PDA

View Full Version : Does the Horde rule need a nerf?



Kalandros
25-03-2013, 09:38
Random thought occurred to me and I guess I decided to post about it!

What if the Horde rule had an additional clause, to make it used more by ... Hordes of cheap models, rather than always the minimum Horde of the best models?
That clause:
"The last rank of a unit can never support in Horde formation unless it is the only rank that can support." (Basically 3 ranks = support from 2nd rank, no support from 3rd, 2 ranks = support from 2nd)

3 Ranks of 6 ironguts? No support from 3rd rank.
5 ranks of 10 goblins? support from 3rd rank!

30 White Lions? No support from 3rd rank!
Keep 31 White Lions though and suddenly 10 more can attack but lose that last 4th rank guy and you lose support!

But then I thought: Is it needed?
Is there a problem with Hordes as it is right now?
Would it break certain armies? Would it fix anything?

/randomthought

Metacarpi
25-03-2013, 09:55
No, I don't think it's needed.

It seems there's a tendency to fall into thinking that "Horde" and "Deathstar" are synonymous. I think this ends up having some of the negative connotations of "Deathstar" bleed into the opinion on Hordes.

Hordes are currently penalised enough through footprint, lack of maneuvrability, vulnerability to templates, and increased vulnerability to flank attacks.

Malagor
25-03-2013, 09:56
I think horde is fine as it is.
My beastmen can't really work without the horde rule(atleast not the gors) and even then it comes with the obvious drawback of movement.
It takes alot of space to run horde afterall and there have been plenty of times where I couldn't move the way I wanted to due to my formation simply being too big.
Due to this few armies that I have played against actual use horde formation since players prefer movement over horde.

Thorin
25-03-2013, 10:10
Hordes are fine as they are now. Imagine, that 31st guy that makes the whole 3rd row have support attacks and if he dies...the whole bunch is f*cked up. Less logic you wouldn´t find anywhere.
Greetz
Thorin

Scammel
25-03-2013, 10:24
One of things that 8th has got spot on is the focus on infantry and the horde rules are a key part of that. There's a few things that could do with some adjustment (Cannon, something to make cavalry more worthwhile, adjustment of the lores etc), but hordes aren't one of them.

selecta
25-03-2013, 10:30
I dont think there are many armies that do use the horde rule for there regular units. I have seen horde formation with Monster cavalry and Monstrous beast are more common.

theunwantedbeing
25-03-2013, 10:37
Would you apply this to all supporting attacks, or just those from a horde?

I think a better solution to generate the effect you intended would be a slight alteration to the supporting attacks rule.
Only allow a supporting attack for any model in the second (or more) rank if there is a free(not in base contact with an enemy) model directly behind them.

This way you need 40 models to get the full 30 attacks in a 10 wide formation.
Each model lost drops the number of fighting models by 1 and there is no large drop in fighting ability with any single models death.

Similarly, if you apply it to all supporting attacks then to fight in 2 ranks as is the norm these days you'de need a third rank.

Personally I don't think it's particularly necessary to change the current rule.
It's steadfast that causes the problems, not the horde rule.

danny-d-b
25-03-2013, 10:57
I don't think its hoard that breaks 8th- no one has ever complained about my 50 halbaders hoard or anything like that
its the death star builds which are a problem and they can be delt with its just hard (and to be honnest if you want to walk your deathstar towards my twin helblasters thats fine with me)

Makaber
25-03-2013, 10:58
I did some speculations about how I thought 8th Ed. was going to develop, and one of my guesses was that Hordes were going to become really popular, then you'd reach a threshold where two units of 25 would start to become better than one unit of 50, because of maneouverability and the advantage of just having more elements to work with. This turned out to be completely wrong, of course, and units of 40+ are still the name of the game.

I can see what they were thinking with the Horde rule, but it leads to an unfortunate arms race where you "have" to field a unit 10 wide if you intend to use it as a damage dealer. I don't think the footprint disadvantage is that huge, because once you invest in a unit of 50 Bloodletters or whatever, that's already such a good-sized chunk of your total army, there's not a lot of other units around it has to compete with for space. Futhermore, due to how charging works, the footprint of the unit allows it to threaten a huge area, so it's really hard to avoid.

I like to think of myself as a little avant garde when it comes to going wide with shallow units back in 7th edition, and I feel that going wide should be it's own benefit, without the added bonus of a third supporting rank. I wonder what would happen if you just removed the Horde rule altogether. This is sort of the whole point of the post, but since it doesn't stand out in any way I'm going to repeat it in bold and hope someone else spins a little on it, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts about it:

What would happen if you removed Horde altogether?

Scammel
25-03-2013, 11:00
I have seen horde formation with Monster cavalry and Monstrous beast are more common.

Who's been hordeing MC? Not only is it stupidly expensive, but I'm pretty sure it's only the riders who get to attack beyond the first rank.


I can see what they were thinking with the Horde rule, but it leads to an unfortunate arms race where you "have" to field a unit 10 wide if you intend to use it as a damage dealer.

