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.

For And They Shall Know No Fear, it would be 2d6 pick the lowest for Morale instead of a reroll. That is the only fix I would put in as of right now.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
For And They Shall Know No Fear, it would be 2d6 pick the lowest for Morale instead of a reroll. That is the only fix I would put in as of right now.

Are you kidding, SM's are garbage this edition and your only change its to make a lower tier army even worse...

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
For And They Shall Know No Fear, it would be 2d6 pick the lowest for Morale instead of a reroll. That is the only fix I would put in as of right now.

Are you kidding, SM's are garbage this edition and your only change its to make a lower tier army even worse...

You realize that you want to roll low for Morale, right?

 Sir Heckington wrote:


Nah, don't make it random. Make it the units M" or something. A bike is going to run away faster than a footslogging guy. We need less randomness, not more.

Yup, I have to agree.

Waaaghpower wrote:


EDIT: They ditched this mechanic because it was incredibly time consuming and involved a lot of bookkeeping. While I miss some of the grittiness and mechanical nature of old editions, I have to admit that 8th edition is much faster and easier to play for ditching mechanics like this.

I guess you are right, but I really don't understand this urge to keep shortening the game to the detriment of granularity. I guess it's a matter of preference, but I personally don't mind playing 30 minutes more per game if the game is actually more interesting this way. Heck, there are some boardgames that will take up a whole day if played with enough people. I suppose it can be deterring for new players, but that's easily remedied by reducing the total points value played.

I personally belive the morale mechanic is fine. The problem is more that most hordes can easily circumvent it:

Cultists via IW trait or abbadon, conscripts could do it with a commisar (prenerf ) Synapses i belive for tyranids, Orkzs have headcounting, but aren't really a problem anymore since they now are 7ppm.

Compare that to other effects that were similar but not nerfed (enforcer morale rule compared to commisar rule prenerf.)

Additionally morale doesn't really come into play since most infantry units are run in MSU (IG guardsmen f.e.) Scouts etc, since ost people tend to not take more / bigger sizes of said squads since they just want to fill the detachment for that sweet sweet cp as cheap as possible.

Most of the time you can easily wipe a 10 man guardsmen or cultist squad, it just often is wasted offensive output.

the_scotsman wrote:
losing models to morale is only a thing that should happen with certain units abilities (psy powers, death jester, etc).

Morale Loss should always be some sort of SQUAD BROKEN effect, just make it easier to manage than in prior editions where you had to do all these sweep test, have rules for where models go when they run away, etc.

Squad Broken: Check for morale in the same way you currently do, if you fail, the unit cannot shoot, advance, charge, be selected to fight in close combat, or fall back. Broken models do not count as models for the purpose of determining whether a player holds an objective.

ATSKNF: Broken adeptus astartes models may still shoot and fight at a -1 to hit penalty, and may still fall back.

Synapse: As now, ignore the effects of morale.

And They Shall Banana No Fear: Custodes suffer only a -1 to hit in melee and shooting, but may otherwise act normally while Broken and still count as models for contesting objectives.

I think I'd prefer something along these lines. Losing extra models doesn't feel very flavorful for elite armies (and makes large units in elite armies generally a bad idea) and is often ignored by hordes. So it isn't really serving much of a purpose except to sometimes help carve through a horde unit more quickly. And that's probably better handled by designing weapons that are actually good against hordes (though that's a different discussion.)

Going back to sweeping advances and fallback moves seems like a lot of extra complication that only serves simulationism rather than gameplay. Sweeping advances were unpopular because you'd stand to lose a largely untouched unit to a lucky guardsman or some nonsense. Fallback moves resulted in a bunch of extra model movement that punished short ranged/melee units more than shooty ones and was also dependent upon the concept of having a board edge to fall back to. All these calls to "move away from" enemy units seem to forget that you can have units in front of and behind you.

Having a SQUAD BROKEN status, however, feels very flavorful. If I'm putting together a freakshow list with fear gas and body horror monsters, I want my enemy to feel unnerved; not to ignore most of my debuffs with morale-bypassing mechanics or to lose a couple extra points of guardsmen. When I'm facing such an army, I don't want my centuries-old veteran terminators or millenia-old pain junky elves feeling like cowards that flee the battlefield outright or go hiding in a corner. Having some sort of penalty to their actions allows the units that fail morale to still feel impressive while also recognizing that sufficiently shocking or unnerving experiences can throw off the performance of even the coolest BAMFs in the galaxy.

That said, outright stun-locking a unit might not be the way to go. Currently, taking a large squad and failing morale means that I can still use that unit and have it contribute to the game. Consistently forcing units to fail morale tests would be hugely punishing to large units and basically remove them from the game. Imagine huge clumps of guardsmen, guardians, cultists, or even sisters of battle being frozen in place for half the game. Something like the ATSKNF penalty might work better as the standard penalty for being SQUAD BROKEN. Something like...

SQUAD BROKEN: Until the end of its next turn, a unit that fails a morale test may not advance and takes a -1 penalty to all to-hit rolls.

ATSKNF: Roll a d6 when a unit with this rule fails a morale test. On a 4+, it passes the test instead.

OP - why are you assuming there is a morale problem that needs to be fixed?

FYI and context: In 5th edition, failing morale didn't kill models. It made the failed unit run their movement distance towards their table edge each turn until they either regrouped or left the board edge. If an enemy unit was within 6", they could not regroup. Part of strategic play was ensuring that if you were going to be in a position to break morale, you had a unit that could escort the enemy unit off the board so they couldn't regroup.

