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.

 Irbis wrote:

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?

Bloat drones would love getting 40 s6 flamer attacks too. Or a daemon prince of nurgle spraying a squad to death with his plague spewer then kicking the tank hiding behind them in the nads.

 Brother Castor 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.

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

You realize Plasma doesn't have to be overcharged, right? And overcharging should be a risky choice?

I'd also be fine if he'll blasters had a special rule that let the unit just take a mortal wound instead.

Flamer weapons already have the fix inside 8th edition. Just increase dice for bigger units. Still potent against single target because they can score more than 1 hit so are not wasted, more useful against bigger units. How much should they improve?

their die each 5 models in the squad should be ok. So all flamers should be 2d6 autohits against most MSU units, getting a better average.

IronBrand wrote:

Spoiler:

 Irbis wrote:

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?

Bloat drones would love getting 40 s6 flamer attacks too. Or a daemon prince of nurgle spraying a squad to death with his plague spewer then kicking the tank hiding behind them in the nads.

I just run the numbers but it's achieving the aim of killing hoards but not murdering infantry and charictors.

All flamers would probably need rebalanced but they need that anyway as they are currently panta bar a few odd special rules flamers.

FBD twin plauge spitters aka under costed OP unit
40 shots 20 hits 19 wounds 15 dead cultist
20 shots 10 hits 10 wounds 8 dead Firewarriors
10 shots 5 hits 4 wounds 2 dead marines
Makes it a better anti horde weapon but yeah maybe too OP

Flamer Combi-Flamer tacs
40 shots 27 hits 18 wounds 12 dead cultists
20 shots 13 hits 9 wounds 4/5 dead Firewarriors
10 shots 7 hits 3 Wounds 1/2 dead Marines

Per model might be too strong maybe it should be per 2 models but it's achieving the aim of killing hoards better than elite infantry.

Flamers should do 2d6 hits, up to the maximum of number of models in the target unit.

CapRichard wrote:
Flamer weapons already have the fix inside 8th edition. Just increase dice for bigger units. Still potent against single target because they can score more than 1 hit so are not wasted, more useful against bigger units. How much should they improve?

their die each 5 models in the squad should be ok. So all flamers should be 2d6 autohits against most MSU units, getting a better average.

Per 5 models doesn't work as you just get 19 man cultists instead of 20, guard are already playing the 9man unit game so 9 Guardsmen take the same shots as a charictor? Or a 3 dude custodes squad.

 Crimson wrote:
Flamers should do 2d6 hits, up to the maximum of number of models in the target unit.

Do you think blast weapons should be similar?

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Flamers should do 2d6 hits, up to the maximum of number of models in the target unit.

Do you think blast weapons should be similar?

At least some of them.

Number of models == number of hits would work, although it might make a single Flamer *too* good against a 20-body unit.

Number of models == Cap on number of hits would work, but (a) is a nerf to many of the already-underperforming weapons (Flamers, and even Scytheguard), and (b) might start to get too cumbersome.

Number of attacks =
0-10 models: d6
11-20 models: 2d6
21+models: 3d6
feels like it has odd breakpoints. Although I'd suggest the 0-9, 10-19, 20+ brackets instead, or a D6 per 10, round up. Also, the wording gets long - and would be put on every data sheet that uses it.

Another option is
-Number of shots == number of models
-Hits on flat N+
--Most current Autohitters with d6 hits would be 4+ (Flamer)
--Most current roll-to-hits would be a 5+ (Frag missile/grenade)
--Most current d3 hits would be the above minus 1
-Things with 2d6 or 2d3 (or higher) simply get 2 (or more) times the number of shots

Personally, I like the second option paired with doubling the base shots. But there are a number of options out there.

Bharring wrote:
Number of models == number of hits would work, although it might make a single Flamer *too* good against a 20-body unit.

Number of models == Cap on number of hits would work, but (a) is a nerf to many of the already-underperforming weapons (Flamers, and even Scytheguard), and (b) might start to get too cumbersome.

Number of attacks =
0-10 models: d6
11-20 models: 2d6
21+models: 3d6
feels like it has odd breakpoints. Although I'd suggest the 0-9, 10-19, 20+ brackets instead, or a D6 per 10, round up. Also, the wording gets long - and would be put on every data sheet that uses it.

Another option is
-Number of shots == number of models
-Hits on flat N+
--Most current Autohitters with d6 hits would be 4+ (Flamer)
--Most current roll-to-hits would be a 5+ (Frag missile/grenade)
--Most current d3 hits would be the above minus 1
-Things with 2d6 or 2d3 (or higher) simply get 2 (or more) times the number of shots

Personally, I like the second option paired with doubling the base shots. But there are a number of options out there.

