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.

And largely, I agree with GW. Tides of gretchin or cultists or really anything can be fun now and then... but at a certain point it can easily go from "a fun list to match against" to "fairly abusive and not worth the frustration". They have to balance that, and if that means point them out of that capability or make more efficient weapons to combat that... so be it.

What humors me is a couple years back there was so many incendiary threads about "slow playing hordes of models = easy GT wins" to now... "Hordes are no longer viable!" Which way do we want it? Or are we just hunting for the next easy way to win games? I get the feeling "balance" isn't what is really being sought out here. Really deep down at the root of the argument, I don't think bland balance is what we're looking for.

I am also arguing that the point cost is more a matter of the unit role instead of it being a compilation of numbers crunched together. Tyranids also have double-move stratagems as well, don't they? And a lot of other movement-enhancing shenanigans? Just because they lack MMM doesn't mean they're bad bad bad. At the end of the day, Hormagaunts hold objectives just as well as an Infantry Squad... as they're both cheap, ObSec units... and there's so much more that goes into them beyond that to make each unit individually more or less desirable. Most notably, IS max at 10, Horma-hordes can go higher if I am not mistaken.

The only way you're achieving balance is if we're all playing with the same units doing the same actions with the same capabilities and defenses. Everyone wants their models to do something special, yet we all want everything to be equal against everything else. Not going to happen :(

Though, I doubt any minds will be swayed and it feels like we just want to toss more salt onto the salt pile for why 9th is the worst edition ever created... so I'll politely bow out and continue playing real games, instead

Enjoy, ya'll!

Get a clock running and let whoever wants play whatever the gak they want.

Outside competitive, who cares what people play.

Space marine gunlines running 3x5 aggressors take longer to do a turn than horde armies, honestly.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Space marine gunlines running 3x5 aggressors take longer to do a turn than horde armies, honestly.

but at a certain point it can easily go from "a fun list to match against" to "fairly abusive and not worth the frustration".

Speaking of fairly abusive and not worth the frustration. Should GW nerf all SM armies?

No. More shots = more dice = more fun. More models = more tedium.

Dice = good, models = bad.

Please try to keep up.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
What humors me is a couple years back there was so many incendiary threads about "slow playing hordes of models = easy GT wins" to now... "Hordes are no longer viable!" Which way do we want it? Or are we just hunting for the next easy way to win games? I get the feeling "balance" isn't what is really being sought out here. Really deep down at the root of the argument, I don't think bland balance is what we're looking for.

Pretty sure there's a middle ground between 'easy GT wins' and 'no longer viable'. 'Viable, but not overpowered' sounds like the right label. It's a false dichotomy to say it has to be one or the other.

I think it's also a cop-out to say that balance can only be achieved if everything is identical. I've played some enormously asymmetrical games that were still balanced very well. You are right, bland equivalence is not the goal; but balance in terms of roughly equal but different capabilities is what makes for a fun game. Ogre and Starship Troopers come to mind as some fairly well-balanced games where the two sides are wildly different.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I am also arguing that the point cost is more a matter of the unit role instead of it being a compilation of numbers crunched together. Tyranids also have double-move stratagems as well, don't they? And a lot of other movement-enhancing shenanigans? Just because they lack MMM doesn't mean they're bad bad bad. At the end of the day, Hormagaunts hold objectives just as well as an Infantry Squad... as they're both cheap, ObSec units... and there's so much more that goes into them beyond that to make each unit individually more or less desirable. Most notably, IS max at 10, Horma-hordes can go higher if I am not mistaken.

For the sake of accuracy: Tyranids have a single stratagem to allow them to move again, but take a mortal wound on a 1 for each model, and cannot shoot or charge. The Kraken subfaction has a stratagem to double the result of an Advance roll. Both of these are better employed on things like monsters, not hordes.

Hormagaunts do not hold objectives as well as an Infantry Squad. They're more expensive per model (6 instead of 5), have a worse save (6+ instead of 5+), don't have access to a stratagem which improves their armor save (Guard can Take Cover), hordes are a double-edged sword thanks to Blast, and most importantly Hormagaunts have exactly zero combat utility while sitting on an objective.

Termagants are a better comparison to Infantry Squads, as they have comparable movement, same price, and similar shooting; but they're also short-ranged, still easier to kill, and don't have anything like Take Cover.

