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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 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.

Yes, that was my point. It is a terrible proposal.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 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.

What? No. We already have a reason to take specialized units. In fact, I'd argue that a huge problem with 40k right now is specialists are way way way way better than generalists in an army. Any proposal that gives a reason for generalists to exist is a good one for 40k, I think. So if that's what you think this does, then I'd argue that's a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 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.

Yes, that was my point. It is a terrible proposal.

Can you elucidate why, based on the premises I offered, rather than simply calling it terrible and then giving me nothing to argue?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Your proposed system does not accomplish this goal. Elite armies (marines, aspect warriors etc) often operate in MSU style (and they should be able to!) This system punishes that playsyle. Furthermore, it makes any flimsy units a huge liability. Landspeeders, rhinos, tarantulas, etc. And of course scaling of this is completely bonkers. In big game more units die per turn than in a smaller game, thus causing bigger morale penalties under this system. It is completely crazy.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Your proposed system does not accomplish this goal. Elite armies (marines, aspect warriors etc) often operate in MSU style (and they should be able to!) This system punishes that playsyle. Furthermore, it makes any flimsy units a huge liability. Landspeeders, rhinos, tarantulas, etc. And of course scaling of this is completely bonkers. In big game more units die per turn than in a smaller game, thus causing bigger morale penalties under this system. It is completely crazy.

So you don't disagree with the problem as identified, merely its implementation. Throw out the specific implementation, then, and we'll talk about ways to fix the problem.

-1 per unit destroyed in a certain radius? -1 per model destroyed within x" of a unit, including but not limited to its own? There's two similar ideas that are considerably less powerful, scale based on game size (well, board size, though very large games should have larger boards imo). I'd rather say the -1 per model destroyed within x" of a unit, including its own models, is more effective than the first, but I can't really articulate why I feel that way.

Except most Elite armies have aura buffs and need to cram as many units as possible into buff range to compete.

Als playing around with moral without first fixing the issue that it's easier to remove a unit of 5 tacs or FW's than 10 Guardsmen for the same points just means that armies forced into msu for CP are going to get screwed by moral losses aswell.

The game needs an anti mass 1W cheap model weapon, it currently doesn't have any.

I picked a flamer as most factions have access to them in some form or another.

Untill we have a weapon that cuts through cheap blob squads efficently trying to use moral won't help. You could also do wonky things with insane Alpha stike lists of LD debufs kill the easiest number of models then 1 dude per unit and wipe the unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

-1 per unit destroyed in a certain radius? -1 per model destroyed within x" of a unit, including but not limited to its own? There's two similar ideas that are considerably less powerful, scale based on game size (well, board size, though very large games should have larger boards imo). I'd rather say the -1 per model destroyed within x" of a unit, including its own models, is more effective than the first, but I can't really articulate why I feel that way.

Again, both of these affect aura based armies more than non aura based. IG can easily make fire teams of one office and two squads. Marines need to pile all their characters and their best units together.

I'm really not sure that it is possible to achieve the results you're after. Though I'd like to see the morale system redesigned, but in different way. 8E system is very boring, you kill some dudes and as a result some more dudes may die. Previous editions where morale caused status effects was better.

Perhaps it would be possible to create FB style system, where units could break, and nearby broken units caused panic tests, and then elite units had solid Ld and would almost never break, but it would probably be too complicated.

The problem then is you are resigning yourself to the fact that elite infantry just won't be good.

Even adding a weapon that is good at massacring light infantry wouldn't really help, because it would be so niche. The majority of armies are still Marines, and players will still tailor to Marines. One or two squads in an army kitted out to be slightly more efficient against hordes won't fix the problem I don't think.

The role of infantry in 40k is bullet soak. If you can't make elite infantry relevant bullet soaks, then they just won't be good. You can do this by making light infantry less good at being bullet soaks, but if this is achieved by making the enemy pay points and special weapon slots on a specific weapon, then in a way the light infantry has already done it's job.

30k has a Rotor Cannon weapon that is "anti horde" in the context of the game but no one takes it, because it competes with things like volkite guns and anti-tank weapons and plasma guns.