There are plenty of units that either prefer to be steadfast or don't want to expose themselves to loads of return attacks - Bestigor are pretty good example of offensive infantry that don't horde up (in fact, a typical Beastman army might well have a Gor horde, a deep steadfast unit of Ungor and the Bestigor who sit inbetween). Besides, I don't see what's inherently wrong with large units, they look pretty cool on the tabletop and give the impression of a proper battleline, as it were.

ftayl5
25-03-2013, 11:03
Absolutely not. Hordes are fine as is, don't break the game at all and the rule is fine.
If the horde rule was removed, the game would not be more balanced at all it would just be different. People would return more to the direction of 7th edition with slightly more MSU units - though not as much as 7th edition was as there would still be step up and supporting attacks.

It would change the game not fix it and I think would change it in a bad way. Hordes aren't broken.
But it's a pretty subjective argument I guess.

Urgat
25-03-2013, 11:29
I think there should be a couple new rules, that I'll call "chaff" and "elite", for lack of instant inspiration. "Chaff" would allow hordes as they are now, "elite" would allow another rule that would give an incentive for smaller units to be used. What that rule is, dunno, but it'd be nice if there was a good reason for using smaller units.

MLP
25-03-2013, 11:43
I think there should be a couple new rules, that I'll call "chaff" and "elite", for lack of instant inspiration. "Chaff" would allow hordes as they are now, "elite" would allow another rule that would give an incentive for smaller units to be used. What that rule is, dunno, but it'd be nice if there was a good reason for using smaller units.

I like this idea, steadfast as sort of the opposite of horde but for small elite units it doesn't do anything. Maybe the "elite" rule could come in to effect for units under 20 models and only 5 models wide. I'd imagine the unit formed up like the Romans in testudo formation, gaining +1AS/+1WS or something.

Craskie
25-03-2013, 11:46
I thinks it's fine to be honest as there a plenty of disadvantages as if your a unit of 30 in horde you only need to have 6 killed and your loosing a rank in combat res and if the opponent is in deep ranks there going to be stubborn and there super star unit will be locked in combat. Also ogre horde units are expensive and can be flanked easily

Ratarsed
25-03-2013, 12:54
I think there should be a couple new rules, that I'll call "chaff" and "elite", for lack of instant inspiration. "Chaff" would allow hordes as they are now, "elite" would allow another rule that would give an incentive for smaller units to be used. What that rule is, dunno, but it'd be nice if there was a good reason for using smaller units.
Chaff: models under 10 points each. Need to destroy the whole unit to gain any VPs from it.
Elite: models 10 points and over. Gain half VPs for reducing the unit to 50% its starting strength full VPs for completely destroying it.

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 13:08
I don't have any problems with the horde rule. 10 wide units have their own issues if you use proper terrain. My issues are with Deathstars which are an entirely different issue than hordes (and indeed Deathstars don't have to be in a horde formation to be a Deathstar)

TheDungen
25-03-2013, 13:24
i could see a rule giving anyone shooting at horde getting +1 to hit because they are such a tightly packed target. If they make cannons roll to hit in the next edition it could be all that's needed t balance hordes.

RanaldLoec
25-03-2013, 13:28
The horde formation allows 10 extra attacks in normal infantry.

It also allows more return attacks, some times it's better to go thin reduce the number of return attacks. Units like khorne chosen with halberds excel at throwing out allot of damage from a narrow frontage.

In general I think the horde rule is fine, I think half vps would solve allot of the current issues with massive units.

Urgat
25-03-2013, 13:34
Half VP would just encourage even bigger units so you reach half the unit later. Half VP is stupid, the guy who fields multiple small units of ogres will be hit harder than the guy fielding a gutstar for example. VP for each model is what needs to happen, that way, it's exactly the same whether the unit is 5 strong or 100 strong. But I know I'm repeating myself, I guess people must be tired from reading always the same thing from me :p

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 13:43
I've used half VPs for three years now going into our fourth big event. I can say on just our own experience that half VPs does in fact curb deathstarring because one of the primary reasons for deathstarring is points denial.

Malorian
25-03-2013, 14:06
I've used half VPs for three years now going into our fourth big event. I can say on just our own experience that half VPs does in fact curb deathstarring because one of the primary reasons for deathstarring is points denial.

To a point, however you still have the issue of the deathstar smashing everything in it's path and the fact that you may get half points for the unit but not the characters.

Deathstars work great for point denial, but the primary function is to kill anything they touch.

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 14:13
To a point, however you still have the issue of the deathstar smashing everything in it's path and the fact that you may get half points for the unit but not the characters.

Deathstars work great for point denial, but the primary function is to kill anything they touch.

"One of the primary reasons for deathstarring is points denial" The other is as a character bus to chaperon all of your characters in one unit to deliver an obscene amount of special attacks with high durability. Things that make this work:

* make way if charged in the flank. Oh you charged me in the flank? That's precious. My ogre characters all make way to the flank and wail on you anyway.
* minimalizing movement and flanking.
* no caps on how many characters can join a unit

m1acca1551
25-03-2013, 14:21
Hordes are fine as they are, they really don't need a nerf, perhaps there needs to be a counter to a horde rule other wise the game can bog down to into a ground and pound which whilst fun at times can become stagnant and boring.

