Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
This hurts hordes more in the cases where they lose fewer models but still fail, right?
Say you have 30 cultists, and lose 5 of them, then fail your morale. Now you would lose 3-4 from morale. In 9th you will lose 1 + 4-5 (I think?).
The situation is better for you if you lose 14 cultists, but worse if you lose fewer.
I was really hoping for unit penalties rather than just removing models. Like Going to Ground, Snap shots, force fallbacks, force move to cover, etc.. something that actually is psychological and not just .... i got bonus kills.
Rihgu wrote: This hurts hordes more in the cases where they lose fewer models but still fail, right?
Say you have 30 cultists, and lose 5 of them, then fail your morale. Now you would lose 3-4 from morale. In 9th you will lose 1 + 4-5 (I think?).
The situation is better for you if you lose 14 cultists, but worse if you lose fewer.
If you can drop the enemy unit below half it's strength, the chance for models to run increases. If you kill 16 out of 30 cultists, you roll 14 D6 and every roll of a 1 or 2 results in someone running. If you only killed 14 out of 30 cultists, the roll would only be on a 1
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Not quite true - if you kill 4/5 of the unit and it fails the Morale test the survivor dies. One model always dies if you fail the initial test.
Seems like it still doesn't hurt MSU armies at all, so I don't think we'll see too many people changing away from that style of list. I really hope they remove all the current immunity to morale rules though because this is going to make morale probably even less impactful than it is now unless they do so.
Isn't the problem with MSU the armies that have them don't need (ignoring the morale rule for a moment) to go above the minimum sizes for units anyway?
Yeah there's some niche uses in say Dark Angels with a 10-man Hellblaster unit. But the Intercessor/Tactical's of the game don't need to go above 5 models anyway so unless you do something that cripples them for losing 1 model the smaller squads will nearly always be fine.
At which point you need to apply that to Hordes or have multiple morale rules that trigger based on the size of the unit which is a level of complexity I don't think many people want.
The rule looks fine as is though, and doesn't penalise large blocks of 'gaunts/cultists/etc as much which I take as an improvement even if Marines (that were notably ignoring morale in multiple editions anyway) aren't as affected as before.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Current system - lose 3, roll 6, lose 1 model
New system - lose 3, roll 6, lose 1 model and 1/6 of the rest
Depends on the degree of failure. Lots of math needs to be done.
I like it how it removes the swingy-ness of the current morale rules. I also like how the attrition rules are expandable and could allow for previously useless abilities (-1Ld? Oh no!) to actually have a role in the game.
catbarf wrote: And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
You're implying that GW understands what an MSU even is. They don't play the same game as we do, so the thought of taking smaller units to avoid certain rule interactions never even occurs to them.
Rihgu wrote: This hurts hordes more in the cases where they lose fewer models but still fail, right?
Say you have 30 cultists, and lose 5 of them, then fail your morale. Now you would lose 3-4 from morale. In 9th you will lose 1 + 4-5 (I think?).
The situation is better for you if you lose 14 cultists, but worse if you lose fewer.
If you can drop the enemy unit below half it's strength, the chance for models to run increases. If you kill 16 out of 30 cultists, you roll 14 D6 and every roll of a 1 or 2 results in someone running. If you only killed 14 out of 30 cultists, the roll would only be on a 1
That's still only 4-5 losses (2x as many flee from attrition but you're rolling less dice). Which means the less models die, the harsher morale is (relatively speaking). Which is a little strange.
So a 30 man blob that loses 5 will double losses from morale, whereas a 30 man blob that loses 16 will only take 25% more casualties from it.
The morale change is making me rethink taking my usual 3x 10-man intercessor squads as Ultramarines. It'll take a lot of feeling things out to make the right choice in the end,
Thadin wrote: The morale change is making me rethink taking my usual 3x 10-man intercessor squads as Ultramarines. It'll take a lot of feeling things out to make the right choice in the end,
Thinking a bit more about this.
If I have a 5 man and I lose 3 I would only fail the test on a 6 (barring modifiers), lose another, and gives me 33% squad wipe. Losing 3 in a 10 man loses me one more and then one additional on average. So, I guess the raw numbers are similar, but I guess it depends if you want to hold objectives.
BroodSpawn wrote: Isn't the problem with MSU the armies that have them don't need (ignoring the morale rule for a moment) to go above the minimum sizes for units anyway?
Yeah there's some niche uses in say Dark Angels with a 10-man Hellblaster unit. But the Intercessor/Tactical's of the game don't need to go above 5 models anyway so unless you do something that cripples them for losing 1 model the smaller squads will nearly always be fine.
At which point you need to apply that to Hordes or have multiple morale rules that trigger based on the size of the unit which is a level of complexity I don't think many people want.
The rule looks fine as is though, and doesn't penalise large blocks of 'gaunts/cultists/etc as much which I take as an improvement even if Marines (that were notably ignoring morale in multiple editions anyway) aren't as affected as before.
The true nerf to MSU came from the new "Lookout sir". 5 man units are terrible at protecting chars, and 3 man units are even worse.
Marines will surely not be really worried about morale, but for sure they are worried about losing chars.
Rihgu wrote: This hurts hordes more in the cases where they lose fewer models but still fail, right?
Say you have 30 cultists, and lose 5 of them, then fail your morale. Now you would lose 3-4 from morale. In 9th you will lose 1 + 4-5 (I think?).
The situation is better for you if you lose 14 cultists, but worse if you lose fewer.
Current: 5 die, lose 4
New: 5 die, lose 1, lose 4
An increase of 1, however, it's pretty much a big win if your cultists took only 5 casualties to begin with.
On the other end - if 15 die...
Current: 15 die then likely squad wipe
New : 15 die, lose 1, lose 5
People will have to put more effort into removing Cultists.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Current system - lose 3, roll 6, lose 1 model
New system - lose 3, roll 6, lose 1 model and 1/6 of the rest
Depends on the degree of failure. Lots of math needs to be done.
Old system against Night Lords - lose 3, roll 6, lose 2 models.
New system - lose 3, roll 6, lose 1 model and maybe 1/6 of the rest.
And I did the old system assuming I only have one unit within 6 and haven't done anything else to decrease the target's leadership (butcher cannons, raptors, etc). They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it. We're trading guaranteed losses on high dice rolls to hoping our opponent rolls lots of 1s.
Yeah so running the numbers on a 10-man squad at Ld8 that sustains four casualties:
Current system- a roll of 5 loses an extra model, a roll of 6 loses two, so average 0.5 additional morale casualties.
New system- 33% chance to fail the morale test and lose a model, then a 17% chance for each of the remaining 5 survivors, for a total average loss of 0.62 casualties.
If they sustain six casualties:
Current system- Lose one model on 3, two on 4, etc. Average loss of 1.67 additional.
New system- 67% chance to fail, then remaining three survivors each have a 33% chance to flee, for a total average loss of 1.33 models.
So... Different from the current system, overall. I'm not sure it's an improvement for anything except really large hordes. It certainly doesn't do what they claimed it would do, which is incentivize medium-sized squads.
BroodSpawn wrote: Isn't the problem with MSU the armies that have them don't need (ignoring the morale rule for a moment) to go above the minimum sizes for units anyway?
Yeah there's some niche uses in say Dark Angels with a 10-man Hellblaster unit. But the Intercessor/Tactical's of the game don't need to go above 5 models anyway so unless you do something that cripples them for losing 1 model the smaller squads will nearly always be fine.
At which point you need to apply that to Hordes or have multiple morale rules that trigger based on the size of the unit which is a level of complexity I don't think many people want.
The rule looks fine as is though, and doesn't penalise large blocks of 'gaunts/cultists/etc as much which I take as an improvement even if Marines (that were notably ignoring morale in multiple editions anyway) aren't as affected as before.
The true nerf to MSU came from the new "Lookout sir". 5 man units are terrible at protecting chars, and 3 man units are even worse.
Marines will surely not be really worried about morale, but for sure they are worried about losing chars.
I agree. And MSU already get the short end of the stick from Psychic powers and Strategems.
BroodSpawn wrote: Isn't the problem with MSU the armies that have them don't need (ignoring the morale rule for a moment) to go above the minimum sizes for units anyway?
Yeah there's some niche uses in say Dark Angels with a 10-man Hellblaster unit. But the Intercessor/Tactical's of the game don't need to go above 5 models anyway so unless you do something that cripples them for losing 1 model the smaller squads will nearly always be fine.
At which point you need to apply that to Hordes or have multiple morale rules that trigger based on the size of the unit which is a level of complexity I don't think many people want.
The rule looks fine as is though, and doesn't penalise large blocks of 'gaunts/cultists/etc as much which I take as an improvement even if Marines (that were notably ignoring morale in multiple editions anyway) aren't as affected as before.
The true nerf to MSU came from the new "Lookout sir". 5 man units are terrible at protecting chars, and 3 man units are even worse.
Marines will surely not be really worried about morale, but for sure they are worried about losing chars.
8th Ed character protection only applies if you're within 3" of a Monster, Vehicle, or squad of 3+ models. Otherwise characters can be freely targeted.
Atsknf still leaves 5 men marine MSU units untouched due to having them never really failing morale even with 4 deaths...I'd like to see that rule change to ignore the additional -1 for Attrition rather than having it the way it is...
catbarf wrote: Yeah so running the numbers on a 10-man squad at Ld8 that sustains four casualties:
Current system- a roll of 5 loses an extra model, a roll of 6 loses two, so average 0.5 additional morale casualties.