Most importantly, MMM is available army-wide, not as a single stratagem for a single unit. Grabbing an objective is all well and good, but the real power comes in being able to grab multiple objectives simultaneously, allowing you to retain the advantage even if your troops get shot off of one, and still bring all of your firepower to bear.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No. More shots = more dice = more fun. More models = more tedium.

Dice = good, models = bad.

Please try to keep up.

I hope this is sarcasm...

Because i rather watch hordes move then boymob shooting f.e.

 vict0988 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2020/08/top-3-9th-edition-40k-army-lists-warzone-giga-bites-iv.html

That's good to see, those lists look pretty bad on paper, why you would take Gretchin in those lists I don't know, if they continue to show up then GW stops looking bad and I will commend them. My prediction is that it might just be part of early edition trying different things and seeing what sticks before a list with 0 Gretchin ends up being the dominant Ork list. It seems like Eradicators were banned from the event, but those aren't exactly anti-horde. At the very most the player who brought 20 Gretchin wasted 40 pts, all the doomers who said Gretchin are terrible will be proven wrong once we start seeing 60+ Gretchin do well again or see 10+ Gretchin being a mainstay unit in competitive.

Hah. Those are exactly the kinds of lists I expected to see.

Kommandos for cheap secondary objective grabbing, Gretchin to hold the rear, and fast durable units to push middle.

SemperMortis wrote:
Devilgaunts are also a horde unit that can be decimated turn 1 by those Frag missiles while you have to advance into the SM's guns to even get in range turn 2. (18' range vs 48' range) Not to mention the difference in BS and keep in mind a bunch of those missiles will be firing at 2+ to hit or a modified 3+ (reroll 1s). You also than have to deal with the 3+ saves and 2+ for marines in cover




Automatically Appended Next Post:
as far as RO3, I just threw it together on the fly didn't put much thought into it you can just change out 2 of those units to get a host of other SM options with similar functionality.

No nid players walks Devilgants, they always are DS/Outflanked

Not Online!!! wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
No. More shots = more dice = more fun. More models = more tedium.

Dice = good, models = bad.

Please try to keep up.

I hope this is sarcasm...

Because i rather watch hordes move then boymob shooting f.e.

I thought I was laying it on pretty thick. But to be fair, that really does seem to be what GW genuinely thinks.

Kinda feels like that with a lot of new marine stats lol.

Sumilidon wrote:
So one thing that has became apparent in 9th edition is that horde armies are on in the receiving end of a very large stick. For this statement I refer to 3 key rules and I use the scenario of units at least 11 models in size:

New coherency rules Means each model must remain within 2 inches of another. That’s actually quite hard to do when you start removing models unless you run your unit in a regimented fashion.

The formula used to determine points increases disproportionately impacted horde units where even a 1 point change could represent a 20% increase.

The implementation of blast weapon rules (which GW apparently list 150 weapon profiles as blast) meaning weapons with random shots pretty much get the maximum in the majority of scenarios.

The improvement to weapons such as flamers by increasing their range.

To counter this, also look at The other changes recently such as to terrain, the boosts in wounds to marines, the range increase of bolters etc - of of which are of major benefit to MEQ type units while to the determined of horde units. That’s not including the other changes such as hateful assault to increase melee potential.

Nobody can argue that horde armies were OP, fact was that at the end of 8th, the meta was dominated by Marines who don’t have that playstyle (every other type, just not that type). So why such a heavy handed and blatant nerf to horde armies?

Because they spent several editions accidentally giving hordes too much of a boost. A 150 point 10 man intercessor squad on an objective loses to an 11 man grot squad worth what, 50 points. They changed units of measure in the middle of the rules and didn't pay attention. We purchase units with points, then they scored objectives/points with models instead of some sort of unit value related to their cost. And it's GW, so they're going to overcorrect for an edition or two, then forget the whole thing, and return to not paying attention this so they can do it again.

Ah yes the famous 11th grot being free to purchase. I remember that rule!

It is a bit strange to be honest. GW has spent multiple editions of Warhammer fantasy giving hordes boosts. Getting leadership buffs for ranks, becoming stubborn and damn near unbreakable if you outnumber the enemy, additional ranks getting to fight if you have a big enough unit. AOS even gives price cuts if you have max size units in some cases and had some powerful buffs for taking big units like increased damage rolls and the like.