So, let's say 20 T3 guys in a unit. 20 shots hitting on flat 4s. Is ten hits. Wounding on 3s. So let's say, 6 wounds. Let's say save on 5. So 4 wounds put of 20.

That's not exactly antihorde. It's pretty much the sand as now only with a ton of extra dice rolling.

 Crimson wrote:
Flamers should do 2d6 hits, up to the maximum of number of models in the target unit.

I'd prefer something along the lines of the Grav Flux Bombard where the number of dice you roll for your auto hits increases as unit size does.

I will add though, that one of the failings of attacking the issue through unit size is that for the most part "cheap units" aren't often "large units". Guard are never more than 10 at a time and can be less. There's not many mechanics in the game that can properly distinguish between facing 3, 10 man units and 10 10 man units unfortunately.

Banville,
That's a single flamer. Consider a 5-man Tac Flamer/Combi squad:
2 Flamer profiles: 40x(1/2)(2/3)(2/3) = 80/9
1 Bolter Sarge: 2x(1/2)(2/3)(2/3) = 4/9
3 Bolter Doods: 3x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 16/9

Now a Tac squad does 11 wounds in the shooting phase alone. And that's just 5 guys. I'd consider that reasonable anti-horde, but not super-anti-horde.

If you could have more Flamers in a squad (and some armies can), it gets even better. The flamer just tripled effectiveness vs 20-man units (averaging 10 hits vs averaging 3.5 hits). It increased vs 10-mans, which feels right. It went down vs 5-mans, which is debateable. It went way down on 1-mans, which is desireable.

Not saying the numbers are tuned correctly, but remember a single flamer is cheap. We don't want to make Gaunts and Guardsmen and Orkz worthless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lunar,
Shouldn't a Flamer be more effective vs a 10man Guard unit than a 3-man remnant of a Guard unit?

If flamers does that for you guys... then my 20 Flamer sob girls will light up the tables.

3x5 Flamer Dominions i Repressors with 2 HF's, Vanguard 12", move 12", shoot 8" (32" turn 1 threat range), thats only 15 flamers and 6 HF's turn 1, thats only 30d6 and 12d6 shots.

A more realistic chance for flamers is D6, 2D6 take highest vs 10+ models in a unit

That's why I like 2d6 capped at models-in-unit. It gives Flamers a buff, but not too much of a buff. The "Hits == model count" is certainly too much when you look beyond Tac Marine Flamers.

Weapons are fine, and would be too cumbersome to modify those.

The counter to multiple cheap models is morale, just make it work.

"During the morale phase, units suffer a penalty of -1 to morale for every allied unit that was destroyed that turn".

Punishes MSU, in particular those that have small units easy to remove.

Hordes are not a problem if they are in big units, they do suffer morale, or have to rely on mechanics that make them immune. After the conscript nerf this is something that could work (and make ATSKNF more useful).

Spoletta wrote:
Weapons are fine, and would be too cumbersome to modify those.

The counter to multiple cheap models is morale, just make it work.

"During the morale phase, units suffer a penalty of -1 to morale for every allied unit that was destroyed that turn".

Punishes MSU, in particular those that have small units easy to remove.

Hordes are not a problem if they are in big units, they do suffer morale, or have to rely on mechanics that make them immune. After the conscript nerf this is something that could work (and make ATSKNF more useful).

I like this line of thinking. Having caught up on the thread, I like a lot of what's being said, but we're a bit down in the weeds (fixating on specific units and weapons) rather than talking about the broader issues of the game which is what I was trying to elucidate in my OP.

I think making morale more relevant would absolutely be a way to kick horde armies in the teeth, and the system Spoletta mentioned here is very good at that, I think, because it considers both the number of models lost (as the current morale rules do) from a single unit and considers the number of total units destroyed. It makes Conscripts have a role again, as they're troops choices that aren't as easily eliminated and so won't inflict the -1 on other units, and it allows for things like Synapse and Commissars (e.g. dedicated morale buffs) to still work, which means they're useful. Giving LD8 from a Commissar to a Guard squad is more valuable when the Squad is at a -4 from 4 other units being destroyed than when it's just 7. (This assumes the Commissar will have a rule that makes him immune to leadership degrades, because he's a commissar. I'm just spitballing).

