Nice and straight forward. For those who’ve been playing 10th, how are you finding Battleshock?
I ask because it looks like Nids have various ways to trigger the test and tinkering with your Ld, so I’m trying to get a sense of whether it’s really worth specking into that.
Nice and straight forward. For those who’ve been playing 10th, how are you finding Battleshock?
I ask because it looks like Nids have various ways to trigger the test and tinkering with your Ld, so I’m trying to get a sense of whether it’s really worth specking into that.
Its still half-cheeked. It doesn't last, so its missing the staying power. A rally test would help - or moving the auto-rally to the END of the player turn. But standard processing pretty much limits it to half of a turn- which means a quarter of the battle round, and then ending. In theory if you can out-of-phase force some tests - Heroic Intervention, etc to trigger the tests after their command phase its got a little more staying power.
ccs wrote: It's swung a few close games this past month. Usually affecting my opponents more than me as they suddenly lose OC at some crucial moment.
I like it.
I've been on the receiving end of this, it forces me to have a contingency in place. Also not being able to use statements reduced some opportunities but it hasn't really come up in my games yet.
Its not (yet) had a huge impact in games I've played, though I suspect for some armies the ability to force tests on nearby units will be good (e.g. a melee focussed force shutting down overwatch on a key unit, or preventing that unit buffing itself)
I think perhaps it needs to be a bit stronger, but not strong enough half the armies in the game gain immunity to it in some way
I've played ~20 games of 10th so far and I think on a few occasions it's prevented me from playing a stratagem I wanted to play, but nothing major and maybe once or twice I've lost an objective because of it.
So I'd say Battleshock in it's current form is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.
Units that aren't on objectives or who don't are about to have a strat played on them are essentially "immune" to it, as in it doesn't do anything.
Personally I'd like for Battleshock to actually do something on units that don't care about OC/Strats; perhaps -1 to hit if you're not shooting the closest target or something similar.
Something that gives me the impression that the unit actually is you know...shaken.
As a nid player it’s great tactic to control the board and get one up on victory points but to be honest most of the time it’s pointless and has seldom led to a victory
Ooo they’re battleshocked… so what?!? Meh ?
There’s some good nid units, yet to see some of the new model rules though so not quite finalised my list but tervigon with a mass of gants works well coupled with a hive tyrant and just spam out more nids for them to deal with each turn
Screamer killers are lethal I’ve found and worth every point!!
I’m not inclined to build into battle shock though, it’s there yeah but I’m not building into it.
So I'd say Battleshock in it's current form is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.
Units that aren't on objectives or who don't are about to have a strat played on them are essentially "immune" to it, as in it doesn't do anything.
This is pretty much how it goes with my forces.
Those units likely to suffer shock? Those are my mainline combat units. If they're holding an objective it's more incidental than intent. I can also very easily play entire games using nothing but command re-rolls/over watch. And those aren't essential to my plans.... so if I can't re-roll a dice for some umit? Eh.
One of the Craftworld Eldar armies I've run has a lot of battleshock tricks, mostly from Forgeworld models. Most of the time it's not very useful, but some times it can be decisive. For example, I played against a Necron army that had a couple of essentially unkillable units, but I was able to wipe one out in a turn by denying it access to strategems. It was also very useful against Chaos Marines, again cutting off access to strategems for Forgefiends and other single models who wouldn't normally have to check for battleshock.
Most of the time it is a nothing burger. Sometimes, for some armies, it feels very punishing. Especialy if they are high cost and elite. Vs armies like tyranids, the rules becomes an actualy important one. having part of your army suddenly be wounded at +1, and be at -1 to hit, is powerful, same as losing objectives, being unable to use stratagems etc.
Is that because it just doesn’t trigger often enough? Or are you finding ways to comfortably pass you tests? Are your opponents leaning into it when it triggers? Or indeed…any reason you’re just not finding it an issue.
Things get killed in 10th. It is not common for me to see a unit being targeted by a good army and be left alive to take the test. And among armies that are bad, they often don't cause enough damage to actualy cause of test.
Is that because it just doesn’t trigger often enough? Or are you finding ways to comfortably pass you tests? Are your opponents leaning into it when it triggers? Or indeed…any reason you’re just not finding it an issue.
I think it's primarily down to the armies I'm playing against and their composition.
Against Necrons, my luck has always just been bad enough that I get a unit to just over half-strength, at which point the many ways to resurrect models come into play and the work is undone.
Against T'au, my opponent has a fair whack of squishy units like Firewarriors and Kroot in the early game that I mince, then the Battlesuits drop, and things get difficult.
Daemons are the only army I've consistently caused Battleshock against as they're generally quite squishy but by the time the bigger beasties get into combat range, I've lost most of my firepower to general attrition so they've never been shocked.
For me it’s mostly been a minor thing but every now and again it throws a spanner in the works, played a mates chaos marines and he was making good use of strats and then came undone when a key unit or two got battleshocked.
I agree though that if it lasted and there was a rally test would be better. In fact we might try that in our next game and see how it goes.
It's a passive effect. You can't rely on it to get you wins because it's not guaranteed to trigger and even if it does, it might not necessarily actually mean anything.
Battleshock triggering on a unit of Cultists isn't a big deal because they're bottom of the rung for Strategem use and they have sticky objectives.
Battleshock triggering on a unit of Legionaries would be difficult as their Ld is 6+, and on 2d6 the average roll is 7.
I do want to be clear that I don't think it's a useless mechanic and I have netted some lovely points by forcing enemy units off of objectives with it.
Do you feel your opponents are making good use of it? Are you? Or is it more cropping up as just part and parcel of kicking the snot of your opponent?
Mostly just part & parcel on either side.
Once in awhile we'll see a unit that's close to being Below strength targeted by attacks that definitely won't wipe it out but might kill just enough to make it test.
Gert wrote: It's a passive effect. You can't rely on it to get you wins because it's not guaranteed to trigger and even if it does, it might not necessarily actually mean anything.
Battleshock triggering on a unit of Cultists isn't a big deal because they're bottom of the rung for Strategem use and they have sticky objectives.
Battleshock triggering on a unit of Legionaries would be difficult as their Ld is 6+, and on 2d6 the average roll is 7.
I do want to be clear that I don't think it's a useless mechanic and I have netted some lovely points by forcing enemy units off of objectives with it.
Note sticky triggers after controlling so if they fail bs no sticky.
So, for stuff like Nids just forcing tests and being able to tinker with your Ld, regardless of unit strength, do you think it’s going to be particularly useful?