My issue with hordes is the steadfast rule that GENERALLY accompanies the horde, this is what needs a counter more so than the horde rule.

Deathstars well they are a different problem to deal with, for me they have lost alot of there doom and gloom with the release of 8th ed army books, the chosen wall of death is now a "mmm thats a problem that needs solving", as opposed to the previous "oh you ********** mongrel, well lets just role 6 dice at the big spell and hope".

So for me there is no real issue, Deathstars are being effectively down graded as the new army books role out and well hordes are just fine to be honest, can be boring in certain scenarios but hey that's wargaming for you

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 14:23
Don't forget about the Gutstar, which utilizes an 8th edition army book. Probably one of the most effective configurations in the game currently as far as that stuff goes.

MLP
25-03-2013, 14:24
"One of the primary reasons for deathstarring is points denial" The other is as a character bus to chaperon all of your characters in one unit to deliver an obscene amount of special attacks with high durability. Things that make this work:

* make way if charged in the flank. Oh you charged me in the flank? That's precious. My ogre characters all make way to the flank and wail on you anyway.
* minimalizing movement and flanking.
* no caps on how many characters can join a unit

If I had time to run a campaign I'd love to try a two character limit on units and see how that turns out. It would stop character buses at least!



My issue with hordes is the steadfast rule that GENERALLY accompanies the horde, this is what needs a counter more so than the horde rule.

Not always the case, two units exactly the same size in combat with eachother and either could be steadfast.

m1acca1551
25-03-2013, 14:39
Not always the case, two units exactly the same size in combat with eachother and either could be steadfast.

This is very true, and i should have gone into more detail, it's been a long day :)

My concerns with hordes and the steadfast rules are not so much founded on hordes fighting hordes but when you introduce another element against a horde, say knights or monsters that it makes hordes almost to good alongside steadfast.

Now of course if you take you knights into the front of a horde unit well your probably asking for trouble, but when you throw them into the flank of said unit and you watch as your knights are simply unable to cause enough kills to break steadfast, this is where i see there being a problem.

Now im not saying that MSU is never used, i have seen it used incredibly well, but hordes are just almost reaching the point now where you need either big magic, another horde or a deathstar unit to cancel the hordes effect.

Please not i'm using very simple examples and of course you can always set up dual charges and the like but i really can't be bothered getting into that :P

Urgat
25-03-2013, 14:42
I've used half VPs for three years now going into our fourth big event. I can say on just our own experience that half VPs does in fact curb deathstarring because one of the primary reasons for deathstarring is points denial.

You've used it in a circle that was ready to use it in the first place. Are your regulars prone to minmax in the first place?

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 14:50
You've used it in a circle that was ready to use it in the first place. Are your regulars prone to minmax in the first place?

I've used it for over fifty people now that involves three gaming groups, some of which are dedicated tournament players. Some of them are not min/max, others will min/max if the event allows them to do so.

Lordcypress
25-03-2013, 15:47
I don't really think that there is anything wrong with the Horde rule. Its the Steadfast rule that needs a bit of tweaking. Like a unit should lose their Steadfast as soon as another unit with a rank bonus hits them in either the Flank or Rear. Just a simple rule change like this would bring back a major tactic element to the movement phase again. I know for myself theres lots of occassions where I've been hit in the flank but I didn't really care at all because I knew I was going to be Steadfast.

Sexiest_hero
25-03-2013, 15:49
Meh idk why people try to think of these nerfs, no disrespect to anybody. Th min/maxer will always min/max. It's been like that forever and will always be.

Malorian
25-03-2013, 15:51
I don't really think that there is anything wrong with the Horde rule. Its the Steadfast rule that needs a bit of tweaking. Like a unit should lose their Steadfast as soon as another unit with a rank bonus hits them in either the Flank or Rear. Just a simple rule change like this would bring back a major tactic element to the movement phase again. I know for myself theres lots of occassions where I've been hit in the flank but I didn't really care at all because I knew I was going to be Steadfast.

There's no reason for me to reply to this thread because you just said exactly what I was thinking.

Charistoph
25-03-2013, 16:34
It's steadfast that causes the problems, not the horde rule.

Pretty much this. As others have said, horde formations come with their own basic set of weaknesses that are difficult to overcome, and work best (balance-wise) with the intended units of low cost infantry. The higher cost the model, the less practical it is to horde them. At most, a minimum rank requirement may be needed to adjust the rule to properly.

Steadfast, though, is the real kicker.


I think there should be a couple new rules, that I'll call "chaff" and "elite", for lack of instant inspiration. "Chaff" would allow hordes as they are now, "elite" would allow another rule that would give an incentive for smaller units to be used. What that rule is, dunno, but it'd be nice if there was a good reason for using smaller units.

Why make rules for something already in the game? Point cost and stats should take care of most of this without having to add more.