New system- 33% chance to fail the morale test and lose a model, then a 17% chance for each of the remaining 5 survivors, for a total average loss of 0.62 casualties.
If they sustain six casualties:
Current system- Lose one model on 3, two on 4, etc. Average loss of 1.67 additional.
New system- 67% chance to fail, then remaining three survivors each have a 33% chance to flee, for a total average loss of 1.33 models.
So... Different from the current system, overall. I'm not sure it's an improvement for anything except really large hordes. It certainly doesn't do what they claimed it would do, which is incentivize medium-sized squads.
Ok my dudes - here we go. Using this table if two 10 mans take 2 casualties each with -3LD vs four 5 mans that take 1 casualty each with -3 LD:
10 mans lose a total of 6.2 -- (four were initial casualties, so 2.2 to morale/attrition)
5 mans lose a total of 7.1 -- (3.1 to morale / attrition)
Over-all I think this is an interesting and good change. In a vacuum. What has me concerned is that I'm not seeing any signs of GW doing things to actually make gameplay faster (and no - the "points increase isn't going to do that no matter how hard you try to argue it). This is another example of a rule that adds steps and MORE dice rolls. So while I feel like it IS better than current morale, 9th is shaping up to be a much slower game at the rate we're going ...
Tycho wrote: Over-all I think this is an interesting and good change. In a vacuum. What has me concerned is that I'm not seeing any signs of GW doing things to actually make gameplay faster (and no - the "points increase isn't going to do that no matter how hard you try to argue it). This is another example of a rule that adds steps and MORE dice rolls. So while I feel like it IS better than current morale, 9th is shaping up to be a much slower game at the rate we're going ...
They did one thing, they limited Overwatch a lot, and it did take time.
Doesn't sound like a big change to me, but my Daemons will be happy.
But I assume GW will, like in every edition so far, keep 70% of the units/ factions in the game immune against morale. I think the only faction where they changed that when moving to 8th were CSM, their Cult units went from morale immunity to normal moral rules - and stayed that way, unlike other factions that got their morale immunity back with their Codex.
I would have liked some kind of modifier if you lost any models against an enemy attack, that way it could have an effect an small units, too. They'd really have to lower all the LD values to make that new morale rule actually come up. Maybe we don't have the whole picture and you get -1Ld when there's an enemy in engagement range for example.
Marines are the first book out, so maybe ATSKNF changes to ignoring the -1 for half strength, or something to do with attrition rather than a flat re-roll.
Of course that means erratas for BA/DA/GK/DW and so on...
KurtAngle2 wrote: I would like to remind you that thanks to ATSKNF 5men Space Marine units are effectively STILL immune to Morale since they're not failing it at all
Marines know no fear. That is kind of their thing and has been so for all editions I've played in. It's not going to change now.
catbarf wrote: Yeah so running the numbers on a 10-man squad at Ld8 that sustains four casualties:
Current system- a roll of 5 loses an extra model, a roll of 6 loses two, so average 0.5 additional morale casualties.
New system- 33% chance to fail the morale test and lose a model, then a 17% chance for each of the remaining 5 survivors, for a total average loss of 0.62 casualties.
If they sustain six casualties:
Current system- Lose one model on 3, two on 4, etc. Average loss of 1.67 additional.
New system- 67% chance to fail, then remaining three survivors each have a 33% chance to flee, for a total average loss of 1.33 models.
So... Different from the current system, overall. I'm not sure it's an improvement for anything except really large hordes. It certainly doesn't do what they claimed it would do, which is incentivize medium-sized squads.
Was going to post this but you beat me too it.
Its strange - because I think the averages are much the same, the outcomes are however more skewed.
So.. you take that unit which took 4 casualties. Before you had 0-0-0-0-1-2.
Now you have 0-0-0-0-(1,2,3,4,5,6),(1,2,3,4,5,6).
And you are potentially going to feel the games when you roll an abnormal number of 1s. (See transport deaths as an example of something in the game right now.)
So tentatively I think this is a buff for hordes and a nerf for elite infantry - but only because it opens the door for the elite infantry player to get unlucky, rather than it being statistically set in stone. (Obviously the horde player could be unlucky too - but they can't just be autowiped like before.)
Really its going to be interesting how they mess with this system. Units that apply a couple of minuses to leadership and then a minus on the attrition roll could be very nasty.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are the first book out, so maybe ATSKNF changes to ignoring the -1 for half strength, or something to do with attrition rather than a flat re-roll.
Of course that means erratas for BA/DA/GK/DW and so on...
I expect the DA grim resolve to simply become immunity to Combat Attrition.
They did one thing, they limited Overwatch a lot, and it did take time.
We don't really know that though. My guess is a lot of armies are going to get strats and/or doctrines/abilities, etc that allow them to ignore/manipulate that. Offhand, I can see Tau, Craftworld Eldar, and Space Marines at a minimum getting things to allow them to significantly bypass it. Could also see 'Crons getting something.
I would like to remind you that thanks to ATSKNF 5men Space Marine units are effectively STILL immune to Morale since they're not failing it at all
Yep. Right now it looks like a VERY "MSU/Marine-Friendly" edition. Let's also not forget that a lot of chapters on top of ATSKNF will also likely continue to get strats to allow them to mitigate morale in some way. In 8th fir example, things have to go REALLY REALLY catastrophically bad for a Ultramarines unit to suffer in any way from morale. We'll have to wait and see I guess.
Honestly, this looks like it took a mechanic that was already mostly ignored, and just made it both substantially more complex and time consuming, and less relevant by dramatically reducing impact.
Yes it gives GW something else they can play with for rules interactions for factions like Night Lords, but not really in any meaningful way given how few casualties morale is already responsible for and this only reduces that further in most cases unless they're going to be stacking some absolutely insane modifiers on both the Ld and Combat Attrition test.
Peak example of GW's worst game design impulses.
EDIT: Looking at it a bit more, it's not quite as totally stupid as I'd initially thought, I can see the additional opportunities it opens for Ld based casualty infliction, but that's only going to matter if GW actually uses it (something they historically have not) and seems to be more powerful with close shave morale tests than total blowouts currently are, which is an odd functionality.
catbarf wrote: Yeah so running the numbers on a 10-man squad at Ld8 that sustains four casualties:
Current system- a roll of 5 loses an extra model, a roll of 6 loses two, so average 0.5 additional morale casualties.
New system- 33% chance to fail the morale test and lose a model, then a 17% chance for each of the remaining 5 survivors, for a total average loss of 0.62 casualties.
If they sustain six casualties:
Current system- Lose one model on 3, two on 4, etc. Average loss of 1.67 additional.
New system- 67% chance to fail, then remaining three survivors each have a 33% chance to flee, for a total average loss of 1.33 models.
So... Different from the current system, overall. I'm not sure it's an improvement for anything except really large hordes. It certainly doesn't do what they claimed it would do, which is incentivize medium-sized squads.
Ok my dudes - here we go. Using this table if two 10 mans take 2 casualties each with -3LD vs four 5 mans that take 1 casualty each with -3 LD:
10 mans lose a total of 6.2 -- (four were initial casualties, so 2.2 to morale/attrition)
5 mans lose a total of 7.1 -- (3.1 to morale / attrition)
I'm afraid I don't understand what's going on in those tables at all. What do the 1-5 columns represent?
The negative take though is that this rule does nothing really to discourage MSU.
Okay, more likely to be at half casualties - but also significantly less likely to fail a leadership test if you don't have the bodies to lose in a turn.
Tyel wrote: The negative take though is that this rule does nothing really to discourage MSU.
Okay, more likely to be at half casualties - but also significantly less likely to fail a leadership test if you don't have the bodies to lose in a turn.
Not providing character protection is a big one.
Like breaking up a 10 man intercessor squad into 2 5 man squads means you don't need many casualties from either to make your chapter master swiss cheese.
Tyel wrote: The negative take though is that this rule does nothing really to discourage MSU.
Okay, more likely to be at half casualties - but also significantly less likely to fail a leadership test if you don't have the bodies to lose in a turn.
Not providing character protection is a big one.
Like breaking up a 10 man intercessor squad into 2 5 man squads means you don't need many casualties from either to make your chapter master swiss cheese.
That requires killing 3 from each squad, so 6 casualties total. Whereas the 10-man needs to take 8 casualties to stop screening. It's not that big of a difference.
I'm not sure if I overvalue it, but this also means that with the summary execution rule of the IG commissars (kill 1 unit for a moral reroll), IG infantry has a 1/6+5/6*1/6 = 30,6% chance to pass morale by roling a 1 regardless of losses at the cost of 1 dude. That... is not thaaaat bad for conscript blobs etc.
KurtAngle2 wrote: I would like to remind you that thanks to ATSKNF 5men Space Marine units are effectively STILL immune to Morale since they're not failing it at all
Depends on debuffs or how badly you hurt em. There's still a chance - though in the old system there were times you may not want to reroll. In this one you'd always reroll if you failed initially.
That requires killing 3 from each squad, so 6 casualties total. Whereas the 10-man needs to take 8 casualties to stop screening. It's not that big of a difference.
When you're talking 2W Primaris on cover that extra 33% could be rough.
KurtAngle2 wrote: I would like to remind you that thanks to ATSKNF 5men Space Marine units are effectively STILL immune to Morale since they're not failing it at all
Depends on debuffs or how badly you hurt em. There's still a chance - though in the old system there were times you may not want to reroll. In this one you'd always reroll if you failed initially.
That requires killing 3 from each squad, so 6 casualties total. Whereas the 10-man needs to take 8 casualties to stop screening. It's not that big of a difference.