I know we can only do mass test forcing once per game, but we seem to have various ways of more target tree testing each turn.
The many types oflictor, unless nerfed, stacks. So two cheap lone operatives, can be handing out +1 to wound, -1 to hit, hiting stuff with multiple MW rolls. It can be devastating to armies with no ways to stop it.
Andykp wrote: For me it’s mostly been a minor thing but every now and again it throws a spanner in the works, played a mates chaos marines and he was making good use of strats and then came undone when a key unit or two got battleshocked.
I agree though that if it lasted and there was a rally test would be better. In fact we might try that in our next game and see how it goes.
I don't get this comment. Battle Shock does last until your next Command phase and does have a Rally test, aka making a new Battle Shock test for a unit below Half Starting Strength each of your Command phases.
Gert wrote: No, it's not worth dedicating your army to.
But the tyranid player doesn't have to dedicate his army to it. It comes build in. A very resilient, low point costs lone operative with stealth etc could be run even if there was battleshock rules. But there are those rules, the gains from it are substential, are an aura and the tyranid player isn't limited to running 1 of those.
Andykp wrote: For me it’s mostly been a minor thing but every now and again it throws a spanner in the works, played a mates chaos marines and he was making good use of strats and then came undone when a key unit or two got battleshocked.
I agree though that if it lasted and there was a rally test would be better. In fact we might try that in our next game and see how it goes.
I don't get this comment. Battle Shock does last until your next Command phase and does have a Rally test, aka making a new Battle Shock test for a unit below Half Starting Strength each of your Command phases.
think its down to why a unit tested, there seems to be a fair few ways to force a battleshock test beyond reducing the unit size, in those cases presumably rallying is automatic as there is then no further need to test
Karol wrote: But the tyranid player doesn't have to dedicate his army to it. It comes build in. A very resilient, low point costs lone operative with stealth etc could be run even if there was battleshock rules. But there are those rules, the gains from it are substential, are an aura and the tyranid player isn't limited to running 1 of those.
Ok, but my point remains that taking units purely due to Battleshock shenanigans is a bad idea. If units have those rules then great but people shouldn't be taking them because of those rules.
Karol wrote: But the tyranid player doesn't have to dedicate his army to it. It comes build in. A very resilient, low point costs lone operative with stealth etc could be run even if there was battleshock rules. But there are those rules, the gains from it are substential, are an aura and the tyranid player isn't limited to running 1 of those.
Ok, but my point remains that taking units purely due to Battleshock shenanigans is a bad idea. If units have those rules then great but people shouldn't be taking them because of those rules.
quite, the best unit for battleshock causing is one that can delete half the target unit and cause it that way, the rest is gravy
Karol wrote: But the tyranid player doesn't have to dedicate his army to it. It comes build in. A very resilient, low point costs lone operative with stealth etc could be run even if there was battleshock rules. But there are those rules, the gains from it are substential, are an aura and the tyranid player isn't limited to running 1 of those.
Ok, but my point remains that taking units purely due to Battleshock shenanigans is a bad idea. If units have those rules then great but people shouldn't be taking them because of those rules.
Why not? People choose other units based on their rules all the time. Ok, usually they're choosing based on good to OP rules.... and you or I might not be overly impressed by the shock rules. But if that's what inspires the other guy? Well, good luck with their evil plan.
ccs wrote: Why not? People choose other units based on their rules all the time. Ok, usually they're choosing based on good to OP rules.... and you or I might not be overly impressed by the shock rules. But if that's what inspires the other guy? Well, good luck with their evil plan.
Because this is specifically advice on whether Battleshock is something that can be played with or if it's more passive. As it's not something that triggers very often in my experience, I do not believe it to be worthwhile specifically bringing a list that will focus on causing it to trigger on enemy units.
Hence I advised that if a unit has a rule that utilises Battleshock then great but it should not be the primary concern when selecting units.
Karol wrote: But the tyranid player doesn't have to dedicate his army to it. It comes build in. A very resilient, low point costs lone operative with stealth etc could be run even if there was battleshock rules. But there are those rules, the gains from it are substential, are an aura and the tyranid player isn't limited to running 1 of those.
Ok, but my point remains that taking units purely due to Battleshock shenanigans is a bad idea. If units have those rules then great but people shouldn't be taking them because of those rules.
quite, the best unit for battleshock causing is one that can delete half the target unit and cause it that way, the rest is gravy
That doesn't give chance to negate stratagem just as you need it. Won 3 games already with that.
Is that because it just doesn’t trigger often enough? Or are you finding ways to comfortably pass you tests? Are your opponents leaning into it when it triggers? Or indeed…any reason you’re just not finding it an issue.
Its too short. You're most likely to BS someone after shooting/fighting - especially since that's where most of the added checks are taken - then it automatically ends at the beginning of your turn. You're only really preventing a few strats. If Auto-Rally happened at the end of your turn, and BS had a few of the more historical rules like not being able to move towards the enemy, etc. or Failing a BS test while BS'ed gets nasty = broken etc. Then it would likely be a viable play style. As it is now, the effect isn't durable enough - its over too soon.
Battleshock NEEDS to not autoclear itself at the start of the turn, and the "autopass stratagem" needsto be gone, right now it just doesn't have any impact
VladimirHerzog wrote: Battleshock NEEDS to not autoclear itself at the start of the turn, and the "autopass stratagem" needsto be gone, right now it just doesn't have any impact
While I'm inclined to agree, I suspect GW if they went that way would also provide a lot more ways to escape the restrictions, e.g. Marines getting back the ability to always re-roll it, various other factions having ways to do similar or outright ignore it.
however making Battleshock "sticky" would certainly mean it matters more - especially with only a single strategem to auto clear it (limiting how much of the army can be rallied), would also mean low LD armies actually fall apart a lot faster once they take damage.
I would however provide a few alternative ways to clear it, e.g. a fallback move, random distance, and then no shooting or assaulting = Battleshock is cleared, or willingly moving out of a set range of enemy units (18"?), or perhaps getting to a point the unit in question cannot see any enemy units. But things that require the player wishing to clear it without having to roll to take some other action
On the auto-clear, if I’m reading it right the test isn’t to see if you clear battleshock, but if you continue besmirching your pantaloons, yes?
If so, definitely something I’d need to keep in mind if I do go down Spooky Noodles with my Nids. Nice to mass trigger it early, but will then need to factor in keeping my opponent testing every turn regardless, potentially allowing me to force multiple checks from Spooky, or to use the “BOO! You test now” on units which otherwise wouldn’t be testing in their own turn.
