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.

 kodos wrote:
They still could have done it easier:

Moraltest: D6+lost models VS LD
if lost: units up to 6 models: D3 models flee
6-10 model units: 2D3 models flee
11+ model unit: 1+D6 models flee

not exactly the same but faster with a similar outcome

its the same but in green... the issue is that beside more casulties, morale doesnt matter. Like i said before i like the change because it means my mobs wont auto destroy themselves after getting banged up to much. this has two consequences:
1. after morale i may have a couple of models left, who can in turn do something benificial to the game
2. the enemy doesnt get to min max his shooting because he knows the rest will flee

both are a great addition to the current system.

the issue is that nothing more happens. in earlier editions units would fall back or be pinned and had to regroup first to get back into the fight (effectivly disable them for at least one turn)
the old system had their flaws too though... if you were under half strenght you couldnt regroup anymore and would flee forever... not to speak about the countless fearless units in the game and the god old auto regroup that ATSKNF provided


EDIT:
maybe fallback will be an automated failed morale test, so some models (at least one) will flee after falling back.
would make chaff more important (who really cares about a fleeing guardsman or gretchin) but important units would suffer some significant damage for retreating

torblind wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?

Because:
a) I have basic pattern recognition and experience of literally decades of seeing GW screw up.
b) Ben Crowshaw's Gamer Matrix. You can never be disappointed if you always assume everything is going to be crap.

Your disappointment is yours to handle, take it somewhere else. its off topic. The company (GW) has no obligation to you, likewiese you should have no loyalty to it. You take what it offers or you walk.

"Never complain or hold companies to a higher standard!"

GW actually Does have obligations to its consumers. A few legal ones even.

It's definitely an advantage for my Tyranids. I like to stay in theme for the army and run large groups of gaunts, so by mid-late game being out of synapse is currrently hugely punishing. Now my gaunts have a good chance of continuing to operate.

I imagine this doesn't really impact tournament playing as these units won't be found operating as I like to operate them on tables where players have a high win ratio, but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.

That said, I think this is another case of a rule that is very good in the right context (Age of Sigmar) being transported to the wrong context[ and being marginally improved.

stratigo wrote:

torblind wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I mean, you are trying to rule-lawyer a rule that wasn't even written, just barely paraphrased. Sure, the summary, which is just there to give you an idea of the rules, says the unit. But why assume the worst?

Because:
a) I have basic pattern recognition and experience of literally decades of seeing GW screw up.
b) Ben Crowshaw's Gamer Matrix. You can never be disappointed if you always assume everything is going to be crap.

Your disappointment is yours to handle, take it somewhere else. its off topic. The company (GW) has no obligation to you, likewiese you should have no loyalty to it. You take what it offers or you walk.

"Never complain or hold companies to a higher standard!"

GW actually Does have obligations to its consumers. A few legal ones even.

Well, none to their potential disappointment

 torgoch wrote:
but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.

oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.

I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )

RedNoak wrote:

 torgoch wrote:
but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.

oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.

I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )

Even on the clock, once you learn the ropes, and use the tools (trays etc), they are faster to play than armies with endless rerolls, MSU (because), and other army types. 30 boys charging, with dice app, is honestly not that long. Hordes tend to miss out on many phases of the game, so really the clock is just an issue for a player who has rarely played hordes before

gungo wrote:
my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time

Yeah, I don't know why GW assumes that players' favourite part of tabletop games* is upkeep and not actual gameplay (ie decison making), so their aim is to make it as long and tedious as possible.

Modern board game design: "If a rule doesn't allow the player to make an interesting/meaningful decision, it's out"
GW game design: "Having been rolling dice for 20 minutes roll a die and then roll some dice and do what the game tells you to do"

Gripping gameplay



*-as opposed to video games where it runs automatically in the background not disrupting gameplay

RedNoak wrote:

 torgoch wrote:
but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.

oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.

I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )

Oh there are a fair few on these boards who claim that the horde units are ruining the gane.

