How would you fix the horde meta?

[tripchimeras]

7 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Explain BcR

What relevance does this have to anything?  BcR are bad, it happens.  1 book no one takes, cannot be used as reasoning for a topic on the entire meta of a game...  Like I'm sorry your army is bad, but it has nothing to do with whether hordes are too prevalent.

Edited July 9, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Eevika]

Just now, tripchimeras said:

What relevance does this have to anything?  BcR was a bad tome, it happens.  1 book no one takes, cannot be used as reasoning for a topic on the entire meta of a game...  Like I'm sorry your army is bad, but it has nothing to do with whether hordes are too prevalent.

Your point was that people who want low model count armies should just switch games. Thats why I want you to explain why GW supports that game style???

[tripchimeras]

Just now, Eevika said:

Your point was that people who want low model count armies should just switch games. Thats why I want you to explain why GW supports that game style???

No, you misread my post if that is what you think.  My point was that if you think 10-15 model armies should be the STANDARD you are playing the wrong game.

[Eevika]

Just now, tripchimeras said:

No, you misread my post if that is what you think.  My point was that if you think 10-15 model armies should be the STANDARD you are playing the wrong game.

I have never said I want them to be standard not once. I said I want them to be viable. Multiple times in this thread. I want everything to fall between 45-55% winrate. BcR is at 30% and most low model count armies are the same

[tripchimeras]

10 minutes ago, Eevika said:

I have never said I want them to be standard not once. I said I want them to be viable. Multiple times in this thread. I want everything to fall between 45-55% winrate. BcR is at 30% and most low model count armies are the same

BCR hasn't had a 2.0 tome.  Most of the low model count armies havent had a tomb.  Name 1 low model count army with a tome that was released with 2.0 in mind that is below 45% winrate?  In fact scanning Honest Wargamer I could only find 1 modern tome of any kind that has below a 45% winrate, and that tome is Gloomspite Gitz, the horde book.

Edited July 9, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, tripchimeras said:

BCR hasn't had a 2.0 tome.  Most of the low model count armies havent had a tomb.  Name 1 low model count army with a tome that was released with 2.0 in mind that is below 45% winrate?  In fact scanning Honest Wargamer I could only find 1 modern tome of any kind that has below a 45% winrate, and that tome is Gloomspite Gitz, the horde book.

Gloomspite Troggoths suck ass and are designed to be played as their own army

[tripchimeras]

13 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Gloomspite Troggoths suck ass and are designed to be played as their own army

Sure, and it scews there stats, every army has sucky combos you wish worked (I personally wish a namarti morr'phann horde deepkin list was the height of the meta right now, but its never going to happen), but I don't see their horde armies storming the tourney standings either.  They have had 4 top 3 finishes since April, and of those only 1 of them was in a tourney with more then 20 players, and of the 3 that had 20 or less players, skimming the other top 3 armies for those events tells me the army representation at those events was... lets say interesting.  Of events with 30 or more players, I see Magotkin having as many tourney top 3s as gloomspite, so yeah...

Edited July 9, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Eevika]

7 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

Sure, and it scews there stats, every army has sucky combos you wish worked (I personally wish a namarti morr'phann horde deepkin list was the height of the meta right now, but its never going to happen), but I don't see their horde armies storming the tourney standings either.  They have had 4 top 3 finishes since April, and of those only 1 of them was in a tourney with more then 20 players, and of the 3 that had 20 or less players, skimming the other top 3 armies for those events tells me the army representation at those events was... lets say interesting.  Of events with 30 or more players, I see Magotkin having as many tourney top 3s as gloomspite, so yeah...

Thats kinda the point low model count is almost always the sucky combo

[JPjr]

3 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Gloomspite Troggoths suck ass and are designed to be played as their own army

I would say more like ‘can be played as their own army’ but in doing so you’re deliberately choosing to make life a bit more difficult for yourself for narrative, aesthetic or just LOLTROLL reasons. Which tbh are all perfectly valid reasons as far as I’m concerned and is how I play but I don’t then expect to ROFLstomp tournaments.

