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.

CSM still being 13 as opposed to 12 is literally just from codex lag. CA19 is most likely going to contain "chaos doctrines" and trait updates. Things to expect would be traits affecting vehicles and cultist type units not getting traits. Sure we can talk about how the CSM codex should have dropped closer/after the new marine codex to just make them more in line with each other but none of us make those decisions so we just gotta wait till December

What about something like this?

If a unit loses members in a round of shooting or melee, it suffers morale causalities.

It suffers 1d6 hits at a strength equal to the number of causalities it has taken. Compare this to the target's LD value and use the wound table to determine if something is damaged. Successful damage removes whole models from the unit

Melee: in melee, you roll 2d6 and pick the highest to determine how many casualties the unit takes.

Hellebore wrote:
What about something like this?

If a unit loses members in a round of shooting or melee, it suffers morale causalities.

It suffers 1d6 hits at a strength equal to the number of causalities it has taken. Compare this to the target's LD value and use the wound table to determine if something is damaged. Successful damage removes whole models from the unit

Melee: in melee, you roll 2d6 and pick the highest to determine how many casualties the unit takes.

I'm probably missing something, but what do we gain with this approach? It seems like this would:

* Make individual morale checks take slightly longer (you go from a single die roll per unit to two rolls per unit (number of hits and then the "to-wound vs leadership" rolls).

* The way you've worded it, it seems like you intend for morale tests to be taken at the end of each phase? So if that's correct, a given unit potentially ends up taking tests in every phase instead of just one.

* Despite rolling more dice, this would make morale less impactful. Leadreship 8 units would only be getting "wounded" on better than a 6+ after they take at least 5 casualties (strength 5 vs leadership 8). So 5-man squads with decent leadership would basically be immune to morale. Even if you're not immune, low model squads would generally only be getting wounded on 5+ or 6+ much of the time. Large squads could get "wounded" on a 2+ after they take enough casualties, but at that point, you're almost just using the current official morale system as-is. So rather than adding a bunch of extra dice rolling to make MSU almost immune to morale and leave horde units as susceptible as they are now, why not just take JNA's initial suggestion and avoid a bunch of extra dice rolling?

I guess I"m missing how this approach would be an improvement on either the official rules or JNA's proposal unless you feel that making small squads almost-but-not-quite immune to morale and large squads almost-but-not-quite-as-susceptible to morale as they are now is the sweet spot for morale math.

Hellebore wrote:
What about something like this?

If a unit loses members in a round of shooting or melee, it suffers morale causalities.

It suffers 1d6 hits at a strength equal to the number of causalities it has taken. Compare this to the target's LD value and use the wound table to determine if something is damaged. Successful damage removes whole models from the unit

Melee: in melee, you roll 2d6 and pick the highest to determine how many casualties the unit takes.

Too friendly for msu imo.

What if instead of taking casualties, a unit that fails morale suffers from stat penalties instead, and if the unit suffers enough morale loss the whole unit is removed instead of individual models legging it?

The current system is kind of odd in that soldiers periodically just up and leave while the rest stay, when in most cases if a squad reaches breaking point they tend to all flee at once.

A more accurate morale system would be if the squad begins to perform poorly as their get demoralized, and when things really go bad they all decide to retreat.

Not sure how to represent it though. Would have to think about it.

Ok, so I came up with this -

During the morale phase, if a unit has sustained casualties at any point in the game, roll a D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership applying the following modifiers to the Leadership stat :

-1 for every casualty taken that turn
-1 for having less than half of its starting number of models
-2 for being less than one quarter of its starting number of models
-3 for being the only model left in the unit, provided there were more models in the unit to begin with at the start of the game

For every point you roll over the unit's modified leadership, reduce the unit's movement, ballistic skill, weapon skill and leadership by 1 for every point failed until the start of the controlling player's next morale phase. Note that if a unit cannot possibly fail the morale test, the controlling player does not have to roll for it.
If by the start of the controlling player's next morale phase, that unit has not sustained any casualties, remove all negative modifiers inflicted by the failed test. If that unit has sustained casualties, then the controlling player must take another morale test, using the unit's modified leadership inflicted by the test from the previous morale phase, in addition to any other modifiers.
If the unit passes the test, then all negative modifiers from the previously failed tests are removed. If the unit fails, then reduce its movement, ballistic skill, weapon skill and leadership by 1 for every point failed again.