When you're talking 2W Primaris on cover that extra 33% could be rough.
No how much you damage them is irrelevant, ranging from rerolling 5s if you've killed 4 to rerolling 6s (1 in fething 36 rolls so let's not kid ourselves) if you have killed 3, and this in the scenario where the LD is 8.
ATSKNF has to change
I'm with insectum, I thought the codexes they just got are going to be their codexes for most of 9th ed. If not imagine having to buy two codexes within a year for the same faction. I think shadowspear shows that GW is willing to have units float outside of a codex for a while, maybe we'll get an indomitus crusade splat book that houses them until the marines get their 9.5 ed codex? My bet for first book is necrons since they literally got nothing in their PA,
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are the first book out, so maybe ATSKNF changes to ignoring the -1 for half strength, or something to do with attrition rather than a flat re-roll.
Of course that means erratas for BA/DA/GK/DW and so on...
They did hint on one stream that DW will be one of the early codices out of the gates. I also suspect that DA, BA, and SW will become supplements rather than codices considering the fact that PA more or less normalized those factions with the Space marine codex.
tulun wrote: SM getting a codex this early would be insulting to everyone, including SM players.
I actually bet against it. They have other ways of releasing their new datasheets, and they seem to be exploring that instead.
Yeah I think this is more likely. The SM book isn't even a year old.
February 2017 was the release of the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that combined Vanguard Chamber, Extremis Chamber, and the 'original' book.
July 2018 was the release of the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that brought in Endless Spells and the Sacrosanct Chamber.
I absolutely do think it's happening for Marines. The supplements can likely remain 'as is'.
tulun wrote: SM getting a codex this early would be insulting to everyone, including SM players.
I actually bet against it. They have other ways of releasing their new datasheets, and they seem to be exploring that instead.
Yeah I think this is more likely. The SM book isn't even a year old.
February 2017 was the release of the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that combined Vanguard Chamber, Extremis Chamber, and the 'original' book.
July 2018 was the release of the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that brought in Endless Spells and the Sacrosanct Chamber.
I absolutely do think it's happening for Marines. The supplements can likely remain 'as is'.
One Year and half, compared to what, 11 months of current Marine codex?
tulun wrote: SM getting a codex this early would be insulting to everyone, including SM players.
I actually bet against it. They have other ways of releasing their new datasheets, and they seem to be exploring that instead.
AoS did an obnoxious set of codexes for each successive release of Stormcast. So it could be just an add-on book.
Edit: Nevermind. Need to read the whole thread first.
Worth mentioning as well that AoS never actually did a 'set' of them.
We got Extremis Chamber(Dracothian Guard units and the Stormdrake) and then they canned the whole idea of standalone expansion books likely because of the ridiculous amount of complaining people were doing, acting as though you needed both books to play Stormcast...while ignoring that Extremis really was a points heavy force and making a force of them didn't really leave room for the other stuff. Plus the auras didn't really interact. Vanguard Chamber would have been the next, but they just released an updated Stormcast Eternals book rolling Extremis Chamber in with the Warrior Chamber and Vanguard Chamber upon their release.
2018 then saw the addition of the Sacrosanct Chamber and Endless Spells.
The new morale rules going to be a pain too watch if you play against hordyfactions.
imagine the following:
A 50 mutant rabble blob, get's blown half it's members to smithers.
So i first roll 1d6 and loose 1 more dude if i fail a 1/6 which is likely.
then i have to roll 24 d6 of which 1/3 is more losses so another 8.
Not Online!!! wrote: The new morale rules going to be a pain too watch if you play against hordyfactions.
imagine the following:
A 50 mutant rabble blob, get's blown half it's members to smithers.
So i first roll 1d6 and loose 1 more dude if i fail a 1/6 which is likely.
then i have to roll 24 d6 of which 1/3 is more losses so another 8.
Yet i still have to roll for all of them.
Just wait until they add "reroll all failed attrition rolls" to atsknf.
Just wait until they add "reroll all failed attrition rolls" to atsknf.
Don't be dumb. They would never add that. That's what the new "SUPER SWORD BRETHEREN OF THE SHIELD OF HIS ETERNAL LIGHT PRIMARiS Captain's 12" aura will do! Obviously! As long as everything is wholly within the 12" but more than 9" from a enemy unit, but less than 6" from any table edge when measured from the azimuth of the radius of said aura, and provided the Captain moved less than 6" but more than 1 in the previous turn, as long as he has more than 1 wound remaining, and assuming all units are at less than 100% but more than 40% of their original potential starting strength*" Obviously.
As far as codex order - I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's either going to be a simultaneaous release, or Necrons will come a few short weeks AFTER the Marines. That just seems to be how they're rolling these days.
* In this case, "Original Potential Starting Strength, or "OPSS" refers not to how many models a unit ACTUALLY started the game with, but rather how many models they COULD have started the game with as stated in "MAX OPSS in the unit's data slate. Obviously.
Not Online!!! wrote: The new morale rules going to be a pain too watch if you play against hordyfactions.
imagine the following:
A 50 mutant rabble blob, get's blown half it's members to smithers.
So i first roll 1d6 and loose 1 more dude if i fail a 1/6 which is likely.
then i have to roll 24 d6 of which 1/3 is more losses so another 8.
Yet i still have to roll for all of them.
Just wait until they add "reroll all failed attrition rolls" to atsknf.
They did mention rules interacting with attrition, but it can go both ways.
tulun wrote: SM getting a codex this early would be insulting to everyone, including SM players.
I actually bet against it. They have other ways of releasing their new datasheets, and they seem to be exploring that instead.
Yeah I think this is more likely. The SM book isn't even a year old.
February 2017 was the release of the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that combined Vanguard Chamber, Extremis Chamber, and the 'original' book.
July 2018 was the release of the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that brought in Endless Spells and the Sacrosanct Chamber.
I absolutely do think it's happening for Marines. The supplements can likely remain 'as is'.
One Year and half, compared to what, 11 months of current Marine codex?
The community has complained (rightly or otherwise) about the power level of marines and how obnoxious they are to play against with stacking rule buffs etc.
It's not surprising they'd release a new codex because the last one was so widely despised. It could do well if it's better written than the existing one though.
The community has complained (rightly or otherwise) about the power level of marines and how obnoxious they are to play against with stacking rule buffs etc.
It's not surprising they'd release a new codex because the last one was so widely despised. It could do well if it's better written than the existing one though.
I think releasing the new Marine dex first will be the "bow shot" for them signaling they really can't keep the 8th ed books truly compatible. Marines will likely come out first and behave radically differently than the 8th ed books. There will be a Marine 2.0 book probably a year or so into the edition once some of the other main factions get their new books.
The community has complained (rightly or otherwise) about the power level of marines and how obnoxious they are to play against with stacking rule buffs etc.
It's not surprising they'd release a new codex because the last one was so widely despised. It could do well if it's better written than the existing one though.
I think releasing the new Marine dex first will be the "bow shot" for them signaling they really can't keep the 8th ed books truly compatible. Marines will likely come out first and behave radically differently than the 8th ed books. There will be a Marine 2.0 book probably a year or so into the edition once some of the other main factions get their new books.
You know that Marines are getting new units courtesy of Indomitus, right?
And not just like "oh here's a new character" or something. We're looking to see at least five or six. Eradicators(Gravis armoured, toting Meltarifles), Outriders(Bikers), Assault Intercessors(50/50 shot that these are going to be an update to the Intercessors datasheet rather than a whole new unit. Incursors are Troops and have the Close Support badge that Assault Intercessors do before anyone tries to argue that angle), Judiciar(the 'executioner' guy), Bladeguard Veterans(storm shields+power swords/pistols), and the Bladeguard Ancient.
It's arguable whether the Captain or Lieutenant would be a new unit or a new datasheet. I'd put them in the same camp as the Assault Intercessors, a possible new datasheet. And that doesn't even get into the Faith and Fury related stuff like the stratagems or the fancy shmancy Chaplains.
They're getting a new Codex. Anyone thinking it's "because they really can't keep the 8th edition books truly compatible" is deluding themselves into ignoring all the content sitting out there.
I’m a bit disappointed by the new morale mechanic. It seems to be adding more dice rolling for not much real difference. There are still far too many ways to ignore morale in the game. I’ve never cared for the idea that morale is just another way to make the game more lethal and I was really hoping for something that reflected suppression/pinning and adding something persistent that reduced the effectiveness of a unit that failed morale rather than just killing more models.
The only plus side to the new system for me is that there’s now a greater effect from morale from units under half strength. So now if a unit suffers casualties in successive turns the impact is greater in the second turn if that’s when a unit drops below half strength. Overall though, I think this is pretty lacklustre.
You know that Marines are getting new units courtesy of Indomitus, right?
And not just like "oh here's a new character" or something. We're looking to see at least five or six. Eradicators(Gravis armoured, toting Meltarifles), Outriders(Bikers), Assault Intercessors(50/50 shot that these are going to be an update to the Intercessors datasheet rather than a whole new unit. Incursors are Troops and have the Close Support badge that Assault Intercessors do before anyone tries to argue that angle), Judiciar(the 'executioner' guy), Bladeguard Veterans(storm shields+power swords/pistols), and the Bladeguard Ancient.
It's arguable whether the Captain or Lieutenant would be a new unit or a new datasheet. I'd put them in the same camp as the Assault Intercessors, a possible new datasheet.
And that doesn't even get into the Faith and Fury related stuff like the stratagems or the fancy shmancy Chaplains.
