Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find it kinda odd that two 5-man squads are usually immune to morale, while one 10-man squad is more vulnerable.
How about a morale rule where casualties on friendly units forces some kind of test on others nearby.

For example a 5 man marine unit gets wiped out, the other one nearby now have to take a test (possibly at -5, but maybe less?)

While this is to harsh now since a loss of morale test currently leads to models dying of heart attacks, it could interesting if this test for nearby casualties instead lead to the affected unit being forced to move away or get pinned down.

It could even be integrated with the current morale rules aswell, to make the new rule an added layer of morale effects. You check at end of round if units take morale losses as usual. but in all phases o the game, if a unit has friendly units wiped out within 6" it has to fall back towards table edge or get pinned (can't move, gets worse at shoting with possibly -1). All units recover form pinned at the end of owning players turn. This would give some strength in numbers for bigger units instead of MSU and would add a weakness to bubble armies.

What do you guys think? Is it a good idea?
-If not, why not?
-If yes, how could it be improved upon?

Except it isn't? A 5 man squad is more easily totally wiped out than a 10 man squad, which is why morale exists to counteract that advantage.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except it isn't? A 5 man squad is more easily totally wiped out than a 10 man squad, which is why morale exists to counteract that advantage.

Then we view the purpose of morale differently. Before 8th smaller units were more likely to take morale tests since you had to cause 25% casualties, which is easier to do on small units. Morale has been a part of the game since the beginning, and I view it as a way to disable enemy units other than killing them.

It's only now in 8th that morale only cause extra wounds, but the intendeed purpose is still the same in my eyes.

I just think the current morale rules are a little lack luster, and this was my rough idea of how to bring them to life again.

Two ten man units are exactly as easy to wipe out as four five man units. They might even be harder, given you'll often waste shots overkilling small units.
All of those small units also have a free squad leader [In many cases] for additional advantage.

The only advantage of a large unit is ablative wounds to protect a heavy weapon, and if I had two per squad, I'm still not convined I'd be better off with two in a ten man or 1 in each five man, due to the effects of moral.

That is just not true.

If you kill 8 models out of a 10 model unit in one turn, the other two are nearly guaranteed to die to Morale.

If you kill 4 models each from two 5 model units, each leadership 7 unit has a 50% chance of losing no other models. That is a 25% chance of losing 0 additional models.

So now we see it is easier to destroy a 10 model unit than two 5 model units.

He does have a point.

MSU might be easier to kill, but their advantage is that you could flood the field with them.

Imagine this scenario:

1x 5 Man unit

1x 10 Man unit

In this scenario obviously the 10 man unit has better suitability initially from an enemy attack

But... if we scale this up

4x 5 man unit

2x 10 Man unit

You start to see that the advantage tilts towards the small units, because you just cant spread your firepower effectively across 4 units rather than 2

Scale up again

6 x 5 Man unit

3x 10 Man unit

Now we see that in terms of suitability the small units have the benefit of unit numbers, at this point firepower will be too spread out towards the 6 man units while concentrating fire on the 3 man units will be more effective

This is one of the inherent traits of the MSU. It forces your opponent to spread out their firepower rather than concentrate it. Now imagine if all those squads had a heavy weapon or a weapon that could do some damage, which one would be harder to fight?

mchammadad wrote:
He does have a point.

MSU might be easier to kill, but their advantage is that you could flood the field with them.

Imagine this scenario:

1x 5 Man unit

1x 10 Man unit

In this scenario obviously the 10 man unit has better suitability initially from an enemy attack

But... if we scale this up

4x 5 man unit

2x 10 Man unit

You start to see that the advantage tilts towards the small units, because you just cant spread your firepower effectively across 4 units rather than 2

Scale up again

6 x 5 Man unit

3x 10 Man unit

Now we see that in terms of suitability the small units have the benefit of unit numbers, at this point firepower will be too spread out towards the 6 man units while concentrating fire on the 3 man units will be more effective

This is one of the inherent traits of the MSU. It forces your opponent to spread out their firepower rather than concentrate it. Now imagine if all those squads had a heavy weapon or a weapon that could do some damage, which one would be harder to fight?

My point exactly! With the same models in different squad sizes, morale has less effect for MSU's. For 50 marines arranged in 10- or 5-man squads, one list takes alot more morale losses just because of organization. There is no comfort in numbers. Why must two 5-man squads have to be so much better?