If, by the start of any morale phase, a unit has a Leadership value that's been reduced to 0 due to modifiers, it must take a break test. Roll 2D6 and apply the following modifiers:

-1 for every casualty taken that turn
-1 for having less than half of its starting number of models
-1 for every morale test it failed during the game
-2 for being less than one quarter of its starting number of models
-3 for being the only model left in the unit, provided there were more models in the unit to begin with at the start of the game

If a unit rolls over its leadership, then it considered to have failed and is removed from the table. If it passes, then any stat penalties from failed tests are removed.

Now, its a little complicated, but I think it will have the following effects -

-Morale is now important, as it directly impacts how a unit fights
- Having a high leadership value is now much more worthwhile, as it reduces the chance of breaking or getting debuffed
- MSU aren't the better choice anymore, as its much easier to inflict morale penalties on them
- Cheap cannon fodder is a lot more skittish and will falter more easily than "elite" units.
- Fearless type abilities would become really strong. No idea how to address that :/
- Commissar type abilities will probably have to be rewritten to remove a model for every point the unit fails by, as otherwise removing a single model to counter the debuffs would undo the point of this system, which is to make the leadership value that elite units pay for actually worth something.

The old way worked just fine. Test on 2D6 or fall back and suffer fire penalties until rally or you legg it off the board.

The only change I would make is to get rid of the 25% shooting casualties as that was gamed for MSU.

Instead if you take ANY casualties due to shooting or melee you take a test with the test modified by the number of casualties taken. Fail and FALL BACK, in current rules the "snap fire" would translate as -1 to hit. Though I'd make it -2 since that would be far more nerfing and the unit continues to fall back 2D6 (or more depending on unit type) till it falls off the board. That worked for DECADES. They only changed it now back to the umm.. what was that 5th rules for casualties because they were trying to make the games faster by killing off more troops.

Yeah, I liked the 2D6 morale system too, but I found it didn't happen all that often. Then again, I played necrons and most of my opponents were marines back then, so go figure.

5th edition also used 2D6 LD or fallback rules, iirc. This current system where you take casualties is new.

Your suggestion is probably easier to play with than mine, anyway. I was trying to adapt 8th ed rules to be more useful.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Ok, so I came up with this -

During the morale phase, if a unit has sustained casualties at any point in the game, roll a D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership applying the following modifiers to the Leadership stat :

-1 for every casualty taken that turn
-1 for having less than half of its starting number of models
-2 for being less than one quarter of its starting number of models
-3 for being the only model left in the unit, provided there were more models in the unit to begin with at the start of the game

For every point you roll over the unit's modified leadership, reduce the unit's movement, ballistic skill, weapon skill and leadership by 1 for every point failed until the start of the controlling player's next morale phase. Note that if a unit cannot possibly fail the morale test, the controlling player does not have to roll for it.
If by the start of the controlling player's next morale phase, that unit has not sustained any casualties, remove all negative modifiers inflicted by the failed test. If that unit has sustained casualties, then the controlling player must take another morale test, using the unit's modified leadership inflicted by the test from the previous morale phase, in addition to any other modifiers.
If the unit passes the test, then all negative modifiers from the previously failed tests are removed. If the unit fails, then reduce its movement, ballistic skill, weapon skill and leadership by 1 for every point failed again.

If, by the start of any morale phase, a unit has a Leadership value that's been reduced to 0 due to modifiers, it must take a break test. Roll 2D6 and apply the following modifiers:

-1 for every casualty taken that turn
-1 for having less than half of its starting number of models
-1 for every morale test it failed during the game
-2 for being less than one quarter of its starting number of models
-3 for being the only model left in the unit, provided there were more models in the unit to begin with at the start of the game

If a unit rolls over its leadership, then it considered to have failed and is removed from the table. If it passes, then any stat penalties from failed tests are removed.