Of course, you could just make a new unit type called Chaff represented by 20mm models and only they can horde, but then, aren't Dwarfs on 20mm bases?

Grupax
25-03-2013, 17:11
if you start taking away steadfast, I think it would be unfair to have unbreakable cheap skeletons as well...
considering now steadfast is ld unmodified by combat resolution, there are many armies that can reduce it's effectiveness.
also the units used in horde formation, and those in deep ranks mostly serve completely different roles, and I honestly like both rules.
With the cheap monsters some armies get, the 1+ as troops, and (hit everything they touch) template weapons, (the reduction in certain cavalry), all the (thunder)stomps... these rules actually still make it worth to use infantry. - Almost no-one would use over 75% of the infantryunits out there if it wasn't for those rules.

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 17:20
Almost no-one would use over 75% of the infantryunits out there if it wasn't for those rules.

No one ever did use infantry in the previous edition.

DaemonReign
25-03-2013, 17:52
Horde Rule shoud scale indefinately:
0-5 models wide = second rank support attack
10+ models wide = third rank support attack
15+ models wide = fourth rank support attack
And so on.. Also; It would not be completely off to equate 25mm and 20mm bases to each other - in essence: 8 25mm bases wide should suffice to become 'a Horde', being exactly the same width as 10 20mm bases. But these are the kind of high-flying nit-picking issues that I'd never expect GW to follow up on..

Steadfast?
Aggregate Ranks per Combat.
Done.

... well, Large Targets and/or Monsters should get to Count a single 'innate' rank, either that or the 'first rank' should not Count toward steadfast.. (Just to shut the door on five goblins being steadfast vs a Bloodthirster.. Not that it's really a problem that occurs often but still..)

Gaargod
25-03-2013, 18:07
Half VP would just encourage even bigger units so you reach half the unit later. Half VP is stupid, the guy who fields multiple small units of ogres will be hit harder than the guy fielding a gutstar for example. VP for each model is what needs to happen, that way, it's exactly the same whether the unit is 5 strong or 100 strong. But I know I'm repeating myself, I guess people must be tired from reading always the same thing from me :p

Well, VP from each model would be better. But that's also needlessly complicated - would involve lots of calculators at the end of each match.

Halfway VPs work better than all-or-nothing, and they're actually usable. It certainly doesn't hit MSU harder than deathstars - quite the opposite. Take 3 units of 6 as opposed to one unit of 18. If an opponent kills an entire unit of 6, 3 of one unit and 2 of the last unit, he'll get 1/2 victory points of the entire thing (1/3 and 1/6 and 0). If he kills 11 ogres in the 18 strong unit, he'll get half victory points for that too.
The only way it benefits the deathstar player is if someone killed 8 ogres, which isn't quite half, but would get him VPs from any layout of 3 units of 6. But frankly, I'd much prefer half vps.


Besides the point. I'd actually recommend changing the way supporting attacks work - namely, increase the number of attacks possible. Whether you'd want to boost it to 2 (or 4 for MI), or reduce the limit at all, I don't know, but it currently makes no sense. Compare halberds and additional hand weapons on 1 attack models - the extra attack only benefits the first rank, whilst halberd's +1S benefits the first and the second (and the 3rd, if a horde). Strength is already too good (as it affects both armour and wounding), it doesn't need to be exclusively good.
Limiting it to 2 attacks per rank would make it more beneficial to cheap infantry (i.e. free company would benefit, whilst chaos warriors with extra hand weapons wouldn't).


Edit:
I don't really think that there is anything wrong with the Horde rule. Its the Steadfast rule that needs a bit of tweaking. Like a unit should lose their Steadfast as soon as another unit with a rank bonus hits them in either the Flank or Rear. Just a simple rule change like this would bring back a major tactic element to the movement phase again. I know for myself theres lots of occassions where I've been hit in the flank but I didn't really care at all because I knew I was going to be Steadfast.

Yes, that's the other obvious change that needs doing (and would also limit the problem of 'oh no I was flank charged. Shame I still have steadfast to turn to the front with general's LD + BSB). And aggregate ranks (and give monsters a rank, for the love of god).


Meh idk why people try to think of these nerfs, no disrespect to anybody. Th min/maxer will always min/max. It's been like that forever and will always be.

Yes, a system with GW's model will basically always be unbalanced (due to their way of releasing books), and there will always be cookie cutter builds.

However, it's saying things like "Oh, it'll always be unbalanced, therefore we don't need to improve it" really annoys me. Even if we have to accept it will never be perfect, it can always be improved. You can, at the very bloody least, have a perfectly balanced set of core, main rulebook rules to build off of.

Urgat
25-03-2013, 19:12
Well, VP from each model would be better. But that's also needlessly complicated - would involve lots of calculators at the end of each match.
It's nowhere near as complicated as writing your list. I'm saying that's how it should be, but that's actually how we do it in my circle. If I killed 11 chaos warriors, my opponent can calculate that in 3 seconds. If he wiped out my goblin horde, I don't even need to calculate, I just look up my army list and tell him "curse you to hell" :p There's nothing complicated about it, one guy sits with a calculator and the army lists, the other guy lists the models or units that have been put away, it takes two minutes tops, and it feels way more satisfying than any other system will ever do. Every single goblin, every banner, every magic sword counted in the final result, they all mattered during the battle.