I think the new moral rule makes some sense. Historically little is known on how routes start, but it's most likely a knife-edge kind of phenomenon.

Once enough friends are wavering on the battlefield, there's a torrent of wavering. Nobody wants to be the last guy standing, helping the cowards to get away safely.

The moment moral breaks, regardless of how high it is to begin with, it seems plausible that it causes multiple models to flee. If 1/6th (or 2/6ths) is the right ratio is another topic, but it doesn't feel awful with the size of 40k units in mind.

Cyel wrote:

gungo wrote:
my issue is the d6 die rolling is a waste of time

Yeah, I don't know why GW assumes that players' favourite part of tabletop games* is upkeep and not actual gameplay (ie decison making), so their aim is to make it as long and tedious as possible.

Modern board game design: "If a rule doesn't allow the player to make an interesting/meaningful decision, it's out"
GW game design: "Having been rolling dice for 20 minutes roll a die and then roll some dice and do what the game tells you to do"

Gripping gameplay



*-as opposed to video games where it runs automatically in the background not disrupting gameplay

In fairness, if GW did adopt this design philosophy, then they'd probably have to feed the entire 9th edition rulebook into the shredder.

 addnid wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

 torgoch wrote:
but the rule probably isn't written with them in mind.

oh, i think its definatly written with TO players in mind... all the anti horde stuff comes from them..... they are not concerned with hordes beeing killers in CC (because they simply arent) its just because they want to get rid of the board controlling meta. 60 boyz, gretchin or what ever git you're playing, could effectivly shut down 80% of the board.

I literally NEVER heard someone complaining hordes are too strong! in casual games... hordes are really fun when you are not on the clock and moving to cover every bit and angle to min max your movement, even for the otherplayer, since he gets to kill a lot of stuff (and that is mostly fun )

Even on the clock, once you learn the ropes, and use the tools (trays etc), they are faster to play than armies with endless rerolls, MSU (because), and other army types. 30 boys charging, with dice app, is honestly not that long. Hordes tend to miss out on many phases of the game, so really the clock is just an issue for a player who has rarely played hordes before

i dont know... trays defeat the main purpose of board control, and i still have lots of phsycic stuff to do (teleporting 30 boyz is not fast^^) and the rerolls... well orks doing it is as tedious as loyalists doin it... its just not that effective
thats why i was so glad to move to gretchins instead of orks... because i dont care about them shooting, attacking or not dying.

and well i still think positioning 30 models takes always more time than 5 or 10, especially when trying to block deepstriker, flyers or forcing an opponent to move to get into LOS


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Oh there are a fair few on these boards who claim that the horde units are ruining the gane.

and that is mostly because of board control

again... i watch alot of youtube videos... i am suprised again and again when people charge with 30 boyz and expect to win (you know because orks are AWESOME in CC) and then after rolling 3000 dice for 20 minutes 4 enemy models die and the players blames it on dice...

hords are great (beside board control) at clearing chaff (but who isnt?? thats why we call it chaff in the first place) and to tarpit things (but only if you manage to tripoint or wrap units, which takes alot of time...)

 BlaxicanX wrote:

gungo wrote:

It doesn’t really add much to the game from the previous version fundamentally

It allows me to experiment with 10+ model count squads of elite units without feeling like I'm trolling. For the entirety of 8th edition, I wanted to try out 20-man CSM squads, but couldn't because the god awful morale system meant catastrophic losses if the unit could be chunked in a turn and I didn't feel like guzzling CP to ignore the tests. The one time I was dumb enough to take 10-man rubric squads I lost 3 squads in a single morale phase due to each squad getting chipped down by guard vets in the shooting phase. That's garbage. That should never happen. Rolling lucky on smite and killing six models should not result in the remaining 80 points of the squad just vanishing into thin air.

Any faction that has the capability to take elite infantry in big squad sizes benefits from the changes. That includes at minimum all CSM factions, Daemons and Necrons.

