Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.
My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?
ClockworkZion wrote: So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.
Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.
Assuming that forests are both light and dense, I can imagine they would be. It does seem like they're pitching dense cover as an "instead" system - Ruins for example don't seem to have Dense.
Personally I imagine at least among the 9 basic types, Dense and Light appearing together will be somewhat rare as - as you said - it would be a very potent combo.
Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.
My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?
We still don't know the exact wording of the Obstacles or Area rules, which presumably are where they hide the general rule for benefitting from cover. All we have seen is a vague statement form the original terrain rule that 'Objects are great for footsloggers, as INFANTRY BEASTS and SWARMS benefit from cover when Objects are between them and the firer"
We just know that 18+ wound models are explicitly barred from the Dense and Obscuring rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.
Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.
Assuming that forests are both light and dense, I can imagine they would be. It does seem like they're pitching dense cover as an "instead" system - Ruins for example don't seem to have Dense.
Personally I imagine at least among the 9 basic types, Dense and Light appearing together will be somewhat rare as - as you said - it would be a very potent combo.
Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.
My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?
We still don't know the exact wording of the Obstacles or Area rules, which presumably are where they hide the general rule for benefitting from cover. All we have seen is a vague statement form the original terrain rule that 'Objects are great for footsloggers, as INFANTRY BEASTS and SWARMS benefit from cover when Objects are between them and the firer"
We just know that 18+ wound models are explicitly barred from the Dense and Obscuring rules.
So far every rule that's been previrwed explicitly excludes 18+ wound models right now they are getting 110%stick and 0 carrot from these new terrain rules.
And as to that calling out keywords malarkey great now non of my Tau suits get the benifit of cover either Thanks GW.
Looking more like both my armies are going to spend 9th playing aroudn Terrain will gaining less than they loose while the faction that has been through so much flandarisation I can't stand them (Marines) get nothing but buffed by even the Terrain rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.
Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.
Assuming that forests are both light and dense, I can imagine they would be. It does seem like they're pitching dense cover as an "instead" system - Ruins for example don't seem to have Dense.
Personally I imagine at least among the 9 basic types, Dense and Light appearing together will be somewhat rare as - as you said - it would be a very potent combo.
Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.
My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?
We still don't know the exact wording of the Obstacles or Area rules, which presumably are where they hide the general rule for benefitting from cover. All we have seen is a vague statement form the original terrain rule that 'Objects are great for footsloggers, as INFANTRY BEASTS and SWARMS benefit from cover when Objects are between them and the firer"
We just know that 18+ wound models are explicitly barred from the Dense and Obscuring rules.
So far every rule that's been previrwed explicitly excludes 18+ wound models right now they are getting 110%stick and 0 carrot from these new terrain rules.
And as to that calling out keywords malarkey great now non of my Tau suits get the benifit of cover either Thanks GW.
Looking more like both my armies are going to spend 9th playing aroudn Terrain will gaining less than they loose while the faction that has been through so much flandarisation I can't stand them (Marines) get nothing but buffed by even the Terrain rules.
They didn't actually provide the text of the Obstacle rules. I can see terrain having a two-tiered system like it does in 8th edition, something like:
Area Terrain: INFANTRY, BEASTS, and SWARMS gain cover if they are on or within
All other keywords gain cover if they are on or within and 50% obscured
Obstacle terrain: INFANTRY, BEASTS and SWARMS gain cover if line of sight can only be drawn through or over any part of the terrain piece
All other keywords gain cover if line of sight can only be drawn through or over any part of the terrain piece and the target model is within 3".
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
Uh, sorry, what?
Can you tell me how I can make a piece of terrain that causes a -1 to hit in shooting that doesn't reduce a 3+ rerollable hit roll by 12% and a 5+ hit roll by 45%?
or, how about, a piece of terrain constructed in such a non-euclidean way as to be easier to claim with a larger unit than a smaller one?
I think at this point we really just have to accept that, for whatever reason, GW absolutely wants to get rid of big units in 40k. Every single change we have seen so far - every single one - penalizes large units and rewards small ones. I don't think that's just some big coincidence. They're made a clear choice to try to get rid of units of more than 11 models from the game.
It's possible this is all some big bluff and they've deliberately chosen to paint a misleading picture of the edition only to drop something at the 11th hour that changes it all, but why? Until that happens, I think we'd probably save ourselves a lot of grief if we just accept that 9th is the anti-horde edition and stop being surprised that every new change yet again penalizes large units.
Bases on terrain feel like they're more important in thr new edition for sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I think at this point we really just have to accept that, for whatever reason, GW absolutely wants to get rid of big units in 40k. Every single change we have seen so far - every single one - penalizes large units and rewards small ones. I don't think that's just some big coincidence. They're made a clear choice to try to get rid of units of more than 11 models from the game.
It's possible this is all some big bluff and they've deliberately chosen to paint a misleading picture of the edition only to drop something at the 11th hour that changes it all, but why? Until that happens, I think we'd probably save ourselves a lot of grief if we just accept that 9th is the anti-horde edition and stop being surprised that every new change yet again penalizes large units.
Save for anything that specifically targets MSU it is impossible to reward large units without rewarding MSUs that much more.
Targetted auras and horde bonuses would help swing it the other way but we'll have to see what they do.
That said, if we don't see a horde bonus I'll be sending in an email about hordes nedding bonus attacks for larger units like AoS does.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
Uh, sorry, what?
Can you tell me how I can make a piece of terrain that causes a -1 to hit in shooting that doesn't reduce a 3+ rerollable hit roll by 12% and a 5+ hit roll by 45%?
or, how about, a piece of terrain constructed in such a non-euclidean way as to be easier to claim with a larger unit than a smaller one?
that's the two things at play here.
First of all, we do not know that reroll auras haven't changed to singular units. If so, that has nothing to do with terrain and more to do with the reroll mechanic. Don't move the goalposts. You want your Orks to hit better? Play a different faction. Dense Cover strictly explains that it interferes with target acquisition, which means it needs to modify the chances to hit. You want to add a FNP which is damage caused, you're simply barking up the wrong tree.
With true LOS games, you can't have a half in half out approach with units, it gets too gamey, becomes time consuming etc. Then you have dumb mechanics of a massive unit in your face getting the benefit of cover because 1 model that is 12" further back is touching a piece of area terrain. I much prefer the whole in or out approach. If your unit is too big, make bigger terrain. there should be a mix on the table anyway.
As for horde viability, did we forget about the strategic reserves rule? Not all of your army will have to footslog it up the board dodging 4" ruins in the hopes to not get obliterated by blast weapons.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
Uh, sorry, what?
Can you tell me how I can make a piece of terrain that causes a -1 to hit in shooting that doesn't reduce a 3+ rerollable hit roll by 12% and a 5+ hit roll by 45%?
or, how about, a piece of terrain constructed in such a non-euclidean way as to be easier to claim with a larger unit than a smaller one?
that's the two things at play here.
First of all, we do not know that reroll auras haven't changed to singular units. If so, that has nothing to do with terrain and more to do with the reroll mechanic. Don't move the goalposts. You want your Orks to hit better? Play a different faction. Dense Cover strictly explains that it interferes with target acquisition, which means it needs to modify the chances to hit. You want to add a FNP which is damage caused, you're simply barking up the wrong tree.
With true LOS games, you can't have a half in half out approach with units, it gets too gamey, becomes time consuming etc. Then you have dumb mechanics of a massive unit in your face getting the benefit of cover because 1 model that is 12" further back is touching a piece of area terrain. I much prefer the whole in or out approach. If your unit is too big, make bigger terrain. there should be a mix on the table anyway.
As for horde viability, did we forget about the strategic reserves rule? Not all of your army will have to footslog it up the board dodging 4" ruins in the hopes to not get obliterated by blast weapons.
it may surprise you to learn that ork players actually do not LIKE running their boyz as a deep striking unit. That many, myself included in fact, would prefer their horde infantry to be able to function viably by running forward with support units, rather than making every light infantry unit a deep strike unit.
I haven't forgotten strategic reserves, I also haven't forgotten Rok Strike and Da Jump, two things we have access to right now if we want deep striking boyz blobs.
"hey, all these rules we've had previewed so far seem to disproportionately nerf larger sized units"
"but what about the rules we HAVEN'T seen so far? THOSE rules will probably disproportionately nerf small elite units!"
^This is getting older and older and older with every single preview that screws over light infantry units.
They literally advertised this rule that disproportionately nerfs hordes as a rule that benefits hordes. The ork article yesterday touted how geat Blasts are going to be FOR ORKS.
that doesn't inspire confidence. I'm sorry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also
*directly responds to your point about "just make better terrain 4head"*
"B-But what if all auras change because of this previewed ability? DONT MOVE THE GOALPOSTS"
Wait, was that last jumble of words actually a point or coherent sentence? Not sure.
Bottom line, the terrain rules so far are a huge improvement to the game, people just want to see negatives all the time. I've seen many 40K games, most people's terrain sucks, it really does. It would go a long way to spend a little time on this now that they have relevance in the game.
I think anyone expecting "targeted auras" is going to be extremely disappointed. It defeats the whole purpose of auras to have them be targeted.
You might have auras becoming stratagems or activated via Command Points or something, but "targeted auras" is feeling like a roundabout way for people to be saying "granted abilities"...which is basically "Guard Orders" and people won't shut up about how 'broken' they feel that Orders are.
Kanluwen wrote: I think anyone expecting "targeted auras" is going to be extremely disappointed. It defeats the whole purpose of auras to have them be targeted.
You might have auras becoming stratagems or activated via Command Points or something, but "targeted auras" is feeling like a roundabout way for people to be saying "granted abilities"...which is basically "Guard Orders" and people won't shut up about how 'broken' they feel that Orders are.
Yeah, it was just a whatabout distraction. They're not remaking every aura to be targeted at the start of 9th from what they are now to targeted because of one ability shown from one unit.
I like the new terrain ruleset. I like that it's more extensive, I like that it's easier to claim cover benefits in general, and I like that cover is more diverse. I make tons and tons and tons of terrain, it's great overall.
...That does not change the fact that I feel this edition is shaping out to make it so that the types of models that I generally like to play, cheaper infantry units, are getting pretty heavily beaten on in what is already a hyper-elite competitive meta.I can simultaneously ignore both the positives and negatives, while not pretending that "better rules in general" does automatically translates to "better rules for the way I tend to play."
I like the new terrain ruleset. I like that it's more extensive, I like that it's easier to claim cover benefits in general, and I like that cover is more diverse. I make tons and tons and tons of terrain, it's great overall.
I'm kind of wondering if obstacles are going to be mandated a little bit more in how they're set up. Maybe a certain number of pieces have to be present in order for it to get the rules for that terrain or they need to be set up a certain way?
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.
ClockworkZion wrote: The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.
Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.
Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.
I like your thinking. The smallest piece of terrain on any of the boards at my LGS is the size of a CD and it happens to be a guard tower using a CD for it's base. The forest bases are all rectangular or similar shape, are at least 5" deep and 8" wide with some being 10x12 and the ruins are all proper ruined buildings, not some random girder or flooring bit on it's own being called a "ruin".
ClockworkZion wrote: The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.
Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.
Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.
Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.
So are you volunteering to to purchase, build, and paint all of these elements for events going forward?
Practicality matters and unfortunately one casualty of that is you're never going to get ideal terrain setups for more than super small events. Sure, cardboard is cheap and carved easily, but getting enough cardboard for 50+ tables isn't cheap, carving it for 50+ tables isn't easy, and painting it isn't quick.
Hopefully the new rules will make the practical restraints of reality less burdenous, but to say 'no excuse' in this case, is nothing more than the privilege of someone who doesn't plan to actually contribute anything.
ClockworkZion wrote: The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.
Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.
Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.
Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.
I'm aware of that. My example was meant to point out that the Command Phase is a phase in and of itself, so Reanimation Beam might just be our first example of how they'll be reducing the number of "until the end of the phase..." styled buffs, instead pushing for these kinds of things. The whole reason to introduce the Command Phase, per their own explanations, is to add some more interactivity/upkeep tracking rather than just having 'always on' abilities or things happening in weird sequences.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.
So are you volunteering to to purchase, build, and paint all of these elements for events going forward?
Practicality matters and unfortunately one casualty of that is you're never going to get ideal terrain setups for more than super small events. Sure, cardboard is cheap and carved easily, but getting enough cardboard for 50+ tables isn't cheap, carving it for 50+ tables isn't easy, and painting it isn't quick.
Hopefully the new rules will make the practical restraints of reality less burdenous, but to say 'no excuse' in this case, is nothing more than the privilege of someone who doesn't plan to actually contribute anything.
How can you say I'm not contributing to anything ? I'm contribute to making W40k tables, so games, better in my association, which is already nice and significant.
I'm resolutely committed to making more and better terrain elements for my club, in which I'm not alone doing it. I'm getting material expenses refunded by my association. For sure it requires a great deal of work, but it is worth it.
So now I'm honoured to host about twenty participants in our yearly tournament, in very pleasing conditions. There will be certainly more at some point in the future, but we don't fish for huge mega attendance (with hastily built tables).
ClockworkZion wrote: The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.
Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.
Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.
Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.
I'm aware of that. My example was meant to point out that the Command Phase is a phase in and of itself, so Reanimation Beam might just be our first example of how they'll be reducing the number of "until the end of the phase..." styled buffs, instead pushing for these kinds of things. The whole reason to introduce the Command Phase, per their own explanations, is to add some more interactivity/upkeep tracking rather than just having 'always on' abilities or things happening in weird sequences.
I think it'll be used for all "until end of turn" or "at the startnof the turn" effects, but "until end of the phase" effects can still trigger inside of that phase.
My point was the nature of an aura that targets a single unit is new design space and if GW uses with some frequency we could see a reason to have more hordes on the table.
In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.
I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.
Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.
This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.
So are you volunteering to to purchase, build, and paint all of these elements for events going forward?
Practicality matters and unfortunately one casualty of that is you're never going to get ideal terrain setups for more than super small events. Sure, cardboard is cheap and carved easily, but getting enough cardboard for 50+ tables isn't cheap, carving it for 50+ tables isn't easy, and painting it isn't quick.
Hopefully the new rules will make the practical restraints of reality less burdenous, but to say 'no excuse' in this case, is nothing more than the privilege of someone who doesn't plan to actually contribute anything.
How can you say I'm not contributing to anything ? I'm contribute to making W40k tables, so games, better in my association, which is already nice and significant.
I'm resolutely committed to making more and better terrain elements for my club, in which I'm not alone doing it. I'm getting material expenses refunded by my association. For sure it requires a great deal of work, but it is worth it.
So now I'm honoured to host about twenty participants in our yearly tournament, in very pleasing conditions. There will be certainly more at some point in the future, but we don't fish for huge mega attendance (with hastily built tables).
Don't sweat it, he must be one of those "if its not a 50+ player tournament, its not worth talking about" guys. As if that tiny percentage of 40k play should dictate everything within the rules. Please.
Last 2 LVOs had better terrain than many games I've seen in stores, so yes, no excuse. Be better.
I pretty much have every GW terrain made in the last 15 years except the zone mortalis stuff... I’m waiting for a Christmas bundle type deal. To even build a 4x4 table is just ridiculous in cost.
Some terrain tables that have enough large obscuring pieces are hard to navigate with large vehicle models. So there is a balance needed. Furthermore if you think you are getting 30 boys completely obscured so they can benefit from the dense cover rules. That’s just not realistically going to happen often. You will need like 3 wall of martyrs.
ClockworkZion wrote: The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.
Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.
Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.
Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.
Start of your next command phase. That particular timing is pretty important, with an impact depending on how 'beginning of the turn' is defined in 9th edition (and how it interacts with the current version of RP), and how RP is potentially redefined in their codex.
Personally I'd put 'beginning of turn' into the command phase for simplicity of rules resolution, but I don't know if GW will do that.
ClockworkZion wrote: The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.
Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.
Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.
Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.
Start of your next command phase. That particular timing is pretty important, with an impact depending on how 'beginning of the turn' is defined in 9th edition (and how it interacts with the current version of RP), and how RP is potentially redefined in their codex.
Personally I'd put 'beginning of turn' into the command phase for simplicity of rules resolution, but I don't know if GW will do that.
They said the Command Phase was made partially to accommodate the "start of turn" stuff, so I don't see why not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
** We’ll have more on Strategic Reserves tomorrow, so be sure to join us on warhammer-community.com to learn more!
Hopefully there is a bit of info here on how that whole 'hold stuff for longer and it gets better options" thing works exactly.
