just my 2 cents on this tweaking of strengths and weaknesses:
the problem with the DS is that it checks every box, so it needs to have some weakness in order to be balanced with other good weapons.
what weakness exactly is secondary, it can be carapace or horde, both do it basically.
to me it seems that less armor penetration would be more realistic and thus intuitive for a thin blade:
such a light weapon should also have good mobility, attack speed and slashing vs flesh. people came up with this type of sword after medieval plate fell out of favor.
nerfing it vs weak, unarmored 
would also uncheck one box basically, it just seems less intuitive and rather willed by the omnissiah to me.
but first of all, i think it would frustrate many players so much that they’ll abandon the DS.
i mean, look at a crusher. a big stompy guy that will smack you into the ground if he hits you. that is an enemy. dying against a worthy enemy isn’t perceived as bad. horde however… that is literally rotten meat getting in the way. you’re supposed to tear through that. but you get stuck in it like in mud and die miserably. and no one likes annoying game mechanics.
tbh i like my quick, elegant weapons and would caution against fatshark’s known over-nerfing, or a revenge against the DS.
i want a balanced approach, where players take a look at their inventory and have several equally good choices, not 1-2 that are far above anything else:
i doubt that the original game design was to have so many enemies that they get to clip into a mass and their sounds jumbled together because we can kill so many of them at once.