Why make rules for something already in the game? Point cost and stats should take care of most of this without having to add more.

But if you look at average army lists, it doesn't, right? There's no incentive to go low, that's the truth of it. Sure it costs more and !more the bigger you go, but in virtually every case, it's better to go big nonetheless, regarless of the cost of the unit, at least until it becomes redundant. People need reasons to do something, they need the carrot. If you give, say, an additionnal movement bonus to a unit that is under, hell, unit strength 20 (US is one of those things that really shouldn't have gone imho), people would have a reason to at least hesitate before going big.

Maoriboy007
25-03-2013, 20:17
No one ever did use infantry in the previous edition.apart from dark elves ,high elves, undead, demons, dwarves, skaven, lizardmen, and personally my empire army never left home without one or two solid infantry blocks. It was crap infantry that never got taken. Crap infantry still doesn't get taken unless its dirt cheap.

There needs to be a limit on how many models/attacks can be directed at infantry characters or they need to be allowed to make a look out sir against (half?) the attacks, simply because most infantry combat characters are simply not viable at the moment. Unless you have a virtually unkillable model in the first place such characters have the lifespan of tissue paper in a rainstorm. Yes I know this might make unkillable models even more unkillable, but since they are the proverbial immovable objects anyway its better that more vulnerable characters benefit in the end.

I agree the current steadfast rules are far more of an issue that the horde rules though

Spiney Norman
25-03-2013, 20:27
I think the only change I would make to the horde rule would be to remove it for monstrous units. The fact that they get it comparatively cheaply (because they only need ranks of 5 to pull it off) IMHO breaks the mechanic for cheap MI like trolls and ogre bulls/Ironguts.

Granted it can be nasty for some infantry, but adding an extra rank of ten to elite infantry like chaos warriors, chosen, swordsmasters etc costs so much that I think it is still pretty balanced.

IcedCrow
25-03-2013, 20:43
In my neck of the woods 7th edition was predominantly cavalry and monster armies. The only time I ever saw infantry was armies that had no cavalry (demons, dwarves, and goblin armies are the ones I remember).

Empire armies had a ton of gunners but I don't know if I'd count that as infantry in the sense we are talking about.

My last 7th edition tournament I fielded my chaos army and took marauders and warriors on foot. My first opponent looked at me and said with a straight face "are you serious? You're going to waste my time with this?"

DaemonReign
25-03-2013, 20:46
My last 7th edition tournament I fielded my chaos army and took marauders and warriors on foot. My first opponent looked at me and said with a straight face "are you serious? You're going to waste my time with this?"

... and with the new book I gather you'll be able to re-live that moment. :p

Charistoph
25-03-2013, 20:49
But if you look at average army lists, it doesn't, right? There's no incentive to go low, that's the truth of it. Sure it costs more and !more the bigger you go, but in virtually every case, it's better to go big nonetheless, regarless of the cost of the unit, at least until it becomes redundant. People need reasons to do something, they need the carrot. If you give, say, an additionnal movement bonus to a unit that is under, hell, unit strength 20 (US is one of those things that really shouldn't have gone imho), people would have a reason to at least hesitate before going big.

True, true. But the fix shouldn't lie in a unit type, as it isn't the rules for unit types that are the issue, it's how the horde rules interact with the units that needs more addressing, and would be easier to fix.

I mentioned earlier that a Rank Buy-In should be needed to take advantage of Hording, and that's the perfect way to go, imo. At a proper point it would be too much of a point sink to justify a horde of Chosen vs a horde of Marauders or Slaves. You could still pay it you wanted, but that could leave your army seriously understaffed.


I think the only change I would make to the horde rule would be to remove it for monstrous units. The fact that they get it comparatively cheaply IMHO breaks the mechanic for cheap MI like trolls and ogre bulls/Ironguts.

Cheap is relative. For each MI, that's the footprint of 4 small infantry and the Wounds of 3 elite infantry. Take the cost of the cheapest MI and divide it by 3. How well does it compare to putting out 3 Saurus or Chaos Warriors? What is the price difference between 3 Ogre Bulls and 5 Saurus? 6 and 10?

Again, having a minimum Rank depth before allowing the unit nto be in Horde formation is the best answer. It could be lower for the Monstrous, probably, but then, they have a far larger footprint and per Wound price than equivalent units that are not Monstrous.

popisdead
25-03-2013, 21:05
I think it is a good mechanic, there are ways around it (unless righting Skaven :/ )

If you limited it to ranks - 1 you would reward Skaven more and hamper Elite units which is a bad idea.