I am unsure that the -1 to hit in the shoot phase provided by dense terrain will affect hordes that much, as typically they don't shoot much to start with. I guess we can't write hordes off completely before we see their point costs. We still just have points for cultists at this point.
I am unsure that the -1 to hit in the shoot phase provided by dense terrain will affect hordes that much, as typically they don't shoot much to start with. I guess we can't write hordes off completely before we see their point costs. We still just have points for cultists at this point.
we have the costs of cultists and intercissors. we also have the baggage of additional rules like vigilus and PA, so MO would not really be all that diffrent.
i mean, that people are starting to be slightly confused is not particulary srprising in that case and gw sofar has only really offered that it would be fine supposedly whilest not providing anything beyond reassureents without substance.
Also the new rules, i am certain, could've been written more condensed and could've had pictures aswell, not to mention that the bulletpoits would've been nice to have at the same time...
I am unsure that the -1 to hit in the shoot phase provided by dense terrain will affect hordes that much, as typically they don't shoot much to start with. I guess we can't write hordes off completely before we see their point costs. We still just have points for cultists at this point.
we have the costs of cultists and intercissors. we also have the baggage of additional rules like vigilus and PA, so MO would not really be all that diffrent.
i mean, that people are starting to be slightly confused is not particulary srprising in that case and gw sofar has only really offered that it would be fine supposedly whilest not providing anything beyond reassureents without substance.
Also the new rules, i am certain, could've been written more condensed and could've had pictures aswell, not to mention that the bulletpoits would've been nice to have at the same time...
We also got the points for necron warriors in their faction focus.
I am unsure that the -1 to hit in the shoot phase provided by dense terrain will affect hordes that much, as typically they don't shoot much to start with. I guess we can't write hordes off completely before we see their point costs. We still just have points for cultists at this point.
we have the costs of cultists and intercissors. we also have the baggage of additional rules like vigilus and PA, so MO would not really be all that diffrent.
i mean, that people are starting to be slightly confused is not particulary srprising in that case and gw sofar has only really offered that it would be fine supposedly whilest not providing anything beyond reassureents without substance.
Also the new rules, i am certain, could've been written more condensed and could've had pictures aswell, not to mention that the bulletpoits would've been nice to have at the same time...
New rules likely do have pictures. We have been given just texts. Not entire page of rulebook
Just like what happened from the transition from the start of eighth, all the rules involving reserves are going to likely be rewritten or written out to maintain balance because beta strikes are too strong in this game and preserving the effective punch of your army until you need it is just going to end with the victory to the person who gets to drop theirs last.
Just like what happened from the transition from the start of eighth, all the rules involving reserves are going to likely be rewritten or written out to maintain balance because beta strikes are too strong in this game and preserving the effective punch of your army until you need it is just going to end with the victory to the person who gets to drop theirs last.
How so ? I never felt any beta strike dominance in 8th. Which builds do you have in mind ? Which pack such a heavy beta punch that they end the game here and then on turn 2 ? Do the bulds involve Assault centurions or possed bombs ?
For the infamous "L shaped ruins" which only block a tiny amount of line of sight - just make two. Make them face each other so that they're the corners of a rectangle. Anything within that rectangle is ruins terrain. Add a bit of paper and some rubble to taste. Done.
Just like what happened from the transition from the start of eighth, all the rules involving reserves are going to likely be rewritten or written out to maintain balance because beta strikes are too strong in this game and preserving the effective punch of your army until you need it is just going to end with the victory to the person who gets to drop theirs last.
How so ? I never felt any beta strike dominance in 8th. Which builds do you have in mind ? Which pack such a heavy beta punch that they end the game here and then on turn 2 ? Do the bulds involve Assault centurions or possed bombs ?
After the change to Reserves-on-turn-1, many Blood Angels, Possessed Bomb, Ork da-jump lists had to swap to a Turn 2 or Turn 3 strike. In many instances, especially in late 8th with the nu-Marine lists, this wound up being a game of cat and mouse in terms of baiting the Marine player to drop positioning in their alpha strike.
Obviously the mirror matches were quite positionally focused in terms of circling each other for the right time/place to strike.
Graphite wrote: For the infamous "L shaped ruins" which only block a tiny amount of line of sight - just make two. Make them face each other so that they're the corners of a rectangle. Anything within that rectangle is ruins terrain. Add a bit of paper and some rubble to taste. Done.
At this point I'm not even sure what is being argued here. That anyone who complains about the game hasn't done a good job making their terrain? That expanded terrain rules are unnecessary and nobody would have problems if every single ruin piece was 4 L-shapes and 2 U-shapes?
A little while ago I found out that GW offers (offered maybe?) a credit program for stores to make their own terrain and use it as a selling point, and nobody had used that credit in 6 years, so i got to go on an absolutely ridiculous shopping spree of the (then fairly new) sector mechanicus stuff. That was what I painted for a solid 3 months, and I worked my ASS of making it as LOS-blocking and contained as humanly possible, because I didn't want to make it all loose and have it get broken in five seconds but I also wanted it to be useful in the game.
Turns out, when you do that, it's incredibly difficult to actually maneuver your figs in the piece. It's rare to see someone seeking them out, because to actually move your units underneath it you have to reach under and carefully fiddle around to get your infantry models standing upright and within squad coherency and moving only their movement value...because there essentially IS no special rule in 8th ed's ruleset for maneuvering through and around terrain. You have to adhere to all the same restrictions as when you are standing in the open field.
that's why we need a more flexible terrain system. Personally, I wish they'd gone a little farther. I wish they'd made pieces of terrain that you could just embark on, ala Apocalypse. Something like a neutral building that isn't a fortification but that models would reasonably have been able to go inside if it wasn't made as a solid piece. You'd move up to it, set your miniatures either on top of or off to the side, somewhere that represents they're "inside" the building, and they gain the benefit of cover from it while they're in there. All LOS and engagement range distances are measured from the building, and they can disembark from the building like you'd disembark from a transport.
That way people wouldn't have to keep jamming their sausage fingers into the bottoms of my sector mech pieces, snapping off fiddly little chains and tubes and making me have to re-glue them or losing them underneath the tables.
That would also limited size of pieces you could have though...And result in oddities where slower units can use it as speed hopping while fast units suddenly are slowed down.
Just like what happened from the transition from the start of eighth, all the rules involving reserves are going to likely be rewritten or written out to maintain balance because beta strikes are too strong in this game and preserving the effective punch of your army until you need it is just going to end with the victory to the person who gets to drop theirs last.
I don't like that prediction. It would be cutting the Eighth Legion's throat. Deep strike is where we shine. Aren't reserves today's topic? If they do something like this I'm going to be a bit salty.
@The_Scotsman: I was hoping for terrain that could be embarked on too. Would have been great for geq infantry, who from the look of what we've seen so far are going to need all the help they can get. This looks more and more like the anti-light infantry edition.
Looking like super heavys are second on the hit list as well.
People do not make unrealistic L-shaped buildings because they are lazy and don't feel like making realistic looking ruins.
They make L-shaped buildings because for 8 editions GW has not made a ruleset for their wargame that allows for an ENCLOSED BUILDING.Anything that models can reasonably get inside either has to be houseruled or you have to continue to micromanage your dudes through lift-off roofs (hope you didn't want multiple levels in your enclosed building) or by poking at them through windows and doors.
8th did admittedly amp up the silliness by making it so among the worst terrain you could possibly get for game functionality was the terrain that you can buy directly from games workshop at the highest possible prices for the game that they produce warhammer 40k. 3rd party terrain like this worked far better for 8th ed than GW's own terrain sets https://deathraydesigns.com/product/rapid-vanguard-bundle/
Just like what happened from the transition from the start of eighth, all the rules involving reserves are going to likely be rewritten or written out to maintain balance because beta strikes are too strong in this game and preserving the effective punch of your army until you need it is just going to end with the victory to the person who gets to drop theirs last.
How so ? I never felt any beta strike dominance in 8th. Which builds do you have in mind ? Which pack such a heavy beta punch that they end the game here and then on turn 2 ? Do the bulds involve Assault centurions or possed bombs ?
At the start of 8th, dominant armies involved deepstriking a large number of tempestus squads along with guilliman and his flying circus. It was rather oppressive and they nerfed it. Then other armies, like blood angels, came out with the ability to rapidly and overwhelmingly deep strike a murder squad into the enemy. So they nerfed it again. Then people started teleporting in heavy weapon platforms to prevent them from being shot to death, like ravagers. So they nerfed deep striking AGAIN.
Just like what happened from the transition from the start of eighth, all the rules involving reserves are going to likely be rewritten or written out to maintain balance because beta strikes are too strong in this game and preserving the effective punch of your army until you need it is just going to end with the victory to the person who gets to drop theirs last.
I don't like that prediction. It would be cutting the Eighth Legion's throat. Deep strike is where we shine. Aren't reserves today's topic? If they do something like this I'm going to be a bit salty.
@The_Scotsman: I was hoping for terrain that could be embarked on too. Would have been great for geq infantry, who from the look of what we've seen so far are going to need all the help they can get. This looks more and more like the anti-light infantry edition.
Looking like super heavys are second on the hit list as well.
I think you are set for deep strike and reserve dominance for maybe half a year. A year if you are lucky. Beta strike builds are going to rule early 9th like they ruled early eighth. And then you're gonna get nerfed cause it'll be TOO strong.
That's what my prediction was supposed to mean. Not that they're nerfing it at the start of 9th, that it'll be too strong at the start and have to be nerfed somewhat later.
Gadzilla666 wrote: This looks more and more like the anti-light infantry edition.
Well GW made it abundantly clear in the initial announcement video and have been sending notes about as subtle as nuclear missile reveal after reveal. It's kinda hard to miss the note.
the_scotsman wrote: People do not make unrealistic L-shaped buildings because they are lazy and don't feel like making realistic looking ruins.
They make L-shaped buildings because for 8 editions GW has not made a ruleset for their wargame that allows for an ENCLOSED BUILDING./
That's not true!
I'm pretty sure there were rules for enclosed buildings in Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition.
So they haven't made those rules for 6 editions, going on 7.
Pretty sure GW lumped them under "fortifications" and left players to figure it out.
I would assume that "Fortification" rules are going to primarily function much more entirely like transports - i.e. that the building itself must be destroyed before the unit inside can be harmed at all, which is a lot of power to be putting on a neutral terrain piece, and also results in kind of a destructible board.
While that can be interesting (I have used houserules for bunkers, which allowed extremely limited firing out of them, but which protected the squad inside like a transport would) I think it's not something you'd want to put in a normal game as it's very easily powergameable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You are right though. Famously, i recall that in the 2nd ed rulebook you knew what the armor class of a tent was before you knew how to move a model.
the_scotsman wrote: People do not make unrealistic L-shaped buildings because they are lazy and don't feel like making realistic looking ruins.
They make L-shaped buildings because for 8 editions GW has not made a ruleset for their wargame that allows for an ENCLOSED BUILDING./
That's not true!
I'm pretty sure there were rules for enclosed buildings in Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition.
So they haven't made those rules for 6 editions, going on 7.
Pretty sure GW lumped them under "fortifications" and left players to figure it out.
Nope, there were pretty detailed rules for how enclosed buildings worked in 2nd at least (I assume the same level of complexity was involved in 1st too). It went right down to the level of separate floorplans you could move models around in some cases. They were kind of clunky but actually much more functional than anything produced since, with the possible exception of the Apocalypse rules for embarking into buildings which seem like a pretty good idea to me.
The sort of army we all have come to love to play against ! So thematic ! Death from above ! Death from above !
Well, if Wraithknights were equally as good as Imperial/Chaos Knights, if close combat stuff like Striking Scorpions or Wraithblades could tangle in a world of Assault Centurions and Possessed Bombs, if Wraithlords & such could see eye to eye with the popular Forge World Marine dreads, etc.. you'd perhaps see more variety
The sort of army we all have come to love to play against ! So thematic ! Death from above ! Death from above !
Well, if Wraithknights were equally as good as Imperial/Chaos Knights, if close combat stuff like Striking Scorpions or Wraithblades could tangle in a world of Assault Centurions and Possessed Bombs, if Wraithlords & such could see eye to eye with the popular Forge World Marine dreads, etc.. you'd perhaps see more variety
I had to mute the stream for a meeting, I wonder if this will apply to "deep strikers" as well or if units with Terminator Armor, jump packs etc will have bespoke rules that make them exempt.
Nice that this allows you to keep things that can't actually start off the table. I also like how things don't just die if you're not on the table by the end of the third round.
I had to mute the stream for a meeting, I wonder if this will apply to "deep strikers" as well or if units with Terminator Armor, jump packs etc will have bespoke rules that make them exempt.
They said that units with innate reserves rules (like GSC) will not cost CPs.
Also, Aircraft don't have to come on from a board edge. Can come on anywhere, as long as they are 9" away.
Nice that this allows you to keep things that can't actually start off the table. I also like how things don't just die if you're not on the table by the end of the third round.
The sort of army we all have come to love to play against ! So thematic ! Death from above ! Death from above !
Well, if Wraithknights were equally as good as Imperial/Chaos Knights, if close combat stuff like Striking Scorpions or Wraithblades could tangle in a world of Assault Centurions and Possessed Bombs, if Wraithlords & such could see eye to eye with the popular Forge World Marine dreads, etc.. you'd perhaps see more variety
I don't think, point for point, across all armies, equal stat lines should have equal costs. Some armies should be better or worse at certain things than others.
Pending implementation in units too but I like this.
They're talking about how units can change the combat attrition roll as well as increasing odds of failed rolls.
Still seems to preserve small units avoiding the consequences tho, so I'm a little worried about that. Like the back half is great, but units that passed before without concern still don't worry as much. But I haven't had a chance to think more deeply.
Also I thought we were meant to be able to use Strategic Reserves to get into melee, or was that a miscommunication?
there is rules in the article not covered in the bullet point list:
Lying in Ambush
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
As I think about it it might not be as useless because before the goal was to pile on negative modifiers to cause more guys to flee, which was really hard with say an MSU squad of high-leadership SM, because the only way to force significant Morale-induced casualties was to have that difference be as high as possible. Now a failure by a single point has the same casualty possibility as a critical failure.
Again, need more time to ponder and not the best at critical analysis of rules, but that seems at the very worst better than it was.
While I definitely like some of the new rules and changes to current rules (some I'm not too crazy about), I am going to miss the simplicity of 8th's rules and how easy it is to teach the game to others. For playing at home with family and friends that are not hardcore gamers I will likely stick with 8th + codexes, without any supplements, and Apocalypse for larger games.
Yea, this is definitely more horde-friendly than 8th.
This rule doesn't quite nullify the consequence of MSUs having a step-wise Morale failure phenomenon versus Horde armies having a more fluid continuum--which favors MSUs for leadership purposes.
Pending implementation in units too but I like this.
They're talking about how units can change the combat attrition roll as well as increasing odds of failed rolls.
Still seems to preserve small units avoiding the consequences tho, so I'm a little worried about that. Like the back half is great, but units that passed before without concern still don't worry as much. But I haven't had a chance to think more deeply.
That half strength bit might be key there, depending on what other rules come into play. Smaller squads start disappearing quicker, which is pretty much the same as now (with some squad sizes meaning it's impossible to fail unless everyone is dead) but might be more significant if there's more heavy LD modifiers about the place. Things like Tempestus Jackals ability to have casulties count as double for morale checks meaning that a loss of 2 men is a +4 to your roll.
Wouldn't be surpised if Mob rule turns into a +1 on attrition above half strength, so that orks lose just one guy a turn above half strength and then really start vanishing once you drop below.
Yea, this is definitely more horde-friendly than 8th.
This rule doesn't quite nullify the consequence of MSUs having a step-wise Morale failure phenomenon versus Horde armies having a more fluid continuum--which favors MSUs for leadership purposes.
Yeah right now the best I can say is you don't need to blow as many strats and combo as many units as physically possible to maximize that difference and guarantee significant casualties.
But as you said high leader MSU's are still pretty unaffected.
Not a fan of the Morale rules unless they change most (ideally all) units to actually be affected by morale in the first place. These rules don't counter the problem of small units never taking the test in the first place and most large units are either natively immune to morale or effectively so. I hope they adjust that so all units are able to be affected by this in some way.
Pending implementation in units too but I like this.
