Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Acording to current rules a unit needs to take a panic test if it suffers 25% wounds. Ocasionaly it happenes that a unit looses 50% or 75% of it's wounds due to shooting in one phase , however it's leadership still stays unmodified. That's unrealistic. I would propose : no penalty to leadership at 25% wounds, -1 to leadership at 40% wounds,-2 at 50% wounds, -3 at 75% wounds and -4 at more than 75%. What are your suggestions guys?

It makes sense, to a degree. Two main issues, though:

1. figuring out how many models is 25% of a unit is often complicated enough. Keeping track of that number and its multiples might be more than it's really worth.
Though I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to make a note of such things on your army list, before the game begins?

2. If shooting does this, Magic needs to as well. And then we have to ask, "does a unit getting destroyed/panicing through another unit cause a panic test, regardless of the two unit's relative cost?"
For example: there's a unit of 7 Miners, 30 Hammerers, and 15 Dwarf Warriors all within panic-range of one another.

Scenario A- The Miners flee through the Warriors and Hammerers, causing panic. Makes sense, right?
Scenario B- The 30 Hammerers somehow get wiped out in one round of combat. The Warriors and Miners then test for panic, with the same (lack of) penalties as in Scenario A. This, as you say, is unrealistic.

What I'm trying to say is, it feels like a slippery slope. Modifying Leadership from mass casualties might make sense, but I think it'd get really muddy really fast.

I think ballistic shooting needs a buff. Maybe that buff is enough. However, the group more likely to claim it would be war machines. Which don't need a buff. Templates pancaking units into modified LD break tests could get really ugly.

I think the simplest way to make BS-based shooting more effective is to re-price a lot of those troops. I don't see many people complaining about how ineffective Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen or Skink Skirmishers are, for example.

I also think it's silly that throwing weapons taking a penalty for range. They're already hard enough to use and produce very little effect either way.

And the range on a lot of weapons makes them incredibly ineffective, especially coupled with the troops that usually use them (I'm looking at you, Goblins with short bows).

Two things. Calculating 75 % out of a unit should not be a problem it's just 25% * 3. You can always use mobilephone calculator. Some people already use it to find 25%.

I agree the panic test modifiers should come from magic as well.
If miners suffer 75% casaulities and would flee through a unit of hammers, then I don't hammers should get penalty to their leadership. As hammer you would feel sorry for the miners, you could be scared, but not be terrified like miners who lost 75% of their commrades.
I would remove 40% casaulities penalty, instead make -2 penalty for 50% and -4 for 75% to make it simpler. How would you make it?

My point is that, from what I've seen, figuring out 25% is already on the cusp of Too Much Work. Asking people to multiply that number by 2 and 3, and then remember those three values for each unit, may well put the process over the edge.
But as I also said: there's no reason you couldn't just write it down ahead of time.

As to your other points:

1. I didn't even notice the 40% thing in the original post. Yeah, that's too weird. Just a penalty for each increment of 25% beyond the first.

2. -2 and -4 are huge penalties. I'd say -1 and -2 is fine. It should offer the potential to tip the scales. A Panic test at -4Ld does way too much. Especially considering that the unit just lost 75% of it's models. That's punishment enough.

3. Magic does not need any more help. A lot of people complain about it as it currently is, and I think they might have a problem with the idea of Dwellers forcing them to check for panic at a -1.

4. You're missing the point of the Dwarf example. The point is:
A huge Deathstar needs to check for panic if a tiny unit of fodder runs through it, and vise versa.
In reality, the tiny unit of fodder would have much more to be frightened of if the Deathstar ran through them than the other way around.
So, using your logic, one could argue that small/cheap/weak units ought to suffer a penalty on their panic tests when proportionally large/expensive/powerful units run through them.

5. Duke raises a good point. This rule would help BS-based shooting, which would be nice, but it would help template weapons even more, which is bad.

Perhaps -1 and -2 penalty is better for balance. I thought of -2 and -4, because when majority of warriors in a unit get riddled rapidly, by just a single salvo, then it's truly teryfing. Even a might Lord can flee. Another thing is that if 40 glade guards kill 8 cold one knights so only two cold one knights and Malus darkblade are left with -2 penalty to leadership they will probably pass their panic test engage glade guards killing whole unit.(Assuming Glade guards took stand and shoot reaction.)