Gloomspite have access to very cheap (both pts & £) units with Stabbas, Shootas, so you can still have an 75+% Troll army and have a couple of Grot units with plenty of bodies for covering objectives if needed (plus of course one of Gloomspite’s main allegiance abilities is being able to ‘resurrect’ those particular units).

Also, slight tangent, but I suspect the kind of people taking GG armies to tournaments are also in main there to have fun rather than win every game which will further skew %s.

Whilst I agree BCR are in a badbadnotgood position right now, and as stated I can think of some fluff friendly units they could create to fill that role or you change how behemoths contest objectives, when they (or Ogors in general) get an update I’m sure we’ll see them deal with that issue somehow, but they’re a bit of an edge case as factions go.

[tripchimeras]

3 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Thats kinda the point low model count is almost always the sucky combo

How is that what you took from my comment?  Magotkin a most definitely not horde army, is doing as good if not better then the gloomspite gitz horde book that came out this year, while deepkin foot "horde" lists suck and their elite eel lists are top tier... Like I have been giving you tons of examples of elite non-horde armies that are wrecking face right now, and you just keep going to bottom tier elite combos, while ignoring the bottom tier horde armies that exist in the same space.

Edited July 9, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, JPjr said:

Whilst I agree BCR are in a badbadnotgood position right now, and as stated I can think of some fluff friendly units they could create to fill that role or you change how behemoths contest objectives, when they (or Ogors in general) get an update I’m sure we’ll see them deal with that issue somehow, but they’re a bit of an edge case as factions go.

Im totally expecting the solution to the issue in GWs design to be just make them strong as hell so they destroy everything in combat with no other finesse

[Vasshpit]

5 hours ago, XReN said:

Why not decimators then? I've been almost wiping 40 skellies with 3 axes and 2 maces in one round of combat

I'd like to see more rules like these. As far as i know its only them and chainghasts. 

Id Like to see more 3" weapon profiles. The club the dankhold troggs use is like 4" in and of itself. Just silly to see a 2"reach. 

Id also like to see some kind of universal calvary rules that help elimate hordes. Thats what they're used for. It's silly to see these 4x-5x bigger models charge teensy weensy battline units and just stop right in front of them. Heh. 

Im no expert though. 

#bringbacktactics

Edited July 9, 2019 by Vasshpit

[XReN]

3 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

As far as i know its only them and chainghasts. 

Also Prosecutors have the same thing going on with their 1 per 3 models axe, but it has a puny 1" reach, and Kroxigor's special weapon also have this mechanic

[novakai]

Gloomspite Gitz is not a good example since the strongest build with the highest win rate are hordes of goblins while the fluff bunny list are the one dragging the win rate down. They also have a big player rate turn out like stormcast which also lower win rate. 

You also see this with Orks in 40k who have a lower win rate but they are one of the stronger armies 

[tripchimeras]

2 minutes ago, novakai said:

Gloomspite Gitz is not a good example since the strongest build with the highest win rate are hordes of goblins while the fluff bunny list are the one dragging the win rate down. They also have a big player rate turn out like stormcast which also lower win rate. 

You also see this with Orks in 40k who have a lower win rate but they are one of the stronger armies 

Their strongest build is horde, but it doesn't mean its exactly doing great...  They have 1 top 3 finish in a 30+ player tourney reported to honest wargamer since april.  Given how high the player rate is, you would also expect that to translate to more player wins.  Now like a previous poster suggested I suspect at least part of this is due to the type of player the army attracts (fun loving, less competitive), but still you can't confidently say horde gits is super strong, when there is exactly 0 evidence to represent this in the tourney stats we have.  They are just not placing in tourney's, far and above their win % that means that their hordes are by no means dominating the meta.  The only true horde army at the top of the meta right now is Skaven, and again we are talking about an army that SHOULD function as a horde army.