They're talking about how units can change the combat attrition roll as well as increasing odds of failed rolls.
Still seems to preserve small units avoiding the consequences tho, so I'm a little worried about that. Like the back half is great, but units that passed before without concern still don't worry as much. But I haven't had a chance to think more deeply.
That half strength bit might be key there, depending on what other rules come into play. Smaller squads start disappearing quicker, which is pretty much the same as now (with some squad sizes meaning it's impossible to fail unless everyone is dead) but might be more significant if there's more heavy LD modifiers about the place. Things like Tempestus Jackals ability to have casulties count as double for morale checks meaning that a loss of 2 men is a +4 to your roll.
Wouldn't be surpised if Mob rule turns into a +1 on attrition above half strength, so that orks lose just one guy a turn above half strength and then really start vanishing once you drop below.
Interesting take yeah.
I hope we do see that, morale being kind of a non-issue for a lot of armies was one of the bigger missed opportunities of 8th. Like yeah SM should be resilient, but the fact that you almost always forgot to roll for morale because it was such a non-issue to your Ld 8 5 man squad never felt good. At least in 6th and 7th I'd have units break and fall back.
I hope we see that, morale being a non-issue for armies like marines was super unfortunate.
Tyran wrote: Although on the other hand, it is easier to get MSUs to half strength.
That's the step-wise phenomenon MSUs benefit from.
In a continuum of infinite, equal shots this would benefit MSUs disproportionately, however in Real Life where the number of shots/attacks is more finite, it can be the case that it is easier to bring an MSU to half strength than it is to accomplish the same against a Horde unit.
In late 8th Ed., though, it felt like we were closer to the "infinite shots" side of the spectrum.
Makes me wonder if they're going to double down on Morale modifiers for units like the Death Jester or Night Lords. Maybe modify the Ld AND the Attrition rolls going forward. It would be a lot more deadly, imo, if a unit starts giving you big modifiers to your Attrition rolls as well.
I don't think, point for point, across all armies, equal stat lines should have equal costs. Some armies should be better or worse at certain things than others.
Maybe not. But than you shouldn't be surprised if armies of certain factions all skew towards the things that faction does best.
By that logic, Eldar running disproportionally flyer spam would be the goal, as they aren't supposed to be as good/efficient with other stuff.
puma713 wrote: Makes me wonder if they're going to double down on Morale modifiers for units like the Death Jester or Night Lords. Maybe modify the Ld AND the Attrition rolls going forward. It would be a lot more deadly, imo, if a unit starts giving you big modifiers to your Attrition rolls as well.
SOunded like they were saying as much during the stream.
Again my biggest concern is getting over the initial hump of the first step on MSU's but I'm remaining optimistic.
I don't think, point for point, across all armies, equal stat lines should have equal costs. Some armies should be better or worse at certain things than others.
Maybe not. But than you shouldn't be surprised if armies of certain factions all skew towards the things that faction does best.
By that logic, Eldar running disproportionally flyer spam would be the goal, as they aren't supposed to be as good/efficient with other stuff.
In theory, that should be the idea--and likewise in principle that should be designed to balance against the strengths of other factions.
In practice, that's horrifically difficult to do in this game due to the sheer number of factions and units--and some factions have been designed to be capable of being good at everything.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it.
Because with two steps to it, they can affect the second roll rather than the first. If Night Lords had a -1 to the attrition roll, then that's models unit the unit dying on 1 or 2, rather than just a 1.
In theory, that should be the idea--and likewise in principle that should be designed to balance against the strengths of other factions.
In practice, that's horrifically difficult to do in this game due to the sheer number of factions and units--and some factions have been designed to be capable of being good at everything.
Because the idea is nonsense to begin with.
If you don't want Eldar to be good at running Knight-type stuff, just don't make the miniature.
If you sell that Wraithknight, it should have balanced rules that don't make fans of those miniatures any worse off than people who enjoy Imperial Knights or Eldar Flyers.
They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it. Maybe if I think a little more. Guess it's easier to make one guy run.
On stream they basically said "Instead of piling all your modifers onto one unit, you can now feel free to spread them out", since failing Morale by 1 is now the same as failing by 2 or more.
MSU would be more equally effected by morale if weapon lethality decreased so that its easier to kill a few than a lot. Except primaris who have the benefit of being MSU with full sized squad durability.
Otherwise though MSU generally doesn't face morale because they get killed before morale takes place. Except primaris again who can take 6 wounds but only lose some of the squad.
Kind of feel like primaris is basically what people are complaining about when we talk about morale having no effect on MSU.
Playing CSM I've been pretty brutalized by morale no matter squad size but I've yet to see anything significant happen to primaris morale wise.
Was there any mentioning of being under half strength having a negative effect somehow on your leadership test? While nice for hordes that they don't suffer from leadership issues as much, small units of 5 models with LD 8 still barely get affected. So instead of making morale more relevant, it kind of looks to be the opposite?
Also I thought we were meant to be able to use Strategic Reserves to get into melee, or was that a miscommunication?
You ARE aware that power level is already a factor in multiple reserve stratagems?
Yes and I hate it there too. Did I say this was a new thing? No, I said I hated it. I hate it now and hate it in the future, and hated it in the past when it was for Tactical Reserves too.
Ghaz wrote: So hordes have the benefit here versus MSU, while MSU has the benefit over Blast weapons.
A bold take, given that the change to morale for MSU is
CURRENT SYSTEM
Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees.
NEW SYSTEM
Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees. Then he rolls another die. On a 1, 1 more model flees.
Damn, such a BIG HIT to MSU's! Who's gonna take 5-man squads now?
oh also BTW we're making -LD abilities into -Attrition Test abilities because it was just too easy to make those useful against small squads.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Morale will still be ignored 99.99% of the time by the following factions
100% of the time:
Knights, Chaos Knights
99.9% of the time
All Loyalist Marines, Custodes, Tyranids
99% of the time
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Necrons, Admech, All Chaos Marines (Field almost always 5-man squads, especially now with all the nerfs to larger units)
Leaving *checks notes* Tau, Guard, Orks and GSC to ever possibly care about morale.
So, same as always. Good deck chair rearranging, GW!
I really like these, seems like it could have a fair bit more impact in the game (maybe not against msu marines as much...but still probably more that before
As a Tyranid player, this seems like a good balance. While I have synapse alive, I have a tremendous advantage however once dead (or outside synapse range) my units are gonna really start suffering quickly.
I do believe armies with negative Ld mods are going to benefit a lot from this as has been pointed out you only have to fail by one point in order to make tests for the enitre rest of the unit. Maybe, just possibly, Word Bearers trait (or as its known otherwise, the normal marines rule) may actually prove useful once in a while (as opposed to being a waste of ink).
I am also curious about Dark angels, as part of Grim resolve states I cannot lose more than one model to failed morale. I think things like these may be altered to either reroll attrition, or max loss from attriton of 1 model. What do you guys think?
Gadzilla666 wrote: They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it.
Because with two steps to it, they can affect the second roll rather than the first. If Night Lords had a -1 to the attrition roll, then that's models unit the unit dying on 1 or 2, rather than just a 1.
They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it. Maybe if I think a little more. Guess it's easier to make one guy run.
On stream they basically said "Instead of piling all your modifers onto one unit, you can now feel free to spread them out", since failing Morale by 1 is now the same as failing by 2 or more.
except its not....
Because all of this only happens IF you fail the test. So don;t see how it helps NL, its just different
Ghaz wrote: So hordes have the benefit here versus MSU, while MSU has the benefit over Blast weapons.
A bold take, given that the change to morale for MSU is
CURRENT SYSTEM
Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees.
NEW SYSTEM
Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees. Then he rolls another die. On a 1, 1 more model flees.
Damn, such a BIG HIT to MSU's! Who's gonna take 5-man squads now?
oh also BTW we're making -LD abilities into -Attrition Test abilities because it was just too easy to make those useful against small squads.
It's a 1 or a 2 for half strength units.
But in the old system that would still be a lone model holding an objective, while in the new system it could mean a dead unit. MSU being hit harder is good design space on this as each loss should feel more impactful.
Fun fact: unless they change the Orks Mob rule, they'll still be Ld15 at half strength.
princeyg wrote: As a Tyranid player, this seems like a good balance. While I have synapse alive, I have a tremendous advantage however once dead (or outside synapse range) my units are gonna really start suffering quickly.
Just you wait until they rewrite Synapse/Instinctive Behaviour again and completely feth it up.
Us3Less wrote: Was there any mentioning of being under half strength having a negative effect somehow on your leadership test? While nice for hordes that they don't suffer from leadership issues as much, small units of 5 models with LD 8 still barely get affected. So instead of making morale more relevant, it kind of looks to be the opposite?
Nothing there, but they said splitting up the morale check and the attrition part lets you be bolder with both parts of the rule - that and acknowledging that almost everything apart from guardsmen are immune to morale.
So there might be things with future rules and the intial errata that hone in on small squads with high Ld - though probably with a reduced impact.
Primaris aren't going to be touched by this, Marines Know No Fear.
Definitely could be a nice way of getting in some supression effects in future editions...
BrotherGecko wrote: MSU would be more equally effected by morale if weapon lethality decreased so that its easier to kill a few than a lot. Except primaris who have the benefit of being MSU with full sized squad durability.
Otherwise though MSU generally doesn't face morale because they get killed before morale takes place. Except primaris again who can take 6 wounds but only lose some of the squad.
Kind of feel like primaris is basically what people are complaining about when we talk about morale having no effect on MSU.
Playing CSM I've been pretty brutalized by morale no matter squad size but I've yet to see anything significant happen to primaris morale wise.
It'll be basically ignored by MSU as long as the standard leadership value is 7, as long as you need to exceed the leadership total to cause any casualties, and as long as it's based on casualties you took.
let's say we have a morale system like this:
Each time during the turn that a unit is targeted by a psychic power, or by a shooting or melee attack that would wound that unit on a 4+ or better if it hit, mark a point of Suppression on the unit using a token or die.
Example: Player A declares a shooting attack with his squad of space marines. 1 flamer targets a nearby squad of hormagants, 1 missile launcher targets a Carnifex, and 8 boltguns target a unit of termagants. Regardless of the results of those attacks, each of those three tyranid units marks 1 point of suppression.
The squad's rhino targets the Carnifex with its storm bolter. That unit does not mark another point of suppression because the storm bolter will wound on a roll of 5+.
in the morale phase, roll a die and add 1 for each point of suppression. If the result exceeds the unit's LD value, consult the table below and find the number that the unit failed the test by. All results are cumulative.
1 - The unit subtracts 1 from all hit rolls it makes in the next turn
2 - The unit halves its Move characteristic (rounding up) the next turn
3 - The unit may not declare shooting attacks or charges in the next turn.
4+ - 1 model flees the unit, remove it from the board.
princeyg wrote: As a Tyranid player, this seems like a good balance. While I have synapse alive, I have a tremendous advantage however once dead (or outside synapse range) my units are gonna really start suffering quickly.
Just you wait until they rewrite Synapse/Instinctive Behaviour again and completely feth it up.
Because all of this only happens IF you fail the test. So don;t see how it helps NL, its just different
Right now it's really not helping NL I think...
But I expect morale army in the future to play with malus on the morale and on the attrition and the players will need tro find the good balance between the two.
(a good malus on attrition could be very powerful if you achieve to make your enemy fail his moral tests)
Well, at the very least this helps big, unsupported hordes somewhat, which I suppose is nice. I don't see how it improves the 5 billion units that require a functional, un-ignorable set of Leadership/Morale rules to correctly work, but whatever I guess.
Still a mechanic that piles yet more deadliness into a super deadly game. Still largely unimpactful against a majority of codexes, because GW refuses to let a space marine ever run away. but, it's a nice consolation prize to hordes for getting absolutely hosed by every other change.
At this point, the very last change I'd like to know about is whether they reconfigured the rules for Transports at all. They could really REALLY use to be something more than a way to get an extra 3" of movement in a turn.
Let models disembark from transports in the Reinforcements step 2020!
While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.
Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?
This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?
While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.
Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?
This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?
It's like exploding transports. You roll for all remaining models, then remove 1 of your choice for each fail. no need to roll individually.
While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.
Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?
This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?
I partially disagree here.
I agree this is more complex a rule. But, it may prove more impactful depending entirely upon when enemy modifiers are applied.
Consider.
Nightlords currently have a native -1 to Ld ability.
With the new rule, if it’s only applied to the initial test, I agree they’re less impactful.
But. If it’s applied to Combat Attrition? Even slim combat wins could see a decent slice of the enemy unit leg it, making such modifiers rather more pronounced.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it.
Because with two steps to it, they can affect the second roll rather than the first. If Night Lords had a -1 to the attrition roll, then that's models unit the unit dying on 1 or 2, rather than just a 1.
And on a 1-3 if the unit is half strength.
Night Lords don't have a -1 to attrition. We have a -1 to leadership. Unless they're redoing the legion traits. That won't happen without a new codex.
While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.
Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?
This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?
It's like exploding transports. You roll for all remaining models, then remove 1 of your choice for each fail. no need to roll individually.
i think his point was on having to roll 20 odd dice and pickout the 1's
While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.
Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?
This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?
You're missing the context given by Stu on the stream. This allows for them to, as he puts it, 'start pulling more levers' when it comes to rules design. He mentioned Night Lords and Reivers specifically as "units that might modify the morale stage but not the attrition stage".
I would not be shocked if the Guard preview later goes a bit more into morale.
Sometimes I think GW would be better off just outright cutting morale out of the game. It doesn't add much to the game, losing it wouldn't really change the game in any real way and they wouldn't have to keep writing rules that ignore morale for 75% of the units in the game.
Then they could just make strats for the morale harming armies/units that mimic what is supposed to happen but generally doesn't.
Like 2 CP, a Nightlord unit kills an enemy model in CC every other model in the unit has to roll a d6 and on 1 they are removed from the board as they flee, get captured or are rendered incapacitated with terror.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah, if you wanna help Night Lords you need to give them the Jackal Scion rule.
You're aware that the Jackals bit applies to shooting attacks not combat or in general, right?
The same general principle applies though.
Sure, but the difference is that Jackals are only getting their stuff applying via successful casualties inflicted during the Shooting Phase.
Night Lords are just a flat -1 to Leadership to units within a distance of them.
If you want to argue that Night Lords should get a couple of stratagems or something that let them do the same as Jackals for Shooting or CC casualties? I'd be down. If you want to argue that there should be a second component to the Night Lords(or really any Legion Traits), also down for that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it.
Because with two steps to it, they can affect the second roll rather than the first. If Night Lords had a -1 to the attrition roll, then that's models unit the unit dying on 1 or 2, rather than just a 1.
And on a 1-3 if the unit is half strength.
Night Lords don't have a -1 to attrition. We have a -1 to leadership. Unless they're redoing the legion traits. That won't happen without a new codex.
It was in context of it they changed to having it in attrition instead of leadership. I know they don't currently have an attrition rule, since attrition didn't exist in 8th.
Aaranis wrote: So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.
In 8th that means one guy flees.
In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.
So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.
For wiping the whole the squad, it favors hordes. If you kill 4 dudes out of a 5-man Chaos squad (Leadership 8) you've got a 1/3 chance of killing it for good.
But, to achieve the same or better odds of wiping a 30-man cultist squad (Leadership... 6, I think?), you'd need to kill 29.
However, if you just throw chip fire their way, say killing 3 Marines or 6 Cultists, the Marines won't lose anyone on average, whereas the Cultists lose 4-5 unless they get lucky and roll a 1.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Arent Ork Hordes pretty much immune to Morale? And same for Synapse range Tyranids?
Most things don't care about morale.
With this rule most things still won't care about morale, but the super-swingy "And now your unit is dead 'cause I killed half of them and you can't possibly pass the test!" thing is gone.
Aaranis wrote: So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.
In 8th that means one guy flees.
In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.
So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.
Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.
So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Arent Ork Hordes pretty much immune to Morale? And same for Synapse range Tyranids?
Most things don't care about morale.
With this rule most things still won't care about morale, but the super-swingy "And now your unit is dead 'cause I killed half of them and you can't possibly pass the test!" thing is gone.
While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.
Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?
This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?
I partially disagree here.
I agree this is more complex a rule. But, it may prove more impactful depending entirely upon when enemy modifiers are applied.
Consider.
Nightlords currently have a native -1 to Ld ability.
