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.

 vict0988 wrote:

I think not being able to move is the opposite of what you want, you want them to be running away from the scary enemies. I think maybe -1 to hit

This is the only addition I would add.

Other than that, make it actually prevent primaries in the next turn. Instead of turning off in the command phase.

Jarms48 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I think not being able to move is the opposite of what you want, you want them to be running away from the scary enemies. I think maybe -1 to hit

This is the only addition I would add.

Other than that, make it actually prevent primaries in the next turn. Instead of turning off in the command phase.

So if you pass your shock test in the command phase, have the unit become unshocked at the start of Movement instead of right away? That seems like a useful and easy-to-implement change.

(Though I'm not a fan of the running away and to-hit penalty parts.)

Rather than running way and penalties to hit, I would argue for only being able to target the closest enemy unit and only being able to charge the nearest enemy unit.

That is to represent the unit being in disarray and unable to prioritize strategically important targets.

 Tyran wrote:
Rather than running way and penalties to hit, I would argue for only being able to target the closest enemy unit and only being able to charge the nearest enemy unit.

That is to represent the unit being in disarray and unable to prioritize strategically important targets.

Huh. I think I like that a lot. Especially now that deathstars aren't a huge part of the game. It feels very lore-appropriate. Seems like it would make sense for everything from a fire warrior to a necron. Has some limited counterplay in the form of potentially shooting nearby targets to death with other units before shooting the shocked unit. And "wasting" some offense on a suboptimal target for a turn seems like the kind of curveball that could be game-changing without necessarily costing you the game.

I guess it might be a bit weird to have a "shocked" unit use the movement phase to position themselves next to ideal charge targets to basically ignore this.

This is probably too fiddly, but you could bring back some of the old fluffy negative rules and tie them to battleshock. So for instance, eldar wraith units might freeze up or otherwise suffer extra penalties when they fail battleshock unless they have a psyker nearby to guide them. In addition to only being able to charge the closest target, shocked Blood/Swift Claws might have to actively move straight towards the nearest enemy and be forced to charge it if possible. That sort of thing.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I was thinking about this earlier. A cool solution might be if battleshocked units:
▪︎ movement-wise, are only eligible to Fall Back or embark on transports.
▪︎-1 to Hit Rolls
▪︎+1 to Armour Saves

This seems a bit more fluffy, and also a bit less feels-bad ("at least my unit gets a better save", etc).

Nerfing movement hits different units/factions differently. Stopping a tau strike team already sitting on an objective from moving? So what? Stopping a blob of ork boyz or bloodletters from moving? Very punishing.

I didn't suggest that battleshocked units should be immobilised, just restricted to fall back moves (or embarkation). Units that could shoot or charge after falling back would still be eligible to do so. Not saying it's the perfect solution, but it's an idea I find interesting.

As for the other comments, hit and save modifiers may be a little iffy but they're ubiquitous mechanics in 10th. There are worse rationales to dole them out.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I was thinking about this earlier. A cool solution might be if battleshocked units:
▪︎ movement-wise, are only eligible to Fall Back or embark on transports.
▪︎-1 to Hit Rolls
▪︎+1 to Armour Saves

This seems a bit more fluffy, and also a bit less feels-bad ("at least my unit gets a better save", etc).

Nerfing movement hits different units/factions differently. Stopping a tau strike team already sitting on an objective from moving? So what? Stopping a blob of ork boyz or bloodletters from moving? Very punishing.

I didn't suggest that battleshocked units should be immobilised, just restricted to fall back moves (or embarkation). Units that could shoot or charge after falling back would still be eligible to do so. Not saying it's the perfect solution, but it's an idea I find interesting.

My concern wasn't that units would be unable to fall back or embark on transports though. My concern was that some armies (mainly melee armies) being prevented from moving towards the enemy and thus forced to endure an extra round of shooting is really punishing. Although now that you mention it, it *is* weird that your pitch would have some units actively hoping they get charged so they can remain mobile/effective.

Fair enough that you find it interesting though. Follow your bliss, chum.

As for the other comments, hit and save modifiers may be a little iffy but they're ubiquitous mechanics in 10th. There are worse rationales to dole them out.

Fair. But one of the complaints about to-hit modifiers from 9th was that the lack of stacking modifiers meant it was easy to rack up your first penalty and that there was no reason to avoid accruing additional penalties at that point. 10th has sort of mitigated that problem (for now) by changing how heavy weapons are handled and by having a lot fewer sources of to-hit penalties in general (for now). My concern here is that if you tie a to-hit penalty to a universal mechanic like battleshock, you're more likely to run into those, "Well, I may as well shoot the stealthy unit popping smoke in the fog bank, why not?" situations again.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Although now that you mention it, it *is* weird that your pitch would have some units actively hoping they get charged so they can remain mobile/effective.

Fair enough that you find it interesting though. Follow your bliss, chum.