Yet in 40K the only real bonus all large units shared was increased access to special weapons that could in other units be given to every trooper. (see boyz with 1in10 rokkits vs tankbustas) Or in some very small cases being given large unit bonuses that were, okay. And you can take objectives better, though the idea of 1 troop grot being able to hold the objective against a unit of 10 elite terminators always makes me chuckle.

On the other hand, not sure if the blast rule will be a real killer, the difference between 3.5 battle cannon shots and 6 battle cannon shots (which have to roll to hit) isn't huge in most cases (big units of nobs and the like is an exception) if MSU is the way lists are built this edition then big units of troops will still hold some power. Until someone whips out the onslaught gatling gun of course.

I'm of the opinion that any number chosen by GW to represent what a "Horde" is in the rules, and thus grant additional rules for things like blast weapons or coherency, would have been arbitrary. It could have just as easily been 21+, or 31+, or 15+ or whatever. The majority of basic units in the game however come in squads of 5-10, so having it as 11+ does have some logic behind it. Some.

The only thing that I don't like is the inclusion of additional rules for units 6-10 in size. That was unnecessary and just adds further complications to the game.

For all my issues with terrain and LOS and vehicles and so on, the first 9th Ed rule I'd remove from the game entirely would be the coherency requirements for units sized 6-10.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm of the opinion that any number chosen by GW to represent what a "Horde" is in the rules, and thus grant additional rules for things like blast weapons or coherency, would have been arbitrary. It could have just as easily been 21+, or 31+, or 15+ or whatever. The majority of basic units in the game however come in squads of 5-10, so having it as 11+ does have some logic behind it. Some.

Depends on if GW took a coherent view.
There are fair number of models which gain a special rule if you take them in bigger units (and there could be more). If you covered this under the "horde rule", you could then have a certain interaction with blast.
Admittedly that potentially creates more things to learn - a horde of Genestealers is 11, while a horde or Termagaunts is 21 etc - but arguably that creates a more tailored and less arbitrary distinction.

(The real craziness would be offering points discounts on models taken in a "horde" - but that could get messy too.)

But then I don't think blast is meant to be balanced. Its an example of whimsy. "It sucks when I shoot my massive gun into a load of models I potentially only get 1 shot. Okay Timmy, have all the shots."

I feel if competitive players were in charge, random shot weapons would be up against the wall. Just make them all 2/4 shots etc and balance accordingly. "But my blast templates" - what is this, 2014?

As game design in 9th edition, board control is becoming much much more important than ever before, while hordes can just flood the board to deny oppoenents routes towards their objective, especially now the board is smaller than ever before. So I think that is the key motivation to nerf hordes by making them easier to kill via blast weapons and more restrictive on movment by unit coherrency.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
130 models is 100% a horde.

Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.

Neophyte2012 wrote:
As game design in 9th edition, board control is becoming much much more important than ever before, while hordes can just flood the board to deny oppoenents routes towards their objective, especially now the board is smaller than ever before. So I think that is the key motivation to nerf hordes by making them easier to kill via blast weapons and more restrictive on movment by unit coherrency.

Hordes also need to be able to stay alive for the whole enemy turn in order to claim said objectives. And with even trash units going to 5ppm (grotz, brimstone horrors) and all the shooting boosts, I find it hard to see how this will happen. Additionally the smaller board will make it easier for units like assault intercessors and teeth of terra captains to reach said horde units and mulch them to a pulp.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
130 models is 100% a horde.

Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.

And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.

 Charistoph wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
130 models is 100% a horde.

Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.

And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.

You say that like Orks can't do the same thing. And in neither case will that necessarily be a good list.

 alextroy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
130 models is 100% a horde.

Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.

And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.

You say that like Orks can't do the same thing. And in neither case will that necessarily be a good list.

13*10 Guardsmen will almost certainly do better than 13x10 Gretchin/Boys, Gretchin because they do nothing and at best they can hold/activate an objective, Boys because there are several incentives for going big that they will miss out on and they are quite a bit more expensive. The total lack of AM performance so far in 9th is baffling to me when people can win with Gretchin.

 Charistoph wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
130 models is 100% a horde.

Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.

And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.

Not MSU, but FSU.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
And largely, I agree with GW. Tides of gretchin or cultists or really anything can be fun now and then... but at a certain point it can easily go from "a fun list to match against" to "fairly abusive and not worth the frustration". They have to balance that, and if that means point them out of that capability or make more efficient weapons to combat that... so be it.