Bolt Action has it so units do as you tell them, but take pin markers, if they have any pin markers you need to test before they can act, with a modifier based on the number of pin markers.

acting to 'rally' also needs a test and removes 1d6 pins, hence low morale units get one or two and can basically be ignored.

bring that in but with the automatic ability to rally to remove pins and it becomes useful.

BA also uses the number of pins as a to hit modifier, (this is a d6 based system too, but with a 6 then a 6 as a hit regardless), so pinned units can shoot if they are elite, but cheap chaff start to suffer quickly.

GoA does the same with a D10 based system, the 2d6 moral system from BA is better, and 40k already has a leadership stat to test against.

then you get to "if you have more pins than models you are broken"

which gives you

0 pins: unit ok
1 - n pins: Ld test to act, number of pins as modifier to firing
n+1 - n*2 pins: Ld test to act, unit may not fire or charge regardless
(n*2)+1 pins, unit routs

where n is the number of models in the units

BA has units that hit close combat removing all pins as they have little choice but to fight, they also have few ways to outright ignore the morale mechanic, IIRC only the Japanese have one, whereby if they move at maximum speed towards the nearest visible enemy they automatically can act without a test.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
For And They Shall Know No Fear, it would be 2d6 pick the lowest for Morale instead of a reroll. That is the only fix I would put in as of right now.

Are you kidding, SM's are garbage this edition and your only change its to make a lower tier army even worse...

You realize that you want to roll low for Morale, right?

Sorry brain fart there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dashofpepper wrote:
OP - why are you assuming there is a morale problem that needs to be fixed?

FYI and context: In 5th edition, failing morale didn't kill models. It made the failed unit run their movement distance towards their table edge each turn until they either regrouped or left the board edge. If an enemy unit was within 6", they could not regroup. Part of strategic play was ensuring that if you were going to be in a position to break morale, you had a unit that could escort the enemy unit off the board so they couldn't regroup.

Well seeing that about 90% of people that have commented either agree with me or want at least some aspect of morale changed kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well seeing that about 90% of people that have commented either agree with me or want at least some aspect of morale changed kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

That's some *really* bad logic there.
Firstly because many of the people commenting think that Leadership should be more damaging, not less - Several posters just said they wanted some variety of "Reduce leadership on units".
Secondly, because this is the Proposed Rules thread, and the title of your post is called "How would you fix morale". People who think morale needs fixing generally aren't going to come onto this thread and spam it with variations of "Morale doesn't need fixing". (If they did, they'd be breaking the rules of the subforum - You're only supposed to comment if you have something to add, not just to bash the OP because they think something doesn't need to be fixed.

The problem with Morale this edition is that it's almost as pointless as prior editions. There are certainly times in which it causes an affect, unlikely prior editions in which is was outright ignored most of the time, but overall there are so many ways to mitigate Morale, that the only real "problem" is that it's too often a waste of rolling.

Heck, most of the time you can calculate if even a roll of a 6 would matter and just not even roll.

I like the ATSKNF being 2d6 take the lowest idea, though, Marines shouldn't flee/retreat and 10-man units should be viable.

As it stands, however, Morale is a vey smooth, uncomplicated mechanic. It doesn't need to be "fixed", but making it matter would be welcome.

-

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well seeing that about 90% of people that have commented either agree with me or want at least some aspect of morale changed kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

That's some *really* bad logic there.
Firstly because many of the people commenting think that Leadership should be more damaging, not less - Several posters just said they wanted some variety of "Reduce leadership on units".
Secondly, because this is the Proposed Rules thread, and the title of your post is called "How would you fix morale". People who think morale needs fixing generally aren't going to come onto this thread and spam it with variations of "Morale doesn't need fixing". (If they did, they'd be breaking the rules of the subforum - You're only supposed to comment if you have something to add, not just to bash the OP because they think something doesn't need to be fixed.

Logic... yeah the only way you can get evidence of how 40k works or in this case doesn't is from the community. If you just listened to yourself you aren't going to have a very biased or representative view on the matter. How do you go about it lol

I didn't say it was proof, he asked why I assumed it needs changed and most people want it changed and this thread shows that, as do all the other threads on it. Except that I said people are either agreeing or giving examples of things to change which is the majority. Secondly people are on the thread saying that it doesn't need changed... So they are coming on the thread who don't agree. Thirdly it just needs changed, people that think it shouldn't are biased per their army, I collect nearly every faction and far more sub factions and it absolutely needs changed.

I have no idea what game the OP I splaying that he thinks Morale needs to be less punishing! For me there are two options with Morale: completely change the system to something similar to what has already been proposed with things like Pinning/Suppression for units that come under fire. Or, if we keep the current rules, make it matter more (or, like, at all).

At the moment Morale has the biggest effect on large units, which makes small units more preferable. It's also the case that small units are more preferable from an army construction point of view because building armies efficiently generally requires you to fill out slots in your detachments cheaply. More smaller squads also means more squad leader bonuses (+1A, +1Ld) and having your weapons spread out across more squads, which can be important. You also increase the likelihood of your opponent overkilling a smaller squad, and therefore wasting firepower relative to shooting at a much larger squad. Unfortunately, many large units also have ways around Morale - Orks get Mob Rule, though that at least can be worked around, while Nids get blanket immunity, for example.

