamers are in a weird spot, but they might need to be given something relating to the range they're being fired(no pun intended) from. Something like D6 at max range, 2D6 at 2/3rds range, 3D6 at 1/2 range, and 4D6 at 1/4 range.

That last bit is still complex, and I'll wholeheartedly admit that, but flamers are in a bit of a weird spot and I just don't know where to go beyond "templates again". Maybe add a bit to them where Flamers inflict a further penalty to Leadership for casualties suffered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
If you want play Skitarii, you can do that, no need to change guard stats. (Or you could, if you didn't have your bizarre tech priest phobia.)

I'm not the one complaining about a unit which is currently devised as nothing but a cheap unit is shockingly effective at being a cheap unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:


We could give things like Heavy Bolters or Boltguns rules where when they cause a casualty, they inflict another wound to the unit(which won't create another casualty). Flamers are in a weird spot, but they might need to be given something relating to the range they're being fired(no pun intended) from. Something like D6 at max range, 2D6 at 2/3rds range, 3D6 at 1/2 range, and 4D6 at 1/4 range.

Your changes make these weapons equally better against elite targets. They are not anti horde improvements.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


We could give things like Heavy Bolters or Boltguns rules where when they cause a casualty, they inflict another wound to the unit(which won't create another casualty). Flamers are in a weird spot, but they might need to be given something relating to the range they're being fired(no pun intended) from. Something like D6 at max range, 2D6 at 2/3rds range, 3D6 at 1/2 range, and 4D6 at 1/4 range.

Your changes make these weapons equally better against all targets. They are not anti horde improvements.

Yeah, well you're not getting anti-horde improvements without the weapons becoming better against all targets as well. Not without a radical redesign of how 8th works.

Also, morale penalties do make them better "anti-horde" weapons--forces people to burn CPs or ensure better placement.
But hey what do I know...

Make flamers hit every model in the target unit

20 cultist = Assualt 20
10 Guardsmen = Assualt 10
5 SoB = Assualt 5
Dreadnaught = Assualt 1

Finally an anti hore weapon that works better against multi model units.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah, well you're not getting anti-horde improvements without the weapons becoming better against all targets as well. Not without a radical redesign of how 8th works.

Or, you know, some point adjustment to some of the cheapest units... I don't say which units, perhaps there is some other thread for that!

Then those units will cease to be "hordes" if you bump the points up.

You want expensive Infantry Squads? Buff them up to a point where they're the same value as a Skitarii. They're supposed to be the same damn thing anyways.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Then those units will cease to be "hordes" if you bump the points up.

You want expensive Infantry Squads? Buff them up to a point where they're the same value as a Skitarii. They're supposed to be the same damn thing anyways.

I'm sure the things you say must somehow make sense in your head. If the problem is that a thing is too resilient for its points, you have to either increase the points or decrease the resilience. You cannot increase the points and increase the resilience, that will get us nowhere.

This weapon has an AP of -1 against models with an save of 5+ or higher.

Give it to Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc. Anti-chaff modification that doesn't mess with anything else.

 greyknight12 wrote:
From the view of a longtime GK player, there are 2 primary things hurting elite infantry right now:
1. The 8th ed AP/SV system. Before, when elite models had a 2+ save, they could survive 5/6 of small arms shots directed at them. Terminators used to laugh at heavy bolters and heavy flamers; now they are a credible threat. Up until the beginning of 7th, there wasn’t a lot that was ideal to get through good armor saves. Additionally, elite infantry had the tools to kill other elites: power weapons. Ranged weapons that ignored all armor were rare outside of plasma/melta. I’d argue that the very beginning of 6th was one of the few good times to be a terminator in 40k; power weapons got AP values and grav hadn’t shown up yet. But with AP-1 affecting everyone now, medium grade weapons that are commonly found in most armies wreck elites, vehicles, and light infantry alike.
2. Elite infantry tend to be specialized a little too much. A GK power armored marine puts out a lot of damage, which he pays for...but he dies like any other space marine. Harlequins are even better examples of the glass cannon. On the other hand, “tough” units like terminators pay for durability but put out so little damage that they can be ignored. IMO, Custodes are doing fine precisely because while expensive they put out elite-level damage but also are tough enough to survive under fire (the bikes are perhaps the perfect 40k unit).