This also removes the tendency to bring suicide units (3 man chaos terminator squads, 5-man scion squads, etc), because those will hurt friendly leadership when they're wiped out. Furthermore, units like Grots can have rules that their deaths don't impact the army's morale, while army abilities like Valhallans can halve both the penalty for losing units and the number of models that flee, since they're supposed to be the "meatgrinder" army.

So you shoot at a Marine list. You kill 2 Rhinos, a Scout squad, and a predator. Suddenly, every unit in the list is rolling -4 LDs on top of anything you kill from within them.

I like the idea, but I'm a little concerned about how it scales.

IG might have a hard time keeping anything on the table. Lets say you kill 4 IG squads, 2 officers and a chimera in a 2k game in one turn. Every single remaining unit now rolls at a -7. An IG-spam army will then lose half of every Infantry unit! To say nothing of what happens to the vehicles or bullogryns or such.

Leadership is kind of a wonky stat.

Personally I would rather it be a requirement for a lot of mechanics. For instance, roll to see if you can receive the benefits of an effect, based on leadership.

A unit of Guardsmen is issued "Take Aim!" You need to be lower than leadership on 2D6 to receive the order. It also gives people an incentive to bring commissars or buff their leadership.

 Marmatag wrote:
Leadership is kind of a wonky stat.

Personally I would rather it be a requirement for a lot of mechanics. For instance, roll to see if you can receive the benefits of an effect, based on leadership.

A unit of Guardsmen is issued "Take Aim!" You need to be lower than leadership on 2D6 to receive the order. It also gives people an incentive to bring commissars or buff their leadership.

This is how it used to be, but we need to move away from Guardsmen, I think, specifically, because the problem I've identified isn't "Guardsmen need nerfing" (that's for another thread) but rather that "Elite infantry have no role, because the only role for infantry in 40k is to be bullet-soaks".

So rather than fixating obsessively on one comparatively irrelevant part of the game, I think the solution would be to have Leadership be a "durability-related" stat, which means that units can be numerous, and can contain numerous models for cheap, but these units aren't necessarily automatically more durable than a smaller number of larger units, or a smaller number of smaller units with better Leadership and defensive stats.

Right now, 30 Cultists and 3 units of 10 Cultists is indistinguishable in 40k, as far as durability goes. If anything, the 3 units of 10 are more durable than 30 because of the problem of overkill. However, if we could work Leadership into the question in a way that considered both "number of casualties suffered in this unit" and "number of other units lost" we'd be getting somewhere.

Bharring wrote:
So you shoot at a Marine list. You kill 2 Rhinos, a Scout squad, and a predator. Suddenly, every unit in the list is rolling -4 LDs on top of anything you kill from within them.

I like the idea, but I'm a little concerned about how it scales.

IG might have a hard time keeping anything on the table. Lets say you kill 4 IG squads, 2 officers and a chimera in a 2k game in one turn. Every single remaining unit now rolls at a -7. An IG-spam army will then lose half of every Infantry unit! To say nothing of what happens to the vehicles or bullogryns or such.

Yes lets kill off anytype of MSU army and hurt specialist lists that dont spam the same 3 units.

So my SOB with transports tanks, or my DE with 6 transports means you just need to kill the transports and 1 guy in each squad to kill off my entire army,,, really good.

Bharring wrote:So you shoot at a Marine list. You kill 2 Rhinos, a Scout squad, and a predator. Suddenly, every unit in the list is rolling -4 LDs on top of anything you kill from within them.

I like the idea, but I'm a little concerned about how it scales.

IG might have a hard time keeping anything on the table. Lets say you kill 4 IG squads, 2 officers and a chimera in a 2k game in one turn. Every single remaining unit now rolls at a -7. An IG-spam army will then lose half of every Infantry unit! To say nothing of what happens to the vehicles or bullogryns or such.

This is a data issue. We could say -1 for every 2 units, or we could give more units resistance to this. For example, I think if Commissars were immune to this penalty and put out an aura, you'd see more commissars. Also, don't forget a unit has to suffer casualties to be forced to take a check - we're not saying "roll for your entire army!" just "roll for the units that have taken casualties, and somehow incorporate the fact that they just watched seven units get deleted in a single 6-second timeframe" or however long a 40k turn is supposed to be.

Amishprn86 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you shoot at a Marine list. You kill 2 Rhinos, a Scout squad, and a predator. Suddenly, every unit in the list is rolling -4 LDs on top of anything you kill from within them.

I like the idea, but I'm a little concerned about how it scales.