They're getting a new Codex. Anyone thinking it's "because they really can't keep the 8th edition books truly compatible" is deluding themselves into ignoring all the content sitting out there.
So, GW splitting off the chapters was a good idea?
You know that Marines are getting new units courtesy of Indomitus, right?
And not just like "oh here's a new character" or something. We're looking to see at least five or six. Eradicators(Gravis armoured, toting Meltarifles), Outriders(Bikers), Assault Intercessors(50/50 shot that these are going to be an update to the Intercessors datasheet rather than a whole new unit. Incursors are Troops and have the Close Support badge that Assault Intercessors do before anyone tries to argue that angle), Judiciar(the 'executioner' guy), Bladeguard Veterans(storm shields+power swords/pistols), and the Bladeguard Ancient.
It's arguable whether the Captain or Lieutenant would be a new unit or a new datasheet. I'd put them in the same camp as the Assault Intercessors, a possible new datasheet.
And that doesn't even get into the Faith and Fury related stuff like the stratagems or the fancy shmancy Chaplains.
They're getting a new Codex. Anyone thinking it's "because they really can't keep the 8th edition books truly compatible" is deluding themselves into ignoring all the content sitting out there.
So, GW splitting off the chapters was a good idea?
I'm sure therion who has been annoyingly correct about 9th so far said to expect the split chapters to become supplements
You know that Marines are getting new units courtesy of Indomitus, right?
And not just like "oh here's a new character" or something. We're looking to see at least five or six. Eradicators(Gravis armoured, toting Meltarifles), Outriders(Bikers), Assault Intercessors(50/50 shot that these are going to be an update to the Intercessors datasheet rather than a whole new unit. Incursors are Troops and have the Close Support badge that Assault Intercessors do before anyone tries to argue that angle), Judiciar(the 'executioner' guy), Bladeguard Veterans(storm shields+power swords/pistols), and the Bladeguard Ancient.
It's arguable whether the Captain or Lieutenant would be a new unit or a new datasheet. I'd put them in the same camp as the Assault Intercessors, a possible new datasheet.
And that doesn't even get into the Faith and Fury related stuff like the stratagems or the fancy shmancy Chaplains.
They're getting a new Codex. Anyone thinking it's "because they really can't keep the 8th edition books truly compatible" is deluding themselves into ignoring all the content sitting out there.
Yes. We are all aware they are getting new units. That only makes it a day that ends in "y". My point was that, being that we have been on a non-stop "all-marines-all-the-time" ride lately, anyone thinking 'Crons will be first rather than second is probably going to be disappointed.
My point in saying Marines will not only be the first book, but that they will also (IMO) demonstrate that the promise to keep everything compatible was spurious at best is based on the fact that, A. Marines in the last several cycles have always broken the established design strategy (I use the "S" word loosely here), and the fact that, I actually HAVE been paying attention to the content and it's plain as day that with everything they've currently shared, they cannot; 1. Make the game faster 2. Keep the rules compatible 3. fix the problems we have with 8th. It's a trianlge and you can only pick two sides. The side I'm seeing is that they will "fix some of the issues with 8th but the games will actually take LONGER, and 8th ed books will be "compatible" only in the very loosest sense and with an enormous helping of extra faq's.
I'm a marine player myself and even I am starting to get frustrated. Normally I'm out front saying "yeah, we get a ton of releases but Marines sell and GW needs money", but it's just gotten stupid lately. In three years we got TWO codexes, and half a million supplements. While some armies got nothing or next to nothing, and now they will, more than likely make them first again. Am I aware that marines get models in the new starter? Is it a day that ends in Y? Does a bear defecate in the woods?
Just wait until they add "reroll all failed attrition rolls" to atsknf.
Don't be dumb. They would never add that. That's what the new "SUPER SWORD BRETHEREN OF THE SHIELD OF HIS ETERNAL LIGHT PRIMARiS Captain's 12" aura will do! Obviously! As long as everything is wholly within the 12" but more than 9" from a enemy unit, but less than 6" from any table edge when measured from the azimuth of the radius of said aura, and provided the Captain moved less than 6" but more than 1 in the previous turn, as long as he has more than 1 wound remaining, and assuming all units are at less than 100% but more than 40% of their original potential starting strength*" Obviously.
As far as codex order - I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's either going to be a simultaneaous release, or Necrons will come a few short weeks AFTER the Marines. That just seems to be how they're rolling these days.
* In this case, "Original Potential Starting Strength, or "OPSS" refers not to how many models a unit ACTUALLY started the game with, but rather how many models they COULD have started the game with as stated in "MAX OPSS in the unit's data slate. Obviously.
I'm sorry Tycho, but my dog works for James Workshop and I know for a FACT that that ability is on the luxos aeuternae fraetrius scutumius gladius magnus primaris legionaeris captain with master-crafted ridiculum est ingens bolt fullisador and relic squamous flame-gauntlet.
So, GW splitting off the chapters was a good idea?
I'm sure therion who has been annoyingly correct about 9th so far said to expect the split chapters to become supplements
Interesting. I've been thinking that would be coming for awhile. There's just too much crossover and too few truly 'signature' units for each faction.
Space Wolves have their unique Dreadnoughts, their dropship/gunship, Wulfen, and the other stuff is all 'oldmarine' centric.
Dark Angels have unique force organizational stuff and Company Veterans--again, all centered around 'oldmarine' stuff.
Black Templars and Blood Angels are the two which really have the most 'signature' stuff...again, centered around 'oldmarines'!
But if Ultramarines can fit into a supplement with their 12 'unique datasheets'? I'm sure the rest can be worked in.
I'm a marine player myself and even I am starting to get frustrated. Normally I'm out front saying "yeah, we get a ton of releases but Marines sell and GW needs money", but it's just gotten stupid lately. In three years we got TWO codexes, and half a million supplements. While some armies got nothing or next to nothing, and now they will, more than likely make them first again. Am I aware that marines get models in the new starter? Is it a day that ends in Y? Does a bear defecate in the woods?
Now go back and look at how many of those supplements are Chapter specific.
If you're a Raven Guard player, you don't need Ultramarines/Iron Hands/Imperial Fists/White Scars/Salamanders. Just like they don't need yours.
The only real argument that can be made is that Faith and Fury is necessary, and maybe Vigilus Defiant if you want to run Specialist Detachments...but even that has Chapter specific stuff in it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: What the game really needed was to go from 8 marine codexes to 16.
Personally, all for anything that cuts down on actual codex numbers. Going from BA, DA, SW, DW, GK, SM to SM with supplements for UM, RG, IH, IF, BT, DA, BA, SW, WS, and Salamanders, DW, GK is an improvement.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
the_scotsman wrote: What the game really needed was to go from 8 marine codexes to 16.
With the new App coming out they might be doing that to sell app codices "Here's all your SW's rules in 1 spot for $9 but no other marines rules. Oh you wanted UW? Another $9, hey you want to try Salamanders too? that'll be $9, hmm BT is the new meta b.c of point changes, well that's $9"
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
What's giving the +1 to hit?
I'm not touching that second part with a barge pole.
Now go back and look at how many of those supplements are Chapter specific.
If you're a Raven Guard player, you don't need Ultramarines/Iron Hands/Imperial Fists/White Scars/Salamanders. Just like they don't need yours.
The only real argument that can be made is that Faith and Fury is necessary, and maybe Vigilus Defiant if you want to run Specialist Detachments...but even that has Chapter specific stuff in it!
No. Those all still rely on the main book and were, in some way represented in the original book. Loyalist marines do not need that many releases in so short a time span when armies like Dark Eldar have only LOST unit entries for quite some time now. Personally, I kind of do like some of the Marine supplements. I just don't think we need to have so many marine releases to the point that other armies are completely falling by the wayside. We will, as long as they continue to sell, almost always have more marine releases than anything else, which is fine because they're the money maker, but it's gotten too much imo, and I think the game will start to really suffer from it if they don't get a better handle on it soon.
Far less than what was removed from overwatch with hit rolls, rerolls, wound rolls, rerolls, saves, fnp, and damage. It seems like it will be pretty trivial most of the time.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
What's giving the +1 to hit?
I'm not touching that second part with a barge pole.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
What's giving the +1 to hit?
I'm not touching that second part with a barge pole.
Stratagem. It's in the WarComm article, with glee
Ironically that strategum makes no sence as it requires the unit to have LoS to the target and a Wyvern aint that hard to kill.
More egregious ia the damn Leman Russ strategum Russ now get 12 shots vrs vehicals and 12 shots vrs Hordes and minimum 6 shots avarage of 8 against 6+ units FFS at this point those thing better damn well be over 200-250 points each.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
What's giving the +1 to hit?
I'm not touching that second part with a barge pole.
Stratagem. It's in the WarComm article, with glee
Ironically that strategum makes no sence as it requires the unit to have LoS to the target and a Wyvern aint that hard to kill.
More egregious ia the damn Leman Russ strategum Russ now get 12 shots vrs vehicals and 12 shots vrs Hordes and minimum 6 shots avarage of 8 against 6+ units FFS at this point those thing better damn well be over 200-250 points each.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
What's giving the +1 to hit?
I'm not touching that second part with a barge pole.
Stratagem. It's in the WarComm article, with glee
Ironically that strategum makes no sence as it requires the unit to have LoS to the target and a Wyvern aint that hard to kill.
More egregious ia the damn Leman Russ strategum Russ now get 12 shots vrs vehicals and 12 shots vrs Hordes and minimum 6 shots avarage of 8 against 6+ units FFS at this point those thing better damn well be over 200-250 points each.