Terminators have the same durability to AP-1 as before with the second wound compared to AP4 last edition.
In fact this is the most durable Terminators have ever been of you bothered to do the math. Outside specific situations like with the Autocannon and Battle Cannon, durability is better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
From the view of a longtime GK player, there are 2 primary things hurting elite infantry right now:
1. The 8th ed AP/SV system. Before, when elite models had a 2+ save, they could survive 5/6 of small arms shots directed at them. Terminators used to laugh at heavy bolters and heavy flamers; now they are a credible threat. Up until the beginning of 7th, there wasn’t a lot that was ideal to get through good armor saves. Additionally, elite infantry had the tools to kill other elites: power weapons. Ranged weapons that ignored all armor were rare outside of plasma/melta. I’d argue that the very beginning of 6th was one of the few good times to be a terminator in 40k; power weapons got AP values and grav hadn’t shown up yet. But with AP-1 affecting everyone now, medium grade weapons that are commonly found in most armies wreck elites, vehicles, and light infantry alike.
2. Elite infantry tend to be specialized a little too much. A GK power armored marine puts out a lot of damage, which he pays for...but he dies like any other space marine. Harlequins are even better examples of the glass cannon. On the other hand, “tough” units like terminators pay for durability but put out so little damage that they can be ignored. IMO, Custodes are doing fine precisely because while expensive they put out elite-level damage but also are tough enough to survive under fire (the bikes are perhaps the perfect 40k unit).

Terminators have the same durability to AP-1 as before with the second wound compared to AP4 last edition.
In fact this is the most durable Terminators have ever been of you bothered to do the math. Outside specific situations like with the Autocannon and Battle Cannon, durability is better.

I agree with this. Termie durability is fine. I have no problem with stuff dying to quality or sufficient quantity of fire. Terminators in general don't hit hard enough, and suck at clearing hordes. They don't actually DO anything. Which is why I think Elite infantry, not just Terminators, need to be able to bring something else to the party rather than just kill things or not get killed. I've said it before but allow them to interact with terrain, allow them to 'suppress' enemy movement. Give some elite units the old version of Overwatch. I think we need to think outside the well-worn dichotomy of kill or be killed and see how we can open up niches for elite units.

Banville wrote:
I agree with this. Termie durability is fine. I have no problem with stuff dying to quality or sufficient quantity of fire. Terminators in general don't hit hard enough, and suck at clearing hordes. They don't actually DO anything. Which is why I think Elite infantry, not just Terminators, need to be able to bring something else to the party rather than just kill things or not get killed. I've said it before but allow them to interact with terrain, allow them to 'suppress' enemy movement. Give some elite units the old version of Overwatch. I think we need to think outside the well-worn dichotomy of kill or be killed and see how we can open up niches for elite units.

Short of a hard redesign I don't see that happening.

Its much easier to just buff Terminator shooting and give them more attacks.
Same for Meganobs.

Possibly give them some movement ability too.

Tyel wrote:

Banville wrote:
I agree with this. Termie durability is fine. I have no problem with stuff dying to quality or sufficient quantity of fire. Terminators in general don't hit hard enough, and suck at clearing hordes. They don't actually DO anything. Which is why I think Elite infantry, not just Terminators, need to be able to bring something else to the party rather than just kill things or not get killed. I've said it before but allow them to interact with terrain, allow them to 'suppress' enemy movement. Give some elite units the old version of Overwatch. I think we need to think outside the well-worn dichotomy of kill or be killed and see how we can open up niches for elite units.