GrandmasterWang
27-03-2013, 08:20
I like the horde rule and don't think it needs to be changed at all

HurrDurr
27-03-2013, 21:23
Maybe skirmishers should get a bonus when fighting hordes, could apply to flank and rear charges, there's an infinite number of ways to implement it.

divide attacks directed at skirmishers by 2 so they aren't fended off so easily as a horde would have less maneuverability than a regular unit would in the flank( seeing as how regular units already have trouble that way).

flanking skirmishers get some sort of reroll, double the CR they generate from flank and/or wounds.

hordes cannot reform to face skirmishers, I'm making these up as I go. The better rules are the ones that stay compatible for every army and there might be some without skirmishers (maybe they are the horde army then?)

Just a quick idea not sure if it would work.

Big Brother
28-03-2013, 05:11
Personally, I agree that steadfast is a bigger issue than hoards, and I think aggregate ranks (and monsters getting a rank), could solve the issue, or no steadfast if you lose your rank bonus.

As for an incentive against hoards though, not allowing a hoard to march might do it. What good is a massive unit if it never gets to the fight. Say a hoard isn't organized enough to march. It would lead to busses that hoard when they eat to combat, which seems more realistic to me amyway.

JWhex
28-03-2013, 06:38
No one ever did use infantry in the previous edition.

My regular tourney armies, lizardmen and beastmen were almost in their entirety infantry. If there were good noninfantry choices I might have used them but aside from salamanders and razgors, everything else was infantry.

IcedCrow
28-03-2013, 17:48
My regular tourney armies, lizardmen and beastmen were almost in their entirety infantry. If there were good noninfantry choices I might have used them but aside from salamanders and razgors, everything else was infantry.

Ok. Let me rephrase this. No one ever did use infantry in the previous edition that played an army with cavalry. Dwarf armies were also all-infantry. If there was even an equivalent to an infantry unit only cavalry, the cavalry would be taken due to the strike first rule and the fact that one had to simply kill the front rank to win combat.

IcedCrow
28-03-2013, 17:49
My regular tourney armies, lizardmen and beastmen were almost in their entirety infantry. If there were good noninfantry choices I might have used them but aside from salamanders and razgors, everything else was infantry.

Ok. Let me rephrase this. No one ever did use infantry in the previous edition that played an army with cavalry. Dwarf armies were also all-infantry. If there was even an equivalent to an infantry unit only cavalry, the cavalry would be taken due to the strike first rule and the fact that one had to simply kill the front rank to win combat.

Lord Inquisitor
28-03-2013, 18:20
I don't find there's particularly an issue with the horde rule allowing units to fight in three ranks. What bugs me is the artificial 10-wide nature. Why should that be the case? After all, you already have additional attacks when you deploy wider. What's so special about the magic 10-wide formation? Why does this suddenly allow the third rank to fight?

Here's a simple fix:

All units can support with two ranks after the first. Remove the Horde rule.

Phazael
28-03-2013, 19:44
I am fine with the Horde rule, but I think the rules would be much better if supporting attacks could only ever apply to the enemy rank and file models (unless there are none remaining). It stops the murder of some of the more frail characters and it shuts down both the Etherial Wall and Ogre Character Wall shennanigans. It also stops people from using the challenge rules to deny attacks.

I actually do not find the Horde rule any more artificial than the rank rule, in terms of being arbitrary.

Lord Inquisitor
28-03-2013, 19:58
You mean 5-wide for a rank? While that's arbitrary too, you can see the need for that rule, otherwise you'd get all sorts of conga-line silliness. You need to present a reason for units to rank up like real units.*

I don't see the need for the horde rule. What is the point in this rule? Wider units already get more attacks. That's already the best way to maximise damage. Why do you need an extra bonus when you hit 10-wide? Why not simply allow all units to fight 3-ranks deep?

*Although I would like to see more variation in the number of models required for a rank. One neat idea would be 20mm = 5-wide, 25mm = 4-wide, 40mm = 3-wide and 50mm = 2-wide.

Scammel
28-03-2013, 20:11
What's so special about the magic 10-wide formation? Why does this suddenly allow the third rank to fight?


The designers might have potentially thought there was a risk of everyone going for maximum depth to take advantage of steadfast and wanted to encourage a bit of diversity in infantry formations. Besides that, I think the designers just though that such wide units look cool (probably the more likely of the two).

Ramius4
28-03-2013, 22:59
What's so special about the magic 10-wide formation? Why does this suddenly allow the third rank to fight?

Because GW can then sell you a minimum of 30 infantry models rather than 15 for you to take advantage of it...

PS. I like the horde rule and have zero issues with it.

-Totenkopf-
29-03-2013, 03:30
Personally, I think hordes are fine.. It makes sense to generate more attacks and it has its drawbacks for some units ie. less ranks.. What I think needs to be fixed or altered are steadfast rules and monstrous infantry rules... A horde of bulls pumps out 54 attacks and needs to take a considerable amount of damage before that number drops. add impact hits and stomps to taste. most combat hordes will need to be 50 strong to compete with that and have a much bigger footprint.. I think something like 3-2-2 or 3-2-1 for MI supporting attacks or give regular infantry up to two for supporting ranks..

Khorne warriors are also bad but they are only 30 strong for the same cost and easier to kill...

Just my opinion but I think that simple tweak would help balance the game quite a bit..

