Eevika

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???

Explain BcR

Maybe a list like this Troggboss 270 Loonskin Webspinner on Arac 280 Fungoid 90 Hand of Gork MadCap 80 Mommet Great Green spite 60 Stabbas 360 6 Rockguts 280 3 Fellwater 150 3 Fellwater 150 3 Fellwater 150 3 Fellwater 150 Arachnocauldron 40 Exactly 2k

Yeah I always have that 60 grot block in my army. Holds objectives very well while troggs go smashing around

As the owner of 15 Fellwaters and 0 Rockguts im slightly sad they arent at the same points level. Thinking I might get 6 Rockguts and try fun lists

Why would GW then even make elite armies a thing if they know they are absolute garbage?

Well still pretty close im from Finland

Dude who are you? I have 15 fellwaters, Hag and most of the time run 60 grots with them

This. I collect troggoths for the look and lore they arent good they arent that cheap but i love them

Why not just like add depth to low model count armies. It would also definitely not change it like that as many people still like their massive armies.

Slaneesh does well becouse of large deamonette units right? Lon becouse of massive Reaper units. FeC has about 80 ghouls per list

Yeah the hordes are good becouse battletomes are just made to buff the ****** out of hordes and giving nothing but ****** warscrolls and high points to behemoths and high wound models. I get that but it sucks. Doesnt remove the fact that meta armies rely on hordes and I want that to change

I dont want dominance. The games balance should be that every army falls between 45-55% winrate. Currently hordes are most likely around 60%+ while low model count is around 40% if that

Do you think 3 grots holding an objective when 3 dragons are standing on it makes sense?

When have I said all high model count armies need to be nerfed. This post is mostly about breaking the horde meta and making low model count armies viable at a competitive level.

Im talking about fixing the meta. Meta is defined by whats the best armies. I DONT WANT ALL HORDE ARMIES TO BE BAD

You are talking about armies that have gotten almost no support from GW. looking at battletome armies the only thing that makes sense

Both of you seem to be missing the point that every top army relies on massive horde units to win. The one army that does not follow that formula is Gristlegore becouse its just so stupidly designed. I dont want hordes to become useless I want a balanced game where the game can be enjoyed competitively with low model count armies like BCR, and Troggoths. I think it would be a lot more fun seeing tables where massive hordes face great beasts and fight equally instead of massive hordes slaying everything in their path.

This is weird thing I have seen in the games design lately. Almost all buffs just buff hordes. Like whats the point of taking other stuff in a Gitz army when Snufflers, Loonboss, both types of fanatics, gobba palooza and even the damn shrine only/mostly help basic units of Stabbas. Why would I ever take a Colossal Squig when 40 Grots is cheaper with way more synergy

Yeah I keep the thresh hold quite low becouse armies I like are like are like 10-25 models. I do have a 60 grot unit every now and then becouse I have to do that to have a chance to be competitive.

This is a very good point. We have almost no counter to hordes. All monsters can be killed easily by mortal wounds from spells and such but against hordes there is very little you do basically the most common counter is more hordes

I concider the army a horde army when it has like 70+ models.

You have a point but shouldnt a massive dragon at 1 wound be scarier than a grot alone.

Wounds remaining would just hurt the big things when hordes can remove models that arent on the objective when taking damage

No but those are the top armies. Those are what make the meta. Its only horde