Switch Theme:

Morale new rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I don't even use the mutant dreadnoughts.


I hate that kit. Thank god for Forgeworld.

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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Murray, Kentucky

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've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




They'ren not useless, just different.
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






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
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





 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.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

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
Like that already did when 8th Edition dropped?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut







 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.

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:


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
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.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





No, rather not slipspace, csm allready suck,.don't need more penalising and how cultist s will play out sofar also rather not.

   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





I would just add a -1 Ld if the unit is under half strenght.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Morale rules?

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.
   
Made in de
Hellacious Havoc




Forsaken wastes of Brandenburg

Slipspace wrote:
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

DR:70+S+G++MB-IPw40k94#-D++A++/cWD143R++T(D)DM+
~11,000 pts painted

Bharring wrote:
At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Slipspace wrote:
 alextroy wrote:


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
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 you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd use CSM in blocks of 20....

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
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 13:22:36


 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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:

2 casualties: 17% (average losses: 0.22)
3 casualties: 33% (average losses: 0.44)
4 casualties: 50% (average losses: 0.5)

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/26 21:31:42


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Slipspace wrote:
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.

   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/26 22:09:34


 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

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.
   
Made in gb
Raging Rat Ogre





England, UK

 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!"

Link to my fiction

The sledge looked sized for one of Santa's elves. It was made of shiny red plastic.
"Perfect?" said Calgar. "You couldn't fit Kevin McCallister in that! How are four of us going to get in?"
"It's all I could find!" Milo said. "It's not like you pay me enough points to buy a land speeder!"
"This is the chariot my team will use to win the most notorious race in the galaxy?" Calgar inspected the tag which was still attached. "Fun for children aged two to six."
"Milo does have a point, my Lord," said Dick. "When I suggested that we are meant to be the most balanced Chapter and should allocate our spending for all contingencies, you said – and I quote – 'If I want to hear the raving of a leftist commie, I'll watch BBC News'."
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 NoPoet wrote:
 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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 NoPoet wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 22:39:59


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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.
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

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.
   
Made in gb
Raging Rat Ogre





England, UK

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 NoPoet wrote:
 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

Link to my fiction

The sledge looked sized for one of Santa's elves. It was made of shiny red plastic.
"Perfect?" said Calgar. "You couldn't fit Kevin McCallister in that! How are four of us going to get in?"
"It's all I could find!" Milo said. "It's not like you pay me enough points to buy a land speeder!"
"This is the chariot my team will use to win the most notorious race in the galaxy?" Calgar inspected the tag which was still attached. "Fun for children aged two to six."
"Milo does have a point, my Lord," said Dick. "When I suggested that we are meant to be the most balanced Chapter and should allocate our spending for all contingencies, you said – and I quote – 'If I want to hear the raving of a leftist commie, I'll watch BBC News'."
 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

Drones can't be Troops.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 NoPoet wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 NoPoet wrote:
 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.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: