Morale rules are up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/03/new-warhammer-40000-morale/

Seems pretty simple stuff, if not a bit brutal.

Means you can keep your best guys from running by choosing who flees I guess?

Ya know, I haven't seen many departures yet from the AoS rules for 40K 8th edition. GW stated the new rules are 14 pages long... and I have no idea how they are stretching 4 pages into 14.

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Deamon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Ya know, I haven't seen many departures yet from the AoS rules for 40K 8th edition. GW stated the new rules are 14 pages long... and I have no idea how they are stretching 4 pages into 14.

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Deamon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

Given that single models don't take battleshock tests.. Good luck with that.

Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

 Tamwulf wrote:

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Deamon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

It's still a morale test, kinda like battle shock. Singular models aren't subjected to it. So no, mr. Bloodthirster is safe. Unless Daemonic Instability is still there.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Ya know, I haven't seen many departures yet from the AoS rules for 40K 8th edition. GW stated the new rules are 14 pages long... and I have no idea how they are stretching 4 pages into 14.

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Daemon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

Not going to happen. Models have to die to trigger it. (Which in single model cases it's dead so won't test)

Most vehicles/ monsters that deploy in units will be pretty much immune without Ld shenanigans.

I could see a IG Sentinel/Ork Killa Kan decide to clear off if it's mates get obliterated. (But even then they'll have to lose almost an entire squadron before they'll test)

Note that Morale is triggered by lost models, not unsaved wounds - small units with high Ld will not need to worry about this very often. Singletons are immune.

Hordes, however, will be punished unless there's some way to mitigate it. In AoS there often is, I expect the same here. I bet Commissars will, say, kill one model on a failed Morale test, no matter how much you failed by (which would make them good again!), and Priests will probably let you re-roll. I bet Orks won't take Morale tests if there are more than 10 models in a unit, and a Bosspole will make rolls of 1 on Morale tests always pass, no matter how many models you lost. Tyranids, probably something with Synapse.

All speculation of course.

My guess for ATSKNF is that you'll roll two dice and pick the lowest.

Jesus, blobs better have some serious leadership buffs, otherwise they're fethed.

The fact that this can be triggered by shooting is what really drives it over the top.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Jesus, blobs better have some serious leadership buffs, otherwise they're fethed.

The fact that this can be triggered by shooting is what really drives it over the top.

Well they're not going to flee now they'll just lose more models. We might see that blobs get +1 Ld for for ever multiple of 10 or something


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
My guess for ATSKNF is that you'll roll two dice and pick the lowest.

That sounds pretty fair, hope its that.

 obsidianaura wrote:
Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

I can see it being some kind of modifier eg casualties + D6 - X or roll 2 D6 and use the lowest.

Fearless might be something similar and then we might get some weapons/units making moral harder. Maybe Banshee masks would be something like on the turn they charge one target unit rolls an extra D6 and discards the lowest.

It could be quick as if you assume both D6 options above SM would then just use the middle dice value.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Jesus, blobs better have some serious leadership buffs, otherwise they're fethed.

The fact that this can be triggered by shooting is what really drives it over the top.

Large units probably will have plenty of mitigating effects.
I imagine an IG Commisar will just shoot one guy and they'll get to ignore the test.
Ork boss-poles would be similar.
Synapse will probably hand out the Synapse creature's Ld


And (Hopefully) ATSKNF will just be removed so Space marines can finally feel the effects of morale that they have largely ignored since 3rd edition

Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

ScarVet101 wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

I can see it being some kind of modifier eg casualties + D6 - X or roll 2 D6 and use the lowest.

Fearless might be something similar and then we might get some weapons/units making moral harder. Maybe Banshee masks would be something like on the turn they charge one target unit rolls an extra D6 and discards the lowest.

It could be quick as if you assume both D6 options above SM would then just use the middle dice value.

I think for fearless units, taking a wound/'mortal wound' rather than flat out losing a model might be better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

Hopefully its capped at 12 or something at least

With this rule why would I take anything other than min squads

They should have kept the name from AoS, "battleshock" seems much more suitable as im imagining this is not so much people fleeing as as people becoming unable to fight.
Injuries, damaged equipment, depleted ammo, healthy soldiers needed to carry the wounded into safetly etc.

I just cant see anyone from the 40k armies, save perhaps the orks, flee the battlefield.

One thing I noticed is that there's only one check per turn (at the end).

This is an interesting idea - this means that no matter how many casualties you lost to shooting, if you end up in close combat everyone will still get to fight.

It also makes losing a small number of people in shooting and then a small number in assault more punishing. If you lose 3 to shooting and 4 in the same turn to combat, it's one test at 7 instead of two tests at 3 and 4.

Conversely, the days of shooting at a unit before you assault and them falling back out of range is now a thing of the past, so I can't be too upset!

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

It's just one test per unit at the end of the turn not after each time the unit is shot or fights an assault. In 7th you could face up to 3 a turn, now it's a maximum of 1.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

In AoS, it really is not a major issue. Let me break down how it exactly works by the numbers.

Let's say I have a unit of guys with Bravery (i.e. Leadership) 8. There are potential ways to raise this in AoS, such as a standard giving +1, and numerous abilities that mitigate or ignore Battleshock rolls.

If this unit suffers casualties, it is a d6 added to the number of casualties, then compared to the Bravery value. So let's say I suffer 3 casualties (actual casualties, not just wounds), at the end of the turn I would roll d6+3 and compare that to the Bravery.

Anything over that Bravery value is a single MODEL that runs. So in this case of this unit, a d6+3 roll means I only lose a single model on the roll of a 6. Anything else is no effect whatsoever. So there's no ability to just plink a bunch of tests away, significant losses have to be inflicted on the unit.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

In my experience hoards do fine with this mechanic. Yeah they tend to lose far more models then more elite units, but they also tend to be able to mitigate that by sheer volume. It's actually not nearly as bad as you think it is. I mean, to force a large unit to take a substantial amount of losses in the Morale phase you need to focus it to the point where its basically almost dead in one turn anyway. That takes up a lot of fire power and probably a charge or two. Also, taking only one or two models here and there really wont force any kind of test anywhere. You would need to kill, on average, 4-5 models out of a unit to even have a chance at them loosing even 1 or 2 models out of the unit, and they still have a chance to pass. So while MSUs can be stronger against Morale they might not be as effective overall because of a lack of numbers (less shooting and less combat attacks) and can be easier to simply wipe out.

torblind wrote:With this rule why would I take anything other than min squads

I know that in AoS if you take big enough units you can increase a units bravery by increments. Though not every unit can do this.

Soulless wrote:They should have kept the name from AoS, "battleshock" seems much more suitable as im imagining this is not so much people fleeing as as people becoming unable to fight.
Injuries, damaged equipment, depleted ammo, healthy soldiers needed to carry the wounded into safetly etc.

I just cant see anyone from the 40k armies, save perhaps the orks, flee the battlefield.

From the website "...represents warriors fleeing the battlefield, dying from the psychic feedback shockwaves of their allies, or retreating with injured or fallen brethren..." I think it does represent what you imagine it to it just keeps the old name because the update to 8th ed isn't as drastic as the change to AoS.

I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

It comes back to that trade-off from AoS Smaller units are better at soaking battle shock, and larger units are better in CC, since you get more attacks per activation. So in AoS you got your units as big as your leadership would allow because everything was in CC. In 40k shooting armies will probably go for smaller unit sizes whereas assault armies will go big.

That is assuming that we still have shooting turns like in 7th ed, and it's not IgoUgo like the assault phase. If they were looking to speed games up IgoUgo would do the job, and make it so I don't spend an hour on my phone for every 2 hour game of 40k.

patman1440 wrote:
One thing I noticed is that there's only one check per turn (at the end).

This is an interesting idea - this means that no matter how many casualties you lost to shooting, if you end up in close combat everyone will still get to fight.

It also makes losing a small number of people in shooting and then a small number in assault more punishing. If you lose 3 to shooting and 4 in the same turn to combat, it's one test at 7 instead of two tests at 3 and 4.

Conversely, the days of shooting at a unit before you assault and them falling back out of range is now a thing of the past, so I can't be too upset!

I think this is fairly insightful. It is yet another boost to Assault armies (if only a small one)

-

 Grimgold wrote:
It comes back to that trade-off from AoS Smaller units are better at soaking battle shock, and larger units are better in CC, since you get more attacks per activation. So in AoS you got your units as big as your leadership would allow because everything was in CC. In 40k shooting armies will probably go for smaller unit sizes whereas assault armies will go big.