As I said before if you made zero attempt to mitigate morale then yes it’s a problem..
As an ork player if I didn’t keep warbosses or nobs near my units, if I didn’t use large mobs of boys, if I didn’t use banners, or strats then he’s morale can be an issue.. however every ork player uses those options to mitigate loses...

As guard we have banners, hqs, commissars, etc.

As Tyranids they have synapse and strats.. which totally shuts down morale.

As chaos you have options such as banners or Hqs and strats... you chose not to use them.

Once all those options disappear or are killed which usually doesn’t happen to mid to late game then your units begin to break from morale..
But here is the thing... That’s exactly what morale is suppose to do!!! That’s the entire point. There was very little wrong with the old morale system. It had very little effect in the game but it was an extremely quick phase... this new iteration still has very little effect but it’s a much longer waste of time... that’s a problem and I assure you if morale issues becomes more prevalent as they claim and this new attrition system becomes the dice rolling time consuming problem similar to what we had with overwatch then I fully expect this morale attrition system to hit the dumpster in the next edition. It is a poorly thought out design.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Any faction that has the capability to take elite infantry in big squad sizes benefits from the changes. That includes at minimum all CSM factions, Daemons and Necrons.

Necrons have generally 10 or smaller with LD10. Not a worry. Literally only unit that worries about morale is necron warriors but morale is least of their worries. And for the record...to worry about morale you first need to be alive in morale phase. And for 2nd anybody who's giving up handicap by using warriors simply made them immune to morale to begin with.

No real change. 5-10 strong LD10 units aren't worried about that anyway. You either aren't facing firepower or you get wiped out anyway to ensure no RP. Nobody leaves it up for chance with morale to survive(or 2CP stratragem to autopass).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
It seems like the consensus is that it seems like a lot of extra work for minimal return. Perhaps there is more to affect morale than what we are currently seeing otherwise I agree it doesn't seem to add much to the game.

It's a bad "concensius" (and an even worse claim since a number of people in this thread are arguing that it's a [i[good[/i] change) since it means we finally have an edition that doesn't screw over hordes via moral and, if we're lucky (you know, since GW has a track record of good ideas that don't stick the landing), GW can back off of some of those "ignore morale" effects so we can see more interesting game scenarios.

There is a lot more design space in the new system, and I sincerely hope GW uses it properly.

With moral fixed there are two things I need to see for hordes: bonus attacks for large units since hordes usually don't have a massive number of attacks on a model by model basis (and even when they do they have trouble getting the entire unit into melee), and missions that encourage us to see larger units on the table top for scoring purposes, like the Four Pillars mission that only scores after your opponent has had a chance to uproot your unit off the objective while you take your action.

If we get those two things then I think hordes will have enough in their favor, with good use of the new terrain rules, for us to see them early in the edition and not see the meta go MSU heavy like some have claimed.

The thing is though, it isn't morale ignoring effects that make morale un-impactful. The vast majority of the time, what makes morale un-impactful is the fact that

1) Standard Leadership for a unit is about 7-8.
2) Standard squad size for infantry is about 5.

Squads that actually field 10-man units are actually the minority, because for the most part, 2 small squads do the same job as 1 big squad, but usually with more good upgrade weapons, more command points generated, and less issues with morale. As well you're basically never going to spend your command points on some crappy CP-generating chaff infantry, so the "CPs would be better on a 10+ man squad" thing is pretty immaterial. Even some of the chaff-ier infantry units out there like Kabalites, Skitarii and Fire Warriors are pretty much always fielded as 5-mans, and any time people have the choice to do that, they do.

Your odds of ever actually having a morale test with any real stakes is near nonexistent in 5-man squads because morale is based on casualties taken this turn, and that is an absolute maximum of 4. Even killing 4/5 guys a basic LD7 squad has a 50-50 chance of that fifth dude not fleeing.

