Hi Everyone.
My first post here as I wanted to ask what people prefer to use in their forces either troops regiments or hordes.
My usual group has a preference for hordes mainly for the increased nerve stats and every time I play with troops they run screaming after the first attack. Am i doing something wrong or is this common? aside from the better manoeuvrability why do people take troops if they have an alternative?
Thanks
Really depends on what army & unit more than anything else.
Yes, hordes are ābetter valueā and with higher nerve, but less easy to maneuver and easier to multi charge. You also generally get less drops in the army, which can be key.
Remember that a screen of troops can dictate what the enemy can charge, and if they die on first contact you should have a second line which can counter.
Also bear in mind that while a horde may (although rarely) die in a turn to any single unit in the game, a pair of regiments will definitely last at least 2 turns against the same enemy 
Once you start talking about large/monstrous types you then get a different discussion again
Legionā¦ Always go biggest!
Seriously, though. iād concur with Scelerisās comments
May I ask how much terrain youāve been using? In my experience, hordes do better in environments with less terrain. If youāre using a lot of terrain, hordes tend to be bogged down and get stuck into forests, limiting their manouverability and combat effectiveness.
That said, thereās something to be said for armies with multiple hordes. Just bear in mind, they donāt get to attack all at once.
I mostly play Undead armies with regeneration/lifeleech/healing, so I tend towards higher nerve values. I mostly use a mix of regiments and hordes.
Generally, troops get more attack power per point, but have low nerve. So they are suited for chaff or alpha strike types of play, but will lose if they get into a battle of attrition. They donāt tolerate heavy missile fire well. Also, cheap troops are good for deployment drops. Infantry and Cavalry hordes can run into maneuverability problems, especially if there are many of them and there is terrain on the table.
Most armies are best with a mix of unit sizes.
Thanks for all the great responses
Weāre probably not using enough terrain, a few woods a couple of hills maybe a building or wall. I always find how much terrain to use the most unclear part of rule books (all rules not just KOW)
My main opponent likes to field large hordes of goblin spitters backed by sharpstick hordes. Many Wizs with bane chant really makes it hurt getting across the board to them. I play abyssal dwarfs and tried screening my blacksouls with troops of slave orcs. They bought me a turn at least.
Against a goblin trash wall, try double hordes of obsidian golems spported by an iron caster (maybe with shroud of the saint). Even with bane chant, a goblin sharpstick horde will do only 3-4 wounds a turn on average, so their whole army will be parked behind the horde in combat with your golems.
All the while you can position a greater obsidian golem for a nasty flank-surge or use a flier to reach their backline. overmasters with a winged halfbreed work fine, especially since they have regen. Against war machines, Baāsuāsu is a great cleaner.
Oh god yes, playing against hoards and legions of goblins is very frustrating. Iām less talented than most, so met fire with fire and condensed my KOM into a few hoards too!
As Vince said, if you make your battlefield terrain heavy, itāll a) hamper the big units movement & b) get in the way of those spitterās sight lines 
The -/28 web site has some standard terrain set ups that Iāve been using:
https://dash28.org/epic-dwarf-map-pack/
They also have some new narrative scenarios that have more varied terrain too, which Iām itching to try out
The dwarf maps you linked look fantastic and Iām definitely not using enough terrain.
But i couldnāt find anything about what each icon is supposed to be.
Obviously I could tell what are woods and the walls. I think the large green ovals are hills but not sure about the rest. Could anyone clue me in.
Thanks
Honestly, you need them all.
Theyāll generally have different roles on the table. Hordes usually give you the most bang for your buck, but there can be very serious advantages to having more units. For example, by staggering your front line a bit in sort of a checkerboard formation, you can force your opponent to expose their unitsā flanks if they charge you (and you survive). There are also some very real advantages to being on a smaller base, especially where charging is concerned.
The āit dependsā answer is really not very helpful, but it is true.
Hi Ash, sorry I didnāt realise there was no key. Youāre right on hills and forests, the long thin things are obstacles (either walls or hedges), the blue thing is difficult terrain (lake or similar ), as is the yellow box (crop field), the burgundy and grey things are blocking terrain, so I use a couple of buildings, one bigger than the other.
Hope that helps?
The way this is written makes it sound like he might be casting bane chant on the ranged units. If this is the case, crushing strength does nothing for ranged attacks.
Thank goodness bane chant no longer gives piercing (1). We havenāt played 3rd in a while so Iāll be looking forward to see how the spitter hordes fair without a boost from magic.
Spitters arenāt really a viable choice for now. At first they are irregular (and unlocks matter to Goblins). Secondly, their damage per shooting turn is far lower than other options in the Goblin list, mainly their war engines.
So instead of a horde of goblin spitters, Iād choose a regiment of rabble and a mawpup launcher any day of the week. Samen US, roughly comparable damage and far less table space required.
i keep one horde of Spitters, mainly because they look cool. However, they do have a large footprint for protecting not one but two objectives, and protecting your back line/artillery etc. Granted, they usually couldnt hit the side of a barn from five feet away, and the points might be better used on something else, but we are talkig goblins here, after all.