With the new rule, if it’s only applied to the initial test, I agree they’re less impactful.
But. If it’s applied to Combat Attrition? Even slim combat wins could see a decent slice of the enemy unit leg it, making such modifiers rather more pronounced.
That I could see, but even then seems most powerful only in those cases where the test was close, while being less powerful in clear blowouts, unless they throw in some seriously powerful modifiers.
For example, currently a 10 strong unit with Ld8 loses 3 dudes, and will only lose anyone on a 6 for their Morale test. Same holds true with the new rule with a 1/6 chance for any of the rest of the dudes to run off. There a -1 to both Morale and Combat Attrition could see a whole lot more effect, resulting in a higher likelyhood of running and an average of 3 dudes in total lost. However, if that same unit lose 6 dudes initially, the current Ld rules would just result in the unit being completely gone if you rolled a 6, while this rule would mean you'd probably only lose one, average closer to 2 with a -1 to Combat Attrition as well.
Thinking on it, it's not quite as totally absurd as I'd initially thought, but still feels unnecessarily convoluted unless they're going to do a whole lot more with Morale than GW historically has.
With the morale change... It's still not very impactful. GW really either needs to make morale affect EVERYONE, and be a significant part of the game, or do away with it almost entirely. Add it back as a bespoke or codex rule to certain units, like Conscripts and Grots, but otherwise leave it away.
Aaranis wrote: So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.
In 8th that means one guy flees.
In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.
So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.
Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.
So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead
To sum it up, because with Blast Weapons, Hordes get more damage and therefore Moral was changed that the remaining models (if there are any) are not destroyed as well
So overall. we stay about the same, but just the weapon used is different now
Aaranis wrote: So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.
In 8th that means one guy flees.
In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.
So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.
Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.
So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead
To sum it up, because with Blast Weapons, Hordes get more damage and therefore Moral was changed that the remaining models (if there are any) are not destroyed as well
So overall. we stay about the same, but just the weapon used is different now
Not really-since Morale only works if your opponent is out of CP or if you manage to inflict it on 2+ units.
Tell you one thing, my world eater's army is gonna be a lot better with strategic reserves. Gonna try the 20 man Khorne Bezerker epic outflank at least once
JNAProductions wrote: With the morale change... It's still not very impactful. GW really either needs to make morale affect EVERYONE, and be a significant part of the game, or do away with it almost entirely. Add it back as a bespoke or codex rule to certain units, like Conscripts and Grots, but otherwise leave it away.
To be fair, to fix that we need them to errata the codexes, the core rules won't fix that issue.
If we have morale mitigation then it needs to go back to having drawbacks. Stuff like: Stubborn can't fall back, bring back RAGE so more units who are fearless require more finesse to effectively funnel where you want them to hit, Fearless has a -1 to attrition, but doesn't lose any models to the initial failed morale check (representing them getting dragged down by the enemy), ect.
Aaranis wrote: So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.
In 8th that means one guy flees.
In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.
So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.
Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.
So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead
To sum it up, because with Blast Weapons, Hordes get more damage and therefore Moral was changed that the remaining models (if there are any) are not destroyed as well
So overall. we stay about the same, but just the weapon used is different now
Not really-since Morale only works if your opponent is out of CP or if you manage to inflict it on 2+ units.
The idea is a step in the right direction, but the math still works out to not much real impact on the game, and the hot take that it hurts MSU is really exaggerated.
5 man unit with LD 7, takes 3 casualties:
8th edition: On a 5+, you lose one model. On a 6, you lose both.
9th edition: On a 5+ you lose one model, then on an additional roll of a 1-2 you lose the last model.
These are essentially identical probabilities. And Space Marines are still effectively immune to morale.
The impact this system will have on the game is still extremely minor because anything that was run in big units was already moral immune, and anything small was already effectively morale immune.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
yukishiro1 wrote: The idea is a step in the right direction, but the math still works out to not much real impact on the game, and the hot take that it hurts MSU is really exaggerated.
5 man unit with LD 7, takes 3 casualties:
8th edition: On a 5+, you lose one model. On a 6, you lose both.
9th edition: On a 5+ you lose one model, then on an additional roll of a 1-2 you lose the last model.
These are essentially identical probabilities. And Space Marines are still effectively immune to morale.
The impact this system will have on the game is still extremely minor because anything that was run in big units was already moral immune, and anything small was already effectively morale immune.
It's more that it hurts MSU more than it hurts hordes. Hordes used to have to be fearless or get wiped from massed casualties under 8th's method (or otherwise be able to mitigate the morale, like Orks Breaking Heads rule) which was a problem.
Sure, MSU can end up in the same situation as it is in 8th, it doesn't benefit as much from the reduced casualty numbers. Additionally they gets penalized faster than horde units do.
Everything else with morale is codex level, so we have to wait for those codex level rules updates (day one FAQ/Errata namely) to bring stuff inline with the new rules.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
It's badly worded, but it's not presented as the actual rule, just a summary, so presumably they've thought of that in the wording of the actual rule. I would guess it's "set up within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
Spoiler:
Which makes me hope that a unit or 3+ models will have to deploy in coherency of at least 2 other models in the same unit to prevent daisy chaining.
EnTyme wrote: I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.
That's a problem with the fundamental system. Morale shouldn't result in models being destroyed, it should result in models getting penalties to their ability to fight. The modern GW approach is completely backwards in that it adds to overall lethality instead of reducing it as it should.
In other words, if you fail a LD test, you should, say, be unable to move for the round except directly away from the nearest enemy models, and you should suffer a -1 to your hit rolls (that stacks above the normal -1 cap) with attacks from those models. Or something like that.
This would also address the problem of leadership being irrelevant for single entity units. Why should a mek gun be immune to morale when the grots manning it run away at the slightest trouble if they're not manning a gun?
But alas, they clearly haven't gone in that direction. They've just reshuffled the deck chairs on the sinking ship - an improvement, but a very marginal one that is still based on the wrong paradigm.
I feel like it's okay to go back to running 9man rubric marine squads instead of 5man units. A pretty significant change considering there are reasons to buff a 9man currently, they just hate morale tests
Example: Mid or Late game, I'd be ok putting Prescience and Weaver of Fates on a 9man unit, but it's not worth it on a 5man.
EnTyme wrote: I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.
While understandable to some degree, the issue is that in actual combat and battles, morale and psychology are significant elements, and making an enemy decide to be elsewhere is an order of magnitude more common occurrence in the taking of ground than physically killing everyone on it and seizing it by direct assault. And whiles yes 40k is a game, these concepts factor heavily into the background and lore that drives 40k far more than any of its game-rules do. More to the point, morale/fear/psychology/etc form the cornerstone of the basic battle strategies of many factions, and that basically doesn't ever get a chance to really play out, resulting in many far more directly attritional battles than the game's universe would otherwise suggest.
EnTyme wrote: I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.
That's a problem with the fundamental system. Morale shouldn't result in models being destroyed, it should result in models getting penalties to their ability to fight. The modern GW approach is completely backwards in that it adds to overall lethality instead of reducing it as it should.
In other words, if you fail a LD test, you should, say, be unable to move for the round except directly away from the nearest enemy models, and you should suffer a -1 to your hit rolls (that stacks above the normal -1 cap) with attacks from those models. Or something like that.
This would also address the problem of leadership being irrelevant for single entity units. Why should a mek gun be immune to morale when the grots manning it run away at the slightest trouble if they're not manning a gun?
But alas, they clearly haven't gone in that direction. They've just reshuffled the deck chairs on the sinking ship - an improvement, but a very marginal one that is still based on the wrong paradigm.
Morale is abstracted for portray a lot of different things in 40k. It's people fleeing, it's troops running out of ammo, it's soldiers hauling wounded buddies off the line, dudes getting lost during the chaos of combat, all sorts of things that represent a combatant being removed from the fight without being directly harmed. There really is no actual "suppression" mechanic however to represent stuff line troops getting pinned down, or being shell shocked, or anything like that.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
Yeah I admit my case was an edge case and shouldn't happen that much. Overall I'm happy with Morale so far. I don't like having a unit of 6 Rangers losing 3 guys, rolling terribly as I always do and lose the whole squad because GW gave them terrible Ld. Feels like wasted points when you lose your sniper team to 3 lucky bolter shots. Now at least it'll be mitigated heavily. Just have to see in practice. I like having units of 6-8 Skitarii and it could be nice not losing one half of the squad to Morale.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
Spoiler:
DS etc != general strategic reserve rules
Agreed:
Spoiler:
They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well
How? His guys are fully with in 6" of a Table Edge. They dont need to be fully with in 6" of each other.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
Spoiler:
DS etc != general strategic reserve rules
Agreed:
Spoiler:
They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well
Fair enough, a bad choice of words.
Situation is still valid for T2 Strategic Reserves.
Vaktathi wrote: Morale is abstracted for portray a lot of different things in 40k. It's people fleeing, it's troops running out of ammo, it's soldiers hauling wounded buddies off the line, dudes getting lost during the chaos of combat, all sorts of things that represent a combatant being removed from the fight without being directly harmed. There really is no actual "suppression" mechanic however to represent stuff line troops getting pinned down, or being shell shocked, or anything like that.
Right, and that's silly. Morale in GW's modern approach just simulates even more troops being removed permanently from combat, not panic. That's weird. It's called morale, it should simulate morale, not extra casualties.
If morale is not going to simulate morale, there's no reason to even have it. GW's current morale paradigm just makes the game even more lethal, which is not what it needs.
And it also doesn't actually simulate any of those things for single entity units. Why is a mek gun immune to running out of ammo, having its gunners flee, having a gunner have to take care of another injured gunner, dudes getting lost during the chaos of battle, etc etc? Even worse - take three war walkers in a single unit and one might have those things happen to it when the other two are destroyed, but take them as three separate units of one, and they become immune to all those mishaps.
The system just isn't fit for purpose. This change is a moderate improvement to the math, but it's still a fundamentally flawed system.
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
Spoiler:
DS etc != general strategic reserve rules
Agreed:
Spoiler:
They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well
How are they defining player ownership of table edges where multiple edges are assigned at deployment (e.g., angled deployment and tiled deployment)?
Vaktathi wrote: Morale is abstracted for portray a lot of different things in 40k. It's people fleeing, it's troops running out of ammo, it's soldiers hauling wounded buddies off the line, dudes getting lost during the chaos of combat, all sorts of things that represent a combatant being removed from the fight without being directly harmed. There really is no actual "suppression" mechanic however to represent stuff line troops getting pinned down, or being shell shocked, or anything like that.
Right, and that's silly. Morale in GW's modern approach just simulates even more troops being removed permanently from combat, not panic. That's weird. It's called morale, it should simulate morale, not extra casualties.
If morale is not going to simulate morale, there's no reason to even have it. GW's current morale paradigm just makes the game even more lethal, which is not what it needs.
And it also doesn't actually simulate any of those things for single entity units. Why is a mek gun immune to running out of ammo, having its gunners flee, having a gunner have to take care of another injured gunner, dudes getting lost during the chaos of battle, etc etc?
The system just isn't fit for purpose. This change is a moderate improvement to the math, but it's still a fundamentally flawed system.
So basically your entire argument is "I don't like it". Your only reason is that the game being lethal is a bad thing. Which is a subjective take.
So if we ignore that gripe your whole problem could be solved by calling it the "Happenstance of War" phase.
Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.
We don't have the real rule text, so talking about what is allowed based on the explanation of that text, without the text itself, doesn't tell you what the rule actually allows or does not allow.
Anything that isn't actual rules text is just some other guy explaining the rule, and you of all people should know that we can't rely on that.
I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
puma713 wrote: I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
What’s more, we’re joined by playtester Reece Robbins, who’ll be giving us a rundown of what the Imperial Guard armies of the future may look like.
puma713 wrote: I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
It was an example. I understand what you're saying, but if my termagants get out of Synapse or if Synapse is killed, I won't lose an entire unit to a halfway decent round of shooting.
Yes, but does that ever happen in a game you haven't already lost?
As I said, it's a moderate improvement in the math of the system. But the actual impact on the game is tiny because the system is so marginalized within the rest of the game by all the ways to ignore it for any unit it would actually matter on.
If the general explanation given by GW is the full rule, this will be possible.
Of course, the full rule could be that all models in the unit must be setup within 1" of your table edge to remove the 9" from enemy rule. Maybe we should wait for the actual rules text rather then jumping to absorb conclusions?
puma713 wrote: I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
Fingers crossed that those sorts of rules change with the day 1 FAQ.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yes, but does that ever happen in a game you haven't already lost?
This is painting with a pretty broad brush. Yes, I have lost a synapse creature and had Tyranids taking morale tests before an outcome on the game had been determined. YMMV I guess.
Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.
It specifies that 'they' are set up within 1" of their table edge. This implies to me that it is the unit as a whole, not just one model.
You can decide to interpret a summary whatever way you want, but if you were a betting person you would not be betting on your version being true.
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yes, but does that ever happen in a game you haven't already lost?
This is painting with a pretty broad brush. Yes, I have lost a synapse creature and had Tyranids taking morale tests before an outcome on the game had been determined. YMMV I guess.
Then I'm glad if the rule helps you out in that one game in 10 or 15 or whatever it is. Genuinely, not being snarky.
This is a good change overall. Within a fundamentally flawed and marginalized system, yes, but a good change within that framework.
Well, except for the bucket of extra dice to roll. But in a world where 6 space marine models get 140 bolter shots, it's a pretty small increase in dice rolling overall.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that. Small squads with good LD still don't care.
The only thing I don’t like about the new morale rules are it’s a lot more dice rolling and slowing the game down.
Before it was one dice roll and math (minus any free rerolls or gak)
Now it’s one dice roll and math and a die roll for every other model
As people stated it’s still going to be mostly passing for everyone or failing followed by breaking heads or whatever their armies bespoke morale rule is.
It just seems like a whole lot of dice rolling for very little effect. They should have left the old rule of morale and just made it mandatory if you failed morale you always lose 1 model regardless of bespoke rules.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
If anything, they care even less with the removal of penalties. Time was, i could fly a Hemlock and blitz a Silent Shroud solitaire into a Traditional Space Marine Aura Blob and they'd have to take several tests that would make them sweat.
HOpefully not everything is an Attrition penalty, and -LD penalties still exist to make failing the test easier.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.
A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.
It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.
A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.
It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.
A blob of 30 that loses 15 is either useless (in which case, dead or alive doesn't matter) or costs you 2 CP to stick around, assuming no other morale mitigation.
This change is a pointless waste of time.
It’s just a bunch more dice rolling creating very little affect in the game..
Everyone will still pass morale and if they fail they will use whatever reroll, bespoke morale rule or whatever..
Before if they failed you did some math and removed casualties if you couldn’t mitigate it. It wasn’t great but it was quick whether you failed or passed.
Now it’s a bunch of dice rolling fishing for 6s (really 1s but you get my point) which I thought they wanted to remove!!!
The vast majority of the time this will be just waste of time rolling dice! They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
If they wanted to make the game quicker this morale rule isn’t helping.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.
A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.
It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.
A blob of 30 that loses 15 is either useless (in which case, dead or alive doesn't matter) or costs you 2 CP to stick around, assuming no other morale mitigation.
You're forgetting that if they're alive they can still be performing actions to score points.
If GW has a lot of scoring done at the start of your command phase like they showed in that four pillars mission than morale not autokilling your unit becomes huge and means your opponent has to focus on a smaller number od targets at the same time to achieve the same result of wiping a squad that happened automatically in 8th via morale.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So Reese mentiones that tripointing is "very different in 9th" but didn't say it was gone.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.
A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.
It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.
A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6
The more I look at it the more I think 7th ed was actually better for it's basic moral rules (probably the only thing it was better at). You took a leadership test and if you failed your unit fell back towards your board edge and had to pass another moral check to regroup. The problems came from being forced to take moral checks after every phase you took a casualty, meaning you could fall back multiple times in a turn, and that GW handed out Fearless like sweets making it potentially overly punishing to the armies it did apply to whilst the majority ignored it. This new set up is just a minor change to 8th's already bad system, and one that more often than not will have no impact.
I'm really liking the strategic reserves change, though of the 5 armies I play I think Nids might be the only one to get any benefit out of it. The only real problem I've seen so far is that you calculate the CP spent based on PL, which is utterly moronic, especially since GW had changed calculating reserves from PL to points in 8th because everyone told them how stupid it was already.