Hmm. It does feel like there’s something there. If I can force my opponent to have to worry about losing OC, or access to stratagems, there’s definitely some mileage there.
I suspect the finesse will be in using it to turn off my opponent where I want to be scoring.
But as said, it’s never going to be a straight replacement for kicking your teeth out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also will need to keep my opponent’s mission parameters in mind, as making it difficult or impossible for them to contest, let alone control, very specific objectives are very specific times seems potentially powerful.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the auto-clear, if I’m reading it right the test isn’t to see if you clear battleshock, but if you continue besmirching your pantaloons, yes?
If so, definitely something I’d need to keep in mind if I do go down Spooky Noodles with my Nids. Nice to mass trigger it early, but will then need to factor in keeping my opponent testing every turn regardless, potentially allowing me to force multiple checks from Spooky, or to use the “BOO! You test now” on units which otherwise wouldn’t be testing in their own turn.
Hmm. It does feel like there’s something there. If I can force my opponent to have to worry about losing OC, or access to stratagems, there’s definitely some mileage there.
I suspect the finesse will be in using it to turn off my opponent where I want to be scoring.
But as said, it’s never going to be a straight replacement for kicking your teeth out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also will need to keep my opponent’s mission parameters in mind, as making it difficult or impossible for them to contest, let alone control, very specific objectives are very specific times seems potentially powerful.
comes down to needing to consider it when building a force and making sure they small, cheap, disposable units for objective grabbing either have backup or you consider the leadership stat slightly more than usual - which to be honest is no bad thing
VladimirHerzog wrote: Battleshock NEEDS to not autoclear itself at the start of the turn, and the "autopass stratagem" needsto be gone, right now it just doesn't have any impact
You remember autopass doesn't apply to any force bs test rule?
It needs more "oomph". Maybe that lies in the "doesn't auto clear" mentioned above, maybe something like, "cannot use faction, detachment, or unit abilities" so that a unit not on an objective doesn't just shrug and continue as previously.
Andykp wrote: For me it’s mostly been a minor thing but every now and again it throws a spanner in the works, played a mates chaos marines and he was making good use of strats and then came undone when a key unit or two got battleshocked.
I agree though that if it lasted and there was a rally test would be better. In fact we might try that in our next game and see how it goes.
I don't get this comment. Battle Shock does last until your next Command phase and does have a Rally test, aka making a new Battle Shock test for a unit below Half Starting Strength each of your Command phases.
think its down to why a unit tested, there seems to be a fair few ways to force a battleshock test beyond reducing the unit size, in those cases presumably rallying is automatic as there is then no further need to test
This.
Rather than keep testing if at half strength just assume still battle shocked until rallied. Would make units/attacks that cause it more potent. Maybe too potent? Doubt it but maybe.
Battleshock has had barely any impact during my games so far. The problems are many, IMO.
1. The auto-pass strat mitigates it too much.
2. It's too random, so you can't rely on it happening as the player inflicting it.
3. The effects are usually quite weak. Unless you get it on a unit that absolutely needs a strat that phase or the only unit on an objective, it just doesn't do enough.
If GW wants to make BS worth it, at a bare minimum they need to remove the auto-pass strat. I'd also force any units that were previously Battleshocked, for any reason, to have to test in their next Command phase, so all the abilities that inflict it outside of the normal <50% rules can have a last effect. MAybe it could even turn off all abilities and faction/detachment rules for the affected unit.
Is that because it just doesn’t trigger often enough? Or are you finding ways to comfortably pass you tests? Are your opponents leaning into it when it triggers? Or indeed…any reason you’re just not finding it an issue.
First, it doesn't trigger that often. Usually the enemy will finish off a unit if they're below half strength. Second, it's easy to pass because a lot of my squads have access to 5+ leadership. Third, it doesn't last very long when it does trigger. Fourth, it doesn't have much impact even when it does trigger. 1 out of every 100 games, a unit will lose objective control because of being battleshocked and it will swing a game, but in the other 99 games it will be a minor nuisance at most.
ccs wrote: Why not? People choose other units based on their rules all the time. Ok, usually they're choosing based on good to OP rules.... and you or I might not be overly impressed by the shock rules. But if that's what inspires the other guy? Well, good luck with their evil plan.
Because this is specifically advice on whether Battleshock is something that can be played with or if it's more passive. As it's not something that triggers very often in my experience, I do not believe it to be worthwhile specifically bringing a list that will focus on causing it to trigger on enemy units.
Hence I advised that if a unit has a rule that utilises Battleshock then great but it should not be the primary concern when selecting units.
In general yes, but for tyranids it triggers often enough. And a very cheap lone operative with high survivability, well against non eldar, that can trigger a lot of beneficial rules is not a problem to fit in to an army. Two cost less then 200pts and have a cumulative effect as their special rules trigger of any battle shock not only ones they cause.
Slipspace wrote: Battleshock has had barely any impact during my games so far. The problems are many, IMO.
1. The auto-pass strat mitigates it too much.
2. It's too random, so you can't rely on it happening as the player inflicting it.
3. The effects are usually quite weak. Unless you get it on a unit that absolutely needs a strat that phase or the only unit on an objective, it just doesn't do enough.
If GW wants to make BS worth it, at a bare minimum they need to remove the auto-pass strat. I'd also force any units that were previously Battleshocked, for any reason, to have to test in their next Command phase, so all the abilities that inflict it outside of the normal <50% rules can have a last effect. MAybe it could even turn off all abilities and faction/detachment rules for the affected unit.
I don't think the auto-pass is all that potent - because Battleshock isn't that potent. The auto-rally is far worse than one unit auto-passing.
And Battleshock isn't that strong. If they were unable to shoot or move closer to enemy units in addition to not being able to use Strats it would be just about right. They don't get chased down into nonexistence, but they also can't engage offensively. They probably should auto-rally but only at the end of the controlling player's turn, that way you get a turn and a half of work out of battle shock which is close enough to a full battle round - and it actually disrupts the controlling player's turn. That's the important part. Battleshock is currently not disruptive to the controlling player.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Battleshock NEEDS to not autoclear itself at the start of the turn, and the "autopass stratagem" needsto be gone, right now it just doesn't have any impact
You remember autopass doesn't apply to any force bs test rule?
Yes, but if battleshock became sticky like i suggested, it would.
