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.

 skchsan wrote:

Why do they shoot twice?

They shoot twice if they don't move. That's why no one uses the flamer variant, as they practically never get to benefit from that rule.

No Azreal for dark angels? That reroll misses and 4++ bubble are pretty game winning.

There are 3 counters to massed chaps:

- High number of S2 attacks
- Weapons that can inflict damage on multiple models
- Morale

We lack the first one and there are maybe 3 weapons that have the second ability.

Which means that we should look at morale, and indeed, even if it is true that killing 2 marines is the same as killing 6 guards, said 6 guards can cause a squad wipe on 5+.

Guards lose the attrition war against SM, the problem is that right now the games are so fast that there is no attrition war, just alpha strikes.

IDK about 750... thats an insane amount, I dont think anyone can do that.

But if i HAD the models i so would do this (i really want to but dont have the model nor am i spending the money on metal models)

x3 Outriders
Canoness SB
Canoness SB Relice
Celestine 2 Gemini
Dominions x5: x5 SB x18
Retributors x5: x4 HB's x6


90 Dominions with 90 SB's > Scout, get within range turn 1 shoot 360 Bolters
30 Reitributors with 24 HB's, hide in cover, shoot 72 S5 -1ap shots
2 Canoness gives re-rolls to 1's within 6" not everyone will get to re-roll but most will.

Thats 432 shots

It is true that there are not good counters to hordes, at least not ones which would not work equally well or better against more elite opponents.

I think that this is mainly because the failed at converting the old template weapons into the new system. While I really don't want templates back, some weapons should become more effective against big units. There are some rare weapons which do this, but it should be way more common, and I think there is better way to do this mechanically. I think that weapons that basically do low powered AoE attacks should deal hits, or have attacks, based on the number of models in the target unit. E.g. "This weapon's attack characteristic is equal to the number of models in the target unit, up to the maximum of 2D6." I think something like that would be pretty good at simulating things like frag missiles or maybe even flamers.

 skchsan wrote:

Instead continueing this nonsense (yes, I think I'm being nonsensical myself), I think we can agree on the fact that amassed single wounds have no inherent weakness and therefore it cannot be countered.

Against high Sv, you bring high AP.
Against high T, you bring high S.
Against high W, you bring high D.

The game generally works with the above three guidelines.

What do you bring against low T, low Sv, low W,

Volume of fire.

whose accumulated total wound count reaches a staggering level?

Guard armies typically aren't 500 dudes. The highest model count IG armies you typically see on the field are shy of 200 models at the ultra high end, and most are half that model count or less. My 2k IG Brigade list runs under 90 models.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Guard armies typically aren't 500 dudes. The highest model count IG armies you typically see on the field are shy of 200 models at the ultra high end, and most are half that model count or less. My 2k IG Brigade list runs under 90 models.

Soooooooooooo your army is at the ultra low end then?

 skchsan wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Guard armies typically aren't 500 dudes. The highest model count IG armies you typically see on the field are shy of 200 models at the ultra high end, and most are half that model count or less. My 2k IG Brigade list runs under 90 models.

Soooooooooooo your army is at the ultra low end then?

Not from my experience, my list generally has 60-70something weeny infantry and 9-10 vehicles of various sorts depending on what im feeling like.


Looking at tables I see, the army list forum, seeing tournament lists, etc. Infantry centric heavy armies tend to run ~120 models at 2k, more mixed or tank heavy lists tend to run 70-90 models.

More than that and you literally run out of deployment zone space quite often

If you do 6 wounds to a unit of guardsmen, they will probably lose models to moral,
if you do 8 wounds to a unit of guardsmen, you will kill the unit no matter what to morale.
so 75 units of 10 less 150 wounds that morale will do, we now need to do 600 wounds.
There is a fair chance that multiple units will be totally lost to 6 or 7 wounds to morale. since there are 75 units, lets say 1/3rd suffer these bad rolls or 25 untis. so 3.5 wounds less for those units. 87.5 wounds, and 50 by 8 wounds, 100 saved wounds
The fact is, you only need to do 562.5 wounds to cause 750 casualties. Thanks morale!

my math is also slighty off, 8 wounds dont auto kill.. they technically can have 1 survivor on a roll of 1, b/c ld 7.. whoops
but i am also assuming they don't lose any models at less than 6 wounds, so i feel it balances

Martel732 wrote:
They are much harder to remove as well. No more deep striking heavy flamers saying "bye-bye" instantly.