[novakai]

DoK and LoN are horde army as well. I would say that only FEC and IDK are elite armies but FEC summon bodies on the board so they play both sides. Fyreslayer also tend to spam loads of bodies but few then they use to be

Edited July 9, 2019 by novakai
Grammar

[Eevika]

49 minutes ago, novakai said:

DoK and LoN I would say it a horde army as well would say the only FEC and IDK are elite armies but FEC summon bodies on the board so they play both sides. Fyreslayer also tend to spam loads of bodies but few then they use to be

This is correct

[TimM85]

I totally agree on the battle shock skaven should not have such immuntiy from battle shock and same for gobbos, I think battle shock is broken atm a unit of liberators or blood warriors have a 50 50 chance of stuff running away after a couple of losses but a good skaven army is batleshock immune plague wagon and 80 monks 40 per side it just doesn't fit, lose one troll 50 50 another runs away but gobs in the right place lose 20 and are fine

[HammerOfSigmar]

One of the imbalance GW created in AOS2.0 is the widespread battleshock immunity desgin, which should be a fatal penalty for large unit. But it is reasonable since GW write rules to sell models, balance is just something secondary from their point of view, players stacking a lot large units, like 120 plague monks, will certainly benefits GW. 

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, HammerOfSigmar said:

One of the imbalance GW created in AOS2.0 is the widespread battleshock immunity desgin, which should be a fatal penalty for large unit. But it is reasonable since GW write rules to sell models, balance is just something secondary from their point of view, players stacking a lot large units, like 120 plague monks, will certainly benefits GW. 

Why exactly are we going back to plague monks spam?

I have only heard about a few of those list, which seem to have been eaten whole by FEC terrorgheists.

also why exactly should put immunity buffs be so drastically overpowered.

Don’t tell me you hate it when clanrats won’t run away because they have to be wholly within a certain distance (usually 13)  of a model.

Please tell me which skaven list that counted around 200++ models won a tournament or event because it was battleshock immune.

yes I agree with you that plague monks are too cheap for what they actually do, but you can’t compare that with other units or armies.

or please tell me why our battleshock immune skaven (mixed) army had a 0% chance of winning (because almost nobody took them to such events) before the book dropped, when hordes from your perspective seemed to have been dominating the events since 2.0 dropped.

  Anyways I think it’s time we just enjoy our games.

FEC, the skaven, etc. All have been nerved a bit.

points have been raised on all verminlords and the warpseer finally went up a ton Of points.

plague monks aren’t as cheap as they ones were (although still a rather cheap unit to consider taking)

the warplightning vortex has been changed a bit (although the change might change the game drastically for the skaven builds)

and all of our very cheap casters got an increase in points too.

I think it’s time to start trying a few things out and then to discuss the stuff we dislike and like etc..

 

[novakai]

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Why exactly are we going back to plague monks spam?

I have only heard about a few of those list, which seem to have been eaten whole by FEC terrorgheists.

 

2

I mean that not really fair since everything the game bar Morrathi get eaten by FeC terrorgheist. your comparing a very extreme example

also the guy who won Lord of War did spam plague monks.

I don't think we should brush off plague monk have a really weird absurd warscroll that does too much, Skaven themselves got off lightly with the nerf bat and the Warp lighting vortex is still broken at its core.

Edited July 10, 2019 by novakai

[Inquisitorsz]

I’m not sure that there is really a huge “horde meta”. We still see a lot of large monsters in most lists. I think that’s mostly a by product of which armies happen to be at the top of the power creep curve, and which ones still don’t have 2.0 updates. 
With a few exceptions, there seems to be a decent mix of hordes and monsters.
However, spamming hordes is generally better than spamming monsters (or small elite units like Troggoths). 

I’m not sure you can fix that easily though.
I believe that too many things would need to be tweaked and it wouldn’t be a simple fix. It would be an AoS 3.0 size re-write.

Firstly you’d need battleshock to be more impactful (both for horde and smaller units). In a vacuum, it’s simply a rule that has zero effect on more than half the game. Small/elite units are mostly unaffected, high bravery stuff is mostly unaffected and there’s a huge number of ways to ignore it completely.
Perhaps removing the battleshock immunity command ability would be enough.  