That is assuming that we still have shooting turns like in 7th ed, and it's not IgoUgo like the assault phase. If they were looking to speed games up IgoUgo would do the job, and make it so I don't spend an hour on my phone for every 2 hour game of 40k.

Assault armies will also want a nice wide frontage so they can charge one unit and then pile in to other units that are nearby draining more firepower from the enemy army. (As they'll either have to stick in the combat or retreat an lose their shooting for a turn

I have never had problems with bloodbound hordes in Age of Sigmar. And I normally play 40-80 Bloodreavers/Marauders in every game.

Keeping my generals and inspiring units near them make the Battleshock phase a little annoying, nothing to be really worried about. Now, if they stack Bravery debuffes and kill my inspiring units, thats another thing, but thats strategy, no?

 Galef wrote:
I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

I respectfully disagree - mainly because with the loss of template weapons, there is little downside to large blobs of units.

I also like this as an answer to tarpits.

Sounds ominous for my boyz so far but I hope there are indeed some of the mentioned-above ways to mitigate this for hordes. My daily deflate and reinflate about 8th edition continues

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

I respectfully disagree - mainly because with the loss of template weapons, there is little downside to large blobs of units.

I also like this as an answer to tarpits.

large units already generally were at a disadvantage to MSU, usually always have been. It's hard to see where this was a necessary balance mechanism.

Likewise, template arent gone, they just have a set value range of hits, all you're missing out on are those really sweet, relatively rare moments when you catch a horde unit all bunched up, but your average number of casualties from these weapons probably wont change one iota.

My squads of 3 bikers and Land Speeders with two heavy flamers are going to put a LOT of hurt on horde armies.

BomBomHotdog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

In my experience hoards do fine with this mechanic. Yeah they tend to lose far more models then more elite units, but they also tend to be able to mitigate that by sheer volume. It's actually not nearly as bad as you think it is. I mean, to force a large unit to take a substantial amount of losses in the Morale phase you need to focus it to the point where its basically almost dead in one turn anyway. That takes up a lot of fire power and probably a charge or two. Also, taking only one or two models here and there really wont force any kind of test anywhere. You would need to kill, on average, 4-5 models out of a unit to even have a chance at them loosing even 1 or 2 models out of the unit, and they still have a chance to pass. So while MSUs can be stronger against Morale they might not be as effective overall because of a lack of numbers (less shooting and less combat attacks) and can be easier to simply wipe out.

maybe the random plinking wont be such a huge deal, but does seem something potentially abusable.

That said, unless there is some bonus for large units, it should be relatively easy to break a horde unit.

Force a 30 strong Boyz mob to take 12 casualties, say they're Ld7, they roll a 4, take 9 more and you've just increased the casualties they took by 75% and combat effective mob of 18 Boyz is now no longer combat effective mob at 9 Boyz.

Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

I respectfully disagree - mainly because with the loss of template weapons, there is little downside to large blobs of units.

I also like this as an answer to tarpits.

In AoS, you get +1 to your Ld for every 10 models you have in the unit. So a unit of 30, who have 5 Ld normally, would have 8. I'd be surprised if they didn't have that in this too. Also, most armies get ways to boost their moral with things like banners or leaders or other special rules. Expect characters like Commissars to be useful again and even platoon standards!
It works very well in AoS and really helps speed up the game, simplifying a very tedious aspect of previous editions, while boosting things in the process.

Actually, on the subject of hordes, it should also be noted that if something is usually seen or used as a horde in AoS, there are lots of buffs that come with adding more and more models to that unit. The example I offer up is the humble zombie:

If you have 1-10 zombies, they hit on 6+ and wound on 6+
11-20: 5+ and 5+
21-30: 4+ and 4+
31+: 3+ and 3+

Now that can easily apply to Orks as well. And add serious value to a horde.

This is bad news for IG, Orks, and Nids

KayTwo wrote:
This is bad news for IG, Orks, and Nids

Let's not forget that most weapons (like Bolters) are likely to be AP 0, conbine with Cover granting a bonus to Armour saves, this very well could mean less casualties over a given turn, thus less models lost at the end.
One of the reasons these armies suffered in the past was because everyone's main weapon was at least AP5 and thus never allowed for armour save. 8th will allow these armies more chance for armour saves.

Having played Daemons the entire time Instability has existed, I can say from experience that losing models to LD tests isn't that bad if you have good tactics to mitigate it.
Speaking of Instability, this change to Moral makes me think that Instability may be no more since normal Moral now serves the same function.

-

 Galef wrote:

KayTwo wrote:
This is bad news for IG, Orks, and Nids

Let's not forget that most weapons (like Bolters) are likely to be AP 0, conbine with Cover granting a bonus to Armour saves, this very well could mean less casualties over a given turn, thus less models lost at the end.

Having played Daemons the entire time Instability has existed, I can say from experience that losing models to LD tests isn't that bad if you have good tactics to mitigate it.
Speaking of Instability, this change to Moral makes me think that Instability may be no more since normal Moral now serves the same function.

-

If Shadow War is any reference, they may be AP-1.

I have no doubt that many weapons will have AP -1, -2, etc
But if Bolters are AP0, so will most other armies generic main weapons.

The only basic weapons I can think of that might be AP -1 would be Eldar Shuriken weapons or Necron Gauss weapons

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Galef wrote:

KayTwo wrote:
This is bad news for IG, Orks, and Nids

Let's not forget that most weapons (like Bolters) are likely to be AP 0, conbine with Cover granting a bonus to Armour saves, this very well could mean less casualties over a given turn, thus less models lost at the end.

Having played Daemons the entire time Instability has existed, I can say from experience that losing models to LD tests isn't that bad if you have good tactics to mitigate it.
Speaking of Instability, this change to Moral makes me think that Instability may be no more since normal Moral now serves the same function.

-

If Shadow War is any reference, they may be AP-1.

Nope. They're AP 0.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/26/warhammer-40000-weaponsgw-homepage-post-4/

 Galef wrote:
I have no doubt that many weapons will have AP -1, -2, etc
But if Bolters are AP0, so will most other armies generic main weapons.

The only basic weapons I can think of that might be AP -1 would be Eldar Shuriken weapons or Necron Gauss weapons

I stand corrected

And i was worried i'd get to use my 120+ choppaboyz. Phew.

For gak's sake what is even the point of having a morale system that doesn't DO anything? We just remove models now? Why not just completely get rid of morale, massively help out armies like Orks or Guard, and supply that fluffy "literally half GW's armies should have fearless" justification?

People keep talking about leadership buffs like that would mean something. Why?

Let's say you have a 50-man conscript blob. Through a variety of buffs that blob is leadership 10.

Okay, leadership 10.

In the course of one turn, that unit loses 20 models.

Leadership 10 vs 20 losses, that is a MINIMUM of 11 additional dead models at the end of the phase, ignoring the d6 entirely. That squad of 50 has been reduced from 50 models to 19 in a single turn due to this rule even with a leadership of 10.

Leadership seems to be a pretty useless stat for horde armies because it doesn't scale properly with how many losses GEQ tend to suffer fin a single phase. The ONLY way for GEQ to not ravaged by this rule is for their buffs to immunize them from having to suffer battleshock at all. Leadership buffs will mean nothing unless you're capable of buffing a unit to like leadership 14.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People keep talking about leadership buffs like that would mean something. Why?

Let's say you have a 50-man conscript blob. Through a variety of buffs that blob is leadership 10.

Okay, leadership 10.

In the course of one turn, that unit loses 20 models.

Leadership 10 vs 20 losses, that is a MINIMUM of 11 additional dead models at the end of the phase, ignoring the d6 entirely. That squad of 50 has been reduced from 50 models to 19 in a single turn due to this rule even with a leadership of 10.

Leadership seems to be a pretty useless stat for horde armies because it doesn't scale properly with how many losses GEQ tend to suffer fin a single phase. The ONLY way for GEQ to not ravaged by this rule is for their buffs to immunize them from having to suffer battleshock at all. Leadership buffs will mean nothing unless you're capable of buffing a unit to like leadership 14.

It depends on the "buff". Maybe it doesn't cap at 10 (they said stats don't) so they could get LD15. What if a commissar has some ability to say Kill D3 (or D6) models to auto pass the morale check? What if they in some way cap the casualties that can be taken during a turn? What if stubborn (or similar) means you ignore casualties in excess of your LD taken when taking a battleshock test (so you only lose D6 models at most).?

We just don't know how it will work.

