Hoards are too powerful on a mechanical level, lets fix that.

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.

**Martel732**

That hits multiple codices. I think marines are the game's outlier at this point. The other factions seem to be able to have good games with each for the most part.

**Panzergraf**

Bharring wrote:
It seems like weapon power needs to be tuned down a bit across the board, except when facing hordes. To me, at least. That would indirectly nerf hordes, to an extent.

The solution I suggested does exactly that; by limiting blast/flamer weapons to one hit per model in the targeted unit, these weapons become weaker against small elite units, while remaining strong against horde units.
Then some weapons can even be buffed, by given better Damage or more dice to roll, without ever being too powerful against small units or single models.

This would be a change to a flaw the core mechanics of the game, rather than just patching up single codexes. I stand by what I wrote earlier, that just making Marines cheaper is not a good fix - it's a bad fix to a symptom of a problem, rather than addressing one of the main problems.

The 8th edition implementation of blasts and flamers isn't the only problem with horde VS elite balance, but fixing it will make things better.
Changing core mechanics mid edition isn't new either. It was done in 3rd edition with the Trial Vehicle Rules and Trial Assault Rules, that later went on to become 4th edition.

**Martel732**

Making marines cheaper is the only fix, as they are way too fragile per point atm. The horde thing is just a function of hordes being too durable per point.

**Bharring**

Panzer,
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough. Flamers then are no more better v hordes than they are today, and Marines don't fear Flamers much as is.

I'd support the change. Perfectly in the spirit of the rules. Great example of lightest touch. Looks to perform exactly as intended.

Not sure that we wouldn't *also* need an additional fix, but I like your suggestion.

**Marmatag**

The simple fact is that nothing costing less than 8 points should have better than a 6+ save. Anything 5 or less shouldn't have a save, period.

Of course people will not want to hear that but it's the truth. Conscripts should not have a save. Guardsmen should be 7 points and have a 6+ save.

**Panzergraf**

Bharring wrote:
Panzer,
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough. Flamers then are no more better v hordes than they are today, and Marines don't fear Flamers much as is.

I'd support the change. Perfectly in the spirit of the rules. Great example of lightest touch. Looks to perform exactly as intended.

Not sure that we wouldn't *also* need an additional fix, but I like your suggestion.

Thank you. One thing about my fix is that it opens the possibility if buffing flamer and blast weapons, making them 2D6 or D6+3 or whatever, without also making them more powerful VS single units or low model count armies.

Martel does have a point about Marines still being too fragile, but making them cheaper is IMO not the way to do it. It just increases total model count on the table.
Giving them some kind of buff, like maybe letting them reroll armour saving rolls of 1, or something like that, would make more sense.

**An Actual Englishman**

Someone needs to back up the OP statement that 'hordes are too powerful at the moment'.

Why? Which tournaments have been won by a horde list?

Some of the top tier armies that I'm aware of pre FAQ were notably elite -
Eldar
Flyrant spam
Custodes
B/Dangels

The only horde list that has been particularly strong AFAIK was the poxspam and cultist bomb lists, both of which have been FAQ'd.

**=Angel=**

Kharneth wrote:
Whether or not this idea would provide the intended solution without causing other problems, I don't see how wrong it would be for a lascannon to blast through an extra space marine or two. I mean, I don't imagine that giant laser hitting a space marine and then dissipating. I imagine it slicing through the marine and striking the ground behind him. Whose to say it couldn't blast through another marine?

The intent of the lascannon weapon is a concentrated high strength attack on a single target. There exist and have existed beam type attacks in the game that pass through models in a line, but a lascannon has never been depicted as one of these in-game (some novels do describe lascannons as scything through crowds)

If it helps, the depiction of the lascannon in the THQ game Space Marine is of an anti-tank energy sniper rifle- a quick 'choom' rather than drawn out 'freem'.

If you are familiar with the one-page 40k ruleset, my criticism of their lascannon (using a strength system that simply adds dice to represent rate of fire AND strength) was that it was a better infantry killer than the plasmacannon.

The 40k designers have neatly tied the maximum number of casualties a weapon can inflict to the maximum number of shots it can fire, while keeping damage a separate mechanic- which dispenses with prior rules for massive damage (instant death, eternal warrior, vehicle armour facings) .

If you want to tinker with crowd control weapons to make them kill more things- a good place to start would be a system based on the number of models per unit- example: a flamer rolls a d3 per 5 models or part thereof- It will never hit all the models in a unit but it will hit at least 6 in a mob of 26-30.

I doubt the game designers want to punish people for taking more miniatures though.

**Bharring**

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

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

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

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

What are your comparative opinions of those ideas?

**skchsan**

Panzergraf wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Make elite units cheaper. There, fixed.

