Hordes, Busses/Columns & MSU

    The "Behind the scene" blog has a new issue: Issue 7 - MOAR 2.0 Spoiler and a Sneak Peak at DL. Read it if you want a few glimpses of our design work!

    • Squirrelloid wrote:

      Aside from Horde formation having always been a bad idea anyway?
      200mm frontage would change MI horde from 6 to 5 across. (40mm x5 = 200mm).
      With unit caps as they are, the benefit isn't overly high since it's hard to make full use of it without putting lots of characters in the unit.
      Plus it does put an upper limit on the potential damage a larger base unit can generate.

      So it's maybe not that bad.
    • Klexe wrote:

      this means 5 ogre wide would build a horde.

      This would mean KoE carry goes from 6 models for horde to 8.
      I see a problem right there. Current Lance formation gives only FieR on the charge extra and it will most likely be changed because many many people don't like the current FieR stacking.

      And 18 models is possible
      And that KoE cavalry can't even use horde is not an argument for your idea but more of a KoE book is buggy.

      I find your idea okay but just want to ask why ?

      Are 25mm units to weak?
      I could have sworn that Ogres were a 5 wide horde already... though currently, they don't really have the models in a maximum sized unit (16 with 3 characters is sort of not likely to happen) to take advantage of being in a horde anyway, so a change here could make the Tribesmen potentially more powerful, since a 15 man unit (BSB, wizard and 13 models) could pretty easily be a thing... hmmm... Curse you ogres and your super power of making everything more difficult to balance!

      But yeah, KoE really, really needs a redesign as it stands. Maybe their lance formation could be changed to "Full ranks with 3 models, and horde at 150mm frontage" so that they can... you know... actually have a use for horde formation? 5 model wide heavy cav is much, much more likely to have use for horde formation than 6 wide as is anyway. >.>

      As for the question, if you look at the forums in general... unless your 25x25 infantry happens to be part of WotDG, yeah, 25x25 infantry just tends to not be that good. The Orc units in Orcs and Goblins just tend to be ignored unless they are on boars (and thus not infantry), or they are called Feral Orc 'Edbashers. And what common orcs there are that pop up, are almost exclusively used as archers instead, while iron orcs are character buses/ anvils that don't want to go horde. Given this is supposed to be an infantry horde army, that just... feels wrong.

      And the other example that immediately springs to mind would be the SA Saurus unit that aren't on raptors. Currently, despite being powerful models, players tend to field the WS2, T2, no Born Predator skinks rather than any Saurus models. Or at least, they did until the skink cloud got nerfed and poisoned shooting became less ridiculous... but even so, Saurus still aren't deployed wide at all, and are really just used as an anvil because current hordes are way too large and unweildy for the already slow models to use them as a horde of kickass.

      And then Demon Legions. ... ... ... ... ... I'm gonna just leave this topic where it sits by saying Slaughterers and then I'ma move on because hooooo boy, do these 25x25 infantry in general have problems (... which only slaughterers can really be "fixed" or evven helped by getting their horde frontage reduced).

      And then Beast Herds... well, ambushing Wildhorns might like it, but that's the only real situation in which they don't want their horde to be as wide as possible. The extra attacks on the edges against 20x20 hordes are quite useful, and with up to 50 bodies in a unit, their ranks don't get thinned out as quickly as almost all of the other mentioned examples (except O&G... who don't get perma hatred, are slower, and are just less effective over-all).

      So yeah. 25x25 just isn't attractive for almost every army that has it, and changing horde for most of the factions just makes these units a bit more viable to be fielded in an offensive capacity, instead of in a defensive one. I mean, it's not a super important change, and it won't fix all of the problems with the units, but it's a step in the right direction.

      Also @Squirrelloid I agree that horde formation is stupid, and that "free" instance of Fight in Extra Ranks should just be given to the "horde style" units to make the unit fit the style, but I'm just trying to work with the system here, man.
    • Morgan_Treeman wrote:

      DJWoodelf wrote:

      My opinion is that wider formations need and should keep an advantage as should deeper formations....but the current horde rule needs an improvement to really the effect of being wider and furthermore not be fixed to a specific model number (=10 wide).
      Their should be a system that allows for a gradual increase in the number of attacks allowed as the unit width increases. For example let's say you have 7 models wide, half of the third rank can attack. And maybe only allow certain units to have a horde? Maybe rework steadfast to be based on number of models instead of ranks so that rats and goblins can form hordes just as well as buses. The buses could still be viable to limit incoming attacks.
      Currently more ranks gives much higher bonus (steadfast) then more files (2 attacks. 2 supporting attacks). Historically armies tried to match opponents frontage not to get outflank. We need to balance it a bit towards outflanking matching steadfast IMO. But resolving outflank it is much more complex then resolving deeper formation: you get different base sizes, multiple charges...