For big units I think leadership 14 will be easily obtainable. Assume they can use a model with ld 9 for the check. Then you get +5 for the blob. That's 14 without further buffs.

Not a big fan of this. This drastically promotes MSU.

Bring a big HQ, don't bring his body guard. Doesn't matter how many wounds they have a bad roll could cause the rest of the unit to disappear from moral.

A hive tyrant alone, or a hive tyrant with tyrant guard? Why risk the HT disappearing on a single bad roll?

I agree with the 'hordes are boned' crowd. Shooting is so much more devastating in 40k. And given that we're likely not going to see INFINITE unit sizes, armies like nids, orks and guard are going to suffer immensely considering 10 tac marines single tapping are going to cause (slim) losses from TotallyNotBattleshock. This TotallyNotReskinnedAoS is looking more and more like the duck. When the armies come out quaking, I fear hordes will be left by the wayside for our NuMarine and Ynnaraeieieieie overlords to casually slap aside.

 Luciferian wrote:
My squads of 3 bikers and Land Speeders with two heavy flamers are going to put a LOT of hurt on horde armies.

someone said you , those kind of units will still exist in 8th?

 Lance845 wrote:
Not a big fan of this. This drastically promotes MSU.

Bring a big HQ, don't bring his body guard. Doesn't matter how many wounds they have a bad roll could cause the rest of the unit to disappear from moral.

A hive tyrant alone, or a hive tyrant with tyrant guard? Why risk the HT disappearing on a single bad roll?

Hive tyrant with 3 guard, and LD9. Loses all 3 guard, so D6+3 - 9 = 0 at the highest. Not a problem for the tyrant.

 obsidianaura wrote:
Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

Considering we're being offered "New Background" tomorrow ATSKNF could be retconned out.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

Considering we're being offered "New Background" tomorrow ATSKNF could be retconned out.

An interesting point. At what point did Marines get ATSKNF as a standard?

They didn't have it in the Great Crusade, did they have it before Rowboat's fall?

Will changes that Rowboat makes to the Imperium cause them to lose it?

Early in Rogue Trader, when they were increased to T4.

(There was an article in WD.)

Regarding Morale...I still remember them the morale rules that made Fearless Horde units explode like confetti when they (predictably) took heavy casualties against more elite squads. This pleased the elite players but as a horde player I found myself removing almost double the number of models that were actually killed, which often finished off the brood...thus removing the point of being Fearless (ie not running away.)

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People keep talking about leadership buffs like that would mean something. Why?

Let's say you have a 50-man conscript blob. Through a variety of buffs that blob is leadership 10.

Okay, leadership 10.

In the course of one turn, that unit loses 20 models.

Leadership 10 vs 20 losses, that is a MINIMUM of 11 additional dead models at the end of the phase, ignoring the d6 entirely. That squad of 50 has been reduced from 50 models to 19 in a single turn due to this rule even with a leadership of 10.

Leadership seems to be a pretty useless stat for horde armies because it doesn't scale properly with how many losses GEQ tend to suffer fin a single phase. The ONLY way for GEQ to not ravaged by this rule is for their buffs to immunize them from having to suffer battleshock at all. Leadership buffs will mean nothing unless you're capable of buffing a unit to like leadership 14.

In order to lose 20 5+ save models that's 34 space marines rapid firing bolters into the same unit in the new system and then, oh whoops commisar blaps one guy and the test is passed; looking at statistics in a vacuum to try and come up with practical applications is stupid and doesn't work.

 Lance845 wrote:
Not a big fan of this. This drastically promotes MSU.

Bring a big HQ, don't bring his body guard. Doesn't matter how many wounds they have a bad roll could cause the rest of the unit to disappear from moral.

A hive tyrant alone, or a hive tyrant with tyrant guard? Why risk the HT disappearing on a single bad roll?

Maybe it does promote MSU, but Fight! phase promotes larger units.

Swings and Roundabouts, we'll have to see how it all shakes out in the end...

I love this rule.

The big problem is that not all big units want anything to do with CC, guardsmen and Guardians for example.

That said, honestly where I think this is going to end up hurting most is actually "middling" units if large units get enhanced Ld bonuses. Stuff like 10man units of Dire Avengers, Stormtroopers, Fire Warriors, etc, stuff thats not expendably cheap but also often doesnt work terribly well as MSU, that often is taken in relatively full squads and that isnt particularly hardy either. Drop 6 Ld6 Scions or Stormtroopers (assuming theyre going to have lower Ld than SM's), and you might as well just pick up and take off the rest of them for example.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Galef wrote:

KayTwo wrote:
This is bad news for IG, Orks, and Nids

Let's not forget that most weapons (like Bolters) are likely to be AP 0, conbine with Cover granting a bonus to Armour saves, this very well could mean less casualties over a given turn, thus less models lost at the end.

Having played Daemons the entire time Instability has existed, I can say from experience that losing models to LD tests isn't that bad if you have good tactics to mitigate it.
Speaking of Instability, this change to Moral makes me think that Instability may be no more since normal Moral now serves the same function.

-

If Shadow War is any reference, they may be AP-1.

It's not. Shadow War uses slightly modified 2nd Edition as a chassis. So it has ASMs, but these are fairly different than 8th's AP system.

Boltguns and Flamers in 2nd Edition (and Shadow War) are ASM -1 (as are basically all infantry small arms beyond the autogun which was one of the few weapons without an ASM in 2nd). The lascannon of 2nd Edition (and Shadow War) has a mighty ASM -6.

In 8th? Boltguns and flamers are AP - and the lascannon is AP-3. If you gaze over yonder to AoS you'll find that Rend(-3) (their equivalent of 8th's AP system) tops out at -3. 8th may go as high as -4, but that is bound to be rare.

The current prediction is that the old AP values will roughly correlate like so:
AP -/6/5 == AP -
AP 4 == AP -1
AP 3 == AP -2
AP 2 == AP -3
AP 1 == AP -4 (if such an AP exists in 8th, if not, it will probably top out at -3)

Shadow War is basically just 2nd Edition/Necromunda with some cleaned up bits. It will not make a good predictor of 8th Edition, at all.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big problem is that not all big units want anything to do with CC, guardsmen and Guardians for example.

That said, honestly where I think this is going to end up hurting most is actually "middling" units if large units get enhanced Ld bonuses. Stuff like 10man units of Dire Avengers, Stormtroopers, Fire Warriors, etc, stuff thats not expendably cheap but also often doesnt work terribly well as MSU, that often is taken in relatively full squads and that isnt particularly hardy either. Drop 6 Ld6 Scions or Stormtroopers (assuming theyre going to have lower Ld than SM's), and you might as well just pick up and take off the rest of them for example.

But at the same time, the way cover works and the new AP system means that a 4+ save you see on a lot of non-MeQ elites is actually possibly useful now. In cover that's likely a 3+ against most small arms, and stuff that used to be AP4 or AP3 may no longer outright ignore your armour either. It is something to keep in mind alongside other potential changes that may make individual units worth taking due to special rules. A lot of non-MeQ elite units were previously crap because they didn't offer much over their cheap-as-chips brethren. Getting an armour save may actually flip the script there. But we'll definitely have to wait and see.

In the case of troops like Guardians? Hell, maybe Guardians go back to being the terrors they were in 2nd Edition when/if the shuriken catapult gets to be the only small arm with an AP value in 8th. *nervous marine laughter* *actually please don't read this GW* *ohholyemperorwhathaveIdone?*

ERJAK wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People keep talking about leadership buffs like that would mean something. Why?

Let's say you have a 50-man conscript blob. Through a variety of buffs that blob is leadership 10.

Okay, leadership 10.

In the course of one turn, that unit loses 20 models.

Leadership 10 vs 20 losses, that is a MINIMUM of 11 additional dead models at the end of the phase, ignoring the d6 entirely. That squad of 50 has been reduced from 50 models to 19 in a single turn due to this rule even with a leadership of 10.

Leadership seems to be a pretty useless stat for horde armies because it doesn't scale properly with how many losses GEQ tend to suffer fin a single phase. The ONLY way for GEQ to not ravaged by this rule is for their buffs to immunize them from having to suffer battleshock at all. Leadership buffs will mean nothing unless you're capable of buffing a unit to like leadership 14.

In order to lose 20 5+ save models that's 34 space marines rapid firing bolters into the same unit in the new system and then, oh whoops commisar blaps one guy and the test is passed; looking at statistics in a vacuum to try and come up with practical applications is stupid and doesn't work.

A commissar killing one model so the unit ignores battle shock literally falls under the category of "immune to battleshock" I listed above.