If I were to make a change, the first thing I'd probably do is split Ld values depending on squad sizes. So keep Ld largely as is if you take a max-size squad (or at least a squad above a certain number) and reduce Ld by 2 for squads taken at minimum size. I'd probably also include dynamic Ld in-game, so if a squad is reduced to minimum size or below, it's Ld also drops too. That means Morale can always be a useful weapon for an opponent.

As for swarms, I'd just implement Ld values above 10 and completely remove Morale immunity from the game. Nids, Zombies and anything else that is currently completely immune can just be given a high Ld value that mitigates all but the most severe of casualties, then at least you can try to do something aganist these units via Morale.

In short: either change Morale completely or make it do more than it does at the moment. Morale is so irrelevant right now it feels as though the rules might as well not exist.

Slipspace wrote:
I have no idea what game the OP I splaying that he thinks Morale needs to be less punishing! For me there are two options with Morale: completely change the system to something similar to what has already been proposed with things like Pinning/Suppression for units that come under fire. Or, if we keep the current rules, make it matter more (or, like, at all).

At the moment Morale has the biggest effect on large units, which makes small units more preferable. It's also the case that small units are more preferable from an army construction point of view because building armies efficiently generally requires you to fill out slots in your detachments cheaply. More smaller squads also means more squad leader bonuses (+1A, +1Ld) and having your weapons spread out across more squads, which can be important. You also increase the likelihood of your opponent overkilling a smaller squad, and therefore wasting firepower relative to shooting at a much larger squad. Unfortunately, many large units also have ways around Morale - Orks get Mob Rule, though that at least can be worked around, while Nids get blanket immunity, for example.

If I were to make a change, the first thing I'd probably do is split Ld values depending on squad sizes. So keep Ld largely as is if you take a max-size squad (or at least a squad above a certain number) and reduce Ld by 2 for squads taken at minimum size. I'd probably also include dynamic Ld in-game, so if a squad is reduced to minimum size or below, it's Ld also drops too. That means Morale can always be a useful weapon for an opponent.

As for swarms, I'd just implement Ld values above 10 and completely remove Morale immunity from the game. Nids, Zombies and anything else that is currently completely immune can just be given a high Ld value that mitigates all but the most severe of casualties, then at least you can try to do something aganist these units via Morale.

In short: either change Morale completely or make it do more than it does at the moment. Morale is so irrelevant right now it feels as though the rules might as well not exist.

First of all it shouldn't matter more (even if that was the case), what kind of army has to fight against running away every time they lose a man, its ridiculous. Morale is there to represent bravery/cowardice etc. just because its a function in the game doesn't mean it automatically must have to 'matter' as you say. Again you are biased to your army, I collect factions that get completely hammered by morale, so much so that morale is the most devastating weapon in the game, which is ridiculous as is.

Yeah tactics to mitigate morale is all fine when you are castling your army, but otherwise there is no tactics to mitigate it unless you have endless points to spend of HQ's etc. in "list building". I mena seriously, lets use tactics and list building to stop being shot in the face lol

You are showing why morale needs changed and that LD should be dropped to minimise damage and you are saying that it has to be more punishing I mean your recommendation is basically the same as what I said earlier.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well seeing that about 90% of people that have commented either agree with me or want at least some aspect of morale changed kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

That's some *really* bad logic there.
Firstly because many of the people commenting think that Leadership should be more damaging, not less - Several posters just said they wanted some variety of "Reduce leadership on units".
Secondly, because this is the Proposed Rules thread, and the title of your post is called "How would you fix morale". People who think morale needs fixing generally aren't going to come onto this thread and spam it with variations of "Morale doesn't need fixing". (If they did, they'd be breaking the rules of the subforum - You're only supposed to comment if you have something to add, not just to bash the OP because they think something doesn't need to be fixed.

Logic... yeah the only way you can get evidence of how 40k works or in this case doesn't is from the community. If you just listened to yourself you aren't going to have a very biased or representative view on the matter. How do you go about it lol

I didn't say it was proof, he asked why I assumed it needs changed and most people want it changed and this thread shows that, as do all the other threads on it. Except that I said people are either agreeing or giving examples of things to change which is the majority. Secondly people are on the thread saying that it doesn't need changed... So they are coming on the thread who don't agree. Thirdly it just needs changed, people that think it shouldn't are biased per their army, I collect nearly every faction and far more sub factions and it absolutely needs changed.

You're not just asking the community, you're asking a specific subset of the community in the Proposed Rules forum who are also people that decide they want to click on a thread titled "How would you fix morale". If you want to actually know what the community thinks, you'd be better off putting a poll in the General Chat asking, "Do you think Morale needs to be fixed?" With answers like "No", "Yes (It needs to be more damaging)", "Yes (It needs to be less damaging)", or "Yes, (Other, Describe below)".

The people who are coming onto the thread just to say that Morale shouldn't be changed without any further comment are breaking the rules of the subforum.

Also, you literally did say that it was proof. It's above, but I'll quote it here as well:

kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

I also just want to point out the contradiction in your argument here. First you say I shouldn't just listen to myself, then you say that Morale absolutely needs changed because you personally, yourself, think it needs to be changed.