Maybe the terrain will save us...
Unless your a LoW and can Never benifit from Cover because "GW balance" while the Three russes on the otherside benefiting from terrain Nuclear Alpha strike you of the table.
Add this to Spacemarines and quite frankly It's feeling like I'd be better of trying to find HH games for my armies as they would be less broken than this Pro Marines, Pro sisters, Pro Guard,Pro GSC? Editions where certain units look like they will need points drops for 8th not increases to be playable.
My hope with this rule is that units that ignore morale do not ignore combat attrition. It always bugged me that there were just units that completely ignored morale.
Unless your a LoW and can Never benifit from Cover because "GW balance" while the Three russes on the otherside benefiting from terrain Nuclear Alpha strike you of the table.
In this case, "LoW" actually means Knight or something similar...because so far the terrain rules really only would affect things like that.
That's where you reserve your knights and blast those pesky russes.
First turn alpha strike is dead. The strategic reserve rules is its doom. The only one which can work is one based on a lot of no-los shooting, but those weapons tend to be blast.
Bast weapons are getting increased in cost.
No-los weapons are getting increased in cost.
There is a general increase on all units.
Expect stuff like TFC and basiliks to get a really steep cost increase.
First turn alpha strike is dead. The strategic reserve rules is its doom.
I wouldn't call it dead, but it will be a way harder to force upon your opponent. The reserves play-counter-play is going to get really interesting, but I think the option to still be able to inflict lots of casualties right out of the gate will remain strong. Remember you can also use infiltrators and fast movement to screen out border edges and protect your flank as well. Combine that with more LOS blocking terrain and there's a real potential to mitigate reserve maneuvers.
Unless your a LoW and can Never benifit from Cover because "GW balance" while the Three russes on the otherside benefiting from terrain Nuclear Alpha strike you of the table.
In this case, "LoW" actually means Knight or something similar...because so far the terrain rules really only would affect things like that.
LoW are Lords of War, Spartans, Falchion, Fellblade, Typhon, baneblade, Stormhammer etc etc. Not just knight's.
Also you have as usual been sarcastic replying without actually adding anything if any value.
The first 3 codex releases for 9th will probably be Space Marines, Necrons, and Chaos Marines. The only question is if CSM comes first right at the end of 8th, as it often has in the past.
Unless your a LoW and can Never benifit from Cover because "GW balance" while the Three russes on the otherside benefiting from terrain Nuclear Alpha strike you of the table.
In this case, "LoW" actually means Knight or something similar...because so far the terrain rules really only would affect things like that.
Of course it means things like knights, along with super heavy tanks and traitor primarchs. What LoW is there with less than 18 wounds besides Gulliman?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote:The first 3 codex releases for 9th will probably be Space Marines, Necrons, and Chaos Marines. The only question is if CSM comes first right at the end of 8th, as it often has in the past.
Don't get my hopes up. Though I fear when we do get a new codex they're going to double down on the "scary marines" theme for Night Lords.
Spoletta wrote: That's where you reserve your knights and blast those pesky russes.
First turn alpha strike is dead. The strategic reserve rules is its doom. The only one which can work is one based on a lot of no-los shooting, but those weapons tend to be blast.
Bast weapons are getting increased in cost.
No-los weapons are getting increased in cost.
There is a general increase on all units.
Expect stuff like TFC and basiliks to get a really steep cost increase.
It does look really strong, particularly that you can bring them on on T2 on a side edge, not just on your own table edge.
Far less than what was removed from overwatch with hit rolls, rerolls, wound rolls, rerolls, saves, fnp, and damage. It seems like it will be pretty trivial most of the time.
Melee didn't, and I think won't, happen as often as losing guys from shoting. It is hard to compare those two.
Don't get my hopes up. Though I fear when we do get a new codex they're going to double down on the "scary marines" theme for Night Lords.
They're already there. Stacking negatives, Flay Them Alive, double model counts for morale relic. Grab Haarken and some Butcher Cannons and maybe some Slaanesh neg mod stuff. Could be fun for a spin.
Don't get my hopes up. Though I fear when we do get a new codex they're going to double down on the "scary marines" theme for Night Lords.
They're already there. Stacking negatives, Flay Them Alive, double model counts for morale relic. Grab Haarken and some Butcher Cannons and maybe some Slaanesh neg mod stuff. Could be fun for a spin.
It was. I used all of that stuff, except Haarken because he's Black Legion, and Slaanesh because Night Lords shouldn't use daemons. But it won't work very well with these new rules. Definitely not against loyalists. Gw needs to drop the scary marines angle and take a page from 30k and give us A Talent For Murder. There's too many things that are immune to morale mechanics.
And gw never did give a FAQ on how Flay Them Alive works against atsknf.
Unless your a LoW and can Never benifit from Cover because "GW balance" while the Three russes on the otherside benefiting from terrain Nuclear Alpha strike you of the table.
In this case, "LoW" actually means Knight or something similar...because so far the terrain rules really only would affect things like that.
LoW are Lords of War, Spartans, Falchion, Fellblade, Typhon, baneblade, Stormhammer etc etc. Not just knight's.
Also you have as usual been sarcastic replying without actually adding anything if any value.
Lords of War are also Armigers/War Dogs, Guilliman, and a few other characters--correct?
Armigers/War Dogs are 12W. You're complaining about a specific type of Lord of War(something with 18W+) not benefiting from a specific type of cover(Obscuring). We STILL have not seen all of the Cover traits and pretending that things like the tanks you've mentioned might not get bespoke rules allowing for them to potentially claim Obscuring is daft at this point. For all we know, tanks are going to get a "Low Profile" bit saying they can claim the benefits of cover in spite of the amount of Wounds they have.
And for the record?
Another important point to note is that, even though Obscuring terrain blocks line of sight from one side to the other, a unit that’s INSIDE the terrain can still be freely targeted (though they will receive the benefit of cover if the terrain also has the Light Cover trait) and can give fire in return. However, the days of drawing line of sight through a gap in the wall and three consecutive windows to a unit on the opposite side of a huge building are over!
I certainly might have missed it, but as far as I know we have seen nothing suggesting that an 18+W model cannot claim the benefits of Light or Heavy Cover. Just that they cannot be Obscured or claim Dense Cover.
Of course it means things like knights, along with super heavy tanks and traitor primarchs. What LoW is there with less than 18 wounds besides Gulliman?
Armigers are Lords of War with 12 Wounds. And like you said...Guilliman. Isn't Ghazghkull also a Lord of War? He's got 12 Wounds, if so.
Of course it means things like knights, along with super heavy tanks and traitor primarchs. What LoW is there with less than 18 wounds besides Gulliman?
Armigers are Lords of War with 12 Wounds.
And like you said...Guilliman. Isn't Ghazghkull also a Lord of War? He's got 12 Wounds, if so.
Ah, forgot about armigers. No Ghaz is a HQ choice. And I've theorized that super heavy tanks might get a "hull down" rule as well. Hope it happens. The idea of a repulsor executioner taking pot shots at my fellblade and it not being able to retaliate irks me to no end.
Nope, never used them. I mean, it's not like they were even good is it? The only things remotely daemonic I've ever run in my Night Lords are warp talons, and my dreadclaws, but they only had the daemonic possession USR back in the day to represent their psychotic machine spirits. Just my own personal preference for my company of psychopathic transhuman murder machines. I don't even use the mutant dreadnoughts.
I hate that kit as well, but not because of its aesthetics, but more because the person who designed it must've been a four armed 13 fingered freak, as it's just so damned hard to put together...
Indeed! The Night Lords contemptor and leviathan are perfect, no modifications needed (though I've added some bits to the leviathan), and the daredeo is great as well. Got any legion specific dreads yourself?
I really hope this isn't all they're doing with leadership. I was really hoping they'd use it for a test for fallback at least.
I hate that kit as well, but not because of its aesthetics, but more because the person who designed it must've been a four armed 13 fingered freak, as it's just so damned hard to put together...
You're a braver man than I. I could never put the money down. The snap-fit was enough.
Heck, yea. I use the Thousand Son Contemptors as "Dreads" and the Osiron as a proper Contemptor. Love them so much.
I really hope this isn't all they're doing with leadership. I was really hoping they'd use it for a test for fallback at least.
They'll have more interactions soon, I'm sure. Fallback could be like the old "move toward your board edge". It's the rule I most want to see, but least want to have GW reveal, because people are going to lose their minds.
I'm on the fence seems ok but I've never been thrilled with the morale system in the game. They always fiddle with it and then make it pointless for most I guess we'll see what they do with it this edition but if past is any teacher it'll be a new system and little real impact for most. I guess my guard will last a bit longer, which is good. Commissars still look to be useless pretty much as I'm not sure if the re roll will be worth it given the fact you'll be killing one regardless and it may just end up giving you an additional loss for no real benefit.
catbarf wrote: Repeating what I said in the other thread: This makes hordes more viable, but MSU is still A-OK. A five-man Ld8 squad can lose 3 members and still only fails on a 6.
Kill four out of five, and the survivor has a 33% chance of failing the test, and then a 33% chance of fleeing. So killing 4/5 members of a squad results in just an 11% chance of the last one fleeing- which is actually lower than the current chance, where the last guy would flee 33% of the time.
And this was supposed to make MSUless attractive?
Edit: Whoops, I completely left out the one model automatically fleeing from failing the test. Killing 4/5 members has the same 33% chance of the last one fleeing as currently. Killing 3/5 means a 22% chance of one fleeing, and a 11% chance of both fleeing. Current probability at 3 casualties is 17% chance of losing one, 17% chance of losing both. So... still not really a nerf to MSU.
