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.

Daemons do have fateweaver with his pseudo morale check at least, though I admit I did not consider Daemons before.

As for ATSKNF, yes it auto rallies you, but more often than not smart opponents escort said unit off the board. Also, if you flee too far your marine squad is still destroyed.

Its still a great rule, but games have been lost due to marines failing morale checks.

BA units also gain Fearless and furious charge) 1/6 time.

DevianID wrote:
As for ATSKNF, yes it auto rallies you, but more often than not smart opponents escort said unit off the board. Also, if you flee too far your marine squad is still destroyed.

Smarter opponents use Combat Tactics and laugh about you thinking you'll ever be near their falling back units.

Morale in 40k is a joke, honestly. It's a hand-me-down from the game's origins in Warhammer Fantasy in the 80's. When you're talking about a unit of spearmen who come under fire from enemy archers on an open plain, breaking formation and running makes sense. When you're talking about a unit of Guardsmen getting shot by alien machine-gun fire in a ruined city, standing up and running is the LAST thing you would do, only after morale has been completely shattered. The FIRST thing you would do is DUCK.

40k has almost zero mechanisms for suppressing enemy units. That's the major role of morale in actual ranged warfare. Pinning is totally inadequate, as only a handful of weapons can even do it, and even some of those don't make sense (a single sniper rifle shot can pin a unit, but a devastator squad's worth of heavy bolter fire can't?) What we need is a system for imposing a minor penalty on the enemy based on the volume of fire directed at them rather than the special rules of any particular weapon, or the number of casualties.

Say if an Infantry unit is shot at with a number of shots equal to or greater than the number of models in the unit, they take a leadership test. Do this before the enemy even rolls to hit, as accuracy is less important than volume of fire when it comes to keeping someone's head down. If they fail, they can't Run and are at -1 BS in their next turn, but they get +1 to their cover save, or a 6+ save in the open.

Monstrous Creatures would be exempt, but even Fearless units should test for this, as it can also represent the difficulty of moving and aiming when you're under heavy fire. Fearless units would always test on a minimum of Leadership of 10 (if they don't already have that, or higher in the case of Ork mobs).

Going to Ground/Pinning would then need a buff (which it needs anyway, as hardly anyone ever goes to ground in my experience), so being Pinned could provide +2 cover save or a 5+ save in the open.

This would only help reinforce the all-mech, all-the-time metagame, but really that's a separate problem that needs its own solution. Thoughts?

I do agree the morale in 40k is a joke, swing it back to fantasy style with fear terror ect.

and i agree all armies should lose there massive army wide "ignore marale section" of the rulebook

That would end up being really cheesy.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:That would end up being really cheesy.

A more realistic morale system?
I realise the rules are not supposed to be a perfect mirror of the real world but i'd be all for it.

6" really isn't that far, I think most of you guys are making this something that would have more effect than it would. Also, you have to completely destroy or break the unit. Who knows, maybe it would even help to move away from the MSU style builds.

I like CalgarsPimpHand's suggestion. It seems fair that units in cover, when subjected to enemy fire, would need to keep their head down. Likewise, setting up crossfires where a unit is shot from multiple directions, should be even more fearsome.

Cascading morale checks, like the OP mentions, I think are ok in concept, but perhaps morale should cause you to do something other than fall back in the first place.

Fear in fantasy, for example, now makes you WS1, right? Well, perhaps morale checks in 40k may do something similar.

In dawn of war 2, they accomplish this with suppression weapons and knockback weapon effects, which both do a good job of interfering with how a squad attacks and moves. Falling back is also there, where you run back to base as fast as possible to reinforce.

I also agree with CalgarsPimpHand's basic argument.

pretre wrote:Morale is already a huge factor in 40k. Tank shocks would be absurd under this rule.

Tank shock is a stupid rule. Notice how nobody gets run over?
IMO, tank shock should do hits if successful, more hits if opponent fails LD, and only break units if losses cross the 25% mark.
Morale is too all or nothing. Most often, nothing.

-Matt

Hi all.
To get a reasonable representation of supression from ranged fire.The 40k rules would have to change from just focusing on physical damage .

Lots of wargames manage to model morale in elegant and efficient ways.And there are lots of chioces on how to do this.

If you want 40k rules to be a straight forward modern wargame based on modern warfare.
The 30 year old game mechanics for ancient battles is not the best place to start!

This is why current 40k rules need so many aditional rules to cover all the stuff the core rules dont .(Eg everything but basic infantry need extra 'special' rules!)