Short of a hard redesign I don't see that happening.

Its much easier to just buff Terminator shooting and give them more attacks.
Same for Meganobs.

Possibly give them some movement ability too.

It wouldn't need a hard reboot. Watch: Suppressing Fire: If this unit has not attacked in its own Shooting Phase, it may instead make an out of turn shooting attack, as if it were its own shooting phase, against a single enemy unit that moves or advances after the move or advance has been completed.

There. Not too powerful and doesn't require any messing with core rules.

Again: Firestorm: This unit may target any terrain or scenery placed as part of the battlefield set up (not the original table surface or gaming mat, let's not play silly buggers) during its shooting phase. For the rest of the game, any unit that spends any portion of its turn in or passing through the terrain or scenery takes d6 mortal wounds.

Again: Deadly Riposte: In the fight phase count the number of attacks that fail to cause any damage to this unit (including misses). That number of attacks may be added to this unit's attacks during its next turn to fight. This may carry over from one combat into another. (Don't give this last one to Wraithguard, obviously but Howling Banshees would love it)

A designer should be able to take an under-performing Elite unit from any army, read its fluff and come up with an interesting rule for its dataslate without recourse to messing with points or wounds or toughness, whilst also making the game more interesting.

jcd386 wrote:
Fixing plasma is as simple as having it always and only overheat on a natural roll of a 1 to hit, before rerolls. Vehicles and single model units should only take a single mortal wound, though.

You can't have a weapon malfunctioning every time a Hellblaster Squad shoots. Weapons can't be that unreliable!

Ice_can wrote:
Make flamers hit every model in the target unit

20 cultist = Assualt 20
10 Guardsmen = Assualt 10
5 SoB = Assualt 5
Dreadnaught = Assualt 1

Finally an anti hore weapon that works better against multi model units.

The problem here is all of the fairly elite infantry units that start at 5 and bump up to 10 or 20. Your proposal would mean a fully kitted 10 man Tactical Marine Squad would get hit with 10 attacks just as much as the Guardsmen, and things like Rubric Marines can (correct me if I am wrong, I don't own the codex) take blocks of 20 elite infantry - suddenly that single flamer is Assault 20 vs this unit. So basically you disincentivize people from using big units and all you see are minimum sized squads to avoid being hit over the face with an absurd number of attacks.

Its why I was suggesting instead using keywords to differentiate between Horde, Line Infantry, and Elites (and if Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures need a tag, they would probably also be Elite with few exceptions). That way you CAN specifically tailor weapons for being good against Hordes and worse against other units.

To use the example of the Flamer again, it would have "attacks: *" and then in its text "This weapon does 2d6 (or 1d6+3 if you prefer) attacks vs Horde units, 1d6 attacks vs Line units, and 1d3 attacks vs Elite units. Boom, you have a weapon that specifically in its rules is more effective vs chaff than elites, without killing the ability for elite units to build up their numbers. A Flamer would still deal 1d3 attacks vs a Tactical Marine Squad, whether it is at 5 or 10 strong.

I'll admit, this is complicated, and would take some reworking, and require GW to sit down and decide WHAT is a Horde unit, or a Line unit, or an Elite unit. My rule of thumb would be "5 points or cheaper = Horde, 6-10/11 = Line, and 11/12+ = Elite", but then again, that would make Ork Boyz, the poster boyz of the Horde playstyle, Line infantry - so some exceptions would definitely have to be made.

The end result though, would be a system where when designing a new weapon, GW can go "ok, we want this to be decent against Hordes, and weak vs Elites, so how about we make its text note "this weapon makes 1 attack vs Elites and Line Infantry, and 3 vs Horde" - for fluff reason, it could be more of a suppressing fire weapon - since Line and Elites are more disciplined and generally fewer in number, the weapon has less option to hit anything compared to this tightly packed swarm.

kurhanik wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Make flamers hit every model in the target unit

20 cultist = Assualt 20
10 Guardsmen = Assualt 10
5 SoB = Assualt 5
Dreadnaught = Assualt 1

Finally an anti hore weapon that works better against multi model units.

