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.

alright, so the whole idea behind vehicles never taking a morale check is because they have unshakeable faith in their vehicle, also, there are getting to be more and more mechanized armies out there, which is bull for an army like mine, but i'm not against them, they just seem imbalanced. I'm not looking to make the pilots into a bunch of nervous freaks, but people inside vehicles get SCARED when bad things happen to whatever they're in, and metal walls don't make you invincible. Anyone who's survived a car accident will tell you this. I was thinking that doing serious damage to a vehicle has a chance to make the crew freak out and leave the battlefield, or just make them freak out for a minute or two inside the vehicle. just a few ideas to put out there:

1) when 50% or more of a vehicles weapons are destroyed on a non-transport vehicle, they have to take a vehicle morale test.
2) if a vehicle is immobilised, they take a vehicle morale test.
3) a fearless vehicle just doesn't take a morale check, like the crew of a baneblade, or landraider.
4) vehicle morale checks go as follows: if a morale check is failed, roll another D6. from a roll 1-3, the crew is stunned, roll 4-6 and the the crew freaks out and leaves, the vehicle counts as destroyed, and is treated as such.
5)if a transport is affected by any of these things, take the leadership of the unit with the highest leadership in the transport, and if the crew bails out, the transport is treated as immobilized if occupied (for the purpose of being a hideout for weakened squads or something)

transports can be a difficult subject, because they're supposed to be either a fast way to the front lines, or a moving bunker for vulnerable CC units, something like that, so while the average unit may not be able to pilot their downed transport, if it has a gun it isn't stopping them from using it, or stopping them from having sanctuary in that little not so mobile bunker.

It's a strange concept, even i thought it was weird at first, but once you start thinking about it, the more it makes sense, because the things that are affected the least by this are the ones that are more likely to be damaged i.e. transports, whereas the ones with more destructive power have a chance of a lesser hit causing more damage than may be anticipated.

these are just ideas floating around, i'm just trying to get the ball rolling on discussing this. tell me your own ideas, change my ideas, whatever. it's supposed to make someone who's having a bad day rolling a reasonable chance at survival, or an army that isn't setup to fight tanks a chance against mechanized armies.

I really like your idea, but a couple things in it I would change. For starters, situation '2)' doesn't make any sence. If it's immobilized, how can it run away? And in situation '4)' the fleeing vehicle should acctualy flee, not just become destroyed, cause that makes a wreck and will effect the game. With everything else, I like the developing idea. Maybe it should be a 1-2 shaken, 3-4 stunned, 5-6 flee or something though. It makes more sence for tank crew to freek out and freeze up then actually turn the tank around and run away unless it is an exreem situation.

Plus it will maker some funny situations of ork buggies pussing out and running lol. That would be great

the vehicle doesn't run away, the crew does. i never said anything about a vehicle running away, the morale is all about the crew. and thanks. all this talk about mech armies just pisses me off as a GK player. these mech armies might as well not even have people inside their vehicles, lol, just robots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and i like your revision of '4'

To complicated.

Some vehicles have servitor pilots and this wouldn't make sense for almost any army. SM don't retreat. ATSKNF. Necrons vehicles don't have pilots. It's not a good idea sorry =(. Get IG inductees if the lack of tank killing is pissing you off.

An immobilized tanks can't run btw lol.

immobilized tank CREWS can run, and i'm not exempting some vehicles from fearless rules. IG are gonna be as scared as a regular person is when their tank is hit, Tau aren't exactly fearless all the time either. i'm not saying this should apply to all vehicles, but the more mechanized armies tend to be the ones that have the least fearless units. it may be impractical, but even if that's true, i think it's worth discussing. and i've been considering the stormtroopers for a while,

Im thinking the fact that the unit is in a tank will alone increase the leadership. So maybe if it's (as a general rule) a plus 3 leadership, or 2 open topped. This makes Space marines and stuff iorn handed in their tank, but ork buggies and stuff would go "Oh " and run every now and then. It would add a fun element to the game.

I think, for the most part, this is really already in the rule system, under 'Crew Shaken' and 'Crew stunned' Both if which essentially translate to 'Crew scared'.