We thought GW: 8” versus 9”.
My vote went to Bobby G, SS, DR, Magnus and Mortarion.

 Crimson wrote:
It is true that there are not good counters to hordes, at least not ones which would not work equally well or better against more elite opponents.

I think that this is mainly because the failed at converting the old template weapons into the new system. While I really don't want templates back, some weapons should become more effective against big units. There are some rare weapons which do this, but it should be way more common, and I think there is better way to do this mechanically. I think that weapons that basically do low powered AoE attacks should deal hits, or have attacks, based on the number of models in the target unit. E.g. "This weapon's attack characteristic is equal to the number of models in the target unit, up to the maximum of 2D6." I think something like that would be pretty good at simulating things like frag missiles or maybe even flamers.

That's like saying there are no counters against heavy vehicles, at least ones that work equally well against infantry, true but utterly missing the point. Different target profiles require different weapons, it's one of the key aspects of 8th ed. There are a lot of weapons that will decimate hordes, Hurricane Bolters, Tesla weapons, Aggressors, massed infantry, and close combat just to name a few. So the problem isn't lack of options, but one of misplaced expectations, people want their anti-horde weapons to work just as well against heavy infantry, which is like wanting plasma pistols to be great at killing land raiders.

None of the options you listed are actually COST EFFECTIVE against hordes. They are just the least poor of the available options. Frequently because the platforms for said weapons are very expensive.

I have one question. Why does people say that the new AP sistem punishes marines and power armour?

Agaisnt the old AP5-6 they are the same. Agaisn't AP4 they are now 4+, thats worse, but in cover they are still 3+.
Agaisnt the old AP3 they have now a 5+ save or 4+ in cover (The same as before in cover)
Agaisnt the old AP2, they have a 6+ save, or a +5 in cover. (This is worse than before in cover but better outside it)
And the old AP1 now put thems at 7+ and 6+ in cover.

So out of cover marines are better agaisn't everything than before, barring the now AP-1. In cover they are worse agaisn't AP-3 and AP-4, but thats applies to everybody with the new cover rules.

There are many weapons that are effective against horde units. Bolters will cost-effectively kill kroot, boyz, pox-walkers, hormagaunts and so on. But Guardsmen have a wound for every four points and a 5+ save, and this is what makes them super durable. It has nothing to do with 'hordes' in general.

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is the buff that 5+ armor received. Marines weren't durable in 7th, or 6th, or 5th, or 4th. The were durable in 3rd, which might as well have never happened now.

Martel732 wrote:
None of the options you listed are actually COST EFFECTIVE against hordes. They are just the least poor of the available options. Frequently because the platforms for said weapons are very expensive.

Auto cannons do a great job at 48", multi-las at 36", they can cause damage with impunity to any amount of 40pts of Gaurdsmen fire.
at 6" it changes. but thank goodness boards are more than 24" square.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is the buff that 5+ armor received. Marines weren't durable in 7th, or 6th, or 5th, or 4th. The were durable in 3rd, which might as well have never happened now.

The issue is the low point cost per wound of Guardsmen relative to other Infantry types. How durable marines were in prior edition is irrelevant, and saying that there are no cost-effective anti horde weapons is simply wrong. There is no weapon profile that kills Guardsmen better that it kills Tactical Marines, but that does not hold true for horde units in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
None of the options you listed are actually COST EFFECTIVE against hordes. They are just the least poor of the available options. Frequently because the platforms for said weapons are very expensive.

Auto cannons do a great job at 48", multi-las at 36", they can cause damage with impunity to any amount of 40pts of Gaurdsmen fire.
at 6" it changes. but thank goodness boards are more than 24" square.