Make Elite Armies Horde Armies, if all armies are Horde Armies, then Horde Armies are not a problem

No, that's a gakky "fix".

My solution is a fix to "blast" and "flamer" (formerly template) weapons.
Currently:
You fire a Hellhound Inferno Cannon at a group of 3 Terminators. In theory, that's not the right weapon for the job, as its supposed to be an anti horde weapon.
You roll 2D6 to see how many hits you get, and roll 9. That's three hits on each termie in the squad.
If the squad had 9 models, each would only get hit once.

This doesn't really make sense to me, and it punishes elite armies. In previous editions, one strength elite armies with small units had was that blast and flamer templates weren't very effective against them.

The 3rd edition "Cityfight" supplement, which also did away with templates, had a more elegant solution.
For blast weapons, you first rolled to hit using your ballistic skill. If you scored a hit, then you rolled a D3 (small blast) or a D6 (large blast) to see how many models in the targeted unit were hit.
The number of hits could not exceed the number of models in the target unit.
So a squad of 3 Terminators could not be hit more than 3 times by a single weapon.

This would mean some weapons would need their cost adjusted, and maybe Damage too. But it would also make it easier to balance blast weapons (supposedly anti horde) VS single shot weapons (supposedly anti large), like Battle Cannons VS Vanquisher Cannons.
Many weapons that are now Heavy D6 could for example be made Heavy D6+3, making them more effective against hordes, but not too effective against single models or small elite units, as they wouldn't be able to score more hits than the number of models.

Currently, a buff to blast/flamers to combat hordes will also make them more effective VS elites, and having to bring anti-elite/anti-large weapons at all wouldn't even be needed - just hose everything down with flamers and blasts.

Another solution would be Faction Specific Detachments. Currently, the Imperial Guard has access to some really cheap Battalions, and even Brigades. For an elite army, filling out a Battalion is far more costly. They simply won't get the same number of Command Points that easily.
How much does a battalion detachment of Custodes cost? I'm not sure, but I bet it's way more than 200pts.

How is that a gacky fix?

I think many of us here agree that it's good for both GW and the player base to be able to field more models - more time assembling, more time painting, more models sold all the while the game playtime remains more or less the same, if not only slightly longer due to lengthened movement/charge phase.

Since the game has made elite units not so elite anymore, the point cost should reflect their (the elite units) performance on board. The current iteration of point system & damage system makes cheap, expendable 1W models highly valuable over multi wound models. What needs to happen is that the so called 'elite' units made slightly more expendable.

**Bharring**

I don't think everyone would agree that more models is better. I actually think the board is already croweded, even with MEQ armies, with 2k points on a 6x4 board. I'd rather less.

At any rate, I think what he was really complaining about is making Elite armies play more like hordes, and what you're talking about is basically increasing the game size - bumping the numbers of both the elite armies and the hordes.

I want my Marines to not feel like Guardsmen, and my Banshees to not feel like Gaunts. So I don't want either a scale-up in model count or a reduction in the difference between MEQ and GEQ.

**Martel732**

It's too late for that, they published the disintegrator at a reduced cost for the Drukhari. And the necrons have a chapter tactics that scoops up marines wholesale. And just in case primaris needed to be worse, the Tau throw buckets of damage 2 shots. A marine is not a 13 point unit in 8th edition, no matter how hard the apologists try to spin the situation.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
It's too late for that, they published the disintegrator at a reduced cost for the Drukhari. And the necrons have a chapter tactics that scoops up marines wholesale. And just in case primaris needed to be worse, the Tau throw buckets of damage 2 shots. A marine is not a 13 point unit in 8th edition, no matter how hard the apologists try to spin the situation.

What necron tactic is this?

**Martel732**

The extra AP tactic. Or obsession or whatever you guys get.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
The extra AP tactic. Or obsession or whatever you guys get.

Mephrit? The one that's regarded as the second from worst? How does that "scoop up marines wholesale"?

**Martel732**

I don't know it's the one that makes gauss -2 AP. If that's considered second worst, I don't want to know what the rest of them do. I realize killing marines at an insane rate is commonplace now in 8th, but it really is a nasty tactic against marines.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know it's the one that makes gauss -2 AP. If that's considered second worst, I don't want to know what the rest of them do. I realize killing marines at an insane rate is commonplace now in 8th, but it really is a nasty tactic against marines.

It's only an additional -1 AP for models within half range. So, rapid fire range of warriors. Sure, it's alright. But warriors are slow. Also, apparently no one uses warriors.

**Martel732**

It's the infinitely regenerating destroyers that are killing me.

**krodarklorr**

Martel732 wrote:
It's the infinitely regenerating destroyers that are killing me.