In terms of steadfast, any flank or rear charge from any unit with a full rank or single monster should disrupt..

HurrDurr
29-03-2013, 03:35
forcing players to take 10 wide units makes the unit stronger in some ways and weaker in others, putting a cost on the extra attacks instead of handing them out for free, it isn't as arbitrary as it seems.

Sexiest_hero
29-03-2013, 07:14
I don't mind the horde rule at all, or even steadfast. There was powergaming before and there will be afterwards.

Urgat
30-03-2013, 08:52
I don't find there's particularly an issue with the horde rule allowing units to fight in three ranks. What bugs me is the artificial 10-wide nature. Why should that be the case? After all, you already have additional attacks when you deploy wider. What's so special about the magic 10-wide formation? Why does this suddenly allow the third rank to fight?
I figured it was kind of simulating a sort of lapping around.

Kayosiv
30-03-2013, 09:49
I don't see the need for the horde rule. What is the point in this rule? Wider units already get more attacks. That's already the best way to maximise damage. Why do you need an extra bonus when you hit 10-wide? Why not simply allow all units to fight 3-ranks deep?

Because they wanted hordes to be clunky and cumbersome. If 3 ranks always got to fight, nobody would go over 6-7 wide ever. The point of the horde rule is to make units super killy with the trade off that they become unwieldy and require large numbers.



*Although I would like to see more variation in the number of models required for a rank. One neat idea would be 20mm = 5-wide, 25mm = 4-wide, 40mm = 3-wide and 50mm = 2-wide.

I think this would be awesome. Especially so because it would force Games Workshop to acknowledge that base standardization and definition is actually something they need to do.



In terms of steadfast, any flank or rear charge from any unit with a full rank or single monster should disrupt..

Disrupting steadfast cannot happen. Monsters and super characters have gotten too powerful for this to happen now. What flanking can do however is affect leadership. Instead of adding a useless +1 combat resolution against an already steadfast foe, flanking could cause -1 leadership to the steadfast unit's break test. It's not a guarantee of failure, but it does tilt the odds in the player for hitting a steadfast unit in a vulnerable place. Multiple flanking could stack. Sure the unit might be steadfast and in range of the BSB and general, but they're only steadfast on a 6 because they're fighting on 4 sides. That's not so surefire for the steadfast block holding every time.

Also, GIVE UNDEAD SOME SORT OF ADVANTAGE FROM STEADFAST. I don't think any rational person wants hordes of 200 steadfast zombies, but something would certainly be nice. Even if it's as minimal as minus 1 crumble.

Snake1311
30-03-2013, 12:10
I think there should be a couple new rules, that I'll call "chaff" and "elite", for lack of instant inspiration. "Chaff" would allow hordes as they are now, "elite" would allow another rule that would give an incentive for smaller units to be used. What that rule is, dunno, but it'd be nice if there was a good reason for using smaller units.

That rule is point costs, and a good way to incentivise it is unit point caps. If max unit size is 400 points, you can only horde units which cost about 12-13ish per model; and then those units would lose the benefits of horde pretty quickly, as every dead model is one less attack.

Vipoid
30-03-2013, 12:22
With regard to the horde rule, I don't see it as needing a nerf. If some units are too strong when horded, then it seems like the problem lies with those units, not the horde rule itself.


Because they wanted hordes to be clunky and cumbersome. If 3 ranks always got to fight, nobody would go over 6-7 wide ever. The point of the horde rule is to make units super killy with the trade off that they become unwieldy and require large numbers.

Indeed. As well as being cumbersome, it also means that you have to give up half your (maximum) ranks to fight in a horde.


Also, GIVE UNDEAD SOME SORT OF ADVANTAGE FROM STEADFAST. I don't think any rational person wants hordes of 200 steadfast zombies, but something would certainly be nice. Even if it's as minimal as minus 1 crumble.

I agree.

Urgat
30-03-2013, 15:00
That rule is point costs, and a good way to incentivise it is unit point caps. If max unit size is 400 points, you can only horde units which cost about 12-13ish per model; and then those units would lose the benefits of horde pretty quickly, as every dead model is one less attack.

Yeah well I'm opposed to unit caps.

theunwantedbeing
30-03-2013, 15:04
I think this would be awesome. Especially so because it would force Games Workshop to acknowledge that base standardization and definition is actually something they need to do.
Agreed, some sort of base standardisation would be nice to have.



Disrupting steadfast cannot happen. Monsters and super characters have gotten too powerful for this to happen now. What flanking can do however is affect leadership. Instead of adding a useless +1 combat resolution against an already steadfast foe, flanking could cause -1 leadership to the steadfast unit's break test. It's not a guarantee of failure, but it does tilt the odds in the player for hitting a steadfast unit in a vulnerable place. Multiple flanking could stack. Sure the unit might be steadfast and in range of the BSB and general, but they're only steadfast on a 6 because they're fighting on 4 sides. That's not so surefire for the steadfast block holding every time.
I think perhaps a bigger flanking bonus would be more useful.
So a flanking unit becomes more likely to win the combat, ie. +2 bonus per flank, rather than simply +1
Failing that, negation of being allowed to use the inspiring presence or Bsb rules while disrupted.