JNAProductions wrote: A blob of 30 that loses 15 is either useless (in which case, dead or alive doesn't matter) or costs you 2 CP to stick around, assuming no other morale mitigation.
Really?
8th Edition: Lose 15 of 30 Cultist in one turn. They roll a 1 on they Morale test and lose 10 models (15 + 1 = 16- 6 Leadership = 10) and are down to 5 models. For each point higher on the dice, another model is lost with the entire unit dying on a 6.
9th Edition: Lose 15 of 30 Cultist in one turn. They roll a 2+ on they Morale test (because a 1 is now an auto-pass) and lose 1 model then roll Combat Attrition. They are now under half strength, so approximately 1/3 the unit flees leaving 9 or 10 models alive.
Tell me that's nothing? That's a chunk of firepower your opponent must dedicate to killing the rest of the unit in a future turn. That's a unit that can do something during your next turn, like sitting on a objective, screening out your more important units, or charging something a vehicle that won't scoop them up in one round of close combat.
gungo wrote: They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.
A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.
It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.
Okay but that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say it hurt hordes more than 8th, but that small units are affected less due to having less potential models to lose.
A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6
1. People have made a lot of claims but I highly suspext hordes have strengths all their own. I understand that MSUs benefit more than hordes from most of the changes, but that doesn't mean that hordes don't benefit. Missions and scoring will make large ripples on if large units are needed more, as will if GW puts that targeted aura rule to good use in 9th.
2. I understand how things work in 8th, but let's not pretend that 9th isn't coming with a stack of errata and points changes that could swing the game even further.
And even if MSU is the meta at the start of 9th, I doubt it'll stay that way. Look at how much 8th changed over 3 years for example. Meta will shift and we'll see the pendul2 swing eith the subtly of a thunderhammer in a fine china shop.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.
A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.
It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.
Okay but that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say it hurt hordes more than 8th, but that small units are affected less due to having less potential models to lose.
Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.
With all these previewss I'd really just like GW to spill the beans so we can stop this assumption based arguing and get to the real meaty, hands-on-the-rules 'arguing' Dakka is so we'll known for.
Overall though, the edition looks like it's building on 8th alright. Probably won't be perfect, but it'll be enough to have fun with.
Us3Less wrote: I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that. Small squads with good LD still don't care.
Regardless of morale rules, you can indeed 'only' lose 2 more models from a under half strength squad of 5... I don't know what your point is there.
Also, you don't seem to understand what I suggested. This makes a morale test for those 2 remaining models actually difficult to pass. The horde unit will not lose more units under most scenarios as it would fail morale anyway on a 2+ when it gets shot to under half strength in one turn. Doubling the casualties does not change anything there. Only when a large unit is shot over several turns and suffers a few casualties to bring it under half strength then my suggestion would hurt them more than what is the current case. But then again, if you're being shot multiple times and suffer heavy casualties, isn't it fair that morale starts to become an issue? So yeah, my suggestion hurts small units a lot more than 30 model units, which is precisely its intent.
A 5 man needs to lose 3 models to even have a chance of losing 1 model on a 6 (which they then reroll).
If they lose 4 models they have a chance to only lose 1 model, and can reroll a 5 without fear of then rolling it into a 6 (since it’s still 1 model lost). It’s most likely a very similar model loss. However a larger unit that loses only a few models could fail a check and then has to roll for every model. It’s a much higher opportunity risk.
I don’t see a realistic situation where msu marines are more vulnerable.
ClockworkZion wrote: Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.
No, they aren't, because just like with hitting, wounding, and most everything else, loyalists can reroll failed morale checks. And I wouldn't put it past gw to tack "reroll failed attrition rolls" on to atsknf.
ClockworkZion wrote: Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.
No, they aren't, because just like with hitting, wounding, and most everything else, loyalists can reroll failed morale checks.
Reroll is not the same as autopass.
And I wouldn't put it past gw to tack "reroll failed attrition rolls" on to atsknf.
More likely, it would be something like they take a Mortal Wound instead of losing a model. For the Oldmarine stuff, it's the same effect but it doesn't hurt the Primaris stuff as much.
ClockworkZion wrote: Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.
No, they aren't, because just like with hitting, wounding, and most everything else, loyalists can reroll failed morale checks.
Reroll is not the same as autopass.
And I wouldn't put it past gw to tack "reroll failed attrition rolls" on to atsknf.
More likely, it would be something like they take a Mortal Wound instead of losing a model. For the Oldmarine stuff, it's the same effect but it doesn't hurt the Primaris stuff as much.
Sure, there's a whopping 2.7% chance of failing a morale check after losing 3/5 marines and a massive 11.1% chance of losing the last marine after you lose 4/5.
Why, accounting for the odds to fail the check in the first place, there's an ENORMOUS 0.9% chance of losing the fifth squad member in a marine squad when you kill 3/5 members.
WOWEE ZOWEE that's the marine nerf we needed right there, well done GW definitely a rule to HAMMER those elite MSU's!
Kirasu wrote: A 5 man needs to lose 3 models to even have a chance of losing 1 model on a 6 (which they then reroll).
If they lose 4 models they have a chance to only lose 1 model, and can reroll a 5 without fear of then rolling it into a 6 (since it’s still 1 model lost). It’s most likely a very similar model loss. However a larger unit that loses only a few models could fail a check and then has to roll for every model. It’s a much higher opportunity risk.
I don’t see a realistic situation where msu marines are more vulnerable.
Okay, so you either didn't read correctly or didn't understand what I wrote. Fair enough, I'll elaborate.
What I suggested would be a nice addition to the current rules, is that if you get under half strength, any casualties taken in a turn double for morale purposes. So those 5 marines losing 3 would then need to roll a 8 - (3*2) = 2 or lower to pass morale, rather than a 5 or lower to pass morale.
For those 30 Daemonettes, they lose 3, are still above half strength and therefore need to roll the same as without my suggestion. Only when there's 17 of them left and they'd lose 3 in a turn, they need to take a morale of 7 - (3*2) = 1 to pass. Without my suggestion, that'd be a 4 or lower to pass. So yes, in this case, it hurts hordes and by the nature of the rules spoiled by GW, hordes can lose more models than small squads. Still, I'd say my suggested addition is a lot more impactful on those small squads than on half-shot hordes that lose a minor amount of casualties.
I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.
And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.
That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.
Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.
The spoiler as-written could just as easily be taken to mean the entire unit has to be set up within 1" of your board edge.
Ghaz wrote: So hordes have the benefit here versus MSU, while MSU has the benefit over Blast weapons.
A bold take, given that the change to morale for MSU is
CURRENT SYSTEM
Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees.
NEW SYSTEM
Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees. Then he rolls another die. On a 1, 1 more model flees.
Damn, such a BIG HIT to MSU's! Who's gonna take 5-man squads now?
oh also BTW we're making -LD abilities into -Attrition Test abilities because it was just too easy to make those useful against small squads.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Morale will still be ignored 99.99% of the time by the following factions
100% of the time:
Knights, Chaos Knights
99.9% of the time
All Loyalist Marines, Custodes, Tyranids
99% of the time
Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Necrons, Admech, All Chaos Marines (Field almost always 5-man squads, especially now with all the nerfs to larger units)
Leaving *checks notes* Tau, Guard, Orks and GSC to ever possibly care about morale.
So, same as always. Good deck chair rearranging, GW!
I know they aren't the popular faction but Daemons benefit greatly from the new morale rules.
Are punchy assault units, daemonettes and bloodletters, are t3 with 5+ save. Bloodletter bomb was popular in 8th ed. The problem was that you bring down 15 or 20 bloodletters from reserve, you hope to make the charge (not difficult with the Banner of Blood allowing 3d6 charge), lose a few to OW, probably kill the squad you charged and then next turn lose so many models to shooting you either get wiped out or lose a good chunk to failed morale.At least with the changes to morale failing a morale test is not nearly as devastating in 9th. I lose ONE bloodletter automatically and the other 4 fail on rolls of 1. Currently depending on how many casualties are taken the odds are good the last 5 run away. 4 Bloodletters are no longer scary but they still need to be taken care of by my opponent in his shooting/charge phase which is one less unit shooting/charging something else in my army.
Daemonettes very rarely see play since they aren't the ideal "bomb" unit and with being t3 they just get shot to hell and back and any survivors run away. Now at least for people play mono-Slaanesh daemons they won't see entire units of 'nettes pop on turn 1 except through focused fire.
Plaguebearers become even better at sticking around and being annoying. T4 with -1 to hit if 20 or more plus the changes to morale. Barring bad rolling all 20 have to be killed to more or less guarantee a unit wipe and any daemon player knows you find a way to fit in points for a banner to give a chance to get plaguebearers back.
Carnikang wrote: With all these previewss I'd really just like GW to spill the beans so we can stop this assumption based arguing and get to the real meaty, hands-on-the-rules 'arguing' Dakka is so we'll known for.
Overall though, the edition looks like it's building on 8th alright. Probably won't be perfect, but it'll be enough to have fun with.
At this point, I don't think it would matter what the actual full rules are--quite a few folks are bending logic into knots just to keep arguing their viewpoint.
I vote that they continue teasing it out, bit by bit, and get people absolutely frothing for the rule books.
puma713 wrote: I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
My Daemons beg to differ. I have to pay 2 CP to auto-pass Morale, or for units that can have a banner and I pay for it, hope I roll a "1" to gain models, not lose models.
Best daemons can hope for is LD 10 from GD's and DP's LD bubbles.
But thanks for making assumptions based on your jerking your knees out of their sockets to try to prove a point.
If Daemons are an exception (I thought they had ways to ignore morale too, but I'll take your word that they don't) then maybe there is indeed one faction that benefits significantly from this, assuming all the other nerfs to large units don't make them disappear in the first place.
Like I said to the other guy in the post responding to that post which you don't seem to have read, if this helps you, I'm happy for you. Unlike some here who use this thread as an opportunity to attack others they have taken a disliking to, I'm just interested in discussing the rules interactions, and if they genuinely are beneficial for you, that's great.
If Daemons are an exception (I thought they had ways to ignore morale too, but I'll take your word that they don't) then maybe there is indeed one faction that benefits significantly from this, assuming all the other nerfs to large units don't make them disappear in the first place.
Like I said to the other guy in the post responding to that post which you don't seem to have read, if this helps you, I'm happy for you. Unlike some here who use this thread as an opportunity to attack others they have taken a disliking to, I'm just interested in discussing the rules interactions, and if they genuinely are beneficial for you, that's great.
My "hostility" is not from your assumption about horde armies.
I, like a few others, just find it annoying (and yes I realize having been a member here for over a decade) that the Dakka way, FOR THE MOST PART, is to knee jerk until you can't walk and claim the sky is falling whenever new rules come out for GW games and yet funnily enough almost every single instance of knee jerk reactions is proven to not be knee-jerk worthy at the end of the day. Do GW write perfect rules? Of course not, no company is ever going to write perfect rules. I know most people aren't assuming GW can but you'd think from all the armchair game developers on Dakka spewing word vomit about how crappy the 40k rules are that Dakka as a collective could develop a game to rival 40k but of course that won't happen because to have a few thousand people try to coherently come up with a rules set that incorporates hundreds of ideas for how rules should work would lead to more convoluted garbage than what GW gives us.
I've tried quote/unquote home made codeciies for past editions and house rules to fix current rules in 8th ed (and past editions) and none of what I tried worked any better IMO than what GW has given us. Back in the 5th edition days of 40k I was very vocal about some of what I saw, too the point I and another user got one another banned a few times for our back and forth. So far your knee jerk attitude isn't as bad as his.
It's good to be critical but when your criticism comes off sounding like you hate the game in it's entirety don't be shocked when other members on here ask you to quit playing or tell you to quit playing. I mean, I doubt very many people, if any, will see a commercial on TV for a new car, see that it doesn't have anything they want in a car or they find things to complain about with the car and then go out and buy said car. Even billionaires aren't going to buy stuff they hate.
Back on your point I wish Daemons could be made Fearless too. Maybe some of the FW daemons can but I don't use FW models or rules so yeah suffering 10+ casualties will hurt less in 9th than it does currently. Biggest reason for Daemon soup is not because our units suck per se, it's because daemons need units that can last beyond turn 2 and Rubrics and Dreadnaughts seem to be the popular choice (or hell any CSM unit) to be able to fill the role of speed bump so our soft T3 5++ save mdels can MAYBE have a chance.
The sort of army we all have come to love to play against ! So thematic ! Death from above ! Death from above !
Well, if Wraithknights were equally as good as Imperial/Chaos Knights, if close combat stuff like Striking Scorpions or Wraithblades could tangle in a world of Assault Centurions and Possessed Bombs, if Wraithlords & such could see eye to eye with the popular Forge World Marine dreads, etc.. you'd perhaps see more variety
I agree, I also like my eggs best that way
That particular games was against Ravenguard with 17 Centurions (pre FAQ). We are all big boys and girls who voluntarily paid to play in a two day tourney. I went 4-1 and had zero complaints about my army. We all had similar expectations and folks had a good time. Please go troll elsewhere.
It's good to be critical but when your criticism comes off sounding like you hate the game in it's entirety don't be shocked when other members on here ask you to quit playing or tell you to quit playing. I mean, I doubt very many people, if any, will see a commercial on TV for a new car, see that it doesn't have anything they want in a car or they find things to complain about with the car and then go out and buy said car. Even billionaires aren't going to buy stuff they hate.
"I don't think this is going to have much impact" is precisely the opposite of "the sky is falling," isn't it?
If visiting this site makes you angry because you encounter opinions you find overly negative, rather than taking out your frustrations by telling people who disagree with you to quit the game, wouldn't you be better off just ignoring their opinions, or, if you are unable to do that, not visiting in the first place? Doesn't that follow from your own analogy about not doing things you don't like?
This place is more pleasant for everyone when people can disagree without making things personal and resorting to the extremely boring hater/white knight paradigm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Fearless needs to die as it currently exists. No morale mitigation rule should be free of penalties to balance them out.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the result of that would be a huge nerf to big units, because they're almost all (except daemons, apparently) run with morale immunity or close to immunity currently.
And if we're going to work on cases of morale not being useful, I would think it'd be better to start on MSU marines with their ~2% chance to lose a model after 3/5 casualities or their ~11% chance to lose the last model in a 5 man squad after losing 4/5s of it.
It'd be great if morale impacted everybody, but there's a very long way to go to make that actually happen.
It's good to be critical but when your criticism comes off sounding like you hate the game in it's entirety don't be shocked when other members on here ask you to quit playing or tell you to quit playing. I mean, I doubt very many people, if any, will see a commercial on TV for a new car, see that it doesn't have anything they want in a car or they find things to complain about with the car and then go out and buy said car. Even billionaires aren't going to buy stuff they hate.
"I don't think this is going to have much impact" is precisely the opposite of "the sky is falling," isn't it?
If visiting this site makes you angry because you encounter opinions you find overly negative, rather than taking out your frustrations by telling people who disagree with you to quit the game, wouldn't you be better off just ignoring their opinions, or, if you are unable to do that, not visiting in the first place? Doesn't that follow from your own analogy about not doing things you don't like?
This place is more pleasant for everyone when people can disagree without making things personal and resorting to the extremely boring hater/white knight paradigm.
You said this rule won't have much of an impact but you have been pretty hateful and vocal and argumentative about the other rules so far and not wanting to listen to other opinions that contradict yours.
All I'm saying is that to make generals assumptions like you have about the game and certain armies getting effed or nerfed to oblivion over what we KNOW of the rules is a knee jerk reaction, not civil discourse.
Burning the American flag isn't a civilized response to hating the USA; stating why you hate America and giving examples of why it sucks IS a civilized response.
Lower morale across the board, make it so fearless only ignored the model lost to the initial morale check, or has a -1 to attrition rolls, make stubborn unable to fall back normally, make ATSKNF something other than a refill (maybe autopass on a 1 or a 2?) and bring back Rage as an alterns2tive2 to fearless.
You said this rule won't have much of an impact but you have been pretty hateful and vocal and argumentative about the other rules so far and not wanting to listen to other opinions that contradict yours.
All I'm saying is that to make generals assumptions like you have about the game and certain armies getting effed or nerfed to oblivion over what we KNOW of the rules is a knee jerk reaction, not civil discourse.
Burning the American flag isn't a civilized response to hating the USA; stating why you hate America and giving examples of why it sucks IS a civilized response.