That's quite a bit of extra bookkeeping, CthululsSpy. The current rules require you to track casualties within a single turn and then make a single die roll for each impacted unit at the end of a player turn. Your proposal would require:
* Tracking casualties on a given turn (same as what we have now)
* Calculating the 50% and 25% mark for all your units; not exactly difficult, but will cause players to stop and do spend a couple seconds mathing a few times a game.
* Track penalties to multiple statistics.
* Factor those penalties into various actions and dice rolls.
* Keep track of how many failed tests each unit in your army has made over the course of the entire game.

The table would certainly have more tracking counters on it than it does right now!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meatybtz wrote:
The old way worked just fine. Test on 2D6 or fall back and suffer fire penalties until rally or you legg it off the board.

The only change I would make is to get rid of the 25% shooting casualties as that was gamed for MSU.

Instead if you take ANY casualties due to shooting or melee you take a test with the test modified by the number of casualties taken. Fail and FALL BACK, in current rules the "snap fire" would translate as -1 to hit. Though I'd make it -2 since that would be far more nerfing and the unit continues to fall back 2D6 (or more depending on unit type) till it falls off the board. That worked for DECADES. They only changed it now back to the umm.. what was that 5th rules for casualties because they were trying to make the games faster by killing off more troops.

Eh. The old fall back mechanics worked, but they certainly had their drawbacks. The act of physically moving models was a pretty major slowdown for a lot of armies (and that's probably one of the main reasons they dropped the old fall back rules when designing the much speedier 8th edition). Not only did you have to test and then move them as soon as they started falling back, but you had to spend turn after turn continuing to roll for them and move them, often through wonky terrain situations. Failing a fall back test was generally a feels bad moment followed by a certain amount of frustration as you had to pause to resolve the fall back each turn. Plus, falling back could be a huge problem for non-fearless melee units trying to cross the board while being a relatively minor inconvenience for shooty units provided they managed to recover the following turn.

Those rules all worked, but I wouldn't really call them an improvement over the current system. A stick shift works, but it's not more convenient or intuitive than an automatic just because it was around longer. Going back to the old fall back rules would be a sidegrade at best, in my opinion.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Ok, so I came up with this -

During the morale phase, if a unit has sustained casualties at any point in the game, roll a D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership applying the following modifiers to the Leadership stat :

-1 for every casualty taken that turn
-1 for having less than half of its starting number of models
-2 for being less than one quarter of its starting number of models
-3 for being the only model left in the unit, provided there were more models in the unit to begin with at the start of the game

For every point you roll over the unit's modified leadership, reduce the unit's movement, ballistic skill, weapon skill and leadership by 1 for every point failed until the start of the controlling player's next morale phase. Note that if a unit cannot possibly fail the morale test, the controlling player does not have to roll for it.
If by the start of the controlling player's next morale phase, that unit has not sustained any casualties, remove all negative modifiers inflicted by the failed test. If that unit has sustained casualties, then the controlling player must take another morale test, using the unit's modified leadership inflicted by the test from the previous morale phase, in addition to any other modifiers.
If the unit passes the test, then all negative modifiers from the previously failed tests are removed. If the unit fails, then reduce its movement, ballistic skill, weapon skill and leadership by 1 for every point failed again.

If, by the start of any morale phase, a unit has a Leadership value that's been reduced to 0 due to modifiers, it must take a break test. Roll 2D6 and apply the following modifiers:

-1 for every casualty taken that turn
-1 for having less than half of its starting number of models
-1 for every morale test it failed during the game
-2 for being less than one quarter of its starting number of models
-3 for being the only model left in the unit, provided there were more models in the unit to begin with at the start of the game

If a unit rolls over its leadership, then it considered to have failed and is removed from the table. If it passes, then any stat penalties from failed tests are removed.

That's quite a bit of extra bookkeeping, CthululsSpy. The current rules require you to track casualties within a single turn and then make a single die roll for each impacted unit at the end of a player turn. Your proposal would require:
* Tracking casualties on a given turn (same as what we have now)
* Calculating the 50% and 25% mark for all your units; not exactly difficult, but will cause players to stop and do spend a couple seconds mathing a few times a game.
* Track penalties to multiple statistics.
* Factor those penalties into various actions and dice rolls.
* Keep track of how many failed tests each unit in your army has made over the course of the entire game.