Anti horde weapon:

Frag Grenade 6" Grenade2D6 S2 D1 AP- This weapon cannot cause more hits than there are models in the target unit

 Crimson wrote:
Anti horde weapon:

Frag Grenade 6" Grenade2D6 S2 D1 AP- This weapon cannot cause more hits than there are models in the target unit

That, thrown by a Space Marine, will kill 0.26 Guardsmen per shot. Hardly anti-horde, even if it is mathematically more efficient against Guard than Marines.

To put it in perspective, if you had 100 Marines throwing this weapon, they would kill less than a BN of IG.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem then is you are resigning yourself to the fact that elite infantry just won't be good.

Even adding a weapon that is good at massacring light infantry wouldn't really help, because it would be so niche. The majority of armies are still Marines, and players will still tailor to Marines. One or two squads in an army kitted out to be slightly more efficient against hordes won't fix the problem I don't think.

The role of infantry in 40k is bullet soak. If you can't make elite infantry relevant bullet soaks, then they just won't be good. You can do this by making light infantry less good at being bullet soaks, but if this is achieved by making the enemy pay points and special weapon slots on a specific weapon, then in a way the light infantry has already done it's job.

30k has a Rotor Cannon weapon that is "anti horde" in the context of the game but no one takes it, because it competes with things like volkite guns and anti-tank weapons and plasma guns.

If there are effective anti horde weapons and hordes are a problem people will take them. But no such weapons really exist.

But I agree that normal marine statline just is unsalvageable under the current rules. I'm sure GW realises this too, and that's why Primaris marines exist. Their statline absolutely can work. There are just too many and too cheap multidamage weapons for it to be noticeable. But at least the Primaris give less point to small arms fire than the guard.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem then is you are resigning yourself to the fact that elite infantry just won't be good.

Even adding a weapon that is good at massacring light infantry wouldn't really help, because it would be so niche. The majority of armies are still Marines, and players will still tailor to Marines. One or two squads in an army kitted out to be slightly more efficient against hordes won't fix the problem I don't think.

The role of infantry in 40k is bullet soak. If you can't make elite infantry relevant bullet soaks, then they just won't be good. You can do this by making light infantry less good at being bullet soaks, but if this is achieved by making the enemy pay points and special weapon slots on a specific weapon, then in a way the light infantry has already done it's job.

30k has a Rotor Cannon weapon that is "anti horde" in the context of the game but no one takes it, because it competes with things like volkite guns and anti-tank weapons and plasma guns.

If there are effective anti horde weapons and hordes are a problem people will take them. But no such weapons really exist.

But I agree that normal marine statline just is unsalvageable under the current rules. I'm sure GW realises this too, and that's why Primaris marines exist. Their statline absolutely can work. There are just too many and too cheap multidamage weapons for it to be noticeable. But at least the Primaris give less point to small arms fire than the guard.

That's a good point.
I think we should keep small arms fire as the primary anti-horde, and then buff Elites so that small arms fire is less effective (multiple wounds per model).
Then, make sure to keep tabs on multi-damage weapons and/or charge more for them, reducing lethality overall (one of my problems with 40k right now) and indirectly buffing elite infantry.

Would that be an adequate solution to start testing on if we were GW hypothetically?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Anti horde weapon:

Frag Grenade 6" Grenade2D6 S2 D1 AP- This weapon cannot cause more hits than there are models in the target unit

That, thrown by a Space Marine, will kill 0.26 Guardsmen per shot. Hardly anti-horde, even if it is mathematically more efficient against Guard than Marines.

To put it in perspective, if you had 100 Marines throwing this weapon, they would kill less than a BN of IG.

Not really the point. Like you say, the point is that it is weapon which is more effective against guard than marines. But as I said in the last post, it is probably fools errant to try design such weapons based on minimarines, we just need to accept that marines are Primaris now and the system needs to be designed around that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's a good point.
I think we should keep small arms fire as the primary anti-horde, and then buff Elites so that small arms fire is less effective (multiple wounds per model).
Then, make sure to keep tabs on multi-damage weapons and/or charge more for them, reducing lethality overall (one of my problems with 40k right now) and indirectly buffing elite infantry.

Would that be an adequate solution to start testing on if we were GW hypothetically?

Well, that's what I would do.

Ok! At least the problem isn't as dire as I had thought. The current 40k rule structure can absolutely handle those changes if the designers make them, no need for an overhaul.

There is another possible implemantion for the leadership change.

-1 to ld for every unit with the same datasheet destroyed in the same turn.