I listen to everyone's opinion. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree. But unlike you, I don't make my disagreement with someone's opinion personal. Look at what you just said: "yeah, you didn't do what I said you did this time, but you have done it in the past, so I'm still going to personally attack you for it even though you literally did the opposite in this case." That isn't adding to the discussion. Can't we just discuss the game, rather than one another?
I don't want to derail the discussion any more so I'm not going to keep harping on this any more than I already have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Lower morale across the board, make it so fearless only ignored the model lost to the initial morale check, or has a -1 to attrition rolls, make stubborn unable to fall back normally, make ATSKNF something other than a refill (maybe autopass on a 1 or a 2?) and bring back Rage as an alterns2tive2 to fearless.
That's my hot take coming out.of 8th at least.
I'd really prefer moving to a system where a failed morale check debuffs the unit rather than causing it to sustain more losses. But for whatever reason GW seems not at all interested in that. So if we're committed to a system where morale = just another way to kill dudes, I agree, it would be good to normalize it so it impacts more than a small number of edge cases.
They kinda took a step towards that with this change in that they reduced the harshness of failing a morale check for big units. But they only seem to have gone halfway, given how irrelevant morale still is for most stuff. The net result of these changes is basically just to make morale an even smaller, less relevant part of the game.
I guess, but no more than any other debuff, and there are tons of them. It's never been a reason to shy away from something in any other aspect of the game that I can tell. You could even have little morale markers or something that you just put by a squad, no more bookkeeping than a wound counter or something like that.
Bottom line is we should wait for the new rules and associated faq docs to drop before passing judgement on anything. We don't know how much impact the morale changes will have without knowing if synapse, ATSKNF and similar rules have changed. Just like we won't know if they've fixed overwatch until we see how many units/armies have it as a data sheet ability or if they've fixed fall back or whether it still works the same as it does now.
gungo wrote: They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?
gungo wrote: They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?
my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time
It gives the game more levers to work with. Like Stu described a unit that would be hard to crack but could crumble to attrition as an example (kind of sounds like Necrons honestly).
And it makes morale penalize hordes less which makes them more viable than old morale systems did.
I'm not sure I like the new morale system. It looks like they just added more rolling to the existing system. The extra rolls aren't even dependent on the unit's leadership stat; a marine has the same chance as running away as a guardsman if his unit fails the first test. The fact that you only lose one from the initial fail does help a lot of units, but it also means morale doesn't have that much impact.
Commissar ability seems kind of useless? I mean, IG have low LD, so even with a reroll you are probably going to lose some.
gungo wrote: They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?
my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time
It gives the game more levers to work with. Like Stu described a unit that would be hard to crack but could crumble to attrition as an example (kind of sounds like Necrons honestly).
And it makes morale penalize hordes less which makes them more viable than old morale systems did.
They specifically said d6 die rolling Fishing for 6s for overwatch was a waste of time and slowed the game down
Then they turned around and did it for every unit that takes a casualty for morale.
It doesn’t really add much to the game from the previous version fundamentally the main thing that changes is a failed morale always gives 1 casualty and then that is followed up with a bunch of Mainly useless die rolling.
Again my issue is it adds little value and adds a ton of wasted time which they were specifically trying to remove in 9th.
As I said before keep the old system and just make it so a failed morale always results in one Casualty.
I play 2 horde armies in orks and guard.. there is plenty of morale mitigation. Orks have mob rule and breaking heads. Backed up by strats and banners. The old system only penalize hordes if you made absolutely no attempt to mitigate it or all your nobs, banners and blobs were dead and you were out of cp already. Which is the entire point of morale. This new system doesn’t really save many boys but wastes my play time immensely rolling for 20+ d6s fishing for 1s.
Make the restriction on models, not units. Bang, solved it for you.
I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?
Gadzilla666 wrote: They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it. Maybe if I think a little more. Guess it's easier to make one guy run.
The new rules favor making unit lose the test just barely over making them lose by a huge margin.
Maybe the night lords negative modifiers will help more with causing a lot of barely missed tests rather than on massively failed test?
the_scotsman wrote: Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees. Then he rolls another die. On a 1, 1 more model flees.
On a 1 OR a 2! Twice the chance of losing the last model!
(Ok, morale is still very irrelevant on 5-men SM squads)
the_scotsman wrote: Leaving *checks notes* Tau, Guard, Orks and GSC to ever possibly care about morale.
Forgot Sisters. But they are kinda like CSM in that regard, I guess.
They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it. Maybe if I think a little more. Guess it's easier to make one guy run.
Maybe they'll update the night lords to increase the chances of combat attrition proccing. Make it proc on a 1 and a 2 instead of just 1. If that's the case, then a half-strength unit avoids extra casualties on a 4+ as opposed to a 3+. That wouldn't be too bad.
Otherwise, yeah, its not that great. If you cause enough casualties to cause a morale test with the current Night Lords ability, then you probably aren't going to need the LD debuff, except in the rare cases where you are exactly one casualty away from causing a failed test.
gungo wrote: They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?
my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time
It gives the game more levers to work with. Like Stu described a unit that would be hard to crack but could crumble to attrition as an example (kind of sounds like Necrons honestly).
And it makes morale penalize hordes less which makes them more viable than old morale systems did.
Or Daemons, don't care if they're winning but with enough faith and belief directed at the thought that they should be dead they start to disapate.
Whilst Orks are the opposite, constantly bleeding the odd one or two (or having them krumped by a boss) whilst charging on regardless, until things get serious and then everyone ones.
I like the system, but I hope the synapse continues to work in the current fashion, our average leadership 5 on non-synapse infantry models leaves no room for any lost models.
That would have to be completely rebalanced from scratch.
I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?
Because:
a) I have basic pattern recognition and experience of literally decades of seeing GW screw up.
b) Ben Crowshaw's Gamer Matrix. You can never be disappointed if you always assume everything is going to be crap.
It doesn’t really add much to the game from the previous version fundamentally
It allows me to experiment with 10+ model count squads of elite units without feeling like I'm trolling. For the entirety of 8th edition, I wanted to try out 20-man CSM squads, but couldn't because the god awful morale system meant catastrophic losses if the unit could be chunked in a turn and I didn't feel like guzzling CP to ignore the tests. The one time I was dumb enough to take 10-man rubric squads I lost 3 squads in a single morale phase due to each squad getting chipped down by guard vets in the shooting phase. That's garbage. That should never happen. Rolling lucky on smite and killing six models should not result in the remaining 80 points of the squad just vanishing into thin air.
Any faction that has the capability to take elite infantry in big squad sizes benefits from the changes. That includes at minimum all CSM factions, Daemons and Necrons.
It doesn’t really add much to the game from the previous version fundamentally
It allows me to experiment with 10+ model count squads of elite units without feeling like I'm trolling. For the entirety of 8th edition, I wanted to try out 20-man CSM squads, but couldn't because the god awful morale system meant catastrophic losses if the unit could be chunked in a turn and I didn't feel like guzzling CP to ignore the tests. The one time I was dumb enough to take 10-man rubric squads I lost 3 squads in a single morale phase due to each squad getting chipped down by guard vets in the shooting phase. That's garbage. That should never happen. Rolling lucky on smite and killing six models should not result in the remaining 80 points of the squad just vanishing into thin air.
Any faction that has the capability to take elite infantry in big squad sizes benefits from the changes. That includes at minimum all CSM factions, Daemons and Necrons.
Except that can still happen. Hell, it's theoretical WORSE-lose 2 Daemons, and the remaining 28 go POOF.
"It can still happen" is always preferable to "it will happen the majority of the time." In 8th if you killed 10 berzerkers out of a 20-man squad that would statistically be 5 more dead berzerkers. In the new rules if you lost 10 berserkers out of 20 you would lose 1 model to the leadership test and then, statistically, 2 more models. That by its self justifies the existence of the new rules.
BlaxicanX wrote: "It can still happen" is always preferable to "it will happen the majority of the time." In 8th if you killed 10 berzerkers out of a 20-man squad that would statistically be 5 more dead berzerkers. In the new rules if you lost 10 berserkers out of 20 you would lose 1 model to the leadership test and then, statistically, 2 more models. That by its self justifies the existence of the new rules.
gungo wrote: They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..
Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?
my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time
Eh. Its wasteful of time (with yet more dice rolls), but it does produce results that the old system didn't. In that sense it isn't a waste.
The old system was easily finessed to lose no models to morale almost ever. But if you did go big, there was a casualty threshold significantly smaller than the unit size where you just lost the unit no matter what. Depending on their LD, once you caused 13, 14 or whatever casualties, the 20 man unit was simply dead, so you could just stop shooting at them content in the knowledge that the rest would just fall over and vanish.
With this system, there is no automatic win state against large units (well, unit size -1). Its still too indifferent to MSU squads (particularly unit sizes of 3 or 5), but the enemy doesn't get to blast larger units 'just enough' and move on. If they really want to make the unit dead for sure, they have to keep shooting. That's largely positive, even if its more clunky dice rolls for a game that doesn't really need more dice rolls.
It seems like the consensus is that it seems like a lot of extra work for minimal return. Perhaps there is more to affect morale than what we are currently seeing otherwise I agree it doesn't seem to add much to the game.
not really... its pretty great for big mobs. a couple of models will survive now, instead of a 100% wipe of the entire squad (unless you command point them to stay)
bullyboy wrote: It seems like the consensus is that it seems like a lot of extra work for minimal return. Perhaps there is more to affect morale than what we are currently seeing otherwise I agree it doesn't seem to add much to the game.
It's a bad "concensius" (and an even worse claim since a number of people in this thread are arguing that it's a [i[good[/i] change) since it means we finally have an edition that doesn't screw over hordes via moral and, if we're lucky (you know, since GW has a track record of good ideas that don't stick the landing), GW can back off of some of those "ignore morale" effects so we can see more interesting game scenarios.
There is a lot more design space in the new system, and I sincerely hope GW uses it properly.
With moral fixed there are two things I need to see for hordes: bonus attacks for large units since hordes usually don't have a massive number of attacks on a model by model basis (and even when they do they have trouble getting the entire unit into melee), and missions that encourage us to see larger units on the table top for scoring purposes, like the Four Pillars mission that only scores after your opponent has had a chance to uproot your unit off the objective while you take your action.
If we get those two things then I think hordes will have enough in their favor, with good use of the new terrain rules, for us to see them early in the edition and not see the meta go MSU heavy like some have claimed.
The consensus is right though - it's a new rule that results in a lot of extra dice rolling that achieves only a small result. The question then becomes whether that small result is worth all the bother of the new rules. IMO, it is, because whilst the majority of units won't give two gaks about the new morale mechanics, those that suffered greatly from the current ones will no longer, as failing a morale check won't wipe out the rest of your unit.
GW could have written a different rule that takes all the faffing about out of it, but they didn't. Thankfully, despite their continued attempts to complicate things, it was a net gain here. Hooray for us.
Now we just go back to waiting to see whether they've fixed Fall Back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The consensus is right though - it's a new rule that results in a lot of extra dice rolling that achieves only a small result. The question then becomes whether that small result is worth all the bother of the new rules. IMO, it is, because whilst the majority of units won't give two gaks about the new morale mechanics, those that suffered greatly from the current ones will no longer, as failing a morale check won't wipe out the rest of your unit.
GW could have written a different rule that takes all the faffing about out of it, but they didn't. Thankfully, despite their continued attempts to complicate things, it was a net gain here. Hooray for us.
Now we just go back to waiting to see whether they've fixed Fall Back.
It may be a smaller result, but it's also a more consistent one (at least on average because we all know how fickle dice can be at times). It's probably the first rule of this edition I've seen that doesn't punish hordes more than it hurts MSU (at least in the limited context we've seen) and honestly I don't know how they could have accomplished that with less die rolling unless we're just going to reduce all morale casualties to some weird scale of something like "1 model for every 5 casualties this turn" or something. A rule of that nature falls right back into the gaminess of the old morale system and makes it too easy to know when you can stop shooting a unit because it'll die to morale without any extra effort on your part, something the die rolling mitigates.
I'll be honest, I get that some people hate rolling dice, especially a lot of dice since it takes control away from them, but honestly I like it. Taking some cards out of the player's hands and forcing them to choose between risking trying to focus down units until they're completely dead (or maybe only have a model left) versus spreading the damage around to chip damage multiple units with extra casualties without knowing the definite outcome will lead to more interesting game moments and less gaming the system.
At least that's my take, but I rather like when a game system can resist being easily gamed.
As for Fall Back, Reese claimed in today's "Signals from the Frontline" that tri-pointing is a thing, but it's also drastically changed. I suspect that might be tied to how falling back works, but I can't be sure until we know more.
The Slaanesh daemons benefit a lot from new terrain rules, new morale rules and even though I haven't figured it out yet I'm sure reserves help daemons too.
I'm sure 9th will benefit my Sisters and DG as well. I just haven't taken the time to play out "what if" scenarios in my head.
If they killed the insane bravery strat it would make morale matter more instantly.
With what we have it doesn't seem like an important change. I guess they have to translate all the morale buffing rules and everything that gives penalties to leadership a bit. Then we can see how it works out.
Like Nightlords for example. Due to their ability to stack Leadership debuffs they could often kill a single model in the squad and make the rest run. Now they'd need some rule for attrition to keep that.
I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?
Because:
a) I have basic pattern recognition and experience of literally decades of seeing GW screw up.
b) Ben Crowshaw's Gamer Matrix. You can never be disappointed if you always assume everything is going to be crap.
Your disappointment is yours to handle, take it somewhere else. its off topic. The company (GW) has no obligation to you, likewiese you should have no loyalty to it. You take what it offers or you walk.
kodos wrote: They still could have done it easier:
Moraltest: D6+lost models VS LD if lost: units up to 6 models: D3 models flee 6-10 model units: 2D3 models flee 11+ model unit: 1+D6 models flee
not exactly the same but faster with a similar outcome
its the same but in green... the issue is that beside more casulties, morale doesnt matter. Like i said before i like the change because it means my mobs wont auto destroy themselves after getting banged up to much. this has two consequences: 1. after morale i may have a couple of models left, who can in turn do something benificial to the game 2. the enemy doesnt get to min max his shooting because he knows the rest will flee
both are a great addition to the current system.
the issue is that nothing more happens. in earlier editions units would fall back or be pinned and had to regroup first to get back into the fight (effectivly disable them for at least one turn) the old system had their flaws too though... if you were under half strenght you couldnt regroup anymore and would flee forever... not to speak about the countless fearless units in the game and the god old auto regroup that ATSKNF provided
EDIT: maybe fallback will be an automated failed morale test, so some models (at least one) will flee after falling back. would make chaff more important (who really cares about a fleeing guardsman or gretchin) but important units would suffer some significant damage for retreating
I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?
Because:
a) I have basic pattern recognition and experience of literally decades of seeing GW screw up.
b) Ben Crowshaw's Gamer Matrix. You can never be disappointed if you always assume everything is going to be crap.
Your disappointment is yours to handle, take it somewhere else. its off topic. The company (GW) has no obligation to you, likewiese you should have no loyalty to it. You take what it offers or you walk.
"Never complain or hold companies to a higher standard!"
GW actually Does have obligations to its consumers. A few legal ones even.
It's definitely an advantage for my Tyranids. I like to stay in theme for the army and run large groups of gaunts, so by mid-late game being out of synapse is currrently hugely punishing. Now my gaunts have a good chance of continuing to operate.
I imagine this doesn't really impact tournament playing as these units won't be found operating as I like to operate them on tables where players have a high win ratio, but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.
That said, I think this is another case of a rule that is very good in the right context (Age of Sigmar) being transported to the wrong context[ and being marginally improved.
I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?
Because:
a) I have basic pattern recognition and experience of literally decades of seeing GW screw up.
b) Ben Crowshaw's Gamer Matrix. You can never be disappointed if you always assume everything is going to be crap.
Your disappointment is yours to handle, take it somewhere else. its off topic. The company (GW) has no obligation to you, likewiese you should have no loyalty to it. You take what it offers or you walk.
"Never complain or hold companies to a higher standard!"
GW actually Does have obligations to its consumers. A few legal ones even.
torgoch wrote: but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.
oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.
I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )
torgoch wrote: but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.
oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.