And even withoit my change, usually its 1-2 units that are even gonna need to roll at all, being able to decide AFTER failing if you actually need that unit to not be battleshocked completely neuteurs the mechanic IMO
I don't think the auto-pass is all that potent - because Battleshock isn't that potent. The auto-rally is far worse than one unit auto-passing.
Its BECAUSE battleshock isnt that potent that the strat should be removed. The one time your opponent will fail battleshock in a way that would swing thr game, they can just chose for it not to happen
I've had a lot of success with it with my Chaos daemons, who are rather uniquely placed to enjoy both taking BS tests and inflicting it upon the opponent through various ways.
Whilst in the shadow of chaos, a failed BS is a nice D3 mortals and the -1 base to LD checks is very very nice and has really helped me, as has Skullcannons and even bloodcrushers forcing BS checks on the charge and denying opponent key stratagems, ESPECIALLY a Necron player who spent half the game being unable to use any CP in my turn or potentially even in theirs due to overwatch causing battleshock tests/ trying to shoot the changling
Battle shock does too little, is too unreliable and is too easy to get rid off to actually impact games.
To be fair, not being able to fall back, use a stratagem or score is a fairly powerful debuff, but there are too many units which it doesn't affect. If an opponent ever has to roll a battle shock test, there is a decent chance that they will just pass it, and when they don't, battle shock still needs to be relevant to a unit. That predator sitting in a corner is not going to care about battle shock ever, because you weren't going to use stratagems on it, nor will it ever be on an objective or near combat. If you manage to battle shock someone on your turn, it usually amounts to that unit not being able to use stratagems in the fight phase - if your opponent did not plan to do that anyways, it has absolutely no impact.
You cannot reliably make an enemy unit fail a test, so when you really want a unit to not use a stratagem on their turn, to not fall back or to not score, even with a negative modifier or two, most units can still easily pass the test and use a stratagem when they don't. All units that force tests get neutered by auto-removing battle shock during the next command phase, units that reduce leadership do nothing unless you kill half the enemy unit beforehand. Which means that it's not a mechanic worth playing around, so it just happens like an environmental effect.
Last, it's to easy to get rid off. That lone loota cowering behind a wall after his mob was blown away, three out of five times will just shake off battle shock during its next command phase and act as if nothing happened and capture an objective while blasting away some marine's head. The only way to reasonably expect that loota to be neutered is by shooting it dead, which is not what the mechanic was trying to archive.
IMHO, there are three ways to fix battle shock: 1) Make it matter to every unit - deactivate abilities, make units pinned and/or suppressed, disallow advancing and make them count as having fallen back when they make a normal move. Battleshock should be a real PITA for everyone who gets it. A player should never, ever be indifferent to his unit being battle shocked. 2) Make it more reliable. Maybe impose additional modifiers if a unit dropped from full health to below half strength in one turn. Impose a negative modifier if the unit was battle shocked last turn or locked in combat. Or maybe make units roll for it more often. 3) Make it harder to get rid of. If you are battle shocked, getting rid of it should absolutely require a leadership test to shake it off. Return insane heroism to its old incarnation of costing 2CP, before the roll. Any faction specific stratagem for 1 CP should only be able to ignore one aspect of battle shock, but never just unshake them.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Battleshock NEEDS to not autoclear itself at the start of the turn, and the "autopass stratagem" needsto be gone, right now it just doesn't have any impact
I agree that getting rid of the auto-clear every turn would be great, however, I don't think we need to get rid of the autopass stratagem. CP is a lot more sparse this edition and I rarely have excess CP lying around so if I have to choose between spending it on insane bravery or holding onto it for something else that is a good tactical decision to keep imo.
Jidmah wrote: Battle shock does too little, is too unreliable and is too easy to get rid off to actually impact games.
Spoiler:
To be fair, not being able to fall back, use a stratagem or score is a fairly powerful debuff, but there are too many units which it doesn't affect.
If an opponent ever has to roll a battle shock test, there is a decent chance that they will just pass it, and when they don't, battle shock still needs to be relevant to a unit. That predator sitting in a corner is not going to care about battle shock ever, because you weren't going to use stratagems on it, nor will it ever be on an objective or near combat.
If you manage to battle shock someone on your turn, it usually amounts to that unit not being able to use stratagems in the fight phase - if your opponent did not plan to do that anyways, it has absolutely no impact.
You cannot reliably make an enemy unit fail a test, so when you really want a unit to not use a stratagem on their turn, to not fall back or to not score, even with a negative modifier or two, most units can still easily pass the test and use a stratagem when they don't. All units that force tests get neutered by auto-removing battle shock during the next command phase, units that reduce leadership do nothing unless you kill half the enemy unit beforehand. Which means that it's not a mechanic worth playing around, so it just happens like an environmental effect.
Last, it's to easy to get rid off. That lone loota cowering behind a wall after his mob was blown away, three out of five times will just shake off battle shock during its next command phase and act as if nothing happened and capture an objective while blasting away some marine's head. The only way to reasonably expect that loota to be neutered is by shooting it dead, which is not what the mechanic was trying to archive.
IMHO, there are three ways to fix battle shock:
1) Make it matter to every unit - deactivate abilities, make units pinned and/or suppressed, disallow advancing and make them count as having fallen back when they make a normal move. Battleshock should be a real PITA for everyone who gets it. A player should never, ever be indifferent to his unit being battle shocked.
2) Make it more reliable. Maybe impose additional modifiers if a unit dropped from full health to below half strength in one turn. Impose a negative modifier if the unit was battle shocked last turn or locked in combat. Or maybe make units roll for it more often.
3) Make it harder to get rid of. If you are battle shocked, getting rid of it should absolutely require a leadership test to shake it off. Return insane heroism to its old incarnation of costing 2CP, before the roll. Any faction specific stratagem for 1 CP should only be able to ignore one aspect of battle shock, but never just unshake them.
Pick any two.
Right up until it does impact a game....
Our Knight player discovered this in our big Imperial vs Tau game yesterday.
On the Tau turn one of his big Knights (Paladin?) Held an objective in no-mans land. We sent several Piranhas after it, one making it onto the objective, all within range for their Drone Harresment ability.
Several tests later & guess who was Battleshocked? Then we hammered it down to just below 1/2 wounds.
Scored us a secondary as we took an enemy held objective.
On his turn? He needs to test for being below 1/2. He & his teammates decide the CP will be better spent elsewhere & he declares that's OK as he's got this.
Turned out that he did not have it & that 1 Piranha remained in control of the objective.