Also, GIVE UNDEAD SOME SORT OF ADVANTAGE FROM STEADFAST. I don't think any rational person wants hordes of 200 steadfast zombies, but something would certainly be nice. Even if it's as minimal as minus 1 crumble.
I think you mean "give unit's that do not take break tests" some advantage from steadfast.
An additional -1 wound suffered from crumble seems suitable, given that's all the bsb does for them.
Although the general does nothing for them, perhaps that needs to be looked at as well?

Snake1311
30-03-2013, 16:20
Yeah well I'm opposed to unit caps.

But they fix so much :)


Although the general does nothing for them, perhaps that needs to be looked at as well?

The VC general provides other benefits in his bubble to compensate. Its pretty much a TK-specific problem

Urgat
30-03-2013, 16:49
But they fix so much :)


Anything that nerfs my goblins I'm opposed to. 400 points? 30 troopers per unit max? Any cap I'ver ever heard of only ever messes with big steadfast hordes of chaff, and not the units that actually abuse the rules. 400 pts prevents me from fielding my central horde of 100 common gobs with bows and shields, so I'm opposed to it. Been wanting to field big ass units of gobs (the way every piece of fluff portrays goblins fighting) ever since I've started playing WFB, and now that I can, people want to take it away from me. Nobody I play has ever complained about that unit. Screw it, find another way.

GiraffeCrab
30-03-2013, 16:54
I dont think horde needs to be changed, but i think there should be bonuses for multiple smaller units being in combat with a horde, like say an extra point of combat rez fro each unit over its minimum size in combat with a single enemy unit. Dont know if it would work i just think it would be easier to improve smaller units rather than changing horde.

Snake1311
30-03-2013, 17:44
I dont think horde needs to be changed, but i think there should be bonuses for multiple smaller units being in combat with a horde, like say an extra point of combat rez fro each unit over its minimum size in combat with a single enemy unit. Dont know if it would work i just think it would be easier to improve smaller units rather than changing horde.

There is a bonus for multiple units fighting a horde; its the fact that you can ram multiple units in its front. A wide front doesn't just mean dishing more out, it means taking more as well.

Additionally, the horde will (or at least should) have less static - when it drops under 35 models, it loses the first rank bonus for example.


Anything that nerfs my goblins I'm opposed to. 400 points? 30 troopers per unit max? Any cap I'ver ever heard of only ever messes with big steadfast hordes of chaff, and not the units that actually abuse the rules. 400 pts prevents me from fielding my central horde of 100 common gobs with bows and shields, so I'm opposed to it. Been wanting to field big ass units of gobs (the way every piece of fluff portrays goblins fighting) ever since I've started playing WFB, and now that I can, people want to take it away from me. Nobody I play has ever complained about that unit. Screw it, find another way.

I see...and you are also opposed to your goblins losing their 3rd rank supporting attacks I imagine?

So your stance in this case is "nerf others but don't touch my stuff?" ' ;)

I'm interested to hear which units you think 'abuse' the horde rules, especially from the perspective of an O&G player who can field multiple units of 50pt M9 fast cav in their core & hero sections.

Makaber
30-03-2013, 18:16
I don't see the need for the horde rule. What is the point in this rule? Wider units already get more attacks. That's already the best way to maximise damage. Why do you need an extra bonus when you hit 10-wide? Why not simply allow all units to fight 3-ranks deep?

I pretty much agree with this. Going wide to increase damage should be it's own reward, without an arbitrary 10-wide rule increasing it even further. I'm not saying I think the Horde rule has destroyed the game or anything, but it leads to less diverse unit sizes.

Urgat
30-03-2013, 19:03
I see...and you are also opposed to your goblins losing their 3rd rank supporting attacks I imagine?

So your stance in this case is "nerf others but don't touch my stuff?" ' ;)
I'm opposed to nerfing my units when there's no reason to do so. Is that odd? If you think my gobs are overpowered, that's something, but you'll have to be very convincing... As for the third rank of attacks, it's not like my goblins turn into a powerhouse because of that, so that it's there or not, it doesn't change much for me. I'm not for nerfing anybody anyway, if you go back to my original post, my suggestion is to make smaller units of elite troops interesting too, I never once talked about nerfs, I'm actualy suggesting boosting them in some way or another.


I'm interested to hear which units you think 'abuse' the horde rules, especially from the perspective of an O&G player who can field multiple units of 50pt M9 fast cav in their core & hero sections.
I'm not the one talking about plenty of issues to fix :p People are always talking about deathstars and stuff, and then throw around random caps, and they always nerf chaff units more than deathstars. So yep, I'm opposed to it.

herbtarkel
30-03-2013, 19:27
I can't stand "nerfing". Why? Because the very word itself is annoying.

Leave the rules alone. Enjoy the rules. The rules are fun. By playing the rules, you will have fun!
And if you don't well, find something else to do.

SteveW
30-03-2013, 20:48
If you dont like hordes, use terrain.