So, you're agreeing with me.

I cannot understand all the mind losing over a handful of teased rules that are not even being presenting in their entirety. All this speculation is pointless regarding which army is being bones as we literally have absolutely zero idea what those armies are going to look like in the new edition.
Take these teased rules as the finger did they are to get your appetite going and not the be all and end all 3 course meal some people are taking it to be.

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
I cannot understand all the mind losing over a handful of teased rules that are not even being presenting in their entirety. All this speculation is pointless regarding which army is being bones as we literally have absolutely zero idea what those armies are going to look like in the new edition.
Take these teased rules as the finger did they are to get your appetite going and not the be all and end all 3 course meal some people are taking it to be.

If the appetizer is covered in flies, the rest of the courses are probably going to give your food poisoning.

Depending on how idiotic/vicious battleshock turns out to be, I might just not bother getting into 8th edition at all, or trying to convince people I'm playing with to ignore all rules relating to it entirely. I HATE battleshock as a redundant remove model mechanic.

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

If the appetizer is covered in flies, the rest of the courses are probably going to give you food poisoning.

I work in the food industry, I gotta ask permission to use this gem.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

If the appetizer is covered in flies, the rest of the courses are probably going to give you food poisoning.

I work in the food industry, I gotta ask permission to use this gem.

Go ahead lol.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

Well isn't this exactly why we have an abundance of fearless and sudo-fearless right now, because the current system is broken.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

I don't understand how you guys have the energy anymore lol. Is what it is and as much as we've convinced ourselves that we've totally unlocked the secrets of 8th it'll be 6 months before we can say anything definitively even jf the june date is real. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

Leadership being really high on certain models like commisars or nobz could ballance this out. If a commisar or nobz leadership were say 20 that would mean you could loose 14 grunts and still be untouchable. Could also be solved by a modifier. I'm sure independent charectors will autopass a unit.

I'm more concerned about random wound allocation at this point. I can see the wrong guys surviving and castrating a squad. Like loosing. 4 random wounds on a platoon of 30 with 2 heavy weapons in it. What kind of roll do I do to figure that one out? This could be solved easily with the player who suffers thwcasualties picks the models that get removed. I mean either way extra kills are extra kills it's fair to let them choose if they protected the special weapons and guys in the back.

Rules like removing the closest models from that unit are going to matter a lot now. We have also seen nothing on split fire which has always been imho bad. I think sponsons should shoot what they want, transports specially open topped should be shooting all over the place and squads should be able to split fire. It would slow down the game if you did it all the time but in the game it would just be situational

ERJAK wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

I don't understand how you guys have the energy anymore lol. Is what it is and as much as we've convinced ourselves that we've totally unlocked the secrets of 8th it'll be 6 months before we can say anything definitively even jf the june date is real. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

We've got nothing better to do alright?!

So what's all the fuzz about the mob rule phase?

 obsidianaura wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


I don't understand how you guys have the energy anymore lol. Is what it is and as much as we've convinced ourselves that we've totally unlocked the secrets of 8th it'll be 6 months before we can say anything definitively even jf the june date is real. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

We've got nothing better to do alright?!

Or more to the point, for the first time in some people's living memory, GW have given us something to be *excited* about.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

Er, Why?
It's a staple of games design across pretty much every system ever to have a simple core system that's just basic enough to repeatably function on it's own for all players, and then add in all the special abilities, rules, and exceptions that create flavour and nuance.

Stats aren't limited to 10 now right? So maybe the Leadership of heroes will counteract the low leadership of units if they are added to them. Kinda like fearless did but not actually being fearless.

Edit: scratch that, according to the (salty) rumours characters can't join units ...

I like my hordes and I'm not entirely against this. It's simple, infrequent and in my opinion adequately highlights the distinction between hordes and elite small units. Tight-knit elite forces won't have to worry about morale as much whereas massive columns of infantry find morale to be a much more serious concern that they have to take precautions to counter.


Furthermore it covers the aspect of war that very few units 'break' wholesale like they way we see in current failed leadership tests. A squad might very well grit their teeth and fight on even if some of their more cowardly number break ranks or cower behind cover, effectively ineffectual in combat. It also allows one to see the effects of healthy and active squad members having their attention taken up by the wounded or fallen of their number. In modern engagements on a smaller scale, you can render up to half a squad combat-ineffective merely by wounding one or two of their number. The wounded person has to be secured, first aid has to be supplied, evac has to be actualised or called in. For Tyranids, Orks or others less concerned with such matters it still applies easily enough, such as trampling their own in the rush onwards or a few individuals in the horde becoming misdirected by the chaos. It doesn't have to mean death, just that those models are not effectively contributing to the fight anymore.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Er, Why?
It's a staple of games design across pretty much every system ever to have a simple core system that's just basic enough to repeatably function on it's own for all players, and then add in all the special abilities, rules, and exceptions that create flavour and nuance.

Sure. And that's not what I was objecting to.

I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes. Seems like armies that rely on large units of cheaper dudes are at a huge disadvantage.

I wonder how this is going to effect my harlequin army. I rather like my death jester forcing the enemy to run out of cover and towards me. additionally pinning was quite useful but it appears to be either signifigantly changed or completely gone now.

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes

What makes larger units more vulnerable to Morale is their capacity to take losses in the first place. You cannot compare a 5-man unit losing 3 models to a 40-man unit losing 5
You must compare BOTH units losing the same number. If both units lose 5 models, 1 unit is already dead before moral occurs.

I hope unit size will affect LD or that nearby characters can lead theirs.

 Galef wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes

What makes larger units more vulnerable to Morale is their capacity to take losses in the first place. You cannot compare a 5-man unit losing 3 models to a 40-man unit losing 5
You must compare BOTH units losing the same number. If both units lose 5 models, 1 unit is already dead before moral occurs.

I hope unit size will affect LD or that nearby characters can lead theirs.

orks will probably still have mob rule, tyrnids I forsee keeping immunity in synapse, and guard if in a blob have the command squad I am sure the commissar will do something. if they did away with these though I would be a sad panda as it would invalidate 2 or my armies 2 of which are already pretty weak

I too hope that Orks, Guard, Nids and even Daemons get some form of Moral manipulations. But unfortunately that plus the inevitable Marine bonus will mean that yet again Moral will be pointless dice rolling as 90% of the armies will be effectively Fearless.

Maybe Fear(or the 8th equivalent) will have an area affect that makes units nearby take -LD modifiers?

-

I bet the various sorts of Morale hackery that Harlequins and Dark Eldar are known for will actually be useful now, though!

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes. Seems like armies that rely on large units of cheaper dudes are at a huge disadvantage.

Uhh, sure, but who cares if a 40 man blob loses one guy to running? If your 5 man marine squad loses one guy, it's a hell of a lot more painful.

At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

The marines are only really going to notice this when they are running about in 10 man squads. Which is honestly pretty rare.

5 man marine squad loses 3 guys. (3 + 1d6) - 7 = (4 to 9) - 7 = -3 to 2

So, you lose 1 guy on a 5 and both on a 6. Then from then on you can ignore the moral rules as your unit of 2 men cannot take another moral test.

Orcs in AoS have a 5+ bravery. They can have a banner that gives them +2 bravery. And their warlords normally give another 2 bravery to all orcs near them. They also get to roll a save on all losses from this of 6+. That is their method of saving against losses.

The system is designed to speed up the game. It will do that by removing figures.

 Purifier wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes. Seems like armies that rely on large units of cheaper dudes are at a huge disadvantage.

Uhh, sure, but who cares if a 40 man blob loses one guy to running? If your 5 man marine squad loses one guy, it's a hell of a lot more painful.

People aren't worried about losing 1 man from a unit of 40, its more if they lose 7+ guys from shooting and have a LD of 7 they're automatically going to lose 1 guy minimum to a max of 6

So taking 17.5% casualties can result in between 2.5% and 15% extra losses or around 14% to 86% again of how much you just lost

Compare that with a 5 man unit losing 20% with LD7, they wont lose anyone. They have to take 40% casualties to risk losing even 1 person to fleeing.

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

It's 1d6 PLUS the number of models you lost in the turn. So if you lost 10 models over the course of the turn then it's 1d6+10-leadership. Marines are L7 now so if we were to assume that guardsmen are leadership 6 then they would lose 7 models with average rolls- for a total of 17 dead models at the end of the phase. That fething sucks.