Of course that poor heroic Piranha soon died horriblely.....
Our Knight player discovered this in our big Imperial vs Tau game yesterday.
On the Tau turn one of his big Knights (Paladin?) Held an objective in no-mans land. We sent several Piranhas after it, one making it onto the objective, all within range for their Drone Harresment ability.
Several tests later & guess who was Battleshocked? Then we hammered it down to just below 1/2 wounds.
Scored us a secondary as we took an enemy held objective.
On his turn? He needs to test for being below 1/2. He & his teammates decide the CP will be better spent elsewhere & he declares that's OK as he's got this.
Turned out that he did not have it & that 1 Piranha remained in control of the objective.
Of course that poor heroic Piranha soon died horriblely.....
so Battleshock is fine because in one game, your opponent misplayed, got punished for it and lost one round of primary on one objective?
Apologies if it feels like I’m flogging a dead horse with my questions.
But across your experience of Battle Shock in 10th, have any of your opponents been running lists which “weaponised” it, as Nids threaten to do come their Codex?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Apologies if it feels like I’m flogging a dead horse with my questions.
But across your experience of Battle Shock in 10th, have any of your opponents been running lists which “weaponised” it, as Nids threaten to do come their Codex?
Not deliberately, no. Nids focus on it naturally, as do Daemons and Chaos Knights. There are even some synergies in those armies with BS and failed BS but I've never seen anyone really try to capitalise on it. Sometimes you get an incidental benefit because you took a unit that gets a bonus against units suffering from BS, but that's not usually the reason you took the unit in the first place.
At the risk of flogging my own dead horse, BS is just too inconsistent to plan for and too easy to mitigate at crucial moments using the 1CP strat. Many units that cause BS have to get close to do it and many of the more powerful units in the game are shooting based so they are usually able to be kept away from any BS threats.
Tyran wrote: Although one does need to remember that the strat only works in your battle-shock sub-phase.
You cannot use it for any additional battle-shock tests.
True. But because BS goes away automatically in your command phase, the out-of-phase abilities only ever turn off OC for secondaries or turn off strats for the rest of the turn. That's not nothing, but it's much lower impact than failing in your own Command Phase.
At the very least, Tyranid Shadow in the Warp happens before the battle-shock step so you cannot use the strat against it (and it also means that units that are below half-strength test twice).
Jidmah wrote: Battle shock does too little, is too unreliable and is too easy to get rid off to actually impact games.
Spoiler:
To be fair, not being able to fall back, use a stratagem or score is a fairly powerful debuff, but there are too many units which it doesn't affect. If an opponent ever has to roll a battle shock test, there is a decent chance that they will just pass it, and when they don't, battle shock still needs to be relevant to a unit. That predator sitting in a corner is not going to care about battle shock ever, because you weren't going to use stratagems on it, nor will it ever be on an objective or near combat. If you manage to battle shock someone on your turn, it usually amounts to that unit not being able to use stratagems in the fight phase - if your opponent did not plan to do that anyways, it has absolutely no impact.
You cannot reliably make an enemy unit fail a test, so when you really want a unit to not use a stratagem on their turn, to not fall back or to not score, even with a negative modifier or two, most units can still easily pass the test and use a stratagem when they don't. All units that force tests get neutered by auto-removing battle shock during the next command phase, units that reduce leadership do nothing unless you kill half the enemy unit beforehand. Which means that it's not a mechanic worth playing around, so it just happens like an environmental effect.
Last, it's to easy to get rid off. That lone loota cowering behind a wall after his mob was blown away, three out of five times will just shake off battle shock during its next command phase and act as if nothing happened and capture an objective while blasting away some marine's head. The only way to reasonably expect that loota to be neutered is by shooting it dead, which is not what the mechanic was trying to archive.
IMHO, there are three ways to fix battle shock: 1) Make it matter to every unit - deactivate abilities, make units pinned and/or suppressed, disallow advancing and make them count as having fallen back when they make a normal move. Battleshock should be a real PITA for everyone who gets it. A player should never, ever be indifferent to his unit being battle shocked. 2) Make it more reliable. Maybe impose additional modifiers if a unit dropped from full health to below half strength in one turn. Impose a negative modifier if the unit was battle shocked last turn or locked in combat. Or maybe make units roll for it more often. 3) Make it harder to get rid of. If you are battle shocked, getting rid of it should absolutely require a leadership test to shake it off. Return insane heroism to its old incarnation of costing 2CP, before the roll. Any faction specific stratagem for 1 CP should only be able to ignore one aspect of battle shock, but never just unshake them.
Pick any two.
Right up until it does impact a game....
Our Knight player discovered this in our big Imperial vs Tau game yesterday. On the Tau turn one of his big Knights (Paladin?) Held an objective in no-mans land. We sent several Piranhas after it, one making it onto the objective, all within range for their Drone Harresment ability. Several tests later & guess who was Battleshocked? Then we hammered it down to just below 1/2 wounds. Scored us a secondary as we took an enemy held objective. On his turn? He needs to test for being below 1/2. He & his teammates decide the CP will be better spent elsewhere & he declares that's OK as he's got this. Turned out that he did not have it & that 1 Piranha remained in control of the objective. Of course that poor heroic Piranha soon died horriblely.....
Yes, and I once rolled 60 hits with a unit of 20 shootas. Battle shock needs to matter in ever. single. game. Irrespective of what army is facing what other army. Otherwise it's not a well designed mechanic. You being able to recount the one time battle shock did something so clearly is more evidence of how much of a failure it is, and not evidence of it actually working. You also have to admit that quite a few stars aligned in order for that to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Apologies if it feels like I’m flogging a dead horse with my questions.
But across your experience of Battle Shock in 10th, have any of your opponents been running lists which “weaponised” it, as Nids threaten to do come their Codex?
I tried to make DG list work with the enhancement which deals mortals to battle shocked units and have a pair of blightbringers reduce leadership while PBC and daemon princes force battleshock tests. I'm sure it mostly failed due to DG being abysmally bad, but I also couldn't make single one of my opponent's CSM units fail their checks.
Our Knight player discovered this in our big Imperial vs Tau game yesterday.
On the Tau turn one of his big Knights (Paladin?) Held an objective in no-mans land. We sent several Piranhas after it, one making it onto the objective, all within range for their Drone Harresment ability.
Several tests later & guess who was Battleshocked? Then we hammered it down to just below 1/2 wounds.
Scored us a secondary as we took an enemy held objective.