IG might have a hard time keeping anything on the table. Lets say you kill 4 IG squads, 2 officers and a chimera in a 2k game in one turn. Every single remaining unit now rolls at a -7. An IG-spam army will then lose half of every Infantry unit! To say nothing of what happens to the vehicles or bullogryns or such.

Yes lets kill off anytype of MSU army and hurt specialist lists that dont spam the same 3 units.

So my SOB with transports tanks, or my DE with 6 transports means you just need to kill the transports and 1 guy in each squad to kill off my entire army,,, really good.

1) SOB and DE are not required to play MSU. That's a deliberate style choice, one which is actually very effective; perhaps encouraging people to bring smaller numbers of larger units is a good thing.
2) SOB really should have pretty good leadership. In earlier editions, it was trivial to make them Fearless. This will likely show up in their faction rules.
3) DE should absolutely flee in that situation. They're a speedy army that just watched all 6 of their transports get blown away in a single turn. Any sensible soldier, at that point, will probably leg it. It'd be like being in a tank company and watching half the company explode in six seconds.

I think Ld is the right direction for fixes, but it's kind of problematic right now that Elite infantry has worse outs for it than light infantry. This is both because it makes it a non fix, vs light infantry and because it makes it really hard to add models to elite units.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think Ld is the right direction for fixes, but it's kind of problematic right now that Elite infantry has worse outs for it than light infantry. This is both because it makes it a non fix, vs light infantry and because it makes it really hard to add models to elite units.

I think the latter problem will be fixed by MSU making morale checks worse. Losing half of 6 squads of 5 tactical marines is only 15 dead marines, but inflicts a -3 on any other part of the army that has suffered casualties. Meanwhile, losing 15 marines in 3 squads of 10 inflicts only a -1 on the rest of the army. So there's suddenly an incentive to take bigger units as well.

Not really sure what you mean by "outs" for LD.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Bharring wrote:So you shoot at a Marine list. You kill 2 Rhinos, a Scout squad, and a predator. Suddenly, every unit in the list is rolling -4 LDs on top of anything you kill from within them.

I like the idea, but I'm a little concerned about how it scales.

IG might have a hard time keeping anything on the table. Lets say you kill 4 IG squads, 2 officers and a chimera in a 2k game in one turn. Every single remaining unit now rolls at a -7. An IG-spam army will then lose half of every Infantry unit! To say nothing of what happens to the vehicles or bullogryns or such.

This is a data issue. We could say -1 for every 2 units, or we could give more units resistance to this. For example, I think if Commissars were immune to this penalty and put out an aura, you'd see more commissars. Also, don't forget a unit has to suffer casualties to be forced to take a check - we're not saying "roll for your entire army!" just "roll for the units that have taken casualties, and somehow incorporate the fact that they just watched seven units get deleted in a single 6-second timeframe" or however long a 40k turn is supposed to be.

Amishprn86 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you shoot at a Marine list. You kill 2 Rhinos, a Scout squad, and a predator. Suddenly, every unit in the list is rolling -4 LDs on top of anything you kill from within them.

I like the idea, but I'm a little concerned about how it scales.

IG might have a hard time keeping anything on the table. Lets say you kill 4 IG squads, 2 officers and a chimera in a 2k game in one turn. Every single remaining unit now rolls at a -7. An IG-spam army will then lose half of every Infantry unit! To say nothing of what happens to the vehicles or bullogryns or such.

Yes lets kill off anytype of MSU army and hurt specialist lists that dont spam the same 3 units.

So my SOB with transports tanks, or my DE with 6 transports means you just need to kill the transports and 1 guy in each squad to kill off my entire army,,, really good.

1) SOB and DE are not required to play MSU. That's a deliberate style choice, one which is actually very effective; perhaps encouraging people to bring smaller numbers of larger units is a good thing.
2) SOB really should have pretty good leadership. In earlier editions, it was trivial to make them Fearless. This will likely show up in their faction rules.
3) DE should absolutely flee in that situation. They're a speedy army that just watched all 6 of their transports get blown away in a single turn. Any sensible soldier, at that point, will probably leg it. It'd be like being in a tank company and watching half the company explode in six seconds.

Its not about requiring to play that way, its the fact it would completely ruin that play style, for even SM it would ruin it.

We could just make Moral work the way its suppose to, horde should have some buffs and some characters could give some buffs too, having the ability to gain +1 or +2, +3, or even +5 to LD is better than full immunity, Or you just lose 1D6 each fail Moral and remove all immunity and buffs cant go over LD10

Light Infantry seems to have more built in ways to completely ignore morale checks, where Elite Infantry gets the potential to reroll into a worse number.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not about requiring to play that way, its the fact it would completely ruin that play style, for even SM it would ruin it.