I'll gladly discuss what balance tweaks and nerfs Morale could use (Like I said, I think if it's going to be changed at all it needs to be more damaging, and it specifically should be more damaging in melee so that CQC gets a buff), but if you're just going to blatantly ignore large chunks of the thread and use fuzzy logic to prove that you're right when it's convenient, I'm not sure why anyone should bother engaging in this discussion.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well seeing that about 90% of people that have commented either agree with me or want at least some aspect of morale changed kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

That's some *really* bad logic there.
Firstly because many of the people commenting think that Leadership should be more damaging, not less - Several posters just said they wanted some variety of "Reduce leadership on units".
Secondly, because this is the Proposed Rules thread, and the title of your post is called "How would you fix morale". People who think morale needs fixing generally aren't going to come onto this thread and spam it with variations of "Morale doesn't need fixing". (If they did, they'd be breaking the rules of the subforum - You're only supposed to comment if you have something to add, not just to bash the OP because they think something doesn't need to be fixed.

Logic... yeah the only way you can get evidence of how 40k works or in this case doesn't is from the community. If you just listened to yourself you aren't going to have a very biased or representative view on the matter. How do you go about it lol

I didn't say it was proof, he asked why I assumed it needs changed and most people want it changed and this thread shows that, as do all the other threads on it. Except that I said people are either agreeing or giving examples of things to change which is the majority. Secondly people are on the thread saying that it doesn't need changed... So they are coming on the thread who don't agree. Thirdly it just needs changed, people that think it shouldn't are biased per their army, I collect nearly every faction and far more sub factions and it absolutely needs changed.

You're not just asking the community, you're asking a specific subset of the community in the Proposed Rules forum who are also people that decide they want to click on a thread titled "How would you fix morale". If you want to actually know what the community thinks, you'd be better off putting a poll in the General Chat asking, "Do you think Morale needs to be fixed?" With answers like "No", "Yes (It needs to be more damaging)", "Yes (It needs to be less damaging)", or "Yes, (Other, Describe below)".

The people who are coming onto the thread just to say that Morale shouldn't be changed without any further comment are breaking the rules of the subforum.

Also, you literally did say that it was proof. It's above, but I'll quote it here as well:

kinda proves that it probably needs to be fixed.

I also just want to point out the contradiction in your argument here. First you say I shouldn't just listen to myself, then you say that Morale absolutely needs changed because you personally, yourself, think it needs to be changed.

I'll gladly discuss what balance tweaks and nerfs Morale could use (Like I said, I think if it's going to be changed at all it needs to be more damaging, and it specifically should be more damaging in melee so that CQC gets a buff), but if you're just going to blatantly ignore large chunks of the thread and use fuzzy logic to prove that you're right when it's convenient, I'm not sure why anyone should bother engaging in this discussion.

No, logically estimating based on this thread is better than just listening to your own opinion. A poll is useless, who likes it and who doesn't is pointless, asking how to fix it has a point. So yeah our notions of logic are very far apart.

As for proof, yeah its proof that its fair to assume that it needs changing, but when I was talking to you I meant its not definitive.

Yeah I can personally say that it needs to be changed and still get more info on the matter.

You gladly won't discuss anything because asking 'how would you fix morale' is a perfectly fine thread to argue about instead you are arguing about semantics on whether other peoples opinion agreeing with the thread doesn't show that it needs changing. I mean you collect Orks obviously you think morale could be worse lol. Other armies get hammered by morale, but because [insert own army] don't you act like that its not an issue. I mean what are you even arguing about, if you don't want it changed, fine you've said so, you don't need to try and prove that it doesn't by saying stuff like 'people that don't want it changed aren't going to come on this thread' etc. People can think it doesn't need fixing and they can say so, but asking 'why do you think it needs fixing in the first place' is just stupid because we've been having a discussion on the matter.

I mean whether or not it can be proved whether people want to change morale doesn't interest me, reasons why it should or shouldn't change does, rather than just saying 'its fine as is' (and I'm not suggesting you just said that without giving reasons for why its fine).

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I have no idea what game the OP I splaying that he thinks Morale needs to be less punishing! For me there are two options with Morale: completely change the system to something similar to what has already been proposed with things like Pinning/Suppression for units that come under fire. Or, if we keep the current rules, make it matter more (or, like, at all).

At the moment Morale has the biggest effect on large units, which makes small units more preferable. It's also the case that small units are more preferable from an army construction point of view because building armies efficiently generally requires you to fill out slots in your detachments cheaply. More smaller squads also means more squad leader bonuses (+1A, +1Ld) and having your weapons spread out across more squads, which can be important. You also increase the likelihood of your opponent overkilling a smaller squad, and therefore wasting firepower relative to shooting at a much larger squad. Unfortunately, many large units also have ways around Morale - Orks get Mob Rule, though that at least can be worked around, while Nids get blanket immunity, for example.

If I were to make a change, the first thing I'd probably do is split Ld values depending on squad sizes. So keep Ld largely as is if you take a max-size squad (or at least a squad above a certain number) and reduce Ld by 2 for squads taken at minimum size. I'd probably also include dynamic Ld in-game, so if a squad is reduced to minimum size or below, it's Ld also drops too. That means Morale can always be a useful weapon for an opponent.

As for swarms, I'd just implement Ld values above 10 and completely remove Morale immunity from the game. Nids, Zombies and anything else that is currently completely immune can just be given a high Ld value that mitigates all but the most severe of casualties, then at least you can try to do something aganist these units via Morale.

In short: either change Morale completely or make it do more than it does at the moment. Morale is so irrelevant right now it feels as though the rules might as well not exist.