On his turn? He needs to test for being below 1/2. He & his teammates decide the CP will be better spent elsewhere & he declares that's OK as he's got this.
Turned out that he did not have it & that 1 Piranha remained in control of the objective.
Of course that poor heroic Piranha soon died horriblely.....
so Battleshock is fine because in one game, your opponent misplayed, got punished for it and lost one round of primary on one objective?
As I've already said, I'm not overly impressed with the BS rule. And i can imagine a few improvements.
(Wich as house rules I don't feel are worth discussing with you lot as I know none of you are in my games. They'll be discussed, just with people who matter)
But it's not bad rule as is - so as far as GW rules goes thats about as close to fine as we'll ever get. And it at least it effects everyone, unlike the fear/terror/etc ldr tests of previous editions where most armies were able to easily deal with or even just outright ignore straight from thier codex.
As for our Knight player mis-playing?
He didn't.
He & his team simply had to make a meaningfull choice of how to spend thier only CP that round.
(Don't I keep hearing about how there should be meaningful choices in this game?) And since he had decent odds of passing the test....
Besides, they used that CP well later on.
It's just humorous when someone declares "I got this" & then the dice tells them "Nope.".
I am not sure I would call a situation, where someone stopping your stratagem that has to be used or the army just falls apart, one where there is a "meaningful choice made.
This especialy hurts elite armies, because if a unit that has to be misted, doesn't it more or less is a gg for the game. And the new tyranids generate A LOT of tests per turn, including ones that can't be stopped with the insane bravery stratagem.
Nids do have lots of trigger points for it. And I’m not seeing anything which says “only one test per turn”.
For instance, if a Haruspex wipes out a unit in HTH, all enemy units in 6” must test for Battleshock. That’s…a pretty big bubble, Spesh if I’m fielding, as I plan to do, three of the gribbly nightmares. I can cover a fair old chunk of the board.
Add in Shadow In The Warp, a couple of Neurolictors and other such “yeah you just sort of besmirch your Pantaloons”, and I have a pretty decent chance of causing mass disruption for a turn or two.
Will I learn how to turn that to best advantage? Hopefully!
Personally I would like Battle Shock better if it auto cleared after your Command Phase. Then, it might impact the game in a more meaningful way. Imo, as it stands now it's fairly passive and useless.
The Leadership check for Battleshock is the only standard roll you can’t re-roll with the Command Re-roll Stratagem. Instead it gets its own special stratagem.
tneva82 wrote: And removes bit of risk. Without it tournament tryhards would complain when game lost on battleshock. Dice game lost due to dice roll shock horror
its not tournament tryhards that complain about that kind of stuff lol, it's the casual that are unable to plan accordingly or adapt to a possible failed battleshock
I've only played a handful of games so far, so not exactly a huge dataset I'm drawing on here, but I find it to be... ehh? It doesn't really come up lots, if I'm honest, but perhaps that's just because me and my friends aren't doing it right.
I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed that Battleshock didn't reflect more of the old morale rules. Even though it was really annoying, it did feel very cinematic when units broke and ran!
Even if it meant a unit that failed its test took a penalty to shoot or had to withdraw towards the nearest cover or something, that would have given Battleshock some really nice flavour for me. As it stands, it's just not something I consider much.
With no intention of insulting anyone, I’m wondering if this might be one of those things it takes people a while to properly appreciate.
For instance, if you were relying on it shutting off Sticky Objectives and find it doesn’t do that, that can colour your overall view.
But as noted, switching off Stratagems and that can be potentially game winning, if you persevere enough to know how to reliably turn that on when needed then it may become a go-to tactic.
Pardon my ignorance again, but are we sure it doesn’t turn off Sticky Objectives? Only I’ve seen conflicting opinions on that.
Certainly I’d imagine I wouldn’t need much to take such a Sticky Objective, as I need only make the Stickying Unit OC 0, and slap any old guff within scoring distance?
Yeah, we are sure. "Sticky" is usually worded as "remains under your control until...", so unless you match the conditions for unsticky-ing it (usually holding the objective at a certain point in time). Battleshocking any amount of units on the marker literally has no impact whatsoever, if there is a unit left on the marker to begin with.
Taking away objectives from battleshocked units is not a viable tactic due to timing. You move into objective range during your movement phase and then force the shock on them. During their next command phase they recover just in time to get take away the objective from your old guff and sticky it again.
The only time (in my experience) when control of an objective is decided by battleshock is when you charge onto an objective marker, fail to kill enough defenders to control an objective and they then roll badly on their battleshock test. You can't exactly plan for that.
That's the crux of it. There are times when Battleshock can be a huge advantage and swing the game. But it's very rare and there's no way to plan for it. You generally don't want to leave units half dead as killing them outright is vastly better, so Battleshock is kind of the consolation prize. Then you can't even predict which ones will fail and most armies can't interact meaningfully with that Ld roll. If a roll really is vital you have the Insane Bravery strat to make sure you pass it.
I've had most of my army fail Battleshock against 'Nids and all it did was switch off Armour of Contempt for one turn on my Terminators. I still had one or two units to hold the necessary objectives and for the rest of my army it was business as usual. You have so many fewer CPs now that turning off strats is less of a penalty than it would have been in 9th. Now that the various "free strat" abilities only work on Battle Tactics, Battleshock is even less impactful.
And to people arguing that an army focused on battleshocking your opponent would be toxic, no it wouldn't, battleshocking is inherently less impactful than just killing your units.
I would even argue that the issue with battle shock is that there is to little skill involved. It's just a random thing that happens, like the mission where objective randomly shock units for a MW on a roll of 6.
It's cute when it happens, but in reality neither player changes their tactics because of it.
That's the crux of it. There are times when Battleshock can be a huge advantage and swing the game. But it's very rare and there's no way to plan for it. You generally don't want to leave units half dead as killing them outright is vastly better, so Battleshock is kind of the consolation prize. Then you can't even predict which ones will fail and most armies can't interact meaningfully with that Ld roll. If a roll really is vital you have the Insane Bravery strat to make sure you pass it.
I've had most of my army fail Battleshock against 'Nids and all it did was switch off Armour of Contempt for one turn on my Terminators. I still had one or two units to hold the necessary objectives and for the rest of my army it was business as usual. You have so many fewer CPs now that turning off strats is less of a penalty than it would have been in 9th. Now that the various "free strat" abilities only work on Battle Tactics, Battleshock is even less impactful.