You've got:

Guardians
Guardsmen
Orks
Cultists
GSC neophytes
Gants (Though those have an army-wide ignore morale rule)
Daemons

That's pretty much who morale is for in 8th edition 40k. As a game-wide system, it just kind of sucks. The basic mechanic is dull (models just vanishing into thin air) the trigger is casualties, which makes it extremely unimpactful for the regular squad sizes that you actually see in 40k.

In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.

the new morale system is good only in that it becomes not a concern to anyone, and not just not a concern to 5-man squads. At this point, it may as well not even really be a thing. In terms of execution though, I'd consider it the worst morale system I've seen in 40k.

It's got all the good points:

1) Unlikely. As I just outlined above, now with more because GW is going to be removing some -LD abilities and turning them into win-more -Attrition abilities
2) Unimpactful. fail morale, 1/6 or 1/3 casualties occur, and it's still going to be on squads that are most likely already decimated by the point you took the test.
3) Unintuitive. So first I need to roll 1 die, then I need to roll 1 die for each remaining squad member, and at the point where any unit fails the same fractions are going to flee no matter what they are. A unit of soulless necrons and hyper-elite Custodes and craven gretchins all fail a morale test, and the unit that is MOST LIKELY to have a greater percentage of models fleeing is the Custodes, because they're probably under 1/2 casualties? Hmm.

Morale is much more devastating in AoS because a stormcast eternal has a base 6 bravery instead of the 8 of any marine squad, and in that game normally taking bigger squads is better than smaller ones unless you are just fulling your battleline needs or to add screens.


That doesnt mean is a good morale system. At the end of the day is just more stuff dying. But when GW tried to apply that morale system to 40k just forgot the style of the game is completely different, and the stat lines too.

The best morale system GW has done (At least in the big games, I have only played those, blood bowl and LOTR) was the combat resolution from Fantasy, basically.

I really like the new morale system, and I am sure those attrition rolls will get "debuffed" (stuff will die on 1-2-3 instead of just a 1) by stuff.

Yeah elites should not flee as easy as non elites, nothing wrong with that. Elites will take the "lost test by just 1" a lot more badly that non elites.

gungo wrote:

A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6

This rule permits hordes without constant babysitters and requires a lot more focus to bring down. What if they kill 20? I lose 1 and then 3. You literally have to kill 28 and hope to get lucky or kill 29 to wipe the squad. Now couple that with Tide of Traitors. There are other units like Necrons that benefit greatly as well. Not all hordes are immune.

Also in regards to blast -

Two Manticores vs 5++ Cultists

Old

28 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 8.3
Average Morale Test - 12 + 6 additional losses

New

48 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 14
Morale Test Failed - 1 lost
Attrition - 2.5

Total Losses

Old : 14.3
New : 17.5

The Manticores almost doubled in shots, but the squad took only 22% more in losses. And we don't know their points cost and we're not likely to see two Manticores often. Otherwise by the morale immune horde metric a Manticore will scoop up 3 more models than before. Hardly devastating.

 addnid wrote:
I really like the new morale system, and I am sure those attrition rolls will get "debuffed" (stuff will die on 1-2-3 instead of just a 1) by stuff.

Yeah elites should not flee as easy as non elites, nothing wrong with that. Elites will take the "lost test by just 1" a lot more badly that non elites.

The difference between elites and non-elites is supposed to be through the Ld stat, though, not through unit size. Five Marines shouldn't be less susceptible to morale than ten Marines, they're not any more 'elite'.

After walking through some scenarios with the new rules, I think I'm generally fine with the change. But GW could make it behave a lot more intuitively, and actually punishing to MSU, if they added a rule saying that a unit under 6 models tests on a -1 and a unit over 10 models tests at +1. Just that little nudge to make 5-man squads care about morale sometimes ever, and large hordes not auto-fail quite as easily when they take a handful of casualties.

Cultists would lose 5 to morale in the second instance-they're at half strength, so Attrition is on a 2-, not just a 1.

the_scotsman wrote:
In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.