First of all it shouldn't matter more (even if that was the case), what kind of army has to fight against running away every time they lose a man, its ridiculous. Morale is there to represent bravery/cowardice etc. just because its a function in the game doesn't mean it automatically must have to 'matter' as you say. Again you are biased to your army, I collect factions that get completely hammered by morale, so much so that morale is the most devastating weapon in the game, which is ridiculous as is.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it doesn't make it fact. You haven't really explained why it shouldn't matter more other than you think it's ridiculous that people run away in battle. That doesn't seem like the most cogent argument. As for being biased by my army, please, tell me what army I play so we can show up this bias.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah tactics to mitigate morale is all fine when you are castling your army, but otherwise there is no tactics to mitigate it unless you have endless points to spend of HQ's etc. in "list building". I mena seriously, lets use tactics and list building to stop being shot in the face lol

You are showing why morale needs changed and that LD should be dropped to minimise damage and you are saying that it has to be more punishing I mean your recommendation is basically the same as what I said earlier.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the first paragraph. The second one doesn't even make sense. I said Ld should be lowered in certain circumstances, thereby increasing the effects of Morale by making failure more likely. That's the opposite of what you seem to want, which is to make Morale less impactful. I'd say judging by the responses here most people seem to be in agreement with me about Morale.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'd drop leadership 1-2 points across the board, and then change leadership from "models run away" to the following.

Spoiler:

In a turn in which a squad has lost models, roll a d6, adding the number of casualties to the dice roll. Should this number exceed the unit's leadership, this unit, if they elect to move, may not shoot or charge this turn. If they forgo movement, or are unable to move, their BS and WS characteristics are considered to be 6+.

This represents loss of unit cohesion, units being overrun in melee, or pinned down at range...but allows models to still be used in a limited manner, and makes it more of a concern for more armies. Battle Shocked units can still perform their functions in a limited manner.

Since it only lasts a round, it also keeps bookkeeping low, and is very simple to remember rules wise.

Say a Guard Squad with a Sergeant is now LD 6
They take 3 losses
Roll a d6, get a 3 or less, nothing happens, they hold.
On a 4+, they can move, OR shoot/fight at WS/BS 6+.

Other leadership based rules will require adjustment accordingly.

That seems way, way too punishing for certain armies, and especially for very large squads, which as Trollbert points out already are struggling to begin with.

Compare the current system to your proposed system with... Say, a unit of thirty Cultists being used as a screen. I kill four of those cultists.
Under current rules, the Chaos player would then lose between 0 and 4 cultists. Next turn, their damage output and screening ability would be down by between 0% and 13%, give or take.
Under your rules, the Cultists would either not be able to move, making them completely useless as a screen, or they would have their damage output reduced by 66%. Either way, the squad goes from a slightly damaged but still useful unit, to a mostly useless blob that will not be able to do anything.
It also gets worse if we consider something like Ork Boyz. Let's say 15 Boyz with Choppas die out of 30 (I'm assuming you wouldn't change Mob Rule) - You can either lose between 1-6 orks, or have the squad do literally nothing next turn because they're an assault squad, and without the ability to move and get into assault range they can't hurt anything, or with only hitting on 6s they can't hurt anything.
A shooting stuck in close combat will still need to fall back, and thus be unable to shoot effectively.


In summary, your idea is way too punishing. I'd be on board for a more mild penalty, though: Say, moving at half speed or taking a -1 to WS and BS.

Respectfully, I will disagree to a point. I would say making morale tougher makes armies with good morale more viable, and helps differentiate them from their less elite counterparts. Every army has some kind of gimmick to get around morale (mob rule, buffing characters, fearless bubbles, command points), which makes taking them more important if you plan on running a massive horde of cheap troops. Massive hordes of cheap troops without proper support should absolutely have to worry about morale.
If I had to split the difference, I'd say making it (able to move OR able to shoot/fight at -1, rather than on 6's) makes you have to pick what you want this mauled unit to accomplish. But granted, only hitting at -1 in the age of reroll bubbles is barely even a penalty.

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I have no idea what game the OP I splaying that he thinks Morale needs to be less punishing! For me there are two options with Morale: completely change the system to something similar to what has already been proposed with things like Pinning/Suppression for units that come under fire. Or, if we keep the current rules, make it matter more (or, like, at all).

At the moment Morale has the biggest effect on large units, which makes small units more preferable. It's also the case that small units are more preferable from an army construction point of view because building armies efficiently generally requires you to fill out slots in your detachments cheaply. More smaller squads also means more squad leader bonuses (+1A, +1Ld) and having your weapons spread out across more squads, which can be important. You also increase the likelihood of your opponent overkilling a smaller squad, and therefore wasting firepower relative to shooting at a much larger squad. Unfortunately, many large units also have ways around Morale - Orks get Mob Rule, though that at least can be worked around, while Nids get blanket immunity, for example.

If I were to make a change, the first thing I'd probably do is split Ld values depending on squad sizes. So keep Ld largely as is if you take a max-size squad (or at least a squad above a certain number) and reduce Ld by 2 for squads taken at minimum size. I'd probably also include dynamic Ld in-game, so if a squad is reduced to minimum size or below, it's Ld also drops too. That means Morale can always be a useful weapon for an opponent.

As for swarms, I'd just implement Ld values above 10 and completely remove Morale immunity from the game. Nids, Zombies and anything else that is currently completely immune can just be given a high Ld value that mitigates all but the most severe of casualties, then at least you can try to do something aganist these units via Morale.