Why not just impose a penalty to losing models from shooting?

-1 Ld per model that was removed due to shooting once a unit loses 25% or more of its models. Failed morale checks due to shooting pin the unit rather than cause it to fall back. If it gets pinned, it has to rally or remain pinned (the rally would auto-pass if nothing shot at the pinned unit in the turn they were attempting to rally).

Thing is, there are justifications to the RAW regarding shooting. The marines are brainwashed, the guard know they can either take their chances with the enemy's shots or face their commissar's pistol, chaos are religious fanatics, tau don't believe in individuality and would accept their own sacrifice for the "greater good", sisters are also religious fanatics, necron are soulless machines guided by the lord's intelligence, tyranid are all parts of the hive mind, eldar know that their souls will go to the craftworld pool of souls and they never "die", dark eldar are too hopped up on drugs to care, and orks "breed" by dying and casting out more spores so you could almost call it a genetic imperative.

Did I miss any of the races?

Pinning makes sense. Falling back due to shooting, on the other hand, doesn't exactly make any sense at all.

Why have morale at all?

The current problem with morale is that most armies ignore it most of the time anyway. It's just a penalty on the few armies that have to deal with it.

Maybe it should just be dropped from the rules, to make things a bit simpler.

If you want to make morale more of a factor, and this thought just occurred to me, make it a beneficial thing. Units that aren't affected by morale not included, of course!

How about this?

Everyone starts the game with X "morale points". You can spend morale points for certain different effects with different costs, like so:

1 point: reroll missed shooting/counts-as twin-linked for one shooting phase
1 point: reroll missed attacks in CC
1 point: reroll wounds in CC
1 point: reroll any leadership test
1 point: reroll scatter die for blast weapons
3 points: automatically hit with shooting for one shooting phase
3 points: automatically hit with all attacks in CC
3 points: automatically wound with all hits in CC
3 points: automatically pass any leadership test
3 points: automatically score direct hits with blast weapons/counts as "barrage"

Basically, give 2 different costs for rerolling and automatically succeeding on different dice roll types. Set the points low enough that it should only be used on things that MATTER. Something like 6-8 "morale points" total.

Would anyone be infavor of using a motivation test type morale system.

Eg before a UNIT takes an action you have to pass a motivation test.

Fearless 1+
Elite 2+
Veteran 3+
Trained 4+
etc,

And have simple modifiers to adjust these values as apropriate.
EG
Add to unit morale value.(Make it more likely to fail a motivation test.)
Under 75% of starting strenght, +1,
Under 50% of starting strenght +2.
Outnumbered +1.

Add to dice roll .(Make it more likely to pass a motivation check.)
In cover +1
In prepared position +2
Character attached + variable.

Just a thought.

You'll still end up with half the armies ignoring it and half being crippled by it.

Let's recap who's unaffected by morale.

Daemons-All Fearless
Tyranids-nearly all Fearless due to synapse
BA-Has ATSKNF and 1/6 have fearless on average
GK-ATSKNF and Purifiers are fearless
SM-ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, Lysander makes stubborn, Kantor makes stubborn, Calgar can make everyone pass or fail.
SW-Many have Fearless, and ATSKNF
DA and BT-ATSKNF
Necrons-High Ld
Eldar-quite high Ld
Guard blobs-Comissar's are stubborn and transfer to squad.
Orks-Mob Rules


So really the only armies that have a problem are Tau and SoB. Am I missing anything.

Deadshot wrote:
Eldar-quite high Ld

8 isn't all that high.

Deadshot wrote:
So really the only armies that have a problem are Tau and SoB. Am I missing anything.

SoB Troops can be Fearless and rally under any condition.

So really, only Tau?

DarknessEternal wrote:Ld 8 isn't all that high

IOt is cosidering that is marine standrad, and most armies include Aspect warriors which have Ld 9. Also, a large portion of armies with Avatars can be fearless. I know they are not that common but perhaps the morale change will alter that too.

Deadshot wrote:So really, only Tau?

DarknessEternal wrote:Ld 8 isn't all that high

IOt is cosidering that is marine standrad, and most armies include Aspect warriors which have Ld 9. Also, a large portion of armies with Avatars can be fearless. I know they are not that common but perhaps the morale change will alter that too.

Marines have a 9, as they include Sergeants. They also have KNF.

I said that. Darkness pointed out the Eldar aren't that high in Ld and I said otherwise.