The wyvern alone killed Guardians. Who thought 24 shots, +1 to hit, no LOS, reroll wounds was a good idea?
Spoiler: the playtester ruinning the ITC. Can't spot Nazi knight iconography or gaping design issues!
What's giving the +1 to hit?
I'm not touching that second part with a barge pole.
Stratagem. It's in the WarComm article, with glee
Ironically that strategum makes no sence as it requires the unit to have LoS to the target and a Wyvern aint that hard to kill.
More egregious ia the damn Leman Russ strategum Russ now get 12 shots vrs vehicals and 12 shots vrs Hordes and minimum 6 shots avarage of 8 against 6+ units FFS at this point those thing better damn well be over 200-250 points each.
Maybe the terrain will save us...
Unless your a LoW and can Never benifit from Cover because "GW balance" while the Three russes on the otherside benefiting from terrain Nuclear Alpha strike you of the table.
Add this to Spacemarines and quite frankly It's feeling like I'd be better of trying to find HH games for my armies as they would be less broken than this Pro Marines, Pro sisters, Pro Guard,Pro GSC? Editions where certain units look like they will need points drops for 8th not increases to be playable.
This is why i still play 5th or HHLD checks? roll that 2d6 if you take 25% casualties form shooting, only penalties apply in losses from melee.....and terrain works both ways for everybody with less extra dice rolling.
As I said earlier: the possibility to pass morale on a natural 1 regardless of modifiers might make Commissars a bit more interesting as this way you stop the rolls for attrition, especially if losses were so grave that you won't make that first morale roll anyways.
Look for example at an infantry squad that took 5 casualties
without commissar (LD 7):
33.3% to roll a 1 or 2 and loose no models
66.7% to roll anything but a 1, and loose 1 model to morale followed by 10/3 = 3.3 to attrition
=> average losses: 2.9 models
with commissar (LD 8):
50 % to roll a 1-3 loosing no models
25 % to roll a 1-3 after summary execution for 1 model lost
25% to roll anything else on the reroll, resulting in 1 model executed, 1 lost from morale, 3.3 from attrition
=> average losses 1.6 models
It's not much, but a bit over 1 model more survives
Edit: sorry, misread that you have to be BELOW 1/2 strength before attrition gets the Penalty.
But I think the general point still comes across. Summary execution increases the Chance to not have to roll for attrition
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing I realized (sorry if that was a no brainer for everyone else):
while hordes a punished by Blasts etc. it now seems to be pretty hard to guarantee to remove them.
Looking at a 30 men Conscript blob with LD4:
in 8 the chance for a complete unit wipe out was:
100% after 17 losses
83.3% after 16 losses
66.6% after 15 losses etc.
in 9th now it is:
83.3% after 29 losses (as the last guy would still survive on a 1)
27.8% after 28 losses (the 29th guy runs in 83.3% of cases, but then the last one only fails his attrition role 1/3rd of the time)
9.3% after 27 losses
Sure, that does not make them super crazy strong, but a conscript blob contesting an objective now really needs some work to be done with.
It also means that while a Leman Russ or similar vehicle that was touched by some hoardy units can use its main gun if he can get rid of them using his sponsons, it might be impossible to do so.
Edit: never mind the last Point, I forgot that the morale phase comes later anyways.
Pyroalchi wrote: As I said earlier: the possibility to pass morale on a natural 1 regardless of modifiers might make Commissars a bit more interesting as this way you stop the rolls for attrition, especially if losses were so grave that you won't make that first morale roll anyways.
Look for example at an infantry squad that took 5 casualties
without commissar (LD 7):
33.3% to roll a 1 or 2 and lose no models
66.7% to roll anything but a 1, and loose 1 model to morale followed by 10/3 = 3.3 to attrition
=> average losses: 2.9 models
with commissar (LD 8):
50 % to roll a 1-3 losing no models
25 % to roll a 1-3 after summary execution for 1 model lost
25% to roll anything else on the reroll, resulting in 1 model executed, 1 lost from morale, 3.3 from attrition
=> average losses 1.6 models
It's not much, but a bit over 1 model more survives
Edit: sorry, misread that you have to be BELOW 1/2 strength before attrition gets the Penalty.
But I think the general point still comes across. Summary execution increases the Chance to not have to roll for attrition
Your math on Attrition is off. If you fail the morale test, you lose a model and then roll Attrition on the remaining 4 models in the unit. With a 1/3 chance to lose each model, that's 4/3 models lost to Attrition. So the actual results are:
without commissar (LD 7):
33.3% to roll a 1 or 2 and loose no models
66.7% to roll anything but a 1, and loose 1 model to morale followed by 4/3 = 1.33 to attrition
Average losses: 1.55 models
with commissar (LD 8):
50 % to roll a 1-3 loosing no models
25 % to roll a 1-3 after summary execution for 1 model lost
25% to roll anything else on the reroll, resulting in 1 model executed, 1 lost from morale, 3/3 = 1 from attrition
Average losses 0.75 models with Summary Execution, for going Summary Execution, the Average increases to 1 model
Shockingly, the Commisar will actually do it's job, reducing average loss in this case by 50%.
Indeed! The Night Lords contemptor and leviathan are perfect, no modifications needed (though I've added some bits to the leviathan), and the daredeo is great as well. Got any legion specific dreads yourself?
I really hope this isn't all they're doing with leadership. I was really hoping they'd use it for a test for fallback at least.
People can say whatever they want about FW but the Contemptor kits are fething excellent to work with.
Man these morale rules seem pretty useless. I mean I'm not sad my conscripts got a little more usable, but I was really hoping we'd see a return of morale rules that actually mattered and punished small unit sizes, especially for armies like marines who are going to be running lots of 5 man squads to avoid blast weapons.
Even in the worst case scenario, on average I lose maybe 4 conscripts to morale from a squad that lost 2/3rds of it's strength. That's laughable for conscripts who are supposed to be afraid of their own shadow. The only units really scared of this is something like a 10 man marine squad where you could risk losing half the squad due to bad die rolls and luck.
Which honestly is my biggest complaint. A conscript squad could lose 20 men, fail the morale test, and then not lose a single man to battleshock after the first, while a 10 man marine squad could lose 5 men, fail their morale test, and then lose the whole squad because someone rolled 5 ones. It's incredibly swingy and will randomly lose people games not through skill or planning but dumb luck. It also makes morale abilities feel even more useless than before. Fearless doesn't gain you much and abilities that debuff LD feel pretty pointless too.oh wow I can throw -6 LD on a marine unit, now they're guaranteed to maybe lose 2 extra guys in the morale phase. I'm so glad I dumped all this CP and abilities into this instead of just killing them outright.
I hate being negative, a lot of the 9th rules look really well thought out and fun, if a bit long worded at times. This is the first rule I've read where it just looks like an even worse system than we already had.
I play Ultramarines so I got Ld, 9 I gotta loose 4 guys and roll a 6. At least the new character targeting rules make large squads attractive. Would be nice if they reduced Ld game wide by 1 point
MrMoustaffa wrote: Man these morale rules seem pretty useless. I mean I'm not sad my conscripts got a little more usable, but I was really hoping we'd see a return of morale rules that actually mattered and punished small unit sizes, especially for armies like marines who are going to be running lots of 5 man squads to avoid blast weapons.
Even in the worst case scenario, on average I lose maybe 4 conscripts to morale from a squad that lost 2/3rds of it's strength. That's laughable for conscripts who are supposed to be afraid of their own shadow. The only units really scared of this is something like a 10 man marine squad where you could risk losing half the squad due to bad die rolls and luck.
Which honestly is my biggest complaint. A conscript squad could lose 20 men, fail the morale test, and then not lose a single man to battleshock after the first, while a 10 man marine squad could lose 5 men, fail their morale test, and then lose the whole squad because someone rolled 5 ones. It's incredibly swingy and will randomly lose people games not through skill or planning but dumb luck. It also makes morale abilities feel even more useless than before. Fearless doesn't gain you much and abilities that debuff LD feel pretty pointless too.oh wow I can throw -6 LD on a marine unit, now they're guaranteed to maybe lose 2 extra guys in the morale phase. I'm so glad I dumped all this CP and abilities into this instead of just killing them outright.
I hate being negative, a lot of the 9th rules look really well thought out and fun, if a bit long worded at times. This is the first rule I've read where it just looks like an even worse system than we already had.
I can see all of these points. I think a lot of LD buff/debuff will shift to attrition buff/debuff, hopefully on day 1 when the FAQ drops. Affecting attrition is definitely a better ability than affect LD when LD can only cost you one model but attrition has the capacity to take them all. LD buff is still good, since it prevents attrition from occurring, but LD debuff isn't great without some way to impact attrition.
MrMoustaffa wrote:Man these morale rules seem pretty useless. I mean I'm not sad my conscripts got a little more usable, but I was really hoping we'd see a return of morale rules that actually mattered and punished small unit sizes, especially for armies like marines who are going to be running lots of 5 man squads to avoid blast weapons.
Even in the worst case scenario, on average I lose maybe 4 conscripts to morale from a squad that lost 2/3rds of it's strength. That's laughable for conscripts who are supposed to be afraid of their own shadow. The only units really scared of this is something like a 10 man marine squad where you could risk losing half the squad due to bad die rolls and luck.