Well, yes. But Mephrit is not gonna add anything to Destroyers. But that's off topic.

**Asmodai**

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

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

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

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

What are your comparative opinions of those ideas?

Conversely, I'm enjoying having an edition where a Leman Russ' Battlecannon is actually effective at fighting other tanks.

Once you add in special rules that allow vehicles and monsters to count as 5 models or some such, it starts getting complicated.

**Panzergraf**

Asmodai wrote:

Conversely, I'm enjoying having an edition where a Leman Russ' Battlecannon is actually effective at fighting other tanks.

Its HE shells really shouldn't be effective at that, though. At least not more than the AT shells of the Vanquisher.

**Ice_can**

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

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

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

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

What are your comparative opinions of those ideas?

Conversely, I'm enjoying having an edition where a Leman Russ' Battlecannon is actually effective at fighting other tanks.

Once you add in special rules that allow vehicles and monsters to count as 5 models or some such, it starts getting complicated.

But by definition it really shouldn't be as the blast profile it has depicts a HE shell which should be inefficient vrs hard reinforced targets like tanks and bunkers hence why moddern MBT have various ammunition for different targets and IG have different tanks for different targets.

**Panzergraf**

In previous editions, the Vanquisher could choose between HE shells (template, regular Battle Cannon profile) and AT-shells with no blast and 2D6 penetration.
FW also had some optional rules in one of the Imperial Armour books for regular Battle Cannon ammunition too, with HE shells being even worse VS tanks than normally (2D6 pick lowest for penetration), and AT shells being decent, but not as good as the Vanquisher AT shells.

Depending on how many rulse we want to re-write here, giving the Battle Cannon an AT shell that's decent VS tanks, but inferior to the Vanquisher, would be fine by me. But if not, I'm totally OK with the Battle Cannon simply being bad against other tanks.

**LunarSol**

leopard wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
I think one thing we lost that helped against some hordes was the rule sweeping advance. Could such a mechanic help against hordes and even buff melee? Failed morale in melee and the unit gets wiped out.

How many hordes actually care about morale though?

This is definitely the failsafe mechanic that's failing to properly keep hordes in check. Make hordes fear fear and it'll limit them properly.

**DominayTrix**

LunarSol wrote:
leopard wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
I think one thing we lost that helped against some hordes was the rule sweeping advance. Could such a mechanic help against hordes and even buff melee? Failed morale in melee and the unit gets wiped out.

How many hordes actually care about morale though?

This is definitely the failsafe mechanic that's failing to properly keep hordes in check. Make hordes fear fear and it'll limit them properly.

Not caring about morale and the loss of ap5 has made them too durable. Guardsmen went from only getting cover saves most of the time to always getting 5+ unless someone wastes higher ap weapons on guardsmen. Same logic applies to most hordes, but I feel like guardsmen are the real problem child here. Killing large amounts of orcs or gaunts isn't nearly as difficult as it is units of 10 guardsmen. If guardsmen have to use cover to not instantly die against most weapons like they used to then proper screening becomes a trade-off instead of a no-brainer. An AP-1 or AP-2 against saves of 5+ or worse also could be a pretty effective buff for most traditionally strong anti infantry weapons. The hard part is making it effective against hordes without being even more effective against things like marines.

**ComradeRed1308**

I would think a rule given to former blast weapons like this would make the most sense:

Shrapnel - failed saving throws against this weapon may be rerolled.

This would be balanced by making things like frag missiles, grenades, and mortars 2D6 or even 3D6 shots, but their effectiveness dramatically reduces against armored targets. It makes some realistic sense too as modern body armor is worn more to protect against shrapnel than actual bullets. You could still give such weapons an AP value for larger caliber weapons such as earthshakers and other high explosive ordnance. It would also make cover much more effective against blast weapons (which is also realistic).

**Dandelion**

Give all marines +1 W at no extra cost (except primaris). Since they're overcosted now, maybe they're pointed for having the extra wound?

Right now a marine veteran is 16 pts I believe. An intercessor is 18 pts. If these values are correct (I don't own the marine codex so I can't verify), then the intercessor gets +1W and AP -1 for only 2 pts extra. If we assume Intercessors are overcosted due to plasma and such, then the price of regular marines now but at 2W should be fine (theoretically).

**Blndmage**

I disagree with the title.

Prove that hordes are a problem first.

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

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

**Bharring**

Many of the supporters seem to be saying this as another way to say "IG Squads > Tac Squads", which is a very narrow view.

I'd still like the cap-templates/blasts-at-unit-count-for-hits change, as it makes a lot of fluff sense.

But the game doesn't seem to be stacked specifically in favor of hordes as much as it originally may have seemed.

**Martel732**

Don't forget kabalites making marines look foolish.