I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )
Even on the clock, once you learn the ropes, and use the tools (trays etc), they are faster to play than armies with endless rerolls, MSU (because), and other army types. 30 boys charging, with dice app, is honestly not that long. Hordes tend to miss out on many phases of the game, so really the clock is just an issue for a player who has rarely played hordes before
gungo wrote: my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time
Yeah, I don't know why GW assumes that players' favourite part of tabletop games* is upkeep and not actual gameplay (ie decison making), so their aim is to make it as long and tedious as possible.
Modern board game design: "If a rule doesn't allow the player to make an interesting/meaningful decision, it's out"
GW game design: "Having been rolling dice for 20 minutes roll a die and then roll some dice and do what the game tells you to do"
Gripping gameplay
*-as opposed to video games where it runs automatically in the background not disrupting gameplay
torgoch wrote: but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.
oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.
I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )
Oh there are a fair few on these boards who claim that the horde units are ruining the gane.
I think the new moral rule makes some sense. Historically little is known on how routes start, but it's most likely a knife-edge kind of phenomenon.
Once enough friends are wavering on the battlefield, there's a torrent of wavering. Nobody wants to be the last guy standing, helping the cowards to get away safely.
The moment moral breaks, regardless of how high it is to begin with, it seems plausible that it causes multiple models to flee. If 1/6th (or 2/6ths) is the right ratio is another topic, but it doesn't feel awful with the size of 40k units in mind.
gungo wrote: my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time
Yeah, I don't know why GW assumes that players' favourite part of tabletop games* is upkeep and not actual gameplay (ie decison making), so their aim is to make it as long and tedious as possible.
Modern board game design: "If a rule doesn't allow the player to make an interesting/meaningful decision, it's out"
GW game design: "Having been rolling dice for 20 minutes roll a die and then roll some dice and do what the game tells you to do"
Gripping gameplay
*-as opposed to video games where it runs automatically in the background not disrupting gameplay
In fairness, if GW did adopt this design philosophy, then they'd probably have to feed the entire 9th edition rulebook into the shredder.
torgoch wrote: but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.
oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.
I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )
Even on the clock, once you learn the ropes, and use the tools (trays etc), they are faster to play than armies with endless rerolls, MSU (because), and other army types. 30 boys charging, with dice app, is honestly not that long. Hordes tend to miss out on many phases of the game, so really the clock is just an issue for a player who has rarely played hordes before
i dont know... trays defeat the main purpose of board control, and i still have lots of phsycic stuff to do (teleporting 30 boyz is not fast^^) and the rerolls... well orks doing it is as tedious as loyalists doin it... its just not that effective thats why i was so glad to move to gretchins instead of orks... because i dont care about them shooting, attacking or not dying.
and well i still think positioning 30 models takes always more time than 5 or 10, especially when trying to block deepstriker, flyers or forcing an opponent to move to get into LOS
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Oh there are a fair few on these boards who claim that the horde units are ruining the gane.
and that is mostly because of board control
again... i watch alot of youtube videos... i am suprised again and again when people charge with 30 boyz and expect to win (you know because orks are AWESOME in CC) and then after rolling 3000 dice for 20 minutes 4 enemy models die and the players blames it on dice...
hords are great (beside board control) at clearing chaff (but who isnt?? thats why we call it chaff in the first place) and to tarpit things (but only if you manage to tripoint or wrap units, which takes alot of time...)
It doesn’t really add much to the game from the previous version fundamentally
It allows me to experiment with 10+ model count squads of elite units without feeling like I'm trolling. For the entirety of 8th edition, I wanted to try out 20-man CSM squads, but couldn't because the god awful morale system meant catastrophic losses if the unit could be chunked in a turn and I didn't feel like guzzling CP to ignore the tests. The one time I was dumb enough to take 10-man rubric squads I lost 3 squads in a single morale phase due to each squad getting chipped down by guard vets in the shooting phase. That's garbage. That should never happen. Rolling lucky on smite and killing six models should not result in the remaining 80 points of the squad just vanishing into thin air.
Any faction that has the capability to take elite infantry in big squad sizes benefits from the changes. That includes at minimum all CSM factions, Daemons and Necrons.
As I said before if you made zero attempt to mitigate morale then yes it’s a problem..
As an ork player if I didn’t keep warbosses or nobs near my units, if I didn’t use large mobs of boys, if I didn’t use banners, or strats then he’s morale can be an issue.. however every ork player uses those options to mitigate loses...
As guard we have banners, hqs, commissars, etc.
As Tyranids they have synapse and strats.. which totally shuts down morale.
As chaos you have options such as banners or Hqs and strats... you chose not to use them.
Once all those options disappear or are killed which usually doesn’t happen to mid to late game then your units begin to break from morale..
But here is the thing... That’s exactly what morale is suppose to do!!! That’s the entire point. There was very little wrong with the old morale system. It had very little effect in the game but it was an extremely quick phase... this new iteration still has very little effect but it’s a much longer waste of time... that’s a problem and I assure you if morale issues becomes more prevalent as they claim and this new attrition system becomes the dice rolling time consuming problem similar to what we had with overwatch then I fully expect this morale attrition system to hit the dumpster in the next edition. It is a poorly thought out design.
BlaxicanX wrote: Any faction that has the capability to take elite infantry in big squad sizes benefits from the changes. That includes at minimum all CSM factions, Daemons and Necrons.
Necrons have generally 10 or smaller with LD10. Not a worry. Literally only unit that worries about morale is necron warriors but morale is least of their worries. And for the record...to worry about morale you first need to be alive in morale phase. And for 2nd anybody who's giving up handicap by using warriors simply made them immune to morale to begin with.
No real change. 5-10 strong LD10 units aren't worried about that anyway. You either aren't facing firepower or you get wiped out anyway to ensure no RP. Nobody leaves it up for chance with morale to survive(or 2CP stratragem to autopass).
bullyboy wrote: It seems like the consensus is that it seems like a lot of extra work for minimal return. Perhaps there is more to affect morale than what we are currently seeing otherwise I agree it doesn't seem to add much to the game.
It's a bad "concensius" (and an even worse claim since a number of people in this thread are arguing that it's a [i[good[/i] change) since it means we finally have an edition that doesn't screw over hordes via moral and, if we're lucky (you know, since GW has a track record of good ideas that don't stick the landing), GW can back off of some of those "ignore morale" effects so we can see more interesting game scenarios.
There is a lot more design space in the new system, and I sincerely hope GW uses it properly.
With moral fixed there are two things I need to see for hordes: bonus attacks for large units since hordes usually don't have a massive number of attacks on a model by model basis (and even when they do they have trouble getting the entire unit into melee), and missions that encourage us to see larger units on the table top for scoring purposes, like the Four Pillars mission that only scores after your opponent has had a chance to uproot your unit off the objective while you take your action.
If we get those two things then I think hordes will have enough in their favor, with good use of the new terrain rules, for us to see them early in the edition and not see the meta go MSU heavy like some have claimed.
The thing is though, it isn't morale ignoring effects that make morale un-impactful. The vast majority of the time, what makes morale un-impactful is the fact that
1) Standard Leadership for a unit is about 7-8.
2) Standard squad size for infantry is about 5.
Squads that actually field 10-man units are actually the minority, because for the most part, 2 small squads do the same job as 1 big squad, but usually with more good upgrade weapons, more command points generated, and less issues with morale. As well you're basically never going to spend your command points on some crappy CP-generating chaff infantry, so the "CPs would be better on a 10+ man squad" thing is pretty immaterial. Even some of the chaff-ier infantry units out there like Kabalites, Skitarii and Fire Warriors are pretty much always fielded as 5-mans, and any time people have the choice to do that, they do.
Your odds of ever actually having a morale test with any real stakes is near nonexistent in 5-man squads because morale is based on casualties taken this turn, and that is an absolute maximum of 4. Even killing 4/5 guys a basic LD7 squad has a 50-50 chance of that fifth dude not fleeing.
You've got:
Guardians
Guardsmen
Orks
Cultists
GSC neophytes
Gants (Though those have an army-wide ignore morale rule)
Daemons
That's pretty much who morale is for in 8th edition 40k. As a game-wide system, it just kind of sucks. The basic mechanic is dull (models just vanishing into thin air) the trigger is casualties, which makes it extremely unimpactful for the regular squad sizes that you actually see in 40k.
In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.
the new morale system is good only in that it becomes not a concern to anyone, and not just not a concern to 5-man squads. At this point, it may as well not even really be a thing. In terms of execution though, I'd consider it the worst morale system I've seen in 40k.
It's got all the good points:
1) Unlikely. As I just outlined above, now with more because GW is going to be removing some -LD abilities and turning them into win-more -Attrition abilities
2) Unimpactful. fail morale, 1/6 or 1/3 casualties occur, and it's still going to be on squads that are most likely already decimated by the point you took the test.
3) Unintuitive. So first I need to roll 1 die, then I need to roll 1 die for each remaining squad member, and at the point where any unit fails the same fractions are going to flee no matter what they are. A unit of soulless necrons and hyper-elite Custodes and craven gretchins all fail a morale test, and the unit that is MOST LIKELY to have a greater percentage of models fleeing is the Custodes, because they're probably under 1/2 casualties? Hmm.
Morale is much more devastating in AoS because a stormcast eternal has a base 6 bravery instead of the 8 of any marine squad, and in that game normally taking bigger squads is better than smaller ones unless you are just fulling your battleline needs or to add screens.
That doesnt mean is a good morale system. At the end of the day is just more stuff dying. But when GW tried to apply that morale system to 40k just forgot the style of the game is completely different, and the stat lines too.
The best morale system GW has done (At least in the big games, I have only played those, blood bowl and LOTR) was the combat resolution from Fantasy, basically.
I really like the new morale system, and I am sure those attrition rolls will get "debuffed" (stuff will die on 1-2-3 instead of just a 1) by stuff.
Yeah elites should not flee as easy as non elites, nothing wrong with that. Elites will take the "lost test by just 1" a lot more badly that non elites.
A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6
This rule permits hordes without constant babysitters and requires a lot more focus to bring down. What if they kill 20? I lose 1 and then 3. You literally have to kill 28 and hope to get lucky or kill 29 to wipe the squad. Now couple that with Tide of Traitors. There are other units like Necrons that benefit greatly as well. Not all hordes are immune.
Also in regards to blast -
Two Manticores vs 5++ Cultists
Old
28 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 8.3
Average Morale Test - 12 + 6 additional losses
New
48 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 14
Morale Test Failed - 1 lost
Attrition - 2.5
Total Losses
Old : 14.3
New : 17.5
The Manticores almost doubled in shots, but the squad took only 22% more in losses. And we don't know their points cost and we're not likely to see two Manticores often. Otherwise by the morale immune horde metric a Manticore will scoop up 3 more models than before. Hardly devastating.
addnid wrote: I really like the new morale system, and I am sure those attrition rolls will get "debuffed" (stuff will die on 1-2-3 instead of just a 1) by stuff.
Yeah elites should not flee as easy as non elites, nothing wrong with that. Elites will take the "lost test by just 1" a lot more badly that non elites.
The difference between elites and non-elites is supposed to be through the Ld stat, though, not through unit size. Five Marines shouldn't be less susceptible to morale than ten Marines, they're not any more 'elite'.
After walking through some scenarios with the new rules, I think I'm generally fine with the change. But GW could make it behave a lot more intuitively, and actually punishing to MSU, if they added a rule saying that a unit under 6 models tests on a -1 and a unit over 10 models tests at +1. Just that little nudge to make 5-man squads care about morale sometimes ever, and large hordes not auto-fail quite as easily when they take a handful of casualties.
the_scotsman wrote: In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.
I don't know if maybe things got dropped across editions, but back in 3rd/4th there were penalties to Ld based on cumulative casualties sustained, so a squad at under a quarter strength was much more likely to break than one that just lost a single dude.
But often, morale became just as irrelevant as it is now, because Marines rarely failed and had ATSKNF, while everyone else had Fearless all over the place, or other mechanics that rendered it pointless (eg Ork mobs). It was mostly relevant for Guard, sometimes Tau, and... that's about it.
If morale isn't meant to be a major part of the game, then I'm fine with it just causing some extra casualties every once in a while. I just wish it actually had some chance of occurring to small units.
addnid wrote: I really like the new morale system, and I am sure those attrition rolls will get "debuffed" (stuff will die on 1-2-3 instead of just a 1) by stuff.
Yeah elites should not flee as easy as non elites, nothing wrong with that. Elites will take the "lost test by just 1" a lot more badly that non elites.
Except my point is that they won't, because elites will just never fail morale.
0.9% chance of a fifth space marine fleeing out of a regular 5-man squad under the new morale system. That is literally the ONLY situation where new morale will ever effect normal elite units: when you kill SPECIFICALLY 3 models and leave 2, and then they fail, and then that fifth squad member rolls a 1-2 on the attrition check.
That's IT. kill 2/5? LD8 units or better cannot fail morale.
Kill 4/5? New morale is identical to old morale.
It is never, ever going to come up. Elites are not hurt or nerfed in any way by attrition, because people are not going to look at the new edition's rules and say "Gwarsh, morale hurts me more now if I take a 10-man squad instead of a 5-man squad, oh and there's also blast weapons now, better start taking 10-man squads like I wasn't doing in 8th edition already!!!!"
Min squads are optimal in 8th 99% of the time.
Min squads will now be optimal in 9th 99.9999999999999999% of the time.
the_scotsman wrote: In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.
I don't know if maybe things got dropped across editions, but back in 3rd/4th there were penalties to Ld based on cumulative casualties sustained, so a squad at under a quarter strength was much more likely to break than one that just lost a single dude.
But often, morale became just as irrelevant as it is now, because Marines rarely failed and had ATSKNF, while everyone else had Fearless all over the place, or other mechanics that rendered it pointless (eg Ork mobs). It was mostly relevant for Guard, sometimes Tau, and... that's about it.
If morale isn't meant to be a major part of the game, then I'm fine with it just causing some extra casualties every once in a while. I just wish it actually had some chance of occurring to small units.
If morale is totally irrelevant in most situations, then I would rather that either
A) it be redesigned to be relevant
or
B) it be removed, and units and armies whose existence hinges on the existence of a functional morale mechanic get redesigned.
At this point, I'm fairly sure there are more different units and abilities in the game that rely on morale being a relevant, useful mechanic than there are units against whom morale is a relevant, useful mechanic.
bullyboy wrote: It seems like the consensus is that it seems like a lot of extra work for minimal return. Perhaps there is more to affect morale than what we are currently seeing otherwise I agree it doesn't seem to add much to the game.
It's a bad "concensius" (and an even worse claim since a number of people in this thread are arguing that it's a [i[good[/i] change) since it means we finally have an edition that doesn't screw over hordes via moral and, if we're lucky (you know, since GW has a track record of good ideas that don't stick the landing), GW can back off of some of those "ignore morale" effects so we can see more interesting game scenarios.
There is a lot more design space in the new system, and I sincerely hope GW uses it properly.
With moral fixed there are two things I need to see for hordes: bonus attacks for large units since hordes usually don't have a massive number of attacks on a model by model basis (and even when they do they have trouble getting the entire unit into melee), and missions that encourage us to see larger units on the table top for scoring purposes, like the Four Pillars mission that only scores after your opponent has had a chance to uproot your unit off the objective while you take your action.
If we get those two things then I think hordes will have enough in their favor, with good use of the new terrain rules, for us to see them early in the edition and not see the meta go MSU heavy like some have claimed.
The thing is though, it isn't morale ignoring effects that make morale un-impactful. The vast majority of the time, what makes morale un-impactful is the fact that
1) Standard Leadership for a unit is about 7-8.
2) Standard squad size for infantry is about 5.
Squads that actually field 10-man units are actually the minority, because for the most part, 2 small squads do the same job as 1 big squad, but usually with more good upgrade weapons, more command points generated, and less issues with morale. As well you're basically never going to spend your command points on some crappy CP-generating chaff infantry, so the "CPs would be better on a 10+ man squad" thing is pretty immaterial. Even some of the chaff-ier infantry units out there like Kabalites, Skitarii and Fire Warriors are pretty much always fielded as 5-mans, and any time people have the choice to do that, they do.
Your odds of ever actually having a morale test with any real stakes is near nonexistent in 5-man squads because morale is based on casualties taken this turn, and that is an absolute maximum of 4. Even killing 4/5 guys a basic LD7 squad has a 50-50 chance of that fifth dude not fleeing.