Secondly, I’m not sure what the logic behind horde discounts is. Other than to sell more models.
Most of those big units get better the more models they have. They certainly get more efficient in terms of buffs.
This has been somewhat balanced by introducing “wholly within” rules…. However these have not been as consistently rolled out to new armies as I would have expected. 

Thirdly, monsters need to be tougher.
Either with a different wound value vs monsters (like 40k APOC does now) or some sort of built in -1 to wound modifier. Possibly more wounds but with a more aggressive damage table.
This is tricky because you risk making monsters too good.
Reducing the huge mortal wound spam we’re starting to see might be enough to make monsters more survivable.

Fourthly, monsters (and small elite units) need to be able to contest objectives properly. They’re supposed to be able to do this by killing hordes, but they often just don’t do that well enough. Perhaps there needs to be more cleave type abilities (like chainghasts or kroxigor moon hammers or warpfire throwers).
Moving to a “wounds within 6” instead of a “minis within 6” objective control model would help. That’s probably one of the more obvious changes. I think some troops or heroes could have something similar to 40k “objective controlled” rules where they count as double or reduce enemy control effectiveness in a certain area.

Fifthly, while I’m not a huge fan of the “core tax” method of army design, I do believe some battleline units are too strong. That could just be a case of individually balancing problem units. I feel like most units should have some sort of exploitable weakness. Otherwise, they do everything too well and become an auto-include unit, or get cost increases to the point of no longer being viable.

Another way to reduce horde power is to change the way casualties are removed.
If you had to take casualties from the front (or closest to the attacking enemy), then it makes the activation order in combat even more important. It means that hordes may get less attacks after the plie in move when their front 1-2 ranks get wiped out. Especially those on 32mm bases. While small elite units (3 – 5 models) would likely still have everyone within reach.
That would also make it easier to clear models from objectives because you wouldn’t be able to take casualties from the rear, further away from the objective.
It could also help protect missile troops by making charge distances longer when they kill the closest enemies.
I’m not sure if that would be too drastic of a change though.

Finally, and this is a broader point… make terrain mean something.
The new GHB random terrain rules are a bit more impactful than the old ones, but it’s still just buff/debuff auras in most cases.
I’d like to see more impassable terrain, more LOS blocking terrain, more terrain that slows movement and make positioning important.
Right now, especially with flying units, terrain can be almost completely ignored. And that’s boring. 

I especially hate how a bit monster or flying unit can magically hover on this one little fence and hit troops behind it. Having to manoeuvre hordes around terrain, or having terrain slow them down could be interesting.
Of course you have to make sure it’s not too exploitable the other way around, but as it stands, I find fighting in and around terrain to be either incredibly annoying or completely irrelevant. 

[Skreech Verminking]

5 hours ago, novakai said:

also the guy who won Lord of War did spam plague monks.

I don't think we should brush off plague monk have a really weird absurd warscroll that does too much, Skaven themselves got off lightly with the nerf bat and the Warp lighting vortex is still broken at its core.

Was it the last Lord war event where this guy with the plague monk spam won?

if so I’m not sure if you mean dan brewer, because his army well didn’t even had any  plague monks  in it at all.

although he went a bit more out on clanrats, than most did in the past months. (100 instead of 60)

 

[XReN]

4 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

Finally, and this is a broader point… make terrain mean something.
The new GHB random terrain rules are a bit more impactful than the old ones, but it’s still just buff/debuff auras in most cases.
I’d like to see more impassable terrain, more LOS blocking terrain, more terrain that slows movement and make positioning important.
Right now, especially with flying units, terrain can be almost completely ignored. And that’s boring.