Now take it a step further, realize that it isn't hard at all for armies like Eldar and Tau to kill 40+ GEQ models in a single turn and you begin to see how this scales wildly out of control.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

It's 1d6 PLUS the number of models you lost in the turn. So if you lost 10 models over the course of the turn then it's 1d6+10-leadership. Marines are L7 now so if we were to assume that guardsmen are leadership 6 then they would lose 7 models with average rolls- for a total of 17 dead models at the end of the phase. That fething sucks.

Now take it a step further, realize that it isn't hard at all for armies like Eldar and Tau to kill 40+ GEQ models in a single turn and you begin to see how this scales wildly out of control.

We don't know how easy it is for Eldar and Tau to kill GEQ models. We don't have their stats yet.

I was wrong!

If it's casualties + d6 - leadership, you will be losing models. Assuming the average dice roll is a 4, for Guard (I assume) it would be casualties - 2.

So if you lose 3+ guards you're taking more losses.

But let's remember, you get an armor save against some things you never did before. For instance, you get a 5+ save against basic Boltgun fire.

But let's remember, your tanks will be tougher, too.

Perhaps it's because I don't play current 40K, but personally...the rules don't sound bad.

If you have a blob unit of 40-50 models and you lose 20 in a single turn...that unit should absolutely fall apart, run away, collapse etc. I think people are used to gaming a game system and miraculously expecting a unit to walk into fire until it's shot down to the last man...I like that it isn't the case with the new rules.

As mentioned, I expect a lot of tag-along rules to accompany Morale tests (as well as wargear, characters, leadership, bla bla bla).

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

Sisters [10, 2 flamers, 130 points], fire on 20 Guardsmen [20, 2 plasma, 130 points]

7 hits average from the flamers with the new rules, 11 hits average from the bolters. 12 wounds total, average. Guardsmen are leadership 7, they test 12+D6 vs 7 and lose an additional 8.5 models. There are now no guardsmen left.

20 guardsmen shooting at the Sisters gives us: 34 lasguns and 4 plasma shots, giving 17 lasgun hits and 2 plasma hits, giving 8.5 lasgun wounds and 1.6 plasma wounds, giving a total of 4 casualties. The Sisters test battleshock at 4+D6 vs 8 and lose an additional 0-2 models.

Compare the effect if we split up the squads into 2 5-girl squads with 1 flamer each and 2 10-man squads with 1 plasmagun each.

Sisters concentrate fire, we get 12 wounds, and one guard squad is gone, the other is untouched to retaliate.
Sisters split fire, we get 3.5 hits from the flamers on each squad and 5.3 hits from the bolters, resulting in 6 wounds, resulting in two battleshock test that kill an additional 2.5 guardsmen each. Note that this time, Battleshock killed 5 men versus 8.
Guardsmen concentrate fire, inflicting 4 casualties on one squad, it tests battleshock and loses an additional 0-1 models.
Guardsmen split fire, inflicting an average of 2 casualties on each squad, both test battleshock and will always lose an additional 0 models.


Note the effect battleshock had on the blob squads versus the small squads.


This can get more drastic:
40 guardsmen [40, 3 plasma] versus 20 sisters [20, 2 flamers]

40 guardsmen fire on the 20 sisters, getting 69 shots, 34.5 hits, 18 wounds, and 6 casualties with lasguns and 6 shots, 3 hits, 2.5 wounds, and 2 casualties from plasma. Sisters test 8+D6 and lost 1-6, averaging 3.5 additional models.
If 4 separate squads of guardsmen fire on 4 separate squads of sisters, we get the same result we got before: 2 from each squad, with 0 from battleshock, a total of 30% reduction in wounds for being MSU.

Going the opposite direction, the Sisters now inflict 21 wounds on the guardsmen, and kill off 15-20 with battleshock. There are no guardsmen left.
Dispersed guardsmen take 6 wounds on 2 squads and 4.5 on 2, which results in an average of 5-6 losses from battleshock total.



There's always been a tactical advantage to having small units, but this really magnifies it in a drastic way. I can probably plot out the casualty distributions.

Commissars will probably negate battleshock, making them as absolute necessity. Synapse will probably continue to confer fearless, and Mob Rule will probably also cancel battleshock. The armies that rely on big blobs of weak things won't be hung out on the line, but I can expect to see lots more small squads than big ones anyway.

 Marmatag wrote:
I was wrong!

If it's casualties + d6 - leadership, you will be losing models. Assuming the average dice roll is a 4, for Guard (I assume) it would be casualties - 2.

So if you lose 3+ guards you're taking more losses.

But let's remember, you get an armor save against some things you never did before. For instance, you get a 5+ save against basic Boltgun fire.

But let's remember, your tanks will be tougher, too.

Let's also remember that we only have the basics of the rule so far. it is entirely possible that the more models a unit has, the higher their LD might be, just like AoS.
Stuff like Synapse, Mob rule and Commissars will almost assuredly give Morale bonuses

-

Mob rule was about orks killing each other to ignore a failed leadership causing the whole unit to run. Battleshock appears to be a Mob rule for everyone. Giving orks mob rule to ignore battleshock is similar to gIvins orks battleshock to ignore battleshock.

Well, as long as Combat Squads are still a thing, I should be fine. My Crimson Fists Sternguard always Combat Squad in 7th. I tended to use small squads everywhere else. My Blood Angels Tactical Squads are probably going to Combat Squad now, but that isn't always necessary. I think my Death Company will be split into two units now, but that isn't a guarantee depending on their rules.

I really hope there is a way to encourage larger units, such as bonuses to Leadership when squad sizes are maxed out.

Time will tell.

Well, umm...
RIP horde armies. That is all I can really say.
(and to those saying "oh just get X morale boosting model", remember AoS shooting mechanics and just how easy it is to shred a character trying to stay close enough to buff his allied unit. Unless of course he belongs to one of the elite factions)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

Sisters [10, 2 flamers, 130 points], fire on 20 Guardsmen [20, 2 plasma, 130 points]

7 hits average from the flamers with the new rules, 11 hits average from the bolters. 12 wounds total, average. Guardsmen are leadership 7, they test 12+D6 vs 7 and lose an additional 8.5 models. There are now no guardsmen left.

20 guardsmen shooting at the Sisters gives us: 34 lasguns and 4 plasma shots, giving 17 lasgun hits and 2 plasma hits, giving 8.5 lasgun wounds and 1.6 plasma wounds, giving a total of 4 casualties. The Sisters test battleshock at 4+D6 vs 8 and lose an additional 0-2 models.
.

You edited this post half a dozen times and still got the numbers wrong. If Marines are Ld 7, Guard are likely to be 6, whereas Sisters will likely be 7 or 6+faith rules. Let's say 7 for simplicity. We assume no bonuses to Ld except the number boost like in AoS.

In your example, the Guard get saves against thouse wounds, so take only 8 casualties. Ld6+1 for having more than 10 left means 1+D6 casualties to battleshock, for a max of 15 men lost (75%) or best case 10 lost (50%).

The Ld7 sisters taking 4 casualties suffer D6-2 battleshock casualties, so max 8 (80%) or best case just the original 4 (40%).

It's not that imbalanced. If the sisters are MSU, the guard can pretty reliably erase one of the 5-gal units in one go.

HandofMars wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

Sisters [10, 2 flamers, 130 points], fire on 20 Guardsmen [20, 2 plasma, 130 points]

7 hits average from the flamers with the new rules, 11 hits average from the bolters. 12 wounds total, average. Guardsmen are leadership 7, they test 12+D6 vs 7 and lose an additional 8.5 models. There are now no guardsmen left.

20 guardsmen shooting at the Sisters gives us: 34 lasguns and 4 plasma shots, giving 17 lasgun hits and 2 plasma hits, giving 8.5 lasgun wounds and 1.6 plasma wounds, giving a total of 4 casualties. The Sisters test battleshock at 4+D6 vs 8 and lose an additional 0-2 models.
.

You edited this post half a dozen times and still got the numbers wrong. If Marines are Ld 7, Guard are likely to be 6, whereas Sisters will likely be 7 or 6+faith rules. Let's say 7 for simplicity. We assume no bonuses to Ld except the number boost like in AoS.

In your example, the Guard get saves against thouse wounds, so take only 8 casualties. Ld6+1 for having more than 10 left means 1+D6 casualties to battleshock, for a max of 15 men lost (75%) or best case 10 lost (50%).

The Ld7 sisters taking 4 casualties suffer D6-2 battleshock casualties, so max 8 (80%) or best case just the original 4 (40%).

It's not that imbalanced. If the sisters are MSU, the guard can pretty reliably erase one of the 5-gal units in one go.

