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.

I love how tau don't deal with leadership 90% of the time because either a unit is within an ethereal'a bubble, has a commander/fireblade, or is a single model unit.

Leadership however is like, half the reason why multi-model tau units are a questionable investment.

My Breachers and Destroyers run away all the time; so do my Tyranids when they inevitably lose synapse.

Yes, and there should be better mechanics for pinning.

Alcibiades wrote:
My Breachers and Destroyers run away all the time; so do my Tyranids when they inevitably lose synapse.

This is why we should all be running riptides. Also breachers running is fine so long as it's after they killed a unit.

 Stormonu wrote:
Morale might as well be removed from 40K, the way it is treated.

Personally though, I would rather prefer that all the immunities and such be removed, and units be subject to suppression, falling back or overrun by the enemy. 40K ascribes superhero levels of stoicness in the face of death to too many armies. Why? As you mentioned it's disheartening to watch your army turn tail and run instead of obeying your bloodlust to keep pushing forward regardless of the cost

However, broken morale is something every real-life general has had to endure of his troops.

Space marines and the like might be described as fearless in the fluff, but the fact is even they should know when to perform a tactical retreat or keep their head downs until the enemy is reloading or their position is reinforced.

I'm in this camp, morale should be a part of the game and immunities, re-rolls, etc. should be pared way back.

Currently, the problem is that failing a morale check is too costly. A unit fails, retreats 2d6, and then even if it regroups it has limited mobility the following turn. So a unit may take 2 or 3 turns to get back to the position where it was before failing the test. In a game that only every lasts 5-7 turns, that is often as effective as taking a unit out of the game. I suspect that GW started adding tons of immunities to morale because too many people were watching their 250 point elite units turn tail and run.

I would prefer instead to have suppression tests instead of morale when taking losses from shooting, and they automatically regroup the following turn. That way, a unit is penalized for one turn, but it doesn't retreat and lose another turn moving back into position. I think the immunities should be scaled back and morale should still weigh heavily in close combat. I love my IG priests and commissars, but it's more than a little silly that one threatening officer can convince a mob of 50 guardsmen to continue whacking away at a bloodthirster.