This will not harm too much elite MSU, but will still combat the hordes which are always troops and for that can be spammed over the 3x limit.

But then a Tac squad is impacted by another Tac squad getting splatted, but an Aspect Warrior squad isn't impacted by another Aspect Warrior squad getting splatted?

The difference between datasheets isn't as uniform across the codexes.

I still think that the best way to salvage Elite Infantry is to throw into the rules actual anti-Horde weaponry. If a Flamer or Heavy Bolter deals more shots at an Infantry Squad or Cultists than against a Tac Squad, it will A) deal more wounds to the Horde unit, and B) let the morale rules as is work better against them.

A quick look into a mathhammer app says that if say a Heavy Bolter did its base 3 attacks vs a Tac Marine, and 1d6+3 vs an Infantry Squad, you would end up with an average of .5 dead Marines, and 1.8 dead Guardsmen (assuming BS 4+). Three Heavy Bolters would kill (on average) 5.4 Guardsmen, and only 1.5 Marines - at which point the Guard would have a decent chance at failing the morale check (1d6+5 against Leadership 7 [or 8 if Catachan/Commissar nearby, 9 with Lord Commissar/Yarrick]). Even passing the check, it would be 20/24 points of Guard downed vs 13-26 points of Marines, which is far better than the current ratio (and far more likely to actually trigger a morale check than previously).

That same Heavy Bolter example, 3 4+ BS Heavy Bolters firing into some Ork Boyz would down an average of 6.5 models in this situation, as opposed to the current average of 3.

There are several anti-elite weapons out there (Plasma immediately comes to mind - it can kill up to 2 Guardsmen or Grots...yay, or it can kill up to 2 Primaris Marines, for a much bigger payout.), but really nothing that is anti-Horde. Until this shifts to having both anti-elite AND anti-swarm weapons, we'll just see people focusing on cheaper units to capitalize on their soak. If we get to the point where there are tools for both jobs, that are stronger vs one than the other, it will force players to use more of a mix of units instead of a force tilted solely in one direction.

Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Let's keep Gaunts separate from guardsmen.

Hormagants are 5ppm. Hormagants take 50% more casualties, points wise, than Guardsmen do from these weapons. If Guardsmen cost 6 points per model, they would have the same durability as Hormagants do relative to these weapons.

Hormagants are more efficient at soaking wounds from these guns than marines, but that is specifically because synapse is assumed as a part of the equation. The second you ditch synapse, Hormagants are fleeing even if 1 dies.

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Let's keep Gaunts separate from guardsmen.

Hormagants are 5ppm. Hormagants take 50% more casualties, points wise, than Guardsmen do from these weapons. If Guardsmen cost 6 points per model, they would have the same durability as Hormagants do relative to these weapons.

Hormagants are more efficient at soaking wounds from these guns than marines, but that is specifically because synapse is assumed as a part of the equation. The second you ditch synapse, Hormagants are fleeing even if 1 dies.

You are also missing the fact that Hgants are 6+ saves

I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

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. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

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. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.

Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.

kurhanik wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

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. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.

Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.

What you're missing is that the Marines are taking 50% more damage than they would if there wasn't AP, but 5+ models only take 25% more damage, and 6+ models are only taking 20% more. The worse your save is starting out, the less you care about AP.

jcd386 wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

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. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.

Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.

What you're missing is that the Marines are taking 50% more damage than they would if there wasn't AP, but 5+ models only take 25% more damage, and 6+ models are only taking 20% more. The worse your save is starting out, the less you care about AP.

Its why I specifically noted that if you simply alter the rate of fire vs the Horde units, they will be A) wounded more often and B) fail more saves than the Marines. If the Heavy Bolter did 3 shots vs Marines and 1d6+3 shots vs Horde units, guess which group is likely to take more wounds.

Make the weapons that are supposed to be filling anti-Horde duty, and actually give them the rules to do that while still being able to do something at least to the Elite units, and it will balance out somewhat. Yes, you can fire your plasma at Gaunts, but you don't want to unless there are better targets available - the same should be true of Flamers/Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters and their equivalents vs Elite units.

Ice_can wrote:

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.

9 models is 2d6 vs 1d6 against a character o 3 custodes.vI oroposed 1d6 + 1d6 per 5 models.
I would eliminate single digit increments for big units actually.

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.