Did leadership go down? I'm looking at 8 for Sisters and 7 for Guardsmen.

I didn't notice that bolters and flamers don't penetrate armour anymore. I wonder what lasguns do now; grant armour?

The point is, for both the Sisters and the Guardsmen, the small units survive better than the big one. A bunch of small units take almost no battleshock casualties, whereas a big unit takes a ton. The downside to MSU currently is there's less bubble wrap for special weapons and that it's easier to prompt leadership. But 8e morale is going to remove this drawback.

Also where'd the +1 for 10 come from?

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Did leadership go down?

According to the sneak peaks for 8th edition, tactical marines have LD 7 (making it so that they can endure 1 casualty per turn without losing any models in the battle shock phase).

Expect 7 for sisters and 6 for guardsmen.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Did leadership go down? I'm looking at 8 for Sisters and 7 for Guardsmen.

Yes, it looks like Lds are going down a notch.

I didn't notice that bolters and flamers don't penetrate armour anymore. I wonder what lasguns do now; grant armour?

Same AP as Bolters. Because reasons.

Also where'd the +1 for 10 come from?

It's an Aos thing, apparently, that people are expecting to carry across to 40K.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
/quote]
There's always been a tactical advantage to having small units

That's true, however buff and synergy favor 1 big unit too, it is really depend on certain "bespoke" rule we don't know yet.

I would have rather seen them scrap Morale all together myself :( It has always been fiddly and kinda meh in 40k.

Hopefully they can resist the And they shall be stupid rule, and keep it simple.

I'll work it out at leadership 6 and 7, with Guardsmen getting their 5+ [still not considering First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire! or Light of the Emperor]
Guardsmen in one 40-man squad [40, 4 plasma, 260 points] fired upon by four 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
28 average flamer hits and 16 bolter hits, 29.3 wounds, 20 casualties, test battleshock at 20+D6-6=17.5 additional losses, total 37.5 casualties. 93.75%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], one-to-one.
7 average flamer hits and 4 bolter hits, 7.3 wounds, 4.8 casualties, test battleshock at 5+D6-6=2.5 additional losses per squad, total of 29.2 casualties. 73%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], two-to-one.
14 average flamer hits and 8 bolter hits, 15 wounds, 10 casualties per squad, nobody left to test battleshock, total of 20 casualties. 50%
Sisters in one 20-girl squad [20, 2 flamers, 250 points] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
4 plasma hits and 34 lasgun hits, 3.33 plasma wounds and 17 lasgun wounds, 8.5 casualties, test battleshock at 8.5+D6-7=5 additional losses, total 13.5 casualties. 67.5%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], one to one:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 4.25 lasgun wounds, 2 casualties, test battleshock at 2+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 8 casualties, 40%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], two to one:
2 plasma hits and 17 lasgun hits, 1.6 plasma wounds and 8.5 lasgun wounds, 4 casualties, test battleshock at 4+D6-7=.5 additional loss for two squads, total 9 casualties, 45%

The effect is particularly pronounced with the Sisters, by splitting up they reduce their number of losses by 40%. In addition, note the effect that splitting up had when fired upon two-to-one, resulting in squad annihilation and actually capping the damage it's possible to take.

MSU is almost always better than one big unit. If the enemy splits up onto four small squads and I have one big one, then I can wipe out one a turn with dramatic overkill, but at most one a turn, whereas four small squads can combine to wipe out one big unit or split their fire to engage up to four small units. The 40-man guard unit is bought and upgraded as four 10-man squads then combined, but the improved special weapons density from MSU is also noticeable with the Sisters, improving their potential damage too. Splitting up grants a total of 6 additional upgraded guns. In addition, small shooting units can be more easily destroyed by the enemy's charge and/or shooting, therefore allowing undamaged units to shoot the enemy during your turn.

Formerly, these advantages would have been offset by the fact that the special weapons lose out on bubble wrap, a big unit can more efficiently use Orders and Psychic Powers, and that a big unit was harder to dislodge through morale. But battleshock makes them more vulnerable to morale, not less.

Big units aren't going to be dead. Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock, and order and buff efficiency is incredibly important, but it's an observation.

Here's with Blood Claws [who are Marines, but are allowed to come in big squads]
Blood Claws (Marines) in one 15-man squad [15, 180 points] fired upon by three 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
21 average flamer hits and 12 bolter hits, 16.5 wounds, 6 casualties, test battleshock at 6+D6-7=2.5 additional losses, total of 8.5 casualties. 56.7%
Blood Claws (Marines) in two 5-man squads [5, 60 points] fired upon by three 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
7 average flamer hits and 4 bolter hits, 5.5 wounds, 1.8 casualties, test battleshock at 2+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total of 6 casualties. 40%
Blood Claws (Marines) in one 10-man squad [15, 180 points] fired upon by three 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
3 plasma hits and 25.5 lasgun hits, 2.5 plasma wounds and 8.4 lasgun wounds, 5.3 casualties, test battleshock at 5.3+D6-7=1.8 additional losses, total 6.8 casualties, 45%
Blood Claws (Marines) in two 5-man squads [5, 60 points] fired upon by three 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 2.8 lasgun wounds, 1.76 casualties, test battleshock at 1.76+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 5.28 casualties, 35%

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope there is a way to encourage larger units, such as bonuses to Leadership when squad sizes are maxed out.

H2h for one. You want few big units in close combat rather than multiple small ones.

GW could also be smart and borrow page from FW and make bigger unit cheaper than 2 smaller one(ie base cost say 50 for 5 guys, each extra guy costs 8 for example). Rules often favour MSU overall(regardless of game. Not 40k syndrome) so points is good place to compensate for it.

Benefits for big units to compensate LD issues don't neccessarily have to be in LD section. LD has historically from 2nd ed onward always helped MSU over big units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HandofMars wrote:
It's not that imbalanced. If the sisters are MSU, the guard can pretty reliably erase one of the 5-gal units in one go.

If they wiped out MSU unit then they lost battleshock casualties they would suffer if they were in big unit so MSU suffers either same or less casualties than 1 big unit.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'll work it out at leadership 6 and 7, with Guardsmen getting their 5+ [still not considering First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire! or Light of the Emperor]
Guardsmen in one 40-man squad [40, 4 plasma, 260 points] fired upon by four 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
28 average flamer hits and 16 bolter hits, 29.3 wounds, 20 casualties, test battleshock at 20+D6-6=17.5 additional losses, total 37.5 casualties. 93.75%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], one-to-one.
7 average flamer hits and 4 bolter hits, 7.3 wounds, 4.8 casualties, test battleshock at 5+D6-6=2.5 additional losses per squad, total of 29.2 casualties. 73%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], two-to-one.
14 average flamer hits and 8 bolter hits, 15 wounds, 10 casualties per squad, nobody left to test battleshock, total of 20 casualties. 50%
Sisters in one 20-girl squad [20, 2 flamers, 250 points] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
4 plasma hits and 34 lasgun hits, 3.33 plasma wounds and 17 lasgun wounds, 8.5 casualties, test battleshock at 8.5+D6-7=5 additional losses, total 13.5 casualties. 67.5%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], one to one:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 4.25 lasgun wounds, 2 casualties, test battleshock at 2+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 8 casualties, 40%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], two to one:
2 plasma hits and 17 lasgun hits, 1.6 plasma wounds and 8.5 lasgun wounds, 4 casualties, test battleshock at 4+D6-7=.5 additional loss for two squads, total 9 casualties, 45%

The effect is particularly pronounced with the Sisters, by splitting up they reduce their number of losses by 40%. In addition, note the effect that splitting up had when fired upon two-to-one, resulting in squad annihilation and actually capping the damage it's possible to take.

MSU is almost always better than one big unit. If the enemy splits up onto four small squads and I have one big one, then I can wipe out one a turn with dramatic overkill, but at most one a turn, whereas four small squads can combine to wipe out one big unit or split their fire to engage up to four small units. The 40-man guard unit is bought and upgraded as four 10-man squads then combined, but the improved special weapons density from MSU is also noticeable with the Sisters, improving their potential damage too. Splitting up grants a total of 6 additional upgraded guns. In addition, small shooting units can be more easily destroyed by the enemy's charge and/or shooting, therefore allowing undamaged units to shoot the enemy during your turn.

Formerly, these advantages would have been offset by the fact that the special weapons lose out on bubble wrap, a big unit can more efficiently use Orders and Psychic Powers, and that a big unit was harder to dislodge through morale. But battleshock makes them more vulnerable to morale, not less.