Autocannons are awful against Guardsmen and multilasers are terrible in general.

 Grimgold wrote:


That's like saying there are no counters against heavy vehicles, at least ones that work equally well against infantry, true but utterly missing the point. Different target profiles require different weapons, it's one of the key aspects of 8th ed. There are a lot of weapons that will decimate hordes, Hurricane Bolters, Tesla weapons, Aggressors, massed infantry, and close combat just to name a few. So the problem isn't lack of options, but one of misplaced expectations, people want their anti-horde weapons to work just as well against heavy infantry, which is like wanting plasma pistols to be great at killing land raiders.

No, you got it completely backwards. All of these weapons you mention are actually more effective against heavy infantry than light infantry when the point cost of the target unit is taken in account. That is the problem. People want weapons that are better at killing IG than killing equivalent points worth of marines. No such weapons exist.

pismakron wrote:


Autocannons are awful against Guardsmen and multilasers are terrible in general.

It is more a statement of perspective. Not that the weapons noted are wonderful. But using it well means its invincible against the disputed guardsmen.
And as noted, really you only need to get 7 or 8 wounds in on a unit to remove it, it you build in that loss of 8-12 points, they become 5ppm, does that help?

They need to be 5-6 ppm up front to limit the table coverage. And to pay for their fancy armor.

 Galas wrote:
I have one question. Why does people say that the new AP sistem punishes marines and power armour?

Agaisnt the old AP5-6 they are the same. Agaisn't AP4 they are now 4+, thats worse, but in cover they are still 3+.
Agaisnt the old AP3 they have now a 5+ save or 4+ in cover (The same as before in cover)
Agaisnt the old AP2, they have a 6+ save, or a +5 in cover. (This is worse than before in cover but better outside it)
And the old AP1 now put thems at 7+ and 6+ in cover.

So out of cover marines are better agaisn't everything than before, barring the now AP-1. In cover they are worse agaisn't AP-3 and AP-4, but thats applies to everybody with the new cover rules.

Marines & power armor are "punished" in the sense that GEQ & vehicles got a respectable amount of boost while MEQ's and TEQ's went down in effectiveness with the new AP system. Bolters were reputable GEQ counter prior to 8th by making their 5+ Sv irrelevant against their S4AP5.

Durability is now measured by whether if you have T8 or have a lot of single wounds for toughness to not matter.

In that sense, guardsmen are one of the most superior-est units in the game.

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

It is not fancy, but now it actually works against most common anti infantry weapons. For example, guardsmen became 33% more durable against bolters. This should be reflected in their cost, but it really isn't.

There are many units that are cost efficent at removing hordes at range (mostly xeno, SM only have aggressors). As has been said though, they are equally good against elite stuff.

Xenos weapons though tend to be "Ok" at killing hordes, meaning that over 3 turns they get the job done. Aggressors are the only unit that in 2 turns does the same, but they pay for that in delivery.

In assault things change obviously, and there are many ways to take those out.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

For 4 pts, its fancy AF.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

Also, Tshirt saves are 6+. Get it right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

There is a point value that can break any unit.

Spoletta wrote:

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

This is because in 7th you usually didn't actually get to attempt that 5+ save, in 8th you do. This in itself I think is a good thing, as in previous editions the difference between having a low save and no save at all didn't really matter. But his increased survivability should be taken account in the unit's cost. This really cannot be that difficult concept, can it?

To be honest I like that now 6+ and 5+ saves actually matter for the most part. When the most popular, and basic weapon of the game makes those two saves irrelevant... yeah.

They just need to be priced accordingly to their uselfulness in the context of the current edition.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

This is because in 7th you usually didn't actually get to attempt that 5+ save, in 8th you do. This in itself I think is a good thing, as in previous editions the difference between having a low save and no save at all didn't really matter. But his increased survivability should be taken account in the unit's cost. This really cannot be that difficult concept, can it?

Oh i get it don't worry, i just find it funny