We could just make Moral work the way its suppose to, horde should have some buffs and some characters could give some buffs too, having the ability to gain +1 or +2, +3, or even +5 to LD is better than full immunity, Or you just lose 1D6 each fail Moral and remove all immunity and buffs cant go over LD10

What? No, it wouldn't ruin it at all. It would just make it harder. Losing 6 venoms in a single turn is very difficult unless it's Planet Bowling Ball and the itty bitty tiny models with a 5++ (usually 4++ from that one faction) and -1 to-hit have nowhere to hide.

The rest of your rules are already more complicated and don't actually address the problem of 30 guardsmen in 3 squads of 10 being DRAMATICALLY harder to wipe than 30 guardsmen in one squad of 30.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Light Infantry seems to have more built in ways to completely ignore morale checks, where Elite Infantry gets the potential to reroll into a worse number.

The only light infantry that can completely ignore morale checks that I can think of are Tyranid infantry, in which case I have no problem with it, and Iyanden guardians.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not about requiring to play that way, its the fact it would completely ruin that play style, for even SM it would ruin it.

We could just make Moral work the way its suppose to, horde should have some buffs and some characters could give some buffs too, having the ability to gain +1 or +2, +3, or even +5 to LD is better than full immunity, Or you just lose 1D6 each fail Moral and remove all immunity and buffs cant go over LD10

What? No, it wouldn't ruin it at all. It would just make it harder. Losing 6 venoms in a single turn is very difficult unless it's Planet Bowling Ball and the itty bitty tiny models with a 5++ (usually 4++ from that one faction) and -1 to-hit have nowhere to hide.

The rest of your rules are already more complicated and don't actually address the problem of 30 guardsmen in 3 squads of 10 being DRAMATICALLY harder to wipe than 30 guardsmen in one squad of 30.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Light Infantry seems to have more built in ways to completely ignore morale checks, where Elite Infantry gets the potential to reroll into a worse number.

The only light infantry that can completely ignore morale checks that I can think of are Tyranid infantry, in which case I have no problem with it, and Iyanden guardians.

It would make it to hard and make 30man units to strong, its just a different meta, nothing is fixed.

So because cheap hordes are more durable than elite units, the solution is to increase this problem by making the elites suffer twice for their poor durability?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
It would make it to hard and make 30mans x3 units to strong, its just a different meta, nothing is fixed

As someone who plays Adepta Sororitas, it would not make it too hard, at all. 30 mans x3 units (if by that you mean 3 10 man squads) is already super strong, so we're trying to condense it down to 1 30 man unit, at which point you can then inflict much higher morale losses and don't lose any shooting efficiency.

For example, 3 10 man units will never take a morale check that is d6+15 vs Leadership. One 30 man unit, though, might. So the 3x10 mans are dramatically better. However, if you did 15 damage to the 3 10 mans, you'd lose 1, then each other squads could suffer a smattering of casualties. This would make the Morale Check essentially the same as (d6+models lost from the unit + units lost from the army), or, equivalently, d6+casualties vs Leadership - units lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So because cheap hordes are more durable than elite units, the solution is to increase this problem by making the elites suffer twice for their poor durability?

No? The solution is to cause cheap hordes to take real morale losses. Elite infantry aren't "suffering twice". Quite the opposite, in fact, since they're harder to kill. Let me break the idea down into premises:

1) Elite units are individually tougher to kill than cheap units.
2) Cheap units have lots of bodies - so many bodies that Elite units may be individually tougher but they are not tougher in aggregate.
3) Therefore, we should allow the morale system to penalize bodies lost rather than points lost.
4) The current morale system attempts this, but fails, because the alternative is to take fewer "bodies per unit" since the morale system does not look beyond a single unit. You can still take the same total number of bodies, but have circumvented the morale system.
5) Therefore, we must build the morale system to look at bodies in totality across the army rather than just bodies in a unit and this seems like a simple way to do it.

 Crimson wrote:
So because cheap hordes are more durable than elite units, the solution is to increase this problem by making the elites suffer twice for their poor durability?

You miss understood, elite armies are MSU and not hordes, Hordes should be penalized more than MSU.

As i first said specialized units are screwed, we need rules to help us WANT to take units that are specialized and not mass generalist units. this proposal does the opposite.