In short: either change Morale completely or make it do more than it does at the moment. Morale is so irrelevant right now it feels as though the rules might as well not exist.

First of all it shouldn't matter more (even if that was the case), what kind of army has to fight against running away every time they lose a man, its ridiculous. Morale is there to represent bravery/cowardice etc. just because its a function in the game doesn't mean it automatically must have to 'matter' as you say. Again you are biased to your army, I collect factions that get completely hammered by morale, so much so that morale is the most devastating weapon in the game, which is ridiculous as is.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it doesn't make it fact. You haven't really explained why it shouldn't matter more other than you think it's ridiculous that people run away in battle. That doesn't seem like the most cogent argument. As for being biased by my army, please, tell me what army I play so we can show up this bias.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah tactics to mitigate morale is all fine when you are castling your army, but otherwise there is no tactics to mitigate it unless you have endless points to spend of HQ's etc. in "list building". I mena seriously, lets use tactics and list building to stop being shot in the face lol

You are showing why morale needs changed and that LD should be dropped to minimise damage and you are saying that it has to be more punishing I mean your recommendation is basically the same as what I said earlier.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the first paragraph. The second one doesn't even make sense. I said Ld should be lowered in certain circumstances, thereby increasing the effects of Morale by making failure more likely. That's the opposite of what you seem to want, which is to make Morale less impactful. I'd say judging by the responses here most people seem to be in agreement with me about Morale.

Its simple, the rule is there for realistic purposes it adds nothing to the game other than that, so then it should be 'realistic' and not as common as it is, or to make it more common in your view because it should impact the game (for some reason I can't think why that is)

Secondly I misunderstood that because it doesn't make any sense. Buffing small squads at least combats what they suffer from, but to nerf them just because 'if my guys suffer from morale then so should they' even though they actually do if you play elite armies other than SM's they suffer from morale a hell of a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'd drop leadership 1-2 points across the board, and then change leadership from "models run away" to the following.

Spoiler:

In a turn in which a squad has lost models, roll a d6, adding the number of casualties to the dice roll. Should this number exceed the unit's leadership, this unit, if they elect to move, may not shoot or charge this turn. If they forgo movement, or are unable to move, their BS and WS characteristics are considered to be 6+.

This represents loss of unit cohesion, units being overrun in melee, or pinned down at range...but allows models to still be used in a limited manner, and makes it more of a concern for more armies. Battle Shocked units can still perform their functions in a limited manner.

Since it only lasts a round, it also keeps bookkeeping low, and is very simple to remember rules wise.

Say a Guard Squad with a Sergeant is now LD 6
They take 3 losses
Roll a d6, get a 3 or less, nothing happens, they hold.
On a 4+, they can move, OR shoot/fight at WS/BS 6+.

Other leadership based rules will require adjustment accordingly.

That seems way, way too punishing for certain armies, and especially for very large squads, which as Trollbert points out already are struggling to begin with.

Compare the current system to your proposed system with... Say, a unit of thirty Cultists being used as a screen. I kill four of those cultists.
Under current rules, the Chaos player would then lose between 0 and 4 cultists. Next turn, their damage output and screening ability would be down by between 0% and 13%, give or take.
Under your rules, the Cultists would either not be able to move, making them completely useless as a screen, or they would have their damage output reduced by 66%. Either way, the squad goes from a slightly damaged but still useful unit, to a mostly useless blob that will not be able to do anything.
It also gets worse if we consider something like Ork Boyz. Let's say 15 Boyz with Choppas die out of 30 (I'm assuming you wouldn't change Mob Rule) - You can either lose between 1-6 orks, or have the squad do literally nothing next turn because they're an assault squad, and without the ability to move and get into assault range they can't hurt anything, or with only hitting on 6s they can't hurt anything.
A shooting stuck in close combat will still need to fall back, and thus be unable to shoot effectively.


In summary, your idea is way too punishing. I'd be on board for a more mild penalty, though: Say, moving at half speed or taking a -1 to WS and BS.

Respectfully, I will disagree to a point. I would say making morale tougher makes armies with good morale more viable, and helps differentiate them from their less elite counterparts. Every army has some kind of gimmick to get around morale (mob rule, buffing characters, fearless bubbles, command points), which makes taking them more important if you plan on running a massive horde of cheap troops. Massive hordes of cheap troops without proper support should absolutely have to worry about morale.
If I had to split the difference, I'd say making it (able to move OR able to shoot/fight at -1, rather than on 6's) makes you have to pick what you want this mauled unit to accomplish. But granted, only hitting at -1 in the age of reroll bubbles is barely even a penalty.

That's exactly the problem, if you have a 5 man troop unit, they are mostly not going to accomplish anything due to morale. One turn they lose 2 guys, then a further 1 or 2 to morale and they are a single troop standing about looking stupid lol Not everyone plays SM's, you might not see morale having an impact because you are playing against marines most of the time, but with other armies they take a wholloping. A ten man squad can at least hold an objective or tar pit a unit for a turn after getting mauled by morale.

How do small, elite squads suffer from Morale? If you have Ld8 (which you probably will if you're small and elite - sometimes it will be even higher) then your squad of 5 guys only starts even taking Morale checks once it loses 3 guys, and even then you have a 1/6 chance of losing a single guy. Small, elite squads suffer the least from Morale in this game out of all the units that actually need to test for it. That's because their chances of failing are extremely small since if they take enough casualties in one turn to make failing likely they'll all be dead. This was all explained earlier in the thread.