I like the idea of shot volume being able to pin, this could make ork mobs particularly intimidating. Also if they dropped the unit running/destroyed aspect of moral they could lessen the number of units who had fearless. Most models only have fearless so we don't get pissed that a tough unit of 10 guys doesn't try to run if they take 3 casualties.

And i'd definitely agree with ducking for gunfire rather than running.

I agree that more morale states allows more graduated effects.And so clunky bolt on 'ignore morale' rules are not needed.

The core problem is 40k looks like it should play like a modern warfare game,but uses the ancient game mechanics of WHFB. Leading to disjointed and diffuse game play /rules.

And to get a morale system into the rules , a re-write for the new game play is probably the most efficient option.

As supression is a direct comparison of targets confidence to attackers threat level.
Eg size of unit +amount of protection VS volume of fire.

And the current method of expressing these features in 40k are not the easiest to work with...

Lanrak wrote:
The core problem is 40k looks like it should play like a modern warfare game,but uses the ancient game mechanics of WHFB. Leading to disjointed and diffuse game play /rules.

And to get a morale system into the rules , a re-write for the new game play is probably the most efficient option.

Why do you think people want 40k to be a modern-day combat simulator?

It's a game wherein punching a tank to death is not only common, but preferred.

Why do I think people want 40k to be more of simulation modern warfare?

Because nearly EVERY thread in 40k rules development forums ask for 'more realistic representations of modern warfare' or to 'fix the ballance issues' caused by abstract diffuse rule writing based on the rule of cool.

A straight forward simulation of modern warfare would.
A) Take up less space to explain as it would be INTUITIVE!(Brevity.)
B) Be easier to learn becuse ther would be more apropriate game mechanics and fewer resolution methids in use.(Clarity.)
C) Be easier to balance becuse of more concrete reference and a stonger internal logic.(Wit.)

And as Rick Preistly said the coner stones of great game design were clarity brevity and wit.I may have a case?

Close assaulting a tank to destroy it works just as well in modern warfare you know.But modern warfare balances close assault with mobility and fire power.

Making 'bringing a knife to a gun fight' the prefered option becuse it fits better with the inherited game mechanics , is not the ONLY option.

I am drawing my conclusions from objective comparisons to other rule sets,FoW, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Fast and Dirty, Dirtside, Epic Armageddon, Crossfire, etc.

Lanrak wrote:
Because nearly EVERY thread in 40k rules development forums ask for 'more realistic representations of modern warfare'

Citation needed. You don't get to invent "facts".

Ok fair enough.
I did exagerate a bit.(Its just threads expressing a desire to make the rules more realistic /tactical seem to crop up quite regularly .I should know I post in most of them! )

There are threads for home brew units/ codex.There are threads with subjective dicussions on ballance , and how to fix the percived imballance.

BUT the majority of threads about 'improvng' the gameplay as oposed to just adding units etc.Generaly want to include elements that sit well in a modern warfare rule set.

Ballance between mobility assault and firepower,IS the central theme of modern warfare.

Focus on close combat and manouvering the get the best match ups in close combat , with range attacks relegated to a supporting role is what Ancient warfare is all about.(WHFB)

So any topic reguarding;-a more interactive game turn, morale ,command and control, supression, damage resolution, cover, comnbined arms, and the general catch all of 'making ' X 'more realistic'.
Sort of indicate some people would prefer a streaight forward modern warfare rule set.As oposed to the comparitivley heavily abstracted and over complicated rules set 40k has been stuck with

Ill do a quick count up and get back to you...

For the last 10 pages of 40k proposed rules.
This morale thread,
7 mention damage resolution/armour saves.
3 mention cover revision.
3 want more realistic weapon effects.
3 want more realistic shooting effects.
3 want more realistic vehicles.
1 re-write
1 game turn mechanic discussion .

There is a reason rules are different to life. We would be the equivilent of Imp Giard vets. But trained worse. And they are afraid of their commanders.

Plus, real life heavily favours ranged combat. 40k has CC armies too.

Hi deadshot.
I wonder how many modern warfare game you have played?

MODERN warfare is about a BALANCE of mobility , fire power and assault.
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement and assault to contest objectives.

Rules are there to deliver the desired game play in the most elegant and efficient way.

Current 40k game play could be covered EASILY by 30 pages of well defined rules.

And a lot more game play could be covered in 90 pages than the current 40k rule set manages to do.

There are loads of game mechanics and resolution methods to choose from.

Why stick with WHFB ones ?

its like trying to make a steam powered airoplane , when everyone else is using jet engines.