In a lot of ways, this doesn't really add anything to the game. it just makes it that if you get an immobilized or particular weapon destroyed result, you now have a chance to be destroyed instead. The crew bailing on a tank makes little sense, as at least I, personally, can't imagine a single situation where outside of the tank seems safer then inside the tank. If anything, they're going to throw the tank in reverse and try to get back off the board. This might make sense if one of a squadron was killed, but squadrons don't need any more penalties. It might also make sense if, you know, there was any value to retreating in 40k.

Morale for vehicles might make IG vehicle squadrons more fun and potentially more worthwhile if it were balanced properly.

Have all vehicles be Ld9 by default (special vehicles/upgrades can modify this)

When vehicles suffer glancing/penetrating hits, they have to take a LD test, -1 LD for each glancing/penetrating hit beyond the first. If it fails the test, it must make an immediate 'panic move' roll a scatter and 2D6 but immediately stops if blocked by enemies/friendly units. (we assume the crew is trying to get out of the line of fire, controls gone wonky, grots jamming up the vehicles transmission, etc). If in contact with friendly units, your own units are able to get the vehicle crews' atttention enough not to get crushed/rammed. However in the panic the vehicle is vulnerable to enemy infantry who can take advantage of the situation. The opponent may designate as many infantry that are in the path of the vehicles to 'death or glory' if they wish, or they may move their models out of the path of the vehicle. If the vehicle comes in contact in difficult terrain it must immediately take a dangerous terrain test or be destroyed. It is easier to assault a vehicle which has made a panic move, so any enemy infantry assaulting the vehicle gets +1 to hit.

Vehicles in squadrons get more protection from panic moves. So long as one vehicle in the squadron received 1 or less glancing/penetrating hits, they do not need to roll a Ld check. Additionally, if a vehicle in the squadron suffers a vehicle immobilized result, they roll a Ld test to see whether they scuttle the vehicle (on a failed result) or stay in it as long as the other vehicles maintain cohesion (on a successful result).

Then you can have fun vehicle upgrades like IG Comissar vehicle commander (re-roll Ld test or something) or Improved Comms.

Bogs the game down, but fun to play with as optional rules. It would also throw the whole Mech metagame on its head when glancing hits could cause transports to careen around in the random directions lmao

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I think, for the most part, this is really already in the rule system, under 'Crew Shaken' and 'Crew stunned' Both if which essentially translate to 'Crew scared'.

In a lot of ways, this doesn't really add anything to the game. it just makes it that if you get an immobilized or particular weapon destroyed result, you now have a chance to be destroyed instead. The crew bailing on a tank makes little sense, as at least I, personally, can't imagine a single situation where outside of the tank seems safer then inside the tank. If anything, they're going to throw the tank in reverse and try to get back off the board. This might make sense if one of a squadron was killed, but squadrons don't need any more penalties. It might also make sense if, you know, there was any value to retreating in 40k.

While I fully agree with you that shaken/stunned results represent crew morale quite well...

I also think that "retreating" (read as: moving away from the enemy) has quite a bit of value, especially for vehicles that generally are able to out-range their enemies weaponry, and are still capable of firing at least some weapons on the move.

Also when a vehicle trys to retreat it would have counted as moving so weapons might be limited because of it. I think it would be a neet addition to the game.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I think, for the most part, this is really already in the rule system, under 'Crew Shaken' and 'Crew stunned' Both if which essentially translate to 'Crew scared'.

QFT
That's what it says on the bottom of page 63.

How does this make vehicles any more useful or fun? All you are suggesting is lots of negative rules for vehicles.

To employ these and keep the game balanced the price of vehicles would have to come down considerably, and if it did so there would be a lot more vehicles around for you to have to deal with.

I think these are poorly thought out attempts to deal with insufficientcies in your own armies.

Hi.
IF moral played a more important part in 40k generaly, then I agree that the vehicles states should apply to ALL units.(Shaken -supressed/ stunned- neutralised.) Rather than 'OK' or 'Falling Back'!

But as 40k is NOT based on a tactical simulation of anything , just a masive abstraction to fit as much kewl stuff as possible.
Trying to make 40k play like a simulation takes a complete re-write to be efficient.

It may be possible to add even MORE rules to the rules bloated game of 40k, to get a semi-decent battle sim.
But its just NOT worth the effort involved.Other wise GW devs/ gamers would have done it by now....

TTFN
Lanrak.