Slipspace wrote:
How do small, elite squads suffer from Morale? If you have Ld8 (which you probably will if you're small and elite - sometimes it will be even higher) then your squad of 5 guys only starts even taking Morale checks once it loses 3 guys, and even then you have a 1/6 chance of losing a single guy. Small, elite squads suffer the least from Morale in this game out of all the units that actually need to test for it. That's because their chances of failing are extremely small since if they take enough casualties in one turn to make failing likely they'll all be dead. This was all explained earlier in the thread.

Ld 8, yeah exactly, you are only concerned with SM's. And that's all fine and good but this edition units are so squishy that you lose enough models to have to take morale tests in one turn and then they are demolished by morale. Plus multi-wound units have all their 2-3 wounds removed in one go, they are far more harshly impacted by morale.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Its simple, the rule is there for realistic purposes it adds nothing to the game other than that, so then it should be 'realistic' and not as common as it is, or to make it more common in your view because it should impact the game (for some reason I can't think why that is)

See, this is where the confusion seems to be.
In the grim darkness of the far future, people have plenty of "realistic" reasons to run away.

I mean, every Guard regiment has officers whose primary duty is to intimidate the grunts into NOT running away. If it wasn't common, Commissars wouldn't need to carry pistols....or exist.
Morale isn't just a "minor" mechanic put in the game for some random fluffiness, it really is meant to represent the possibility that troops under your control aren't always under your control.
And is also isn't just meant for bravery/cowardice. Sometimes a Marine wants to carry his wounded battle bro off the field. Not all casualties are "dead" afterall. Tactical retreat is a thing.

Now, I not saying the a unit that fails Morale should have a huge punishing consequence, I'm just saying that failed Morale should happen/ be allowed to happen more often.
Maybe we lower LD by 1 across the board, but cap the total number of models a unit could lose, say no more than 5?

That way unit of 20 models that lose 10, could only lose 5, leaving 5 brave souls on the field. Then you can remove the Insane Bravery Strat entirely as it isn't needed.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus multi-wound units have all their 2-3 wounds removed in one go, they are far more harshly impacted by morale.

There really aren't many multi-wound model units that are:
A) more than 5 models
B) without really high LD or some rule to ignore/reroll

So while you are certainly right that a unit of 2-3 Wound models that lose 6, 7, 8+ models in a single turn would have a bad day on a Morale test, that particular unit is also either dead already, or using Insane Bravery for it to not matter.
I literally cannot think of a multi wound model unit that anyone could have above 5 models, or would even want above 5 models. Terminators? Wraithguard?

-

 Galef wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Its simple, the rule is there for realistic purposes it adds nothing to the game other than that, so then it should be 'realistic' and not as common as it is, or to make it more common in your view because it should impact the game (for some reason I can't think why that is)

See, this is where the confusion seems to be.
In the grim darkness of the far future, people have plenty of "realistic" reasons to run away.

I mean, every Guard regiment has officers whose primary duty is to intimidate the grunts into NOT running away. If it wasn't common, Commissars wouldn't need to carry pistols....or exist.
Morale isn't just a "minor" mechanic put in the game for some random fluffiness, it really is meant to represent the possibility that troops under your control aren't always under your control.
And is also isn't just meant for bravery/cowardice. Sometimes a Marine wants to carry his wounded battle bro off the field. Not all casualties are "dead" afterall. Tactical retreat is a thing.

Now, I not saying the a unit that fails Morale should have a huge punishing consequence, I'm just saying that failed Morale should happen/ be allowed to happen more often.
Maybe we lower LD by 1 across the board, but cap the total number of models a unit could lose, say no more than 5?

That way unit of 20 models that lose 10, could only lose 5, leaving 5 brave souls on the field. Then you can remove the Insane Bravery Strat entirely as it isn't needed.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Plus multi-wound units have all their 2-3 wounds removed in one go, they are far more harshly impacted by morale.

There really aren't many multi-wound model units that are:
A) more than 5 models
B) without really high LD or some rule to ignore/reroll

So while you are certainly right that a unit of 2-3 Wound models that lose 6, 7, 8+ models in a single turn would have a bad day on a Morale test, that particular unit is also either dead already, or using Insane Bravery for it to not matter.

-

It would be nowhere near as common in a realistic 40k war. If you lost a man or two every time you took damage, you'd never win wars.

Yes there are; Flesh hounds and bloodchrushers for example are multi wound units that are mauled by morale and they don't have high Ld. Bloodcrushers in particular, if you have more than 3 in a unit you lose a hell of a lot of points just to morale.

But Daemons aren't "running away". The fabric of reality is pushing them back to the warp. Losing a few models weakens their tether to real space.
Admittedly, though, Daemons should have higher LD than 7 at the basic unit. They should really have LD9 across the board, with LD10 granted to units above 10 models.
Daemons went from Fearless, to suffering Instability after every casualty over night and that's why I don't play them anymore.

But that is a limited view on the Morale system at large and should in no way demand a change to that system that would make Morale SUPREMELY useless for other factions

-

 Galef wrote:
But Daemons aren't "running away". The fabric of reality is pushing them back to the warp. Losing a few models weakens their tether to real space.
Admittedly, though, Daemons should have higher LD than 7 at the basic unit. They should really have LD9 across the board, with LD10 granted to units above 10 models.
Daemons went from Fearless, to suffering Instability after every casualty over night and that's why I don't play them anymore.