I don't know if maybe things got dropped across editions, but back in 3rd/4th there were penalties to Ld based on cumulative casualties sustained, so a squad at under a quarter strength was much more likely to break than one that just lost a single dude.

But often, morale became just as irrelevant as it is now, because Marines rarely failed and had ATSKNF, while everyone else had Fearless all over the place, or other mechanics that rendered it pointless (eg Ork mobs). It was mostly relevant for Guard, sometimes Tau, and... that's about it.

If morale isn't meant to be a major part of the game, then I'm fine with it just causing some extra casualties every once in a while. I just wish it actually had some chance of occurring to small units.

 addnid wrote:
I really like the new morale system, and I am sure those attrition rolls will get "debuffed" (stuff will die on 1-2-3 instead of just a 1) by stuff.

Yeah elites should not flee as easy as non elites, nothing wrong with that. Elites will take the "lost test by just 1" a lot more badly that non elites.

Except my point is that they won't, because elites will just never fail morale.

0.9% chance of a fifth space marine fleeing out of a regular 5-man squad under the new morale system. That is literally the ONLY situation where new morale will ever effect normal elite units: when you kill SPECIFICALLY 3 models and leave 2, and then they fail, and then that fifth squad member rolls a 1-2 on the attrition check.

That's IT. kill 2/5? LD8 units or better cannot fail morale.

Kill 4/5? New morale is identical to old morale.

It is never, ever going to come up. Elites are not hurt or nerfed in any way by attrition, because people are not going to look at the new edition's rules and say "Gwarsh, morale hurts me more now if I take a 10-man squad instead of a 5-man squad, oh and there's also blast weapons now, better start taking 10-man squads like I wasn't doing in 8th edition already!!!!"

Min squads are optimal in 8th 99% of the time.

Min squads will now be optimal in 9th 99.9999999999999999% of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.

I don't know if maybe things got dropped across editions, but back in 3rd/4th there were penalties to Ld based on cumulative casualties sustained, so a squad at under a quarter strength was much more likely to break than one that just lost a single dude.

But often, morale became just as irrelevant as it is now, because Marines rarely failed and had ATSKNF, while everyone else had Fearless all over the place, or other mechanics that rendered it pointless (eg Ork mobs). It was mostly relevant for Guard, sometimes Tau, and... that's about it.

If morale isn't meant to be a major part of the game, then I'm fine with it just causing some extra casualties every once in a while. I just wish it actually had some chance of occurring to small units.

If morale is totally irrelevant in most situations, then I would rather that either

A) it be redesigned to be relevant

or

B) it be removed, and units and armies whose existence hinges on the existence of a functional morale mechanic get redesigned.

At this point, I'm fairly sure there are more different units and abilities in the game that rely on morale being a relevant, useful mechanic than there are units against whom morale is a relevant, useful mechanic.

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
It seems like the consensus is that it seems like a lot of extra work for minimal return. Perhaps there is more to affect morale than what we are currently seeing otherwise I agree it doesn't seem to add much to the game.

It's a bad "concensius" (and an even worse claim since a number of people in this thread are arguing that it's a [i[good[/i] change) since it means we finally have an edition that doesn't screw over hordes via moral and, if we're lucky (you know, since GW has a track record of good ideas that don't stick the landing), GW can back off of some of those "ignore morale" effects so we can see more interesting game scenarios.

There is a lot more design space in the new system, and I sincerely hope GW uses it properly.

With moral fixed there are two things I need to see for hordes: bonus attacks for large units since hordes usually don't have a massive number of attacks on a model by model basis (and even when they do they have trouble getting the entire unit into melee), and missions that encourage us to see larger units on the table top for scoring purposes, like the Four Pillars mission that only scores after your opponent has had a chance to uproot your unit off the objective while you take your action.

If we get those two things then I think hordes will have enough in their favor, with good use of the new terrain rules, for us to see them early in the edition and not see the meta go MSU heavy like some have claimed.