The problem here is all of the fairly elite infantry units that start at 5 and bump up to 10 or 20. Your proposal would mean a fully kitted 10 man Tactical Marine Squad would get hit with 10 attacks just as much as the Guardsmen, and things like Rubric Marines can (correct me if I am wrong, I don't own the codex) take blocks of 20 elite infantry - suddenly that single flamer is Assault 20 vs this unit. So basically you disincentivize people from using big units and all you see are minimum sized squads to avoid being hit over the face with an absurd number of attacks.

Its why I was suggesting instead using keywords to differentiate between Horde, Line Infantry, and Elites (and if Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures need a tag, they would probably also be Elite with few exceptions). That way you CAN specifically tailor weapons for being good against Hordes and worse against other units.

To use the example of the Flamer again, it would have "attacks: *" and then in its text "This weapon does 2d6 (or 1d6+3 if you prefer) attacks vs Horde units, 1d6 attacks vs Line units, and 1d3 attacks vs Elite units. Boom, you have a weapon that specifically in its rules is more effective vs chaff than elites, without killing the ability for elite units to build up their numbers. A Flamer would still deal 1d3 attacks vs a Tactical Marine Squad, whether it is at 5 or 10 strong.

I'll admit, this is complicated, and would take some reworking, and require GW to sit down and decide WHAT is a Horde unit, or a Line unit, or an Elite unit. My rule of thumb would be "5 points or cheaper = Horde, 6-10/11 = Line, and 11/12+ = Elite", but then again, that would make Ork Boyz, the poster boyz of the Horde playstyle, Line infantry - so some exceptions would definitely have to be made.

The end result though, would be a system where when designing a new weapon, GW can go "ok, we want this to be decent against Hordes, and weak vs Elites, so how about we make its text note "this weapon makes 1 attack vs Elites and Line Infantry, and 3 vs Horde" - for fluff reason, it could be more of a suppressing fire weapon - since Line and Elites are more disciplined and generally fewer in number, the weapon has less option to hit anything compared to this tightly packed swarm.

I was more trying to let the number of attacks scale to squad size so things like Toughness and Saves can be the decieding factor.
Also they arn't autohitting (but stacking upto -3to hit needs to die regardless).

If your trying to make 10 2+ saves for 20 rubrics vrs 10 5+ saves your going to actually loose a lot less rubrics.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, well you're not getting anti-horde improvements without the weapons becoming better against all targets as well. Not without a radical redesign of how 8th works.

Yup, because writing 'this weapon deals 1d6 hits, 2d6 if unit has 11+ models, 3d6 if 21+' requires radical redesign. Presto, magically better against hordes without affecting elite infantry or discouraging taking full squads of everything non-horde!

Ice_can wrote:Make flamers hit every model in the target unit

20 cultist = Assualt 20
10 Guardsmen = Assualt 10
5 SoB = Assualt 5
Dreadnaught = Assualt 1

Finally an anti hore weapon that works better against multi model units.

Flamers need to be made more, not less versatile. One hit on big targets is stupid and a thing 8th rightfully dumped in garbage can. That's not things work anymore people, your special weapon you paid a lot of points for can't be made useless against something or you will ensure it will never be taken. It's bad design, even now, when flamers do something against big things they almost don't exist and you want to make them even worse?

Also, I like how that proposal is made through lens of a single tactical squad with one flamer type of deal without even bothering to consider how flamers can be used. Imagine 5 sternguard or DW veterans with 5 flamers/heavy flamers/frags - suddenly, 5 men unit costing less than these cultists or orks will spew out 100-150 auto-hits auto-deleting big units virtually without rolling. What in that strikes you as realistic, fun, or good mechanic design?