But that is a limited view on the Morale system at large and should in no way demand a change to that system that would make Morale SUPREMELY useless for other factions

-

I wasn't talking about daemons in terms of realism, I was making a point regarding the rules in reply to yours.

Thought of the moment:

As has been mentioned already, most factions in 40k have fluff excuses to mostly ignore morale. Space marines should be basically immune to it. So should necrons, even if the fluff justification is a self preservation program or whatever. If your overlord wants you to fight, he should be able to mentally toggle off the "self preservation protocols." Eldar have their war masks. Dark eldar are accustomed to nightmarish circumstances. Orks love the battlefield. 'Nids have the hive mind. Sisters have their zealotry.

For the rules to have game mechanics that represents a squad losing its cool/cohesion, you would think that it would be a very common occurrence. But there are actually fewer armies where losing your cool makes thematic sense than not.

That said, you have things like Night Lords and suppression fire and fear gas and so forth that should probably be represented on the tabletop in some way.

So with that in mind, maybe all "morale" effects should be special rules or a sub-system that certain weapons/abilities tap into rather than a general rule that applies to all units all the time. Instead of taking a morale test every time you lose a body, you only take that test when a special rule specifically prompts you to do so. So a unit hit by a phantasm grenade, or within X" of a Night Lords unit, or hit by a weapon with the "suppression" rule might have to roll morale because that's what fear gas and Night Lords are all about, but the guardsmen who just lost a few bodies to tau pulse rifles keep soldiering on as usual.

And then failing morale could do whatever you want at that point. Inflict extra "casualties," pin the unit in place for a turn, impose to-hit penalties. Whatever.

Edit: And at that point, you can ditch or modify various morale-boosters as needed. Commissars would become something of a specialized anti-morale unit the same way something with a collar of khorne is an anti-psyker unit. Mob Rule may or may not need to exist. Synapse remains useful but becomes less of a big deal. Etc.

Even the Tau who should be most susceptible to moral are brainwashed to self sacrifice for the greater good and are extremely unlikely to break rank and run. They only retreat as part of a strategic retreat to lure enemies into traps and ambushes.

 Galef wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Its simple, the rule is there for realistic purposes it adds nothing to the game other than that, so then it should be 'realistic' and not as common as it is, or to make it more common in your view because it should impact the game (for some reason I can't think why that is)

See, this is where the confusion seems to be.
In the grim darkness of the far future, people have plenty of "realistic" reasons to run away.

I mean, every Guard regiment has officers whose primary duty is to intimidate the grunts into NOT running away. If it wasn't common, Commissars wouldn't need to carry pistols....or exist.
Morale isn't just a "minor" mechanic put in the game for some random fluffiness, it really is meant to represent the possibility that troops under your control aren't always under your control.
And is also isn't just meant for bravery/cowardice. Sometimes a Marine wants to carry his wounded battle bro off the field. Not all casualties are "dead" afterall. Tactical retreat is a thing.

So, let me also try the "realistic" approach.

Yeah. Ok. That doesn´t help much. But what I read from this is that morale is a not-so-easy-to-capture concept which applies on larger (time-)scales. So "good morale" doesn´t just change when the guy next to you gets killed. "Bad morale" is more related to general unwillingness and inefficiency in executing orders (which in extreme cases can turn into cases of desertion and mutiny), not some specific 4 guys die - 2 guys run kind of thing.

So in this sense I think the concept of "morale" can´t really be applied to a single clash of armies, which is the only thing covered by 40k. You would need to dramatically increase the scope of the game, before it makes sense to implement rules for morale.
The thing which is currently called "morale" basically corresponds to soldiers/whatever whetting their pants/loosing their nerves/fainting because they can´t cope with the stress of a battle. I don´t think this needs separate rules. Just absorb this into the concept of "killing a model". E.g. that lascannon shot didn´t actually harm the guardsman, but the shock caused him to snap and now he´s covering behind a rock and not helping you for the rest of the battle (therefore effectively "dead" for your purposes). Pretend that this chance to loose their will to fight is already incorporated into the toughness and wounds stats of your models (and their points) and off you go.

The other thing is units not really doing what you want them to do. While I agree that crappy morale can have that effect, this is an instance where I have to pull the break on realism. In a real battle there isn´t a dude up in the sky (you) that commands every action of your soldiers/whatever either (unless you play tyrannids, and you take over the role of the hivemind (at least the fraction of it which is concerned with this particular battle)). But we play this game to move our models over the table and have some fun, and if you "tell" your models to do something and they show you the finger because "morale", that isn´t fun, it´s frustrating. So I don´t want to implement something like this either.

It has been mentioned somewhere above already and I agree with it, that, if you really want to put "fear" or "FOR THE EMPRAH!" or something into the game, do it as special rules tied to units for which it is relevant and make it buff/debuff/anything whatever it affects.
For example the commissar could gain an ability "execute", which executes a dude from a unit but makes the rest of the unit fight harder (yes I totally ripped that off of Dawn of War I).

Take it off units like Tau drones. Those shouldn't have emotions so fear shouldn't be a factor imo

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Take it off units like Tau drones. Those shouldn't have emotions so fear shouldn't be a factor imo

Scrapcode.