GK terminators also took a 33% points hike, and they die just as fast to plasma as they they ever did. Go read my other posts before you tell me to “do the math”...I mathhammer all the time. I used terminators as an example since a lot of people lately don’t know how the old AP system worked...they’ve only played 8th. TBH the real victims are 3+ units; there wasn’t a lot of AP 3 in the older editions. I apologize for not using a perfect example
The point is that there a lot more “general purpose” weapons now and aiming your “horde control” weapons at elite units is effective enough that you don’t often need to bring the same variety of weapons classes as you once did.

GK Terminators are a whole different thing that need discussion...

kurhanik wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Part of the issue is the wounding chart. Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers wound Marines at the same rate as Infantry and Gaunts and basically anything T3.

Well, they are basically both anti-infantry weapons, so it does somewhat make sense that they wound at the same rate, but the wounds don't stick at the same rate - Infantry (bumped to 6+) and Gaunts (bumped to 7+) are more likely to fail their save than Marines (bumped to 4+). Alter somewhat the rate of fire vs the Horde units though, and they will take more wounds and fail more saves on average than the more Elite units.

Insectum7 wrote:I posted the idea earlier but it may have gotten lost due to another argument, but what about something like the inverse of the Grav mechanic for anti horde weapons:

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. The bonus could be a save modifier, extra hits or whatever, but having the mechanic dependent on armor save (like Grav) limits it to the sort of units we're looking to target, I think.

Don't a good number of Tyranid units as a whole have a 5+ save? I could be wrong on this, but I remember in the old 6th edition codex a number of units did. On the flip side, if a unit like Ork Boyz, which are a pretty Hordey unit, get back 'Eavy Armor and go to a 4+, then this wouldn't work. And what of weapons like Heavy Flamers? They already have AP -1, do they get bumped to AP -2 vs 5+ or higher? Or 4+ or higher? The idea can work, but there are too many variables on what constitutes a Horde, chaff, and so on, and just simplifying it to 5+ armor or worse could unfairly screw over other codices.

What you're missing is that the Marines are taking 50% more damage than they would if there wasn't AP, but 5+ models only take 25% more damage, and 6+ models are only taking 20% more. The worse your save is starting out, the less you care about AP.

Its why I specifically noted that if you simply alter the rate of fire vs the Horde units, they will be A) wounded more often and B) fail more saves than the Marines. If the Heavy Bolter did 3 shots vs Marines and 1d6+3 shots vs Horde units, guess which group is likely to take more wounds.

Make the weapons that are supposed to be filling anti-Horde duty, and actually give them the rules to do that while still being able to do something at least to the Elite units, and it will balance out somewhat. Yes, you can fire your plasma at Gaunts, but you don't want to unless there are better targets available - the same should be true of Flamers/Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters and their equivalents vs Elite units.

The problem with that solition is overlap between the units people complain about being OP, and the units people are trying to "protect". Both Guardsmen squads and Tactical Squads can come in groups of ten. Are guardsmen "horde" while marines are "elite", yet still the same squad size?

The problem is at the moment 20 stong conscript squads take 6 shots 5 marines take 6 shots there is no scaling for the unit size if the marines take 4 hits 2 wounds a 1 failed save thats not unreasonable.

Its that nothing actually allows you to put scalable volume of fire into a unit so that T and Sv can make the difference.

Flaming 10 custodes is a lot less likely to kill them than 10 grots buy when your capped out at 4 or 6 shots from weapons they really don't allow volume scale to punish squishy models.

Those few weapons with enough shots are also usually fixed number currently so are better pointed at vehicals or small units with invulnerables in the current mechanics.

Anti horde weapons are fine, don't touch them!

They work perfectly and kill hormagaunts and the like magnificently!

People here talk about hordes but actually think about a single model, which is so durable that it makes anti horde weapons look bad. Weapons are not the problem!

If you take guardsmen a the basis for hordes, you end up with overpowered anti horde weapons!

Spoletta wrote:
Anti horde weapons are fine, don't touch them!

They work perfectly and kill hormagaunts and the like magnificently!

People here talk about hordes but actually think about a single model, which is so durable that it makes anti horde weapons look bad. Weapons are not the problem!

If you take guardsmen a the basis for hordes, you end up with overpowered anti horde weapons!

What existing anti horde weapons are you talking about?