I was under the impression that any unit could fall back at any time and in any direction, not just when within engagement distance of an enemy unit. Maybe I need to re-read.

I've been thinking about this on and off for a bit, and I have a few ideas on what I think a more dramatic battle-shock could look like without wondering into pre-8th Morale rules. The key idea is that battle-shock represents a unit operating in a level of disarray as opposed to outright panic. My additions to the existing rules are in red.

While a unit is Battle-shocked:
■ The Objective Control characteristic of all of its models is 0.
■ The unit cannot Advance and does not count as having Remained Stationary even if it doesn't move.
■ If it Falls Back, you must take a Desperate Escape test for every model in that unit (pg 14).
■ The unit cannot benefit from the Charge bonus.
■ Its controlling player cannot use Stratagems to affect that unit.

These two simple additions to Battle-shock have impact on the three major parts of the game, movement, shooting, and close combat. Not being able to Advance limits the unit's scope of movement. Not counting as having Remained Stationary remove the bonus for Heavy Weapons and turns off some unit abilities. Loss of the Charge bonus means the unit doesn't Fight First even if they charge into combat. These all slightly blunt the effectiveness of the unit without pulling it out of play in any phase of the game.

 alextroy wrote:
I've been thinking about this on and off for a bit, and I have a few ideas on what I think a more dramatic battle-shock could look like without wondering into pre-8th Morale rules. The key idea is that battle-shock represents a unit operating in a level of disarray as opposed to outright panic. My additions to the existing rules are in red.

While a unit is Battle-shocked:
■ The Objective Control characteristic of all of its models is 0.
■ The unit cannot Advance and does not count as having Remained Stationary even if it doesn't move.
■ If it Falls Back, you must take a Desperate Escape test for every model in that unit (pg 14).
■ The unit cannot benefit from the Charge bonus.
■ Its controlling player cannot use Stratagems to affect that unit.

These two simple additions to Battle-shock have impact on the three major parts of the game, movement, shooting, and close combat. Not being able to Advance limits the unit's scope of movement. Not counting as having Remained Stationary remove the bonus for Heavy Weapons and turns off some unit abilities. Loss of the Charge bonus means the unit doesn't Fight First even if they charge into combat. These all slightly blunt the effectiveness of the unit without pulling it out of play in any phase of the game.

I like this. Seems reasonable.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I've been thinking about this on and off for a bit, and I have a few ideas on what I think a more dramatic battle-shock could look like without wondering into pre-8th Morale rules. The key idea is that battle-shock represents a unit operating in a level of disarray as opposed to outright panic. My additions to the existing rules are in red.

While a unit is Battle-shocked:
■ The Objective Control characteristic of all of its models is 0.
■ The unit cannot Advance and does not count as having Remained Stationary even if it doesn't move.
■ If it Falls Back, you must take a Desperate Escape test for every model in that unit (pg 14).
■ The unit cannot benefit from the Charge bonus.
■ Its controlling player cannot use Stratagems to affect that unit.

These two simple additions to Battle-shock have impact on the three major parts of the game, movement, shooting, and close combat. Not being able to Advance limits the unit's scope of movement. Not counting as having Remained Stationary remove the bonus for Heavy Weapons and turns off some unit abilities. Loss of the Charge bonus means the unit doesn't Fight First even if they charge into combat. These all slightly blunt the effectiveness of the unit without pulling it out of play in any phase of the game.

I like this. Seems reasonable.

Yeah, I don't hate that. It's basically what we have now but slightly more complex and slightly more impactful. Your changes would only really matter for units that want to advance, charge, or have heavy weapons, but that's probably broad enough to still be meaningful.

@alextroy
I like that suggestion aswell. Just wished it affected shooting a little more. Feels like a imperial knight would mostly not be affected. Maybe a negative to hit instead?

 Gitdakka wrote:
@alextroy
I like that suggestion aswell. Just wished it affected shooting a little more. Feels like a imperial knight would mostly not be affected. Maybe a negative to hit instead?

Gets weird because then the shocked unit is suddenly unaffected by other to-hit penalties. But I see what you mean. I feel like not being able to use stratagems on that knight is already a pretty big penalty though, right?

No the strategem limit is not enough. One game i played a big knight wiped out 3 carnifexes with one gun while it split fired and crippled many other units in the same salvo. This is ridiculous, without any strategems used, it wiped out almost its points cost of enemies in one salvo. There needs to be more ways to affect it.

Just because gw does not allow stacking penalties anymore does not make them irrelevant. Hit it with the minus to hit I say :p

 Gitdakka wrote:
No the strategem limit is not enough. One game i played a big knight wiped out 3 carnifexes with one gun while it split fired and crippled many other units in the same salvo. This is ridiculous, without any strategems used, it wiped out almost its points cost of enemies in one salvo. There needs to be more ways to affect it.