Which honestly is my biggest complaint. A conscript squad could lose 20 men, fail the morale test, and then not lose a single man to battleshock after the first, while a 10 man marine squad could lose 5 men, fail their morale test, and then lose the whole squad because someone rolled 5 ones. It's incredibly swingy and will randomly lose people games not through skill or planning but dumb luck. It also makes morale abilities feel even more useless than before. Fearless doesn't gain you much and abilities that debuff LD feel pretty pointless too.oh wow I can throw -6 LD on a marine unit, now they're guaranteed to maybe lose 2 extra guys in the morale phase. I'm so glad I dumped all this CP and abilities into this instead of just killing them outright.
I hate being negative, a lot of the 9th rules look really well thought out and fun, if a bit long worded at times. This is the first rule I've read where it just looks like an even worse system than we already had.
Well, maybe you shouldn't do that if it won't be massively effective. I guess that's why Stu said the new Morale rules encourage spreading your negative Leadership Modifiers around rather than stacking them up on one place.
fraser1191 wrote:Pass.
I play Ultramarines so I got Ld, 9 I gotta loose 4 guys and roll a 6. At least the new character targeting rules make large squads attractive. Would be nice if they reduced Ld game wide by 1 point
Kanluwen wrote: It's a Reece article. It's not supposed to make sense.
Or be honest/accurate. *cough*Grey Knights*cough* *cough*Stompa*cough*
If I were charitable, I might say that his enthusiasm gets the better of him in these articles. Having said that, I'm not overly charitable.
Not sure what I think of the new morale system yet - suspect it is one of those things where we'll need to see what Codex rules errata comes out day 1, then test it in play to get a feel for the system working.
I play Ultramarines so I got Ld, 9 I gotta loose 4 guys and roll a 6. At least the new character targeting rules make large squads attractive. Would be nice if they reduced Ld game wide by 1 point
Like that already did when 8th Edition dropped?
You can't compare 7th to 8th in terms of Ld scores since the two systems use that stat completely differently. I think Fraser1191 is completely correct to bring up the Ld value as a problem. Now we're shifting to a 2-stage system where failing that first test isn't so damaging I think GW needs to seriously look at Ld values and consider dropping them by 1 point across the board as a good starting point. Additionally, they need to remove pretty much all rules that completely ignore morale, or functionally do. Right now there are too many units that just don't use the morale system either because they're too small or they have rules that completely ignore it.
One quick change they could make to penalise MSU even slightly would be to make the additional -1 for being under half strength reference the maximum unit size rather than a unit's starting size. So horde units wouldn't care as they're often taken in max-size units, or close enough, but all those 5-man SM units would automatically be failing the Combat Attrition tests on 1 or 2. If GW won't commit to having Morale be an impactful part of the game they should just remove it.
Not Online!!! wrote: No, rather not slipspace, csm allready suck,.don't need more penalising and how cultist s will play out sofar also rather not.
I'm not sure it would be such a massive penalty for Cultists. The new rules mean killing half the unit doesn't wipe the other half. On average you lose 1 + 1/3 of the unit to a failed morale test if you're under half strength. That reduction in effect in the worst-case scenarios is why I'd like to see them remove a lot of the morale mitigation rules so we see more effect from Morale in general across a wider range of units. Thar's also why I think taking the max unit size as the value you calculate half strength from would make sense as it then applies a penalty to MSU which still sees barely any effect form these rules.
Ideally CSM wouldn't rely on Cultists as their Troops anyway, but that's a balance problem with how bad the basic Chaos Space Marine is. Even if your Cultists take a few more casualties from a reduction in Ld they're still able to do their job of holding objectives and occupying board space (just not quite as much board space). The new rules actually make larger horde units more resilient because it's extremely unlikely a failed test will destroy the whole unit.
given GW will do what they always do and give every man and his dog a way to avoid being subjected to them anyway not sure why they matter?
I mean these sound good, but we need to see the (long) list of exceptions that will end up applying, I hope I'm wrong...
do wish they would bring back the other three psychology stats though, would provide more variations.
e.g. test on Ld to see if troops are disciplined enough to hold, but if they fail used the Cl stat to see how many actually lose their cool and scarper.
Not Online!!! wrote: No, rather not slipspace, csm allready suck,.don't need more penalising and how cultist s will play out sofar also rather not.
I'm not sure it would be such a massive penalty for Cultists. The new rules mean killing half the unit doesn't wipe the other half. On average you lose 1 + 1/3 of the unit to a failed morale test if you're under half strength. That reduction in effect in the worst-case scenarios is why I'd like to see them remove a lot of the morale mitigation rules so we see more effect from Morale in general across a wider range of units. Thar's also why I think taking the max unit size as the value you calculate half strength from would make sense as it then applies a penalty to MSU which still sees barely any effect form these rules.
Ideally CSM wouldn't rely on Cultists as their Troops anyway, but that's a balance problem with how bad the basic Chaos Space Marine is. Even if your Cultists take a few more casualties from a reduction in Ld they're still able to do their job of holding objectives and occupying board space (just not quite as much board space). The new rules actually make larger horde units more resilient because it's extremely unlikely a failed test will destroy the whole unit.
But CSM max unit size is 20. Punishing them for turning up in squads of 10 seems unnecessarily cruel
I play Ultramarines so I got Ld, 9 I gotta loose 4 guys and roll a 6. At least the new character targeting rules make large squads attractive. Would be nice if they reduced Ld game wide by 1 point
Like that already did when 8th Edition dropped?
You can't compare 7th to 8th in terms of Ld scores since the two systems use that stat completely differently. I think Fraser1191 is completely correct to bring up the Ld value as a problem. Now we're shifting to a 2-stage system where failing that first test isn't so damaging I think GW needs to seriously look at Ld values and consider dropping them by 1 point across the board as a good starting point. Additionally, they need to remove pretty much all rules that completely ignore morale, or functionally do. Right now there are too many units that just don't use the morale system either because they're too small or they have rules that completely ignore it.
One quick change they could make to penalise MSU even slightly would be to make the additional -1 for being under half strength reference the maximum unit size rather than a unit's starting size. So horde units wouldn't care as they're often taken in max-size units, or close enough, but all those 5-man SM units would automatically be failing the Combat Attrition tests on 1 or 2. If GW won't commit to having Morale be an impactful part of the game they should just remove it.
I don't think custodes or GK players would like to be forced in to taking 10 man squads of termintors, or being extra punished for taking a 5 man squad of their troops. Specialy with points going up. It is one thing to lose a squad of 200pts, when you are running 8-10 squads, it is a totaly different thing to lose a squad when you are running 6 squads. And it gets even worse it it means you can't a full strenght front line unit, because your tax units cost more then other factions elite squads.
if they were allowed to be split between two transports (no issues with the transports then needing to stay next to each other, say 4"?)
at present to me the issue with 'marine' units is you may as well go MSU because a unit of ten isn't big enough to make a difference. a unit larger may be, but short of something like a Storm Eagle larger units walk everywhere so die more easily.
let my DG mob up between a pair of Rhinos GW and I promise I will buy more of them
Using the max squad size to calculate attrition wouldn't affect Marine MSU; they already can't fail a morale test unless they lose 3-4 members of 5-man squad (meaning they're under half strength either way), and in the case that they lose 4, the attrition rule is irrelevant (the last guy flees if they fail).
I still stand by my suggestion of having the Blast weapon unit sizes keyed to Ld modifiers. Normal Ld if 6-10 models, -1Ld if 5 or fewer, +1Ld if 11 or more. It'd make big units less likely to fail from taking just a couple of casualties, MSU would actually have to worry about morale, and the last few survivors of a larger squad would be more likely to break and run.
So we're clear, you think the best solution is to make it so that any unit that starts the game at 5 or fewer are automatically at -1LD when they have to take any kind of Leadership tests?
Because...yeah, that's just awful as a concept unless literally everything starts at 10 models from henceforth.
Kanluwen wrote: So we're clear, you think the best solution is to make it so that any unit that starts the game at 5 or fewer are automatically at -1LD when they have to take any kind of Leadership tests?
Yep. Try reading it again with an open mind, run some scenarios, see if you can avoid knee-jerking for, like, thirty seconds.
The only way to make the new morale system actually matter for small units without simultaneously and disproportionately impacting larger units is to change what Ld they test on. There's no other way around it. The current and new systems both make a 5-man squad just as likely to fail a test from taking 3 casualties as a 10- or 30-man squad, with greater impact on the larger units. This is the opposite of how it should work.
With just a flat -1Ld for units at 5 models or fewer, five-man Marine squads are still failing morale tests at the following rates:
2 casualties: 3% (average losses: 0.04)
3 casualties: 11% (average losses: 0.15)
4 casualties: 25% (average losses: 0.25)
Hardly the end of the world. Morale would still not be something Marines care about, but it might make Ultramarines' +1Ld not totally worthless, and non-Marine units might actually care a bit about morale. Without ATSKNF, for Ld8, you're looking at:
Take three casualties, and morale on average doesn't even account for another half of a model. It's still not making small units regularly get wiped by morale, just making it occasionally relevant.
But by all means, feel free to give an alternative suggestion. If you'd prefer morale just not matter at all, I'd be fine with stripping it out from the game entirely, but this current approach where losing four guys out of thirty is way worse than losing four guys out of five is fething stupid.
Not Online!!! wrote: No, rather not slipspace, csm allready suck,.don't need more penalising and how cultist s will play out sofar also rather not.