Big units aren't going to be dead. Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock, and order and buff efficiency is incredibly important, but it's an observation.

I have a few notes to make:

1. Even in 7th edition, MSU is a way to make the same number of models more durable, since, with few exceptions, your opponent has to target one unit at a time, and even then, assaults are tied to what did or didn't happen in the shooting phase. If you have 10 man marine squads, it is difficult to think of reasons why you shouldn't combat squad them into 5 man units. Even if you could take 2 special weapons instead of 1 special and one heavy, it's still a better idea to combat squad them.

2. You yourself note that big units provide a better use of orders and psychic buffs. I can only assume that this will continue in 8th edition.

3. Let me say now that I vehemently disagree with the idea of commisars providing immunity to battleshock. First and foremost, guardsmen are much cheaper than marines, and I can't see this changing in 8th edition. If horde armies get special treatment in the battle shock phase, then this means that elite armies are at a per-point disadvantage.

Horde armies have already gotten buffed with the ability to roll saves against boltguns, and, again, by the change to templates. They do not need immunity to the battleshock phase too.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

What I think would be fair is if you can *BLAM* a model in exchange for rerolling the die.

 Traditio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

What I think would be fair is if you can *BLAM* a model in exchange for rerolling the die.

I guess. But that makes commissars pointless. They make no difference in big squads, and they have the same effect as failing for small ones. They're already mostly pointless, I guess.

Though if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:And if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

I agree that this is potentially a problem.

However, do consider the fact that GW has indicated that they are doing extensive playtesting to ensure balance.

I can only assume that at least one of the playtesters used big IG blobs.

I almost can't believe that I'm saying this, but...

I'm fairly sure that GW's got this.

Traditio wrote:
3. Let me say now that I vehemently disagree with the idea of commisars providing immunity to battleshock. First and foremost, guardsmen are much cheaper than marines, and I can't see this changing in 8th edition. If horde armies get special treatment in the battle shock phase, then this means that elite armies are at a per-point disadvantage.

Horde armies have already gotten buffed with the ability to roll saves against boltguns, and, again, by the change to templates. They do not need immunity to the battleshock phase too.

Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously. Grey Hunters are up to 10, and Blood Claws are the biggest I found in my book at up to 15. Do Neophytes go up to 20?

Grey Hunters (Marines) in one 10-man squad [10, 140 points] fired upon by two 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
2 plasma hits and 17 lasgun hits, 1.6 plasma wounds and 5.6 lasgun wounds, 3.5 casualties, test battleshock at 3.5+D6-7=0 additional losses, total 3.5 casualties, 35%
Grey Hunters (Marines) in two 5-man squads [5, 70 points] fired upon by two 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 2.8 lasgun wounds, 1.76 casualties, test battleshock at 1.76+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 3.5 casualties, 35%
[Sisters produce the same result]

Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:And if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

I agree that this is potentially a problem.

However, do consider the fact that GW has indicated that they are doing extensive playtesting to ensure balance.

I can only assume that at least one of the playtesters used big IG blobs.

I almost can't believe that I'm saying this, but...

I'm fairly sure that GW's got us covered on this.

They probably do.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I guess. But that makes commissars pointless. They make no difference in big squads, and they have the same effect as failing for small ones. They're already mostly pointless, I guess.

Though if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

Pretty sure effect is ~2 less casualties. At least in 2nd ed h2h where each blip in d6 roll+modifiers vs another and difference=number of hits parry(force reroll to opponent dice) was in average bonus worth +2 to your dice roll(which is why the simplified h2h system we use has parry=+2 to roll. More or less same end result, less rolling. Only some special rules involved like with harlequins force to resort to original system).

Difference would be small yes but complete negation is very unlikely. GW stated already units that ignore battleshock are going to be far and wide. All 1 model are already so there cannot be many and cheap IG squads with commisar would lead quickly path of nobody cares. If those why not unit X as well? Unit Y? Like entire marine range? Etc etc etc.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously.

I believe that you may not be understanding my point.

Here's what I mean:

Let's suppose you successfully kill two of my marines. I didn't upgrade to a veteran sarge. I roll a 6. I lose a guy. Assuming no further rules changes, that's a 13 point loss.

On the other hand:

Let's suppose that I thoroughly focus fire down your 40 man IG blob. I mow through 30 of them in a single phase. You roll a die and...*BLAM* You lose 1 guy and ignore the rest.

That's a 5 point loss.

Does that seem fair to you?

In AoS your general/warlord gets command abilities. Kinda like an order that they can give at the start of their turn.

The basic one that everyone gets is Inspiring Presence, where you pick one of your units and make it immune to battleshock tests until the start of your next turn.
Quite nice when your army is centered around a big horde unit containing 60 models.

There are plenty of other faction-specific aura buffs and so on that can also make units immune or resistant to it.
Assuming similar mechanics make their way over, I don't think it's going to be too big a deal for horde armies.

Arson Fire wrote:
In AoS your general/warlord gets command abilities. Kinda like an order that they can give at the start of their turn.

The basic one that everyone gets is Inspiring Presence, where you pick one of your units and make it immune to battleshock tests until the start of your next turn.
Quite nice when your army is centered around a big horde unit containing 60 models.

There are plenty of other faction-specific aura buffs and so on that can also make units immune or resistant to it.
Assuming similar mechanics make their way over, I don't think it's going to be too big a deal for horde armies.

That's btw bad system in that it's very much unscalable. Effect of that rule varies a lot based on do you have 500 pts game(huge) or 4000 pts(ignorable).

That's pet peeve of mine. Rules that don't scale well. Hated FB 5th ed magic phase for that(apart from that most fun magic rule system I have played so far. Some spells could have done with tweaking but other than that it rocked. Except zero scalability), 0-1 unit limitations thorough game history etc.

 Traditio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

What I think would be fair is if you can *BLAM* a model in exchange for rerolling the die.

I'd make it +D3 or +D6 to the units leadership for the test

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously.

I believe that you may not be understanding my point.

Here's what I mean:

Let's suppose you successfully kill two of my marines. I didn't upgrade to a veteran sarge. I roll a 6. I lose a guy. Assuming no further rules changes, that's a 13 point loss.

On the other hand:

Let's suppose that I thoroughly focus fire down your 40 man IG blob. I mow through 30 of them in a single phase. You roll a die and...*BLAM* You lose 1 guy and ignore the rest.

That's a 5 point loss.

Does that seem fair to you?

Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
9 hits, 6 wounds, 4 casualties, battleshock .5, 4.5 total losses. 45%
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
3.5 total losses. 35%
Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 total losses. 40%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
1.8 total losses, 36%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
4.8 casualties, battleshock 2.5, 7.3 total losses 73%,
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 casualties, 40%

A Commissar cancelling battleshock would keep guardsmen as survivable as they are now for 35 points.

Well, not really. The nerf to boltguns and flamers is a massive buff to Guardsmen. They're 33% more resilient. Is the 33% worth the 35 extra points?

I'm not sure if the loss of AP but removal of the template is actually a new buff or nerf to flamers.


So as far as points disadvantage goes, it's still the guardsmen being worse off. And that's before considering the transport options, and special weapons options.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, umm...
RIP horde armies. That is all I can really say.
(and to those saying "oh just get X morale boosting model", remember AoS shooting mechanics and just how easy it is to shred a character trying to stay close enough to buff his allied unit. Unless of course he belongs to one of the elite factions)

It's not that easy, and even if you do shoot that character, that means the unit they were buffing is still fine and dandy and has now had a full turn to be up in yo grill.

And if you think YOU thought of this and the people playtesting didn't then you're delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously.

I believe that you may not be understanding my point.

Here's what I mean:

Let's suppose you successfully kill two of my marines. I didn't upgrade to a veteran sarge. I roll a 6. I lose a guy. Assuming no further rules changes, that's a 13 point loss.

On the other hand:

Let's suppose that I thoroughly focus fire down your 40 man IG blob. I mow through 30 of them in a single phase. You roll a die and...*BLAM* You lose 1 guy and ignore the rest.

That's a 5 point loss.

Does that seem fair to you?

Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
9 hits, 6 wounds, 4 casualties, battleshock .5, 4.5 total losses. 45%
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
3.5 total losses. 35%
Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 total losses. 40%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
1.8 total losses, 36%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
4.8 casualties, battleshock 2.5, 7.3 total losses 73%,
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 casualties, 40%

A Commissar cancelling battleshock would keep guardsmen as survivable as they are now for 35 points.