Just because gw does not allow stacking penalties anymore does not make them irrelevant. Hit it with the minus to hit I say :p

You can't split fire with one weapon. If a weapon has eight shots or whatever, all those shots have to go into one target.

That's more an issue of IK being blatantly undercosted for their firepower, but yes the no stratagem limit is not enough.

Which is why I argued for a only being able to target the closest enemy unit. Meaning no split fire.

That can be problematic. I’d be pretty salty if my Knight has to pore all its firepower into a stray Infantry model because it is a little closer than the Vehicle 180 degrees from its position relative to my model.

You could have bigger models take extra penalties.

Say, Towering models also suffer a -1 to-hit on ranged attacks when Battleshocked.

I know it cant split fire one gun, but those 3 carnifexes was one unit. All wiped out by some thermal lance from across the board

 Gitdakka wrote:
I know it cant split fire one gun, but those 3 carnifexes was one unit. All wiped out by some thermal lance from across the board

I forgot Carnifexes were squadded now. My bad.

And at 2d3 shots S12 AP-4 Dd6 and Melta 6 (also Blast, but irrelevant against a 3-model squad) I... I find that highly unlikely. It's got a 24" range, meaning you only get d6+6 damage within 12". If it was across the board, it'd just be d6 damage, meaning you'd need 6 shots, 6 hits, 6 wounds, 6 failed saves, and 8+ on 2d6 three times.

The odds of that are, even with reroll 1s to-hit and -wound, are around a percent of a percent.

Maybe it wasnt the thermal lance then, it was some massive long range gun. Looked like a mini shadow sword. Gun. The carnies got not much save against it.

Anyways i didnt track the exact process of the rolling sequence. I just saw the aftermath of the salvo and got the impression the knight was way overpowered. Since i heard similar experiences from others i think a battle shock should reduce the knight shooting somehow, as they are one of the problem units of the edition in my eyes

 Gitdakka wrote:
Maybe it wasnt the thermal lance then, it was some massive long range gun. Looked like a mini shadow sword. Gun. The carnies got not much save against it.

Volcano Lance.
72", d3 shots (Blast), BS 3+, S18, AP-5, D1d6+8.

Has about a 75% chance of one-shotting a Carnifex outside of cover per shot, assuming RR1s to-hit and -wound.
Has the following odds of bopping at least X Carnifexes...

One......89.41%
Two......47.41%
Three...14.41%

So much more feasible. Not likely, but seeing it isn't that unlikely.

 alextroy wrote:
That can be problematic. I’d be pretty salty if my Knight has to pore all its firepower into a stray Infantry model because it is a little closer than the Vehicle 180 degrees from its position relative to my model.

Well yes, an actual battleshock system with real negatives should make you pretty salty if you fail a battleshock test.

 Tyran wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
That can be problematic. I’d be pretty salty if my Knight has to pore all its firepower into a stray Infantry model because it is a little closer than the Vehicle 180 degrees from its position relative to my model.

Well yes, an actual battleshock system with real negatives should make you pretty salty if you fail a battleshock test.

I agree with that. And even then they can just spend one cp and succed the test instead. So it just becomes a tiny cp tax. Its better than now when they just shrug their shoulders and shoot 800pts off the board anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And @JNA.. yes that was the gun. Hmm low odds, but they increase if you can reroll one fail with cp.

 Tyran wrote:
That's more an issue of IK being blatantly undercosted for their firepower

This. The battleshock system potentially impacts every unit in the game. It shouldn't be used as a way of fixing a possibly undercosted unit.

Forcing units to target nearby enemies is still an interesting option. The obvious answer to not wanting to waste knight firepower on a lone infantry guy is, of course, to shoot him with something else first. Or to move the knight so that a better target is closer. Though I'd probably prefer something closer to alextroy's pitch.

 Tyran wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
That can be problematic. I’d be pretty salty if my Knight has to pore all its firepower into a stray Infantry model because it is a little closer than the Vehicle 180 degrees from its position relative to my model.

Well yes, an actual battleshock system with real negatives should make you pretty salty if you fail a battleshock test.

Which is a problem when battle shock is often the result of "my unit automatically inflicts a battle shock test with a significant failure chance" rather than any error or failure by the owning player. Harshly punishing bad plays is fine, harshly punishing a player who dares to roll badly on the RNG is not.

There are very few units that can automatically force a battleshock test, and usually can only do it in their own turn.

So your hypothetical problem is a non existent issue.

 Tyran wrote:
There are very few units that can automatically force a battleshock test, and usually can only do it in their own turn.

So your hypothetical problem is a non existent issue.

Guard alone have multiple different artillery pieces that can force a battle shock test, and there's a faction whose core mechanic is "the entire enemy army must take battle shock tests".

Yes, they force it on their shooting face, meaning that even if you fail it you only have to deal with half an enemy shooting face and assault face before you are no longer battleshocked.

Tyranids may be the only ones that can force it in your own phase and even then ask Tyranid players how often that has in any way impacted the game.