I'm not sure it would be such a massive penalty for Cultists. The new rules mean killing half the unit doesn't wipe the other half. On average you lose 1 + 1/3 of the unit to a failed morale test if you're under half strength. That reduction in effect in the worst-case scenarios is why I'd like to see them remove a lot of the morale mitigation rules so we see more effect from Morale in general across a wider range of units. Thar's also why I think taking the max unit size as the value you calculate half strength from would make sense as it then applies a penalty to MSU which still sees barely any effect form these rules.
Ideally CSM wouldn't rely on Cultists as their Troops anyway, but that's a balance problem with how bad the basic Chaos Space Marine is. Even if your Cultists take a few more casualties from a reduction in Ld they're still able to do their job of holding objectives and occupying board space (just not quite as much board space). The new rules actually make larger horde units more resilient because it's extremely unlikely a failed test will destroy the whole unit.
I meant the unit.
The chaffs dead anyways considering the relative hike and the avoidance of multiple detachments if possible.
Marines aren't the only units that can start at 5(or less) models, you are aware of that right?
Scions, Skitarii, Fire Warriors and Pathfinders, Stealth Suits, Battlesuits, etc.
I don't care about "making Marines care about Morale". It isn't a thing that really should be an issue for them, Chaos or Loyalist. But it also shouldn't be affecting Scions or Skitarii yet they'll be hit by your tripe.
You want to 'make Marines about Morale'? Then you come up with something that actually makes some damn sense. Push a bit onto Loyalists where if they lose models, they always have to declare another model will gather up the Geneseed of the casualties.
Kanluwen wrote: Marines aren't the only units that can start at 5(or less) models, you are aware of that right?
Scions, Skitarii, Fire Warriors and Pathfinders, Stealth Suits, Battlesuits, etc.
I don't care about "making Marines care about Morale". It isn't a thing that really should be an issue for them, Chaos or Loyalist. But it also shouldn't be affecting Scions or Skitarii yet they'll be hit by your tripe.
You want to 'make Marines about Morale'? Then you come up with something that actually makes some damn sense. Push a bit onto Loyalists where if they lose models, they always have to declare another model will gather up the Geneseed of the casualties.
I asked you to avoid knee-jerking for thirty seconds. If you didn't get to where I gave the probabilities for non-Marines at Ld8, you didn't even make it that long.
But since you gave a couple of examples that are Ld7, I'll at least provide averages for those with a -1 penalty, assuming a starting strength of 5 models:
1 casualty: 17% (average losses: 0.25)
2 casualties: 33% (average losses: 0.44)
3 casualties: 50% (average losses: 0.67)
4 casualties: 67% (average losses: 0.67)
So even at Ld7, the highest average loss due to morale is still less than one model. I would like to say that this proposal would give a morale incentive to run ten-man squads, but it wouldn't even do that. Under the new official rules, a ten-man squad at Ld7 that takes 3 casualties will actually sustain 0.67 morale casualties on average, exactly the same as a 5-model squad under my proposed revision- so the idea that you're dismissing as 'awful' and 'tripe' makes 5-model, Ld7 squads no more badly affected by morale than their 10-model counterparts.
Are you, like, really emotionally invested in five-model squads being effectively immune to morale, and that's why you're reacting so weirdly aggressively? Or are you just not actually reading my posts before getting worked up about it?
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
In fairness, MSU armies tend to be fluff-destroying abominations that suggest "I play to WIN, screw the lore" instead of "I play because I love and respect the lore".
Is it true that Space Marines can run away in 8th edition? I don't recall seeing that in any of the books or computer games. "Leg it brothers, all is lost!"
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
In fairness, MSU armies tend to be fluff-destroying abominations that suggest "I play to WIN, screw the lore" instead of "I play because I love and respect the lore".
Is it true that Space Marines can run away in 8th edition? I don't recall seeing that in any of the books or computer games. "Leg it brothers, all is lost!"
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
In fairness, MSU armies tend to be fluff-destroying abominations that suggest "I play to WIN, screw the lore" instead of "I play because I love and respect the lore".
They're also a thing that happens when playing smaller games or because GW designed them that way.
But please, tell me how I can have Guard Command Squads of more than 4 models.
Is it true that Space Marines can run away in 8th edition? I don't recall seeing that in any of the books or computer games. "Leg it brothers, all is lost!"
Marines are an issue no matter how you swing it. Even with 10 model squads, they can just Combat Squad them to avoid Blast weapons.
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
I already explicitly said why I am suggesting a change. Read the thread.
"It'd make big units less likely to fail from taking just a couple of casualties, MSU would actually have to worry about morale, and the last few survivors of a larger squad would be more likely to break and run."
"The current and new systems both make a 5-man squad just as likely to fail a test from taking 3 casualties as a 10- or 30-man squad, with greater impact on the larger units. This is the opposite of how it should work."
"Under the new official rules, a ten-man squad at Ld7 that takes 3 casualties will actually sustain 0.67 morale casualties on average, exactly the same as a 5-model squad under my proposed revision- so the idea that you're dismissing as 'awful' and 'tripe' makes 5-model, Ld7 squads no more badly affected by morale than their 10-model counterparts."
Is there something unclear about any of those?
Kanluwen wrote: Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
Penalizing players through morale for running a single larger squad instead of multiple smaller ones is absolutely unintuitive, terrible design. Troops should not be more likely to run when they lose 40% of a large squad than when they lose a majority of their small fireteam. Historically there is strength in numbers. The current morale system imposes the opposite.
It's also not penalizing them, like I already said. It's just counteracting an undeserved resistance to morale, making the small squads and larger ones react more similarly to casualties. The behavior is closer to the old system, where morale penalties were based on what proportion of your starting strength you had, and a unit of 5 that lost 3 members tested the same as a unit of 10 that lost 6.
Honestly, if you're not going to bother reading the posts you're replying to I don't see any reason to continue this.
You're right, there is no reason to continue this. Feel free to put me on ignore for the future, because you're clearly choosing to ignore the point I'm making.
I don't play 40k to crunch numbers. I play to have fun. I don't consider it fun to see a penalty right off the bat for my simple unit selections when I do not get any benefits in exchange for upping the unit size thanks to the way Blast weapons work.
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
In fairness, MSU armies tend to be fluff-destroying abominations that suggest "I play to WIN, screw the lore" instead of "I play because I love and respect the lore".
Is it true that Space Marines can run away in 8th edition? I don't recall seeing that in any of the books or computer games. "Leg it brothers, all is lost!"
Please pray tell how MSU is against the lore.
I saw a list, possibly on Goonhammer, for a Tau army that did well in a tournament. If I recall, it was a commander and two cadre fireblades, and the troops choices were all drones, then I think there were two of the largest battlesuits.
"You have proven yourself well in battle. You have earned your reward. You will lead a small number of gun-drones."
"But I wished to lead my bonded kin into the furnace of war. We have fought together since -"
"We no longer deploy our soldiers into combat and instead we send drones backed by a Commander. It is the way of things."
- Excerpt from The Raping of the Fluff by CS Goto
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
In fairness, MSU armies tend to be fluff-destroying abominations that suggest "I play to WIN, screw the lore" instead of "I play because I love and respect the lore".
Is it true that Space Marines can run away in 8th edition? I don't recall seeing that in any of the books or computer games. "Leg it brothers, all is lost!"
Please pray tell how MSU is against the lore.
I saw a list, possibly on Goonhammer, for a Tau army that did well in a tournament. If I recall, it was a commander and two cadre fireblades, and the troops choices were all drones, then I think there were two of the largest battlesuits.
"You have proven yourself well in battle. You have earned your reward. You will lead a small number of gun-drones."
"But I wished to lead my bonded kin into the furnace of war. We have fought together since -"
"We no longer deploy our soldiers into combat and instead we send drones backed by a Commander. It is the way of things."
- Excerpt from The Raping of the Fluff by CS Goto
Sending in troops when you have drones that shoot like troops is stupid.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't play 40k to crunch numbers. I play to have fun. I don't consider it fun to see a penalty right off the bat for my simple unit selections when I do not get any benefits in exchange for upping the unit size thanks to the way Blast weapons work.
Oh, okay, so it's not actually because you understand the mechanics involved or the effects of the change I'm proposing; it's because you see a -1 and that makes the sad face.
So here's an alternative idea: Squads of 6-10 models get +1Ld. Squads of 11+ models get +2Ld. Wow! Bonuses! Also, we'll be doing a balance pass where we reduce the Ld on every datasheet by 1.
Kanluwen wrote: Why are you so weirdly invested in forcing a penalty on minimum sized units to begin with?
Because you can keep throwing numbers all you want, it's a terrible design to penalize someone for something like that.
In fairness, MSU armies tend to be fluff-destroying abominations that suggest "I play to WIN, screw the lore" instead of "I play because I love and respect the lore".
Is it true that Space Marines can run away in 8th edition? I don't recall seeing that in any of the books or computer games. "Leg it brothers, all is lost!"
Please pray tell how MSU is against the lore.
I saw a list, possibly on Goonhammer, for a Tau army that did well in a tournament. If I recall, it was a commander and two cadre fireblades, and the troops choices were all drones, then I think there were two of the largest battlesuits.
"You have proven yourself well in battle. You have earned your reward. You will lead a small number of gun-drones."
"But I wished to lead my bonded kin into the furnace of war. We have fought together since -"
"We no longer deploy our soldiers into combat and instead we send drones backed by a Commander. It is the way of things."
- Excerpt from The Raping of the Fluff by CS Goto
1. CS Goto hyperbole from someone complaining about power gamers? Never seen that one before!
2. Drones aren't troops and never have been.
3. You didn't really answer the question of how MSU breaks the lore.
Of course it means things like knights, along with super heavy tanks and traitor primarchs. What 