Absolutely agree, perfectly matches my experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: And to people arguing that an army focused on battleshocking your opponent would be toxic, no it wouldn't, battleshocking is inherently less impactful than just killing your units.
I wonder what those people think of the new DG detachment rules - which are both way worse debuffs than battleshock, and literally toxic
How does that change opinions? If at all of course.
It doesn't because Its still only around for roughly half a player turn, let alone a full battle round, and even when it is there, it does very little.
No "offensive" actions - Moving towards, shooting outside X", etc
No auto clear, or only autoclear after a significant time period.
There should be multiple play styles that all have advantages and drawbacks -
Lightning Strike (Fast Movers comparatively low on durability - Speeders, Jumpers etc)
Inexcorable Plodders (Slow, comparatively durable that probably have a one-use relocation ability to not be totally hosed on maneuverability - Terminators, Gravis, Medium Suits, Big Bugs)
Combined Arms (some of each)
Frenzied Chargers (Wolves, World Eaters)
Psychic
and so on - most of us know the archetypes.
Morale Games with Battleshock should absolutely be one of those styles, good for some Aeldari, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Raven Guard etc So instead of some other gimmick like a host of speeders, or hordes of Terminators they'd just lock down units in Battleshock somehow.
Another game last night, managed to battle shock of a few of their units, and one or two of mine suffered it.
to zero net effect, none were holding an objective, or doing so alone, and none were in a position to benefit from a strategem
did get to use some nice tokens though, so there is that.
however I do see the value in trying to force it on specific units both during the battle shock part of the command phase and after since it then lasts until their next such phase - potentially quite useful for denying strategem buffs, e.g. the ork "ard as nails" one
requires a way to cause such tests on specific units though.
I suspect this is something that will start to be more powerful as the edition progresses and various interactions develop
I just had 2 games in a row where Battleshock felt way better than leadership tests that came before.
I used insane bravery both games and it felt like a good decision.
catbarf wrote: Battleshock can't ever be a relevant mechanic if whenever it might be an issue you can choose to just auto-pass.
Once per game?
Yep. I was initially pretty excited by the new morale system because I was glad to see debuffs and not just lose-more-models, but it's becoming clear from play that it's way too conservative in its effects to matter, let alone to be something an army can base its game plan around. So far it has been my experience that 'once per game' is an optimistic assessment of how often it's important enough to be worth burning a CP to avoid.
Battleshock is typically just a side effect of mostly, but not completely, killing enemy units, and even then it's a crapshoot whether the enemy will fail the test, and even then I've found it's pretty common to have no effect because that unit wasn't on an objective or receiving strats anyways. So basically the flowchart looks like this:
1. You've got to kill at least half a unit, but not wipe out the whole thing.
2. They have to fail their Battleshock test (and also not just choose to auto-pass).
3. They have to be in a situation where that actually matters.
You put these conditions together and then it's once in a blue moon where a unit suffers from Battleshock and it has a tangible impact on the game, and then it's automatically gone after one turn anyways. Even as a Tyranids player I can force the whole enemy army to test, maybe a third of them will fail, and of those it's pretty common that none will be in an ideal position to contest objectives or receive strats anyways. Better units tend to have better morale so the units where it's most likely to be relevant are also the least likely to fail.
If GW wants Battleshock to be a relevant, core mechanic, it needs to be provoked more often, last longer, have effects that are less situational, have no way (not even once-per-game) you can simply choose not to participate, or some combination thereof. As it stands I don't feel it's any more relevant or impactful than it was in 8th-9th, and HH2.0 makes morale a much more significant part of the gameplay.
catbarf wrote: Battleshock can't ever be a relevant mechanic if whenever it might be an issue you can choose to just auto-pass.
Once per game?
Yep. I was initially pretty excited by the new morale system because I was glad to see debuffs and not just lose-more-models, but it's becoming clear from play that it's way too conservative in its effects to matter, let alone to be something an army can base its game plan around. So far it has been my experience that 'once per game' is an optimistic assessment of how often it's important enough to be worth burning a CP to avoid.
Battleshock is typically just a side effect of mostly, but not completely, killing enemy units, and even then it's a crapshoot whether the enemy will fail the test, and even then I've found it's pretty common to have no effect because that unit wasn't on an objective or receiving strats anyways. So basically the flowchart looks like this:
1. You've got to kill at least half a unit, but not wipe out the whole thing.
2. They have to fail their Battleshock test (and also not just choose to auto-pass).
3. They have to be in a situation where that actually matters.
You put these conditions together and then it's once in a blue moon where a unit suffers from Battleshock and it has a tangible impact on the game, and then it's automatically gone after one turn anyways. Even as a Tyranids player I can force the whole enemy army to test, maybe a third of them will fail, and of those it's pretty common that none will be in an ideal position to contest objectives or receive strats anyways. Better units tend to have better morale so the units where it's most likely to be relevant are also the least likely to fail.
If GW wants Battleshock to be a relevant, core mechanic, it needs to be provoked more often, last longer, have effects that are less situational, have no way (not even once-per-game) you can simply choose not to participate, or some combination thereof. As it stands I don't feel it's any more relevant or impactful than it was in 8th-9th, and HH2.0 makes morale a much more significant part of the gameplay.
Take it from a Night Lords player: Catbarf speaks the truth.
Jidmah wrote: I would even argue that the issue with battle shock is that there is to little skill involved. It's just a random thing that happens
I do agree with you in a general sense regarding battleshock tests from being below half strength being randumb, but:
- using the Tyranid Shadow in the Warp at the right time does involve some skill, as I've seen it used at the wrong time enough now.
- using battleshock abilities does involve a little skill, but it doesn't come up often enough and it suffers from the same issue the MW-spawm-archetype did in past editions, you need a critical mass of battleshock abilities before it becomes worthwhile building into lists.
Yesterday game. Netted 5vp, deniea 5vp, denied 3 overwatch candinates which made doing secondary safer and put one of my units into danger of unable to come back if killed.
In tonight's game my opponent had a unit of Nurglings, just inside no-mans land (and thus his shadow of chaos) that just wouldn't die thanks to passing BS tests. The damned things kept healing & regenerating bases. This allowed them to tar pit one of my units far longer than math said they should....