You've got:
Guardians
Guardsmen
Orks
Cultists
GSC neophytes
Gants (Though those have an army-wide ignore morale rule)
Daemons
That's pretty much who morale is for in 8th edition 40k. As a game-wide system, it just kind of sucks. The basic mechanic is dull (models just vanishing into thin air) the trigger is casualties, which makes it extremely unimpactful for the regular squad sizes that you actually see in 40k.
In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.
the new morale system is good only in that it becomes not a concern to anyone, and not just not a concern to 5-man squads. At this point, it may as well not even really be a thing. In terms of execution though, I'd consider it the worst morale system I've seen in 40k.
It's got all the good points:
1) Unlikely. As I just outlined above, now with more because GW is going to be removing some -LD abilities and turning them into win-more -Attrition abilities
2) Unimpactful. fail morale, 1/6 or 1/3 casualties occur, and it's still going to be on squads that are most likely already decimated by the point you took the test.
3) Unintuitive. So first I need to roll 1 die, then I need to roll 1 die for each remaining squad member, and at the point where any unit fails the same fractions are going to flee no matter what they are. A unit of soulless necrons and hyper-elite Custodes and craven gretchins all fail a morale test, and the unit that is MOST LIKELY to have a greater percentage of models fleeing is the Custodes, because they're probably under 1/2 casualties? Hmm.
If I could I’d exalt this a thousand times people don’t get it..
The only good news is this morale system is so bad I fully expect it to die in a dumpster fire in the next edition...
I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.
And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.
That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.
This is where neg mods come into play.
Previously you had to go REALLY deep to have an effect and that required too much commitment to off a few marines. Now you can go broad. A -2 or -3 is relatively easy to achieve. Butcher cannons split firing and Haarken cover quite an area and that's -3 without effort (presuming BC stays that way). 3 dead is a 45% on marines in that scenario.
And then we remember Primaris have two wounds so removing a model is very useful.
I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.
And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.
That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.
This is where neg mods come into play.
Previously you had to go REALLY deep to have an effect and that required too much commitment to off a few marines. Now you can go broad. A -2 or -3 is relatively easy to achieve. Butcher cannons split firing and Haarken cover quite an area and that's -3 without effort (presuming BC stays that way). 3 dead is a 45% on marines in that scenario.
And then we remember Primaris have two wounds so removing a model is very useful.
Which is actually worse than before. Since before, -X to Leadership on a failed check translates DIRECTLY to extra casualties. Whereas with this change, it translates to an increased chance of one casualty, and then more dice rolls for maybe more.
kodos wrote: They still could have done it easier:
Moraltest: D6+lost models VS LD if lost: units up to 6 models: D3 models flee
6-10 model units: 2D3 models flee
11+ model unit: 1+D6 models flee
not exactly the same but faster with a similar outcome
5 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 33% for 1
Yours - 2 extra - more punitive
10 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 16% on 6 for 1 more
Your system - 4 extra - vastly more punitive
It isn't the same for sure and completely ignores the half strength effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Which is actually worse than before. Since before, -X to Leadership on a failed check translates DIRECTLY to extra casualties. Whereas with this change, it translates to an increased chance of one casualty, and then more dice rolls for maybe more.
But you never got that benefit. You had to go hard to make it happen and so it did not - the investment was not worth the payoff. Now it can be, because you don't have to invest as much. That's the difference.
kodos wrote: They still could have done it easier:
Moraltest: D6+lost models VS LD if lost: units up to 6 models: D3 models flee
6-10 model units: 2D3 models flee
11+ model unit: 1+D6 models flee
not exactly the same but faster with a similar outcome
5 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 33% for 1
Yours - 2 extra - more punitive
10 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 16% on 6 for 1 more
Your system - 4 extra - vastly more punitive
It isn't the same for sure and completely ignores the half strength effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Which is actually worse than before. Since before, -X to Leadership on a failed check translates DIRECTLY to extra casualties. Whereas with this change, it translates to an increased chance of one casualty, and then more dice rolls for maybe more.
But you never got that benefit. You had to go hard to make it happen and so it did not - the investment was not worth the payoff. Now it can be, because you don't have to invest as much. That's the difference.
Except you still have to go hard.
-3 Leadership on Imperial Marines are only a 25% failure rate at one casualty. And if you do get them to fail, you still only have a 1/3 chance of getting a singular extra model to flee.
GW wrote:As the name suggests, the Szarekhan are the dynasty of Szarekh himself, the last Silent King. Before the Great Sleep, they were considered far and away the most prestigious and influential dynasty. But that changed with Szarekh’s disappearance…
So now I somehow have to work "Marlowe" into my Necron army.
GW wrote:So skilled are [Szarekhan Crypteks] that even their standard foot-troops are given a small amount to shield them from the foul energies of the warp.
So that'll be their dynastic trait - some sort of bonus against psykers.
GW wrote:A new set of paints will be released to help you achieve that aged brass look, alongside our first-ever Technical paint formulated to create glowing effects!
A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6
This rule permits hordes without constant babysitters and requires a lot more focus to bring down. What if they kill 20? I lose 1 and then 3. You literally have to kill 28 and hope to get lucky or kill 29 to wipe the squad. Now couple that with Tide of Traitors. There are other units like Necrons that benefit greatly as well. Not all hordes are immune.
Also in regards to blast -
Two Manticores vs 5++ Cultists
Old
28 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 8.3
Average Morale Test - 12 + 6 additional losses
New
48 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 14
Morale Test Failed - 1 lost
Attrition - 2.5
Total Losses
Old : 14.3
New : 17.5
The Manticores almost doubled in shots, but the squad took only 22% more in losses. And we don't know their points cost and we're not likely to see two Manticores often. Otherwise by the morale immune horde metric a Manticore will scoop up 3 more models than before. Hardly devastating.
Who is using a Manticore to kill cultists? I jest, I jest. But no really, I get it.
I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.
And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.
That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.
This is where neg mods come into play.
Previously you had to go REALLY deep to have an effect and that required too much commitment to off a few marines. Now you can go broad. A -2 or -3 is relatively easy to achieve. Butcher cannons split firing and Haarken cover quite an area and that's -3 without effort (presuming BC stays that way). 3 dead is a 45% on marines in that scenario.
And then we remember Primaris have two wounds so removing a model is very useful.
I mean, it all kind of depends on how things shake out WRT what abilities become +attrition and what abilities become -LD.
Take my current setup for doing a LD bomb: I take an eldar hemlock, give it terrify to slap on to the most vulnerable unit, and I blitz in a Silent Shroud Solitaire with the Mask of Secrets sharing a Vanguard detachment with two death jesters.
The only real investment into LD-shenanigans is the death jesters (90pts total) and the Relic on the solitaire, so 1CP. The Hemlock is perfectly efficient without doing the LD-bomb.Taking Silent Shroud isnt' really much of an investment because I've souped my harlequins in, so it's just them.
I have Mindshock Pods+Mask of Secrets+Silent Shroud for -4LD on basically everything, plus an extra -1LD from Terrify and -2LD on anything I can cause a wound on with my jesters. Typically that translates to me getting to drop -7ld on one thing and -4LD on most other stuff. Also, with Silent Shroud my opponent has to roll 2 dice and take the highest on each LD test. Typically against primaris I'd split the hemlocks shots up and take 1-2 guys out from two squads that dind't get hit by the jester and won't be the target of the solitaire.
Under the current system, if I cause 1 casualty to a marine squad under those debuffs they take 5 casualties on average, and not taking any casualties is impossible, even if they get double ones on one of their rolls. Under the new system, it's all going to depend on how difficult it now becomes to actually TRIGGER a failed test, due to how many of my abilities get shifted over to +Attrition.
If none of them do, the LD bomb is basically useless. A failed test will cause 1-2 casualties, so even if I keep my current failure odds of "very good with even just one casualty" then the reward is going to be essentially nonexistent. If everything currently -LD becomes -Attrition, the reward would be ginormous...but I'll have absolutely zero means to trigger a failed test. Astronomically bad odds of managing to get a marine to fail, and in practicality loyalist marines are >50% of your opponent pool pretty much everywhere, so if it don't work vs rerolling LD8, then it's not a reliable tactic.
ESPECIALLY if Leadership is included in the "only -1 modifier" cap. that would SUUUUCK.
The optimal situation would be if LD was still uncapped, most -LD effects stayed, but the currently least impactful -LD effects (such as Terrify, Mask of Secrets, Coven of Dark Creed/Night Lords etc) became +Attrition effects. But I'm not holding my breath for that.
I'm just starting to look at 40k again, so may have missed something. Regarding the back and forth about whether the new morale rules will matter, has GW said whether or not stat lines are being changed? I saw the comment about AoS Stormcast having a LD of 6, is there a chance that 40k may head down that path? Adjust that stat to make more sense with the rule changes and have it make a difference.
Sasori wrote: Well, that one has the Doomstalker instead of the Reanimator so it would have to be somewhat different off the bat.
Perhaps the sprue layout is why that's a Doomstalker.
The Doomstalker is going to be one of the EZ2B kits alongside the Marine Go-Kart, the Turret and probably one or two other things. So if the Reanimator sprue is intertwined with some of the other characters, then replacing it with the Doomstalker makes sense.
bortass wrote: I'm just starting to look at 40k again, so may have missed something. Regarding the back and forth about whether the new morale rules will matter, has GW said whether or not stat lines are being changed? I saw the comment about AoS Stormcast having a LD of 6, is there a chance that 40k may head down that path? Adjust that stat to make more sense with the rule changes and have it make a difference.
Nope. Old Codecs are still usable, so statlines ain't gonna be changing much.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And if I had to place a bet, I'd say that this is probably the new Start Collecting, once Indomitus is long out of stock:
Unless someone remembers anything about the sprue layout that would make the above impossible without additional minis being included.
Or it could even be the Necron half of the actual starter once Indomitus turns out to be a marked up launch box, not a discounted starter but sells out anyway.
Specifically targeted by both eldar and other necrons for millennia, they suffered massive casualties, but now that they are awake, they're magically dominant once again.
Who writes this stuff? Why are they doubling down on our-numbers-don't-matter for the new subfaction? Wouldn't it be slightly more interesting if someone faced an actual struggle for once?
Sounds like their dynasty trait will involve some sort of save or bonus vs psychic powers.
First ever technical paint for glowy effects. Wasn't that what the ghost paints were supposed to do? That odd blue and the green?
Honestly morale should be simple and quick.
Leadership check:
2d6 plus models Lost vs leadership
Attrition:
1-10 model unit and lose d3 Wounds
11+ size unit and lose d6 wounds
Change bespoke rules to
*reroll on attrition
* reduce attrition by 1 wound
*attrition can’t be more then 1 Or 2 Wounds
* plus leadership
* neg leadership
* increase Attrition by 1 Or 2 wound
* reroll 2d6 leadership check (either or both die)
* doubles attrition (for extremely bad morale units like conscripts)
Very few units should ever be completely immune to morale
The best bespoke rules would limit models lost to 1-2 wounds
Sasori wrote: They did say we could expect both the Lokhust and Doomstalker shortly after release.
I wonder if they are going to launch with boxes like the Lumineth or SoB in early august and have the full range release later?
The way they've gone at this release has been really different, so it's hard to tell.
I'd say it's more akin to the EZ2B stuff that came out when AoS 2nd Ed came out. So really, how quickly did this, this, this, this, and this come out after the Soul Wars box?
Szarekhan Crypteks gained a well-deserved reputation, in particular when it came to working with blackstone. So skilled are they now that even their standard foot-troops are given a small amount to shield them from the foul energies of the warp. With access to the finest resources, in addition to well-preserved wisdom and skill, the Szarekhan Dynasty are equipped with the most durable forms and the most destructive weaponry.
So, basically saying they will get a FNP vs psychic powers probably along with a deny on a 4+ strat or something.
GW wrote:A new set of paints will be released to help you achieve that aged brass look, alongside our first-ever Technical paint formulated to create glowing effects!
That I gotta see.
Yes! Hope they do one in blue, would be great for plasma.
Szarekhan Crypteks gained a well-deserved reputation, in particular when it came to working with blackstone. So skilled are they now that even their standard foot-troops are given a small amount to shield them from the foul energies of the warp. With access to the finest resources, in addition to well-preserved wisdom and skill, the Szarekhan Dynasty are equipped with the most durable forms and the most destructive weaponry.
So, basically saying they will get a FNP vs psychic powers probably along with a deny on a 4+ strat or something.
I'm okay with this since the Necrons have fought against psychic races for thousands of years before they took their nap, so them being so bad at shutting down psykers and containing them always bothered me.
Specifically targeted by both eldar and other necrons for millennia, they suffered massive casualties, but now that they are awake, they're magically dominant once again.
Who writes this stuff? Why are they doubling down on our-numbers-don't-matter for the new subfaction? Wouldn't it be slightly more interesting if someone faced an actual struggle for once?
Yes, as an Eldar player since 2nd Ed., I've always had the looming backstory that my chosen army is on the brink of destruction. Then, with PA, Biel-Tan, one of our primary craftworlds, is set adrift in space with a collapsed infinity circuit. But, that desperation has never really been felt on the tabletop. "Oh the Dark Reaper temple of some far-flung Craftworld has infinite Aspect Warriors to dedicate to the cause? Wonderful!" I mean, I guess people would complain the other way too, but it would be nice to feel some of the story come alive on the tabletop. It could probably be argued that I could create that myself with GW's direction, but it would make for a good twist to start making rules that really represent the armies themselves.
Tyranids are another one. They are an endless swarm devouring all in their path, but that's not how they feel on the tabletop. They did in 5th Edition when Tervigons could just spew out Termagants, but it always feels like Tyranid swarms are the tip of tendril rather than a swarm, to me anyway.
Specifically targeted by both eldar and other necrons for millennia, they suffered massive casualties, but now that they are awake, they're magically dominant once again.
Who writes this stuff? Why are they doubling down on our-numbers-don't-matter for the new subfaction? Wouldn't it be slightly more interesting if someone faced an actual struggle for once?
Yes, as an Eldar player since 2nd Ed., I've always had the looming backstory that my chosen army is on the brink of destruction. Then, with PA, Biel-Tan, one of our primary craftworlds, is set adrift in space with a collapsed infinity circuit. But, that desperation has never really been felt on the tabletop. "Oh the Dark Reaper temple of some far-flung Craftworld has infinite Aspect Warriors to dedicate to the cause? Wonderful!" I mean, I guess people would complain the other way too, but it would be nice to feel some of the story come alive on the tabletop. It could probably be argued that I could create that myself with GW's direction, but it would make for a good twist to start making rules that really represent the armies themselves.
Tyranids are another one. They are an endless swarm devouring all in their path, but that's not how they feel on the tabletop. They did in 5th Edition when Tervigons could just spew out Termagants, but it always feels like Tyranid swarms are the tip of tendril rather than a swarm, to me anyway.
4th ed's Endless Swarm worked a bit too (and I enjoyed that rule a fair bit), but you're right, armies on the table don't quite nail the scale of the setting. They're just small snapshots of bigger factions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tau get to keep their current Overwatch rules apparently:
So confirmed Tau functionally keep 8th ed OW. Now it just remains to be seen if that's something they spread around like candy or if it's kept as a relatively rare bonus. I could see certain factions like IH or the SoB Sacred Rose faction getting something similar. But like Yuk's been worrying about if they pass exceptions around too much it kind of defeats the purpose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: So the first exception to the new rule is an entire faction. Shocking.
Yeah my concern exactly. Here's the question: If this is given to other subfactions as I mentioned above, is that too liberal a distribution or just right if it's limited to sub-factions?
The idea could be to give each faction it's own gimmick on some part of the game they play strongest. I could see Eldar getting some kind of movement shennanigans for example.
Pair that with Marines switching their strong point over the course of the game and 9th might balance out a bit more than the end of 8th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: So a general rule that applies to everyone doesn't apply to Tau.
Wow... ?
I know, right? I mean Eldar are usually the dirty cheaters.
More seriously, it was likely done to balance how bad Tau are at melee as a faction. And at least they break the "rule" by following it since the Overwatch rule flat out says that some units will have rules that allow them to Overwatch.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
how much you wanna be Tau players will argue they can use the overwatch start AND normal orverwatch XD
The Overwatch strat just gives units who can't overwatch access to the Overwatch rule, so it's not like it's special Overwatch. So if they want to pay CP to use their free rule that's fine by me.
i mean, that people are starting to be slightly confused is not particulary srprising in that case and 