The thing is though, it isn't morale ignoring effects that make morale un-impactful. The vast majority of the time, what makes morale un-impactful is the fact that

1) Standard Leadership for a unit is about 7-8.
2) Standard squad size for infantry is about 5.

Squads that actually field 10-man units are actually the minority, because for the most part, 2 small squads do the same job as 1 big squad, but usually with more good upgrade weapons, more command points generated, and less issues with morale. As well you're basically never going to spend your command points on some crappy CP-generating chaff infantry, so the "CPs would be better on a 10+ man squad" thing is pretty immaterial. Even some of the chaff-ier infantry units out there like Kabalites, Skitarii and Fire Warriors are pretty much always fielded as 5-mans, and any time people have the choice to do that, they do.

Your odds of ever actually having a morale test with any real stakes is near nonexistent in 5-man squads because morale is based on casualties taken this turn, and that is an absolute maximum of 4. Even killing 4/5 guys a basic LD7 squad has a 50-50 chance of that fifth dude not fleeing.

You've got:

Guardians
Guardsmen
Orks
Cultists
GSC neophytes
Gants (Though those have an army-wide ignore morale rule)
Daemons

That's pretty much who morale is for in 8th edition 40k. As a game-wide system, it just kind of sucks. The basic mechanic is dull (models just vanishing into thin air) the trigger is casualties, which makes it extremely unimpactful for the regular squad sizes that you actually see in 40k.

In the old system, the greater swinginess of morale made it more worthwhile to check. It was always a 2d6 roll, so even a LD10 squad would have some small chance of failure if they took even a single casualty. The weirdness came from the fact that a squad that got totally decimated had the same chance of failing as the squad you pinged one duder off.

the new morale system is good only in that it becomes not a concern to anyone, and not just not a concern to 5-man squads. At this point, it may as well not even really be a thing. In terms of execution though, I'd consider it the worst morale system I've seen in 40k.

It's got all the good points:

1) Unlikely. As I just outlined above, now with more because GW is going to be removing some -LD abilities and turning them into win-more -Attrition abilities
2) Unimpactful. fail morale, 1/6 or 1/3 casualties occur, and it's still going to be on squads that are most likely already decimated by the point you took the test.
3) Unintuitive. So first I need to roll 1 die, then I need to roll 1 die for each remaining squad member, and at the point where any unit fails the same fractions are going to flee no matter what they are. A unit of soulless necrons and hyper-elite Custodes and craven gretchins all fail a morale test, and the unit that is MOST LIKELY to have a greater percentage of models fleeing is the Custodes, because they're probably under 1/2 casualties? Hmm.

If I could I’d exalt this a thousand times people don’t get it..
The only good news is this morale system is so bad I fully expect it to die in a dumpster fire in the next edition...

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
.9%>0%

I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.

And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.

That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.

This is where neg mods come into play.

Previously you had to go REALLY deep to have an effect and that required too much commitment to off a few marines. Now you can go broad. A -2 or -3 is relatively easy to achieve. Butcher cannons split firing and Haarken cover quite an area and that's -3 without effort (presuming BC stays that way). 3 dead is a 45% on marines in that scenario.

And then we remember Primaris have two wounds so removing a model is very useful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
.9%>0%

I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.

And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.

That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.

This is where neg mods come into play.

Previously you had to go REALLY deep to have an effect and that required too much commitment to off a few marines. Now you can go broad. A -2 or -3 is relatively easy to achieve. Butcher cannons split firing and Haarken cover quite an area and that's -3 without effort (presuming BC stays that way). 3 dead is a 45% on marines in that scenario.

And then we remember Primaris have two wounds so removing a model is very useful.