Unleashed shadow and the nasty flamer unit at his home got terrified allowing gargoyles to steal opponents home objective. Also couple other units limiting overwatch options.
ccs wrote: In tonight's game my opponent had a unit of Nurglings, just inside no-mans land (and thus his shadow of chaos) that just wouldn't die thanks to passing BS tests. The damned things kept healing & regenerating bases. This allowed them to tar pit one of my units far longer than math said they should....
thats not battleshock tho, its Shadow of Chaos.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Yesterday game. Netted 5vp, deniea 5vp, denied 3 overwatch candinates which made doing secondary safer and put one of my units into danger of unable to come back if killed.
Nids are one of the very few factions that can reliably force battleshock on units with a timing that allows them to lose primaries. And of course, when you're forcing a test on an opponent's whole army, failing one of them is more likely to occur.
ccs wrote: In tonight's game my opponent had a unit of Nurglings, just inside no-mans land (and thus his shadow of chaos) that just wouldn't die thanks to passing BS tests. The damned things kept healing & regenerating bases. This allowed them to tar pit one of my units far longer than math said they should....
thats not battleshock tho, its Shadow of Chaos.
A technicality that makes no difference.
True, it's the Shadow of Chaos rule that allows thier healing/regeneration.
But in order to use that part of the rule they must pass a Battleshock test.
Had they not been rolling BS nothing would've happened....
So yes, it was Battleshock that was affecting that portion of the game.
ccs wrote: In tonight's game my opponent had a unit of Nurglings, just inside no-mans land (and thus his shadow of chaos) that just wouldn't die thanks to passing BS tests. The damned things kept healing & regenerating bases. This allowed them to tar pit one of my units far longer than math said they should....
thats not battleshock tho, its Shadow of Chaos.
A technicality that makes no difference.
True, it's the Shadow of Chaos rule that allows thier healing/regeneration.
But in order to use that part of the rule they must pass a Battleshock test.
Had they not been rolling BS nothing would've happened....
So yes, it was Battleshock that was affecting that portion of the game.
No, because regular BS doesn't heal your units.... Its litterally a matchup dependent situation that happened. Shadow of chaos could be rolled on an x+ and achieve the same result. Just because some factions have things that key off BS or have ways to trigger it at the correct moment doesn't mean the mechanic as a whole if anything close to good.
ccs wrote: In tonight's game my opponent had a unit of Nurglings, just inside no-mans land (and thus his shadow of chaos) that just wouldn't die thanks to passing BS tests. The damned things kept healing & regenerating bases. This allowed them to tar pit one of my units far longer than math said they should....
thats not battleshock tho, its Shadow of Chaos.
A technicality that makes no difference.
True, it's the Shadow of Chaos rule that allows thier healing/regeneration.
But in order to use that part of the rule they must pass a Battleshock test.
Had they not been rolling BS nothing would've happened....
So yes, it was Battleshock that was affecting that portion of the game.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Shadow of chaos could be rolled on an x+ and achieve the same result.
It could. But in the reality we're in? That part of Shadows keys off of passing BS rolls
VladimirHerzog wrote: Just because some factions have things that key off BS or have ways to trigger it at the correct moment doesn't mean the mechanic as a whole if anything close to good.
It does make it better for some factions though.
And you want BS to be better? More relevant? More interesting? Well, forces having affects that key off of it is one way to get that.
I think the point is more that if you have to layer tons of extra rules onto Battleshock in order to make it relevant, then the base mechanic isn't doing a whole lot.
catbarf wrote: I think the point is more that if you have to layer tons of extra rules onto Battleshock in order to make it relevant, then the base mechanic isn't doing a whole lot.
well its also like "Critical Hits" and "Critical Wounds" which also on their own do essentially nothing, but then have further rules pegged to them making some of the interactions a bit clearer, if a tad illogical occasionally
I think Battleshock is similar, except its 1, rarer and 2, actually has some direct impact. It seems written specifically as a mechanic to allow for other interactions.
had another game last night, a couple of units got battle shocked, to no real game impact though
I still think its better though than either having nothing or having a mechanic that removes models and then invariably sees a whole slew of special rules for some factions to mitigate it
I've found it to be situationally impactful, but generally nothing to be concerned about. caveat that i've not had a game versus nids where they lean into the mechanic.
units are generally alive, or dead, so battleshock tests are quite rare, and even when failed, they only have a few minor effects.
Situationally though, if you can leverage them, they are quite potent.
as an example: Tau (me) versus eldar.
My opponent had moved a wraithguard brick into a ruin. obviously he was going to use phantasm to withdraw if (when) i moved a unit to get into range and LOS on them.
I moved 2 piranhas within 12, prompting no overwatch. then moved my crisis team to shoot them (with plasma)
at the end of my movement phase, the piranhas forced a couple of battleshock tests, the wraithguard failed, and the crisis team deleted them since they could not use phantasm, or lightning fast reactions
leopard wrote: well its also like "Critical Hits" and "Critical Wounds" which also on their own do essentially nothing, but then have further rules pegged to them making some of the interactions a bit clearer, if a tad illogical occasionally
Critical Hits/Wounds are just terminology, providing a definition for what it means when you roll a 6 and providing a hook for other rules to modify that threshold or interact with it.
They don't require you to make a bunch of extra rolls to typically do nothing.
And they aren't purporting to be something as fundamental to wargaming as a morale/friction mechanic.
leopard wrote: I still think its better though than either having nothing or having a mechanic that removes models and then invariably sees a whole slew of special rules for some factions to mitigate it
There are many options besides 'nothing', 'how 40K previously did it', and 'how 40K does it now'.
leopard wrote: well its also like "Critical Hits" and "Critical Wounds" which also on their own do essentially nothing, but then have further rules pegged to them making some of the interactions a bit clearer, if a tad illogical occasionally
Critical Hits/Wounds are just terminology, providing a definition for what it means when you roll a 6 and providing a hook for other rules to modify that threshold or interact with it.
They don't require you to make a bunch of extra rolls to typically do nothing.
And they aren't purporting to be something as fundamental to wargaming as a morale/friction mechanic.
thats essentially my point, is a definition that other rules can hook into
leopard wrote: I still think its better though than either having nothing or having a mechanic that removes models and then invariably sees a whole slew of special rules for some factions to mitigate it
There are many options besides 'nothing', 'how 40K previously did it', and 'how 40K does it now'.
I know, I have played quite a few different games that handle morale in a wide range of ways, virtually all of them better. my point was GW tend to either have morale do basically nothing, or provide ways for favoured armies to totally or largely ignore it
As a Sisters player, Rejoice the Fallen is one of my favourite strats; I haven't played 10th yet, but I just know I'm gonna get battled shocked and prevented from playing it more than once.
