GW drops GT army size to 1750 points

[Raven1]

GW needs to price horde units appropriately. Currently too cheap, hence they are being chosen ahead of elite troops.

 

If the power was equal then there would be no need to spam 120 zombies or cultists.

Now with the domination of hordes points certainly has something to do with it, but I'm not sure if we would see hordes as much if damage spilled not just with MW.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

Yes, but if that were the case, I could, for example, kill 18 single-wound models with a single Leman Russ battle tank. With a doomsday cannon I can kill 36. That’s a whole horde of tyranid hormagaunts just evaporated by something meant (generally) as an anti armor cannon. And that doesn’t factor in secondary weapons, either.

 

Would I enjoy the looks on my opponent’s face when one model wipes out a third of his left flank? Yes. Would it require insane amounts of luck? Also yes. Would it be balanced? I’m not sure. Is it necessary? I don’t know.

 

Just something to consider.

 

Personally I’m mostly in favor of it but then I also think about how a leman Russ or a manticore rocket tank could wipe a full warrior squad at a little more than half the cost and quail a little. *shrug*

[Plaguecaster]

I mean it would actually be cool though it probably would be a little unfair but yeah something like battle Cannon or something like a Krak missiles is more designed for tank killing but you would think it would do considerable damage to a squad of guys with the explosion or even a lascannon if used on unarmoured targets would cut through a few guys since it's designed to punch through heavy armour though I'm probably letting real world logic take hold plus I more always used my defiler's battle Cannon more for anti infantry since it was pretty useless anti tank. Kinda sad template weapons are gone flames were amazing for dealing with large squads now with my luck flaming a squad of gaunts with a flamer usually only kills one :D

Why I love FW C beam cannons so much, an anti tank weapon that I mainly use for anti tank but if it kills one model of a unit it does even more damage to the rest of the unit at a weaker strength as fallout damage which is really good at inflicting alot of wounds on a horde

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

 

I agree morale doesn’t work but two dice? You could lose 3 guys and see the other 7 flee to a bad morale check if they’re LD8. That’s too extreme, you shouldn’t be losing more guys to morale than to actual combat.

 

Umm, those 7 guys cost 21 points for guard, so what if they flee?

Also, it's not like AM (or any other horde army) don't have mechanisms besides LD to ignore morale, or limit fleeing models.

 

You pay for what you get, and sorry, if I can loose ONE 13 point marine to a bad dice roll, you can loose an equivalent amount of points for the same dice roll.

You want weight of fire (in a system when you can wound anything) but not pay the cost for that in real game terms??

I'll pay 13 points for a marine "as is", but hearing horde players complain about what really seperates elites from chaff is really annoying.

How about my marines have +1 usable stat over hordes, and +2 on a secondary stat, so my tactical marines should cost 5 points each?

I'll take full squads of 10 under those conditions, no problems, and I'll even risk the loss of troops via morale.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree morale doesn’t work but two dice? You could lose 3 guys and see the other 7 flee to a bad morale check if they’re LD8. That’s too extreme, you shouldn’t be losing more guys to morale than to actual combat.

Umm, those 7 guys cost 21 points for guard, so what if they flee?

Also, it's not like AM (or any other horde army) don't have mechanisms besides LD to ignore morale, or limit fleeing models.

 

You pay for what you get, and sorry, if I can loose ONE 13 point marine to a bad dice roll, you can loose an equivalent amount of points for the same dice roll.

You want weight of fire (in a system when you can wound anything) but not pay the cost for that in real game terms??

I'll pay 13 points for a marine "as is", but hearing horde players complain about what really seperates elites from chaff is really annoying.

How about my marines have +1 usable stat over hordes, and +2 on a secondary stat, so my tactical marines should cost 5 points each?

I'll take full squads of 10 under those conditions, no problems, and I'll even risk the loss of troops via morale.

Actually I wasn’t talking about Guard. Space Marines, including Grey Knights, are LD 8. Those three dead casualties in my mind were space marines, seeing the other 7 space marines run away.

 

We actually agree on most things, you just assumed I was talking about Guard.

 

That said, as a principle I do believe no army, whether horde or elite, should lose more models to morale than to actual enemy actions.

[Finkmilkana]

Spilling over non MW only really makes sense if it’s on a dice roll. Something like: if this kills a model, each point of damage inflicted above the remaining wounds of the first model spills over to other model in the same unit on a roll of x+ (where x depends on the weapon). Could work pretty well and differentiate a lascannon (which really should not spill over much) from a battle cannon.

Downside (besides requiring rebalancing all weapons) would be that it is again a lot of additional diced to roll, which would make games take longer again and completely counteract what they actually seem to try to archive here: making games finish on time.

[Panzer]

 

That said, as a principle I do believe no army, whether horde or elite, should lose more models to morale than to actual enemy actions.

 

 

Agreed. Effects lowering the enemy LD and/or making tests harder counting towards enemy actions.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

That said, as a principle I do believe no army, whether horde or elite, should lose more models to morale than to actual enemy actions.

 

Agreed. Effects lowering the enemy LD and/or making tests harder counting towards enemy actions.

Oh yes, absolutely. If you or your opponent managed to use something like a psychic power or banner effect on a squad to lower their leadership whilst also working to inflict a specific amount of casualties then that’s definitely enemy actions. You have earned that through your play and your tactical choices.

[Deathwalker]

@ MARK0SIAN

Taking cheap units IS a tactical choice.

Why should thier be no cost for adding in 200 points for 5 cps you can spend on more effective units?

I'm not suggesting a 2d6 LD test under the current rules, but more like the older style LD system where you got penalties not for models lost, but % of unit killed.

 

However, what you and SF seem to be advocating, killing models and targeting fire on low morale troops IS a tactical choice, it eliminates a zone of denial footprint off the board.

[MARK0SIAN]

Look I agree mate, I’m not defending cheap troops being immune to morale or anything like that. We might be talking at cross purposes. I’m saying that using 2d6 for morale would see lots of elite models running from the battle, not just cheap chaff. For a start, I think it’s daft that their is so little difference between the leadership of an imperial guardsman and a Grey Knight.

 

If you’re saying just use 2D6 when you reach a certain percentage of casualties I might be inclined to agree with that but if you’re saying use 2D6 + casualties for the morale test then i would definitely say no, too many elite models would be running away.

 

Basically either use 2D6 at a certain point, or use 1 D6 + casualties all the time. But both would need changes to leadership for me