Which is actually worse than before. Since before, -X to Leadership on a failed check translates DIRECTLY to extra casualties. Whereas with this change, it translates to an increased chance of one casualty, and then more dice rolls for maybe more.

 kodos wrote:
They still could have done it easier:

Moraltest: D6+lost models VS LD
if lost: units up to 6 models: D3 models flee
6-10 model units: 2D3 models flee
11+ model unit: 1+D6 models flee

not exactly the same but faster with a similar outcome

5 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 33% for 1
Yours - 2 extra - more punitive

10 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 16% on 6 for 1 more
Your system - 4 extra - vastly more punitive

It isn't the same for sure and completely ignores the half strength effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is actually worse than before. Since before, -X to Leadership on a failed check translates DIRECTLY to extra casualties. Whereas with this change, it translates to an increased chance of one casualty, and then more dice rolls for maybe more.

But you never got that benefit. You had to go hard to make it happen and so it did not - the investment was not worth the payoff. Now it can be, because you don't have to invest as much. That's the difference.

New lore article on necrons:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/25/who-are-the-szarekhan-dynastygw-homepage-post-2/

And pretty sweet art to go with it:

I would just bring back the old system where units physically retreat instead of just disappearing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sotahullu wrote:
New lore article on necrons:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/25/who-are-the-szarekhan-dynastygw-homepage-post-2/

And pretty sweet art to go with it:

Spoiler:

Yeah, the new artwork is nice.
The article also implies that the Szarekhan are going to get some sort of passive psychic resistance.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
They still could have done it easier:

Moraltest: D6+lost models VS LD
if lost: units up to 6 models: D3 models flee
6-10 model units: 2D3 models flee
11+ model unit: 1+D6 models flee

not exactly the same but faster with a similar outcome

5 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 33% for 1
Yours - 2 extra - more punitive

10 models, 3 dead
New system - 1 extra, 16% on 6 for 1 more
Your system - 4 extra - vastly more punitive

It isn't the same for sure and completely ignores the half strength effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is actually worse than before. Since before, -X to Leadership on a failed check translates DIRECTLY to extra casualties. Whereas with this change, it translates to an increased chance of one casualty, and then more dice rolls for maybe more.

But you never got that benefit. You had to go hard to make it happen and so it did not - the investment was not worth the payoff. Now it can be, because you don't have to invest as much. That's the difference.

Except you still have to go hard.

-3 Leadership on Imperial Marines are only a 25% failure rate at one casualty. And if you do get them to fail, you still only have a 1/3 chance of getting a singular extra model to flee.

GW wrote:As the name suggests, the Szarekhan are the dynasty of Szarekh himself, the last Silent King. Before the Great Sleep, they were considered far and away the most prestigious and influential dynasty. But that changed with Szarekh’s disappearance…

So now I somehow have to work "Marlowe" into my Necron army.

GW wrote:So skilled are [Szarekhan Crypteks] that even their standard foot-troops are given a small amount to shield them from the foul energies of the warp.

So that'll be their dynastic trait - some sort of bonus against psykers.

GW wrote:A new set of paints will be released to help you achieve that aged brass look, alongside our first-ever Technical paint formulated to create glowing effects!

That I gotta see.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gungo wrote:

A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6

This rule permits hordes without constant babysitters and requires a lot more focus to bring down. What if they kill 20? I lose 1 and then 3. You literally have to kill 28 and hope to get lucky or kill 29 to wipe the squad. Now couple that with Tide of Traitors. There are other units like Necrons that benefit greatly as well. Not all hordes are immune.

Also in regards to blast -

Two Manticores vs 5++ Cultists

Old

28 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 8.3
Average Morale Test - 12 + 6 additional losses

New

48 * .5 * .888 * .666 = 14
Morale Test Failed - 1 lost
Attrition - 2.5

Total Losses

Old : 14.3
New : 17.5

The Manticores almost doubled in shots, but the squad took only 22% more in losses. And we don't know their points cost and we're not likely to see two Manticores often. Otherwise by the morale immune horde metric a Manticore will scoop up 3 more models than before. Hardly devastating.

Who is using a Manticore to kill cultists? I jest, I jest. But no really, I get it.