Then why do you agree that guardsmen are ok at 5ppm when they have the stats and the efficiency of ork boyz or kabalite warriors, which are 8-9ppm?

About what defines an horde: 130 is tipycally twice the models of a SM army at 2000 points. I'd consider an horde an army that has 3x or even 4x more models than that average SM army as the standard SM model is 3x or 4x more resilient than the average horde infantry dude.

 alextroy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
130 models is 100% a horde.

Don't know the threshold for being a horde.
But smaller table sizes have to be taken into account.

And even then, you have situations like Astra Militarum who can field 130 models easily, and none of them would be affected by these Horde rules because you're dealing with a lot of MSU.

You say that like Orks can't do the same thing. And in neither case will that necessarily be a good list.

And yet, Unless you're fielding Conscripts, no unit will be going over 10 models in Astra Militarum. It was much worse when you could get a half dozen 10 man squads per FOC slot, but those guys are currently in the past. Orcs and Tyranids, however, have multiple units where one can field them in 30 model units, which is where the Horde rule applies.

You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.

I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.

 alextroy wrote:
You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.

I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.

But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style.
\

 alextroy wrote:
You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.

I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.

10 man squads of boyz are utter trash unless they also have a 65ppm trukk. 20ish squads of boyz are also sub optimal unless they ride in a 155ppm battlewagon, which also burns an heavy support choice.

10 man squads of guardsmen are perfect as they are, and they are actually 30 cheaper points than 10 man squads of boyz. 35-40 cheaper if the nob as a close combat weapon, which he'll likely want. 10 man guardsmen would be ok even at 8-9ppm (which is exactly how they should be), when they'd cost exacatly like a 10 man squad of boyz with or without a killsaw and still outclass the greenskins.

 Blackie wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.

I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.

10 man squads of boyz are utter trash unless they also have a 65ppm trukk. 20ish squads of boyz are also sub optimal unless they ride in a 155ppm battlewagon, which also burns an heavy support choice.

10 man squads of guardsmen are perfect as they are, and they are actually 30 cheaper points than 10 man squads of boyz. 35-40 cheaper if the nob as a close combat weapon, which he'll likely want. 10 man guardsmen would be ok even at 8-9ppm (which is exactly how they should be), when they'd cost exacatly like a 10 man squad of boyz with or without a killsaw and still outclass the greenskins.

I've seen this written several times, and I'd really like to know how my guardsmen in any way would outclass orks. And please, don't come with the boosted by a pile or orders stuff. That depends on very limited officers who tend to be prime targets in my experience. And besides, at the current points level, my guardsmen already get blasted off the table in huge amounts by the ever prevalent space marines who somehow get units that fire over a hundred shots and then re-roll everything too.

Purifying Tempest wrote:


What humors me is a couple years back there was so many incendiary threads about "slow playing hordes of models = easy GT wins" to now... "Hordes are no longer viable!" Which way do we want it? Or are we just hunting for the next easy way to win games? I get the feeling "balance" isn't what is really being sought out here. Really deep down at the root of the argument, I don't think bland balance is what we're looking for.

Howabout balance? Why either extremes is desirable? Hordes shouldn't be autowin or autolose　they are now. Balanced.

Gw went to light infantry is irrelevant. Why? Money. It's marketing trick. Nothing about balance(being irrelevant junk isn't balanced), nothing abott what's　good for game.

Gw sold enough light infantry selling more to oversaturated market isn't feasible. Thus gw now forces those to junk category so players　buy new units to replace them


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
You missed my point. Orks and Tyranids are capable of fielding lots of infantry models in squads of 10 or less models. It's not their horde identity of large units of 20-30 models, but they can do it just as easily as Astra Militarum.

I'm not going to argue they are as good, but 130 Guardsman aren't really good either.

But 130 guardsmen will absolutely gut 130 Ork boyz in 10 man squads. So what is happening here is Orkz are now incentivized to take the bare minimum # of troops and focus on toyz. Which brings us right back around to the main point which Jidmah said. GW is making rules to force players into a certain play style.
\

Yep. Until market has room to sell light infantry gw will kill off light infantry rulewise. Gw doesn't want ork/ig/tyranid players using　same old models instead of buying new models.

Get ork　players drop 600pts boyz and 100 pts grots, that's　700pts room for new models to be bought