Getting back to exammple of dwarfs that I miss understood. Even if few terrified peasants would run through a unit of noble warriors, that might cause panic. For the Noble warriors know a big unit of peasants got wiped out.

I see what you're saying about the Ld penalties, but there's a flaw in that logical process.
A unit losing 50-75% of its numbers is indeed more frightening than the unit losing 25%. But even without any penalty at all, a normal break test represents something that's really quite intimidating. You don't need to add on extra penalties, because the roll itself is a representation of how dire the situation has become.

25%- test for Panic (no penalty) = scary
50%- test for Panic at -1 = really scary
75%- test for Panic at -2 = really super extra scary

As for the Dwarfs, it still seems like I haven't conveyed my message. Once more:

- a unit of 30 Warriors loses 8 models, panics, and runs through a unit of 7 Miners. The Miners test for panic.

- a unit of 7 Miners loses 2 models, panics, and runs through 30 Warriors. The Warriors test for panic.

So, even though the Warrior unit is comparatively large and its losses equally so, the Miners test for panic just as the Warriors would if the Miner unit--much smaller and suffering smaller losses--would have run through it, instead of the other way around.
You say that it doesn't make sense that a unit tests on the same Ld, regardless of how many models it loses. With that line of thinking, I say that it doesn't make sense that a unit tests on the same Ld, regardless of how many models were originally and/or currently are in the unit that ran through them or got destroyed by them.
See what I mean? If we start modifying Leadership, we might be logic-bound to modify it in other places.

Lastly, Duke's point is still the biggest problem with this idea. What is your response?

I would give the -1 or -2 only to bs shooting only. Warmachines don't need to get stronger. The reason for it is that warmachines shoot and kill few warriors in a unit, the remaining warriors do not fell the impact( are not affected). If most of warriors in a unit die then the ones that survive are gone feel safer, because they will fell like they will not be targeted anymore. For their unit is small. However when a unit of missile troops fires missiles, they scatter over the area of whole unit. All warriors are affected. Imagine as situation where one lucky survivor stopes the arrow with the egdge of the shield, in other case an arrow might have penetrated the armour of the soldier, but had just enough force to lacerate him, or a bullet from hand gun hits a men in the forehead, but bounces of the helmet. It is very teryfing situation for such a survivor especialy that the majority of his unit is dead.

What would you do about the problem that occurs in the exammple with dwarfes?

What I would do in my above example is: nothing.
My point is that, because this game has limitations on how realistic it is, I'd just leave well enough alone. Being the only survivor out of 40 soldiers is scarier than being the only survivor out of 5, but watching 5 peasants get wiped out is scarier than watching 20 elite soldiers die for the same reason. The humble D6 can only do so much.

As for the war machine issue:

1. you say that the soldiers who survive a cannonball or catapult stone aren't effected?
What about when boulder sends the broken bodies of your comrades flying into the air, crushes them to gory paste, or maims them with jagged shards of rock?
Or when a cannonball rips through your company faster than your eye can follow, severed legs and ropes of entrails left in its wake, the sound of hellish thunder in your ears?
Let's not try to categorize such ethereal things as pain and fear, especially when they're of a sort that we have personally never experienced.

2. a more mechanical problem: saying that panic tests caused by BS-based casualties can lead to modified Leadership, but that war machine-casualties cannot? So what about bolt throwers?
More importantly, what happens when a mix of war machines and missile-troops take a unit down to 50% or less?
It's just not going to work this way.

Your right. We both agreed that improving bs shooting is a good idea while warmachines don't need to get stronger. I wanted to make up a explanation for this, but it was not great idea, because it did't work.

Let's end this thread I'm going to start a new one on improving bs shooting and detorioration of warmachines.

If the fire from your missile troops has wiped 50% of an enemy unit from the field... well then having only half the enemy unit to face against should be reward enough in itself, whether it runs away is just a nice bonus. The problem with missile troops is that for most armies it costs far too many points to inflict that many casualties.

If you want to boost missile troops, the answer lies with making them cheaper, or with making them inflict more hits.

Agreed. No one complains about Skink Skirmishers or Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen for both of those reasons.