Well, not really. The nerf to boltguns and flamers is a massive buff to Guardsmen. They're 33% more resilient. Is the 33% worth the 35 extra points?

I'm not sure if the loss of AP but removal of the template is actually a new buff or nerf to flamers.


So as far as points disadvantage goes, it's still the guardsmen being worse off. And that's before considering the transport options, and special weapons options.

All of this math is completely pointless because you have no idea what any of the numbers actually are except the profiles for flamers or boltguns.

And weren't people super worried about big bricks of guardsmen just melting entire boards? Wasn't that a thing?

So which is it, are they Land Raider munching Titan thumping monstrosities or are they paper thin wuss bags? Cause they can't be both.

ERJAK wrote:
It's not that easy, and even if you do shoot that character, that means the unit they were buffing is still fine and dandy and has now had a full turn to be up in yo grill.

Of course that means that high S, high rend, multi damage weapon was spent better at killing multi wound character vs 1 wound grunt...Optimizing firepower so unit isn't too happy to have been saved.

ERJAK wrote:


All of this math is completely pointless because you have no idea what any of the numbers actually are except the profiles for flamers or boltguns.

And weren't people super worried about big bricks of guardsmen just melting entire boards? Wasn't that a thing?

So which is it, are they Land Raider munching Titan thumping monstrosities or are they paper thin wuss bags? Cause they can't be both.

Well, have you ever seen a 50-man guard squad benefiting from Prescience and Misfortune and Bring it Down! or First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!? Kills most everything.

Big bricks of guardsmen won't be melting entire boards. Lots of small or medium sized bricks might, but I doubt it. A Land Raider will have "dozens of wounds".

I don't actually see where they're going to be able to hurt Land Raiders, but I'd hazard it involves exploding dice, which would take a lot of guardsmen.


Guardsmen have always been fragile. They're getting their armoursave against most weapons now, but they're also taking massive casualties from battleshock. We'll see what happens. Templates changing may be a benefit or a detriment, too, we'll see. It's actually kind of hard to get more than 3 or 4 guardsmen under a flamerthrower template except in some particularly special situations.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Guardsmen have always been fragile. They're getting their armour save against most weapons now

Probably including formerly AP 4 weapons (which will probably be Rend -1).

If you equip them with 4+ armor, chances are, they'll get a save against krak missiles.

Give them 4+ armor and put them in cover, and, all of a sudden, they are basically wearing power armor.

Let's be clear on this: imperial guard and orks are getting a MASSIVE boost in durability.

If I need a krak missile to kill a 5 point model...

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Guardsmen have always been fragile. They're getting their armour save against most weapons now

Probably including formerly AP 4 weapons (which will probably be Rend -1).

If you equip them with 4+ armor, chances are, they'll get a save against krak missiles.

Give them 4+ armor and put them in cover, and, all of a sudden, they are basically wearing power armor.

Let's be clear on this: imperial guard and orks are getting a MASSIVE boost in durability.

Putting vets in cover already makes them MEQ.

Any boost would be a massive boost. They're still going to be dying left and right, and battleshock will more than make up for their 33% increase in resilience.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Putting vets in cover already makes them MEQ.

In 7th edition?

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Putting vets in cover already makes them MEQ.

In 7th edition?

Vets + Forward Sentries + Aegis Defense Barricade = 3+ cover save. They're still T3, though.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Vets + Forward Sentries + Aegis Defense Barricade = 3+ cover save. They're still T3, though.

What do you want to bet that GW is going to figure out a way to give you TEQ guardsmen?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, it's not even that difficult.

All that they have to do is make ruins give +2 instead of +1.

And there you go. TEQ guardsmen.

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Vets + Forward Sentries + Aegis Defense Barricade = 3+ cover save. They're still T3, though.

What do you want to bet that GW is going to figure out a way to give you TEQ guardsmen?

There's probably already a way, I just haven't thought it up.

 Traditio wrote:

Let's be clear on this: imperial guard and orks are getting a MASSIVE boost in durability.

Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters. On the other hand, an ork in cover will suffer more casualties vs heavier weapons and identical casualties vs bolters. Furthermore, there will be morale tests that will increase death count. So unless there is some serious battleshock mitigation hordes are even less durable than before. And much less in larger blobs cause the enemy can concentrate fire and force more extra casualties.

However, i'm pretty sure there's going to be some sort of battleshock mitigation for larger squads and for orks in particular.

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

I've never found Carapace Armour to worth all that much for vets. I stick it on them sometimes, but as a whole, they're stiffer behind the gunline with Camo Nets.

In general, I've found resilience not all it's cracked up to be. Having more cheaper units with big guns works out better than a few tough ones. Making them dead first is the best protection.

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

This can be a solution but we know nothing about 'eavy armor cost and if it's even an option. And the 40% increase in price to get a 33% better save that can still be mitigated and is wholly ignored by morale system might make footslogging 'ard boyz actually more fragile than t-shird boyz point for point. It's a no-brainer for trukkboyz though.

Anywayz. Time shall tell. If nothing else changes, i don't see footslogging hordes being any good. But we can always go back to trukk rushes and msu.

Each general in AoS has the ability to use Inspiring presence [make one unit immune to battleshock for the turn] on one unit per turn. If your fielding a 50 man blob squad. Why would you not use it on that squad?

 insaniak wrote:



Same AP as Bolters. Because reasons.

Bolters and Lasguns having the same save modifier worked just fine in Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition. I don't imagine it's a problem now.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously. Grey Hunters are up to 10, and Blood Claws are the biggest I found in my book at up to 15. Do Neophytes go up to 20?

FWIW, Black Templar Crusader Squads currently can have up to 20 members.
0-1 Sword Brother, replacing an Initiate
5-10 Initiates
0-10 Neophytes, dependent on Initiate count.

Who knows if that unit will remain the same or even exist in the next edition, though. Blood Claw counts are similar, they may go up in price.

The other bit of reasoning there is that if you give most standard infantry weapons AP -1, then:
1) You create the weird situation where bolters and heavy bolters are equally good at ignoring armor, or
2) heavy bolters knock TEQs down to a 4+ save, which seems perverse, and so on down the line: 5+ from a krak missile? Too much AP makes armor nearly useless, requiring invulns and other hackery everywhere, and we're back to the current nasty status quo.

Templates being just dice rolls is definitely a benefit, because it let's us get on with the game and not wait 45 minutes for you to scatter every one of your 12 wyvern templates. Ugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

I've never found Carapace Armour to worth all that much for vets. I stick it on them sometimes, but as a whole, they're stiffer behind the gunline with Camo Nets.

Armor and cover are now on the same modifier spectrum, so a piece of cover or a better armor amounts to the same thing. Now carapace will stack with camo nets, if there is still such a thing.

HandofMars wrote:

Armor and cover are now on the same modifier spectrum, so a piece of cover or a better armor amounts to the same thing. Now carapace will stack with camo nets, if there is still such a thing.

3

I got the impression that GW are making Cover and Concealment different.
So Carapace armour will increase save (as will cover)
But camo gear/smoke launchers and other equivalents (Stealth/Shrouded etc) will instead modify the to-hit rolls.

Which would make sense really

I wonder if they'll do something interesting with Tank Shock.
Its always been an underwhelming thing anyway.

Assuming it not disappearing all together, I can imagine it ceasing to being a morale type thing and more like a squashy type thing.

Maybe something like half of starting wounds equals the number of D6 attacks at a strength equal to half the toughness of the vehicle . Then hitting on a 6+ at slow movement, 5+ at normal movement and 4+ at a fast.

Since all vehicles have A stat presumably tank shock is now represented by vehicle charging into close combat.

tneva82 wrote:
Since all vehicles have A stat presumably tank shock is now represented by vehicle charging into close combat.

Do they? I've missed that (where should I be looking?). That'd be simpler. Do they have a strength value too?

They have said all models have same stat block. No more different stat blocks for vehicles.

tneva82 wrote:
They have said all models have same stat block. No more different stat blocks for vehicles.

I knew that, but I'd imagined attacks and strength to end up as an "*" without a listed value, same as when comparing a dreadnought with a rhino in current rules

 obsidianaura wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They have said all models have same stat block. No more different stat blocks for vehicles.

I knew that, but I'd imagined attacks and strength to end up as an "*" without a listed value, same as when comparing a dreadnought with a rhino in current rules

I believe they said 'vehicles' now get a single attack at high strength in cc. Which begs a question of whether vehicles can run down hordes of Orks surrounding them or whether they still only get the one attack.

That one attack could cause D6 hits for all we know.