Some good thoughts you've got there, but I'd want to point out that old mystical terrain was maybe more impactfull, the mystical was able to make your unit eat grass the whole turn, I used to SotS SCE units into deadly terrain and say "come and get me", it was really tough to shift some 3+ boys from there and Deadly really took it's toll. Damned also was more impactufull, especially in an era of 6+ abilities

[zilberfrid]

4 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

I’m not sure that there is really a huge “horde meta”. We still see a lot of large monsters in most lists. I think that’s mostly a by product of which armies happen to be at the top of the power creep curve, and which ones still don’t have 2.0 updates. 
With a few exceptions, there seems to be a decent mix of hordes and monsters.
However, spamming hordes is generally better than spamming monsters (or small elite units like Troggoths). 

I’m not sure you can fix that easily though.
I believe that too many things would need to be tweaked and it wouldn’t be a simple fix. It would be an AoS 3.0 size re-write.

Firstly you’d need battleshock to be more impactful (both for horde and smaller units). In a vacuum, it’s simply a rule that has zero effect on more than half the game. Small/elite units are mostly unaffected, high bravery stuff is mostly unaffected and there’s a huge number of ways to ignore it completely.
Perhaps removing the battleshock immunity command ability would be enough.  

Secondly, I’m not sure what the logic behind horde discounts is. Other than to sell more models.
Most of those big units get better the more models they have. They certainly get more efficient in terms of buffs.
This has been somewhat balanced by introducing “wholly within” rules…. However these have not been as consistently rolled out to new armies as I would have expected. 

Thirdly, monsters need to be tougher.
Either with a different wound value vs monsters (like 40k APOC does now) or some sort of built in -1 to wound modifier. Possibly more wounds but with a more aggressive damage table.
This is tricky because you risk making monsters too good.
Reducing the huge mortal wound spam we’re starting to see might be enough to make monsters more survivable.

Fourthly, monsters (and small elite units) need to be able to contest objectives properly. They’re supposed to be able to do this by killing hordes, but they often just don’t do that well enough. Perhaps there needs to be more cleave type abilities (like chainghasts or kroxigor moon hammers or warpfire throwers).
Moving to a “wounds within 6” instead of a “minis within 6” objective control model would help. That’s probably one of the more obvious changes. I think some troops or heroes could have something similar to 40k “objective controlled” rules where they count as double or reduce enemy control effectiveness in a certain area.

Fifthly, while I’m not a huge fan of the “core tax” method of army design, I do believe some battleline units are too strong. That could just be a case of individually balancing problem units. I feel like most units should have some sort of exploitable weakness. Otherwise, they do everything too well and become an auto-include unit, or get cost increases to the point of no longer being viable.

Another way to reduce horde power is to change the way casualties are removed.
If you had to take casualties from the front (or closest to the attacking enemy), then it makes the activation order in combat even more important. It means that hordes may get less attacks after the plie in move when their front 1-2 ranks get wiped out. Especially those on 32mm bases. While small elite units (3 – 5 models) would likely still have everyone within reach.
That would also make it easier to clear models from objectives because you wouldn’t be able to take casualties from the rear, further away from the objective.
It could also help protect missile troops by making charge distances longer when they kill the closest enemies.
I’m not sure if that would be too drastic of a change though.

Finally, and this is a broader point… make terrain mean something.
The new GHB random terrain rules are a bit more impactful than the old ones, but it’s still just buff/debuff auras in most cases.
I’d like to see more impassable terrain, more LOS blocking terrain, more terrain that slows movement and make positioning important.
Right now, especially with flying units, terrain can be almost completely ignored. And that’s boring. 

I especially hate how a bit monster or flying unit can magically hover on this one little fence and hit troops behind it. Having to manoeuvre hordes around terrain, or having terrain slow them down could be interesting.
Of course you have to make sure it’s not too exploitable the other way around, but as it stands, I find fighting in and around terrain to be either incredibly annoying or completely irrelevant. 

Some consider 70+ armies at 2000 points a horde army, while this is where balanced armies live. 120+ models on the table would be a much more realistic number (quite reachable at 1000, by the way).

If you move the goalpost by that much, all non-elite armies are horde armies.

There's the crux of the discussion, unrealistic expectations.

Now I do agree remaining wounds would be a better metric than models, but that's about the only good point.