The table would certainly have more tracking counters on it than it does right now!

Whilst it may seem daunting, I don't think it will be that much of a problem.
A unit can only fail at most 6 tests, and if their leadership is low enough for them to fail consistently they probably aren't going to stay on the board for that long.

I think it's important that there be a morale system (yes, even for Marines and Necrons), as it adds both variety and flavor to the way a game is played. As some have said before, morale is not necessarily just people running away screaming, but can also represent momentary confusion or hesitation in the face of overwhelming force. Or it can be a phalanx-like battle formation suffering a blow that smashes through its (literal or metaphorical) shield wall and prevents soldiers from adequately protecting one another.


Nevertheless, I dislike the way morale currently works, as it penalizes larger units. One would expect large units to be more resilient to morale tests, not less!

Maybe it just needs to shift to a suppression system so that all units are affected.

The casualties and running away can just be the worst outcome of high levels of suppression.

The abstraction of suppression means that everyone can be affected, necrons, daemons etc. But the consequences can be different

1000% Yes, one of my main changed to 40k would to be the removal of the morale phase. It serves not purpose and only existed in the first place because of the notion of "world war table top design." 40k there is no surrender no retreat.

In game falling back/reteating should only be done as a tactical play not a game mechanic. Fall Back from combat is ok.

I'd actually disagree entirely...make Morale actually matter. However that kind of stuff flies in the face of god-mode competitive play where there isn't any hesitation in an army, no cowardice, no questioning orders, no lack of communication, no inspiring or uninspiring leaders, no fear, no terror, etc...

Bring back options for things like "Terrifying: A unit which attempts to charge this unit in close-combat must first pass a morale test", etc.

as far as morale goes for space marines. For most chapters if you're in a fight where you're losing most of your men then retreating and regrouping is a sound tactical decision.

Marines don't run, they fall back and regroup

Back in the day I liked to call ATSKNF "Fearless but not stupid."

 Elbows wrote:
I'd actually disagree entirely...make Morale actually matter. However that kind of stuff flies in the face of god-mode competitive play where there isn't any hesitation in an army, no cowardice, no questioning orders, no lack of communication, no inspiring or uninspiring leaders, no fear, no terror, etc...

Bring back options for things like "Terrifying: A unit which attempts to charge this unit in close-combat must first pass a morale test", etc.

I don't think it's a matter of "god-mode competitive play" so much as it's an issue of fluff being broken. It seems odd that a barrage of lasguns can somehow throw space marines and necrons into such disarray that they're rendered combat ineffective. Which is, I believe, why JNA is basically proposing making Morale a rule specific to those factions for whom such disorganization and cowardice does make sense. Canonically, most factions in the 41st millenium just aren't very susceptible to running away in fear.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I'd actually disagree entirely...make Morale actually matter. However that kind of stuff flies in the face of god-mode competitive play where there isn't any hesitation in an army, no cowardice, no questioning orders, no lack of communication, no inspiring or uninspiring leaders, no fear, no terror, etc...

Bring back options for things like "Terrifying: A unit which attempts to charge this unit in close-combat must first pass a morale test", etc.

I don't think it's a matter of "god-mode competitive play" so much as it's an issue of fluff being broken. It seems odd that a barrage of lasguns can somehow throw space marines and necrons into such disarray that they're rendered combat ineffective. Which is, I believe, why JNA is basically proposing making Morale a rule specific to those factions for whom such disorganization and cowardice does make sense. Canonically, most factions in the 41st millenium just aren't very susceptible to running away in fear.

Precisely.

 fraser1191 wrote:
CSM still being 13 as opposed to 12 is literally just from codex lag. CA19 is most likely going to contain "chaos doctrines" and trait updates. Things to expect would be traits affecting vehicles and cultist type units not getting traits. Sure we can talk about how the CSM codex should have dropped closer/after the new marine codex to just make them more in line with each other but none of us make those decisions so we just gotta wait till December

As much as I wish this would happen I seriously doubt it will. CSM already had their "update" which was essentially just a collation of the new datasheets from Vigilus and some very minor changes.