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.

Honestly the moral phase is not fun, not fluffy, and just crap in everyone. It doesn't change the game other than killing 1-3 extra models in a unit which a lot of armies are immune to past the first model fleeing anyways. It doesn't feel like a "Moral" issue either and gives us no tactics or wants to use moral rules.

Some ideas are this:

When a unit loses models you take a moral test, add the casualties and if they fail the check that unit is now Pinned
Pinned units half all movements and can not Fallback. The unit can only shoot and charge the nearest enemy unit. They also only hit on a 6+

This will make failing a moral check actually scary for an objective based game and bringing -LD units an option.

What do you think?

Too punishing for some, irrelevant still for others.

I have 30 Plaguebearers. (Replace with any 30 other Lesser Daemons to taste.) I lose 6-at Leadership 7, I need to roll a 1 to have them be any sort of useful at all. 5/6 chance of being neutered.

Now, compare to 5 Intercessors. They lose 4-they now have a 1/9 chance of being made even more useless than a single lone guy already is.

I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

 JNAProductions wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

I should clarify, it’s fluffy for some armies, and as for tyranids, without synapse they lose connection to the hive mind which dictates all of their behavior. Without it they are forced to think for themselves which they have never had to do so simply flee.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

I should clarify, it’s fluffy for some armies, and as for tyranids, without synapse they lose connection to the hive mind which dictates all of their behavior. Without it they are forced to think for themselves which they have never had to do so simply flee.

Why? Why is their base instinct to flee?

I can understand penalties to-hit, representing their lack of focus and coordination from the Hive Mind. But why would they be spawned with any inclination to do anything but strike the foe?

 JNAProductions wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

This sounds better than a moral phase imo, just put moral rules on units that should have it and remove the phase, nice idea.

PS to me running away is not fluffy at all, remember we are playing a small part of a large scale battle, where are you running to? lol into another battle? yeah, being scared and hiding, or running to cover, etc.. is IMO more fluffy.

 JNAProductions wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

I'd be okay with this. The vast majority of units in 40k have compelling reasons to not lose their cool in the middle of battle. Marines are brainwashed zealots. Aspect warriors are axe murderer samurai fighting for their species' survival. Drukhari go out of their way to see way more frightening/gruesome things on the weekend. Tyranids can be programmed to not have a flight instinct. Daemons are supposedly incomprehensible murder spirits whose bodily destruction doesn't necessarily even mean "death" the same way it does for other creatures.

The units for whom morale matters are the minority. Making morale a special rule that only impacts them makes sense.

Of course, my pet preference is this:
* Take morale tests modified by casualties just like now.
* If you fail, you don't lose any models. Instead, you're "suppressed" until the end of the next player turn. (Or "broken" or "pinned" or whatever.)
* Label any stratagem, aura, etc. in the game that reflects units following orders or executing complicated maneuvers as "command" abilities.
* Suppressed units cannot benefit from command abilities.

Boom. Units that are taking heavy casualties are more likely to struggle to execute complicated maneuvers. Armies that focus on fear/disruption (like Night Lords) have a tangible benefit in the form of denying their opponent buffs. The only extra bookkeeping is sticking a "suppressed" marker next to a unit that fails morale. The hardest part is going through and deciding what counts as a command ability.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

I'd be okay with this. The vast majority of units in 40k have compelling reasons to not lose their cool in the middle of battle. Marines are brainwashed zealots. Aspect warriors are axe murderer samurai fighting for their species' survival. Drukhari go out of their way to see way more frightening/gruesome things on the weekend. Tyranids can be programmed to not have a flight instinct. Daemons are supposedly incomprehensible murder spirits whose bodily destruction doesn't necessarily even mean "death" the same way it does for other creatures.

The units for whom morale matters are the minority. Making morale a special rule that only impacts them makes sense.

Of course, my pet preference is this:
* Take morale tests modified by casualties just like now.
* If you fail, you don't lose any models. Instead, you're "suppressed" until the end of the next player turn. (Or "broken" or "pinned" or whatever.)
* Label any stratagem, aura, etc. in the game that reflects units following orders or executing complicated maneuvers as "command" abilities.
* Suppressed units cannot benefit from command abilities.

Boom. Units that are taking heavy casualties are more likely to struggle to execute complicated maneuvers. Armies that focus on fear/disruption (like Night Lords) have a tangible benefit in the form of denying their opponent buffs. The only extra bookkeeping is sticking a "suppressed" marker next to a unit that fails morale. The hardest part is going through and deciding what counts as a command ability.

That's also a good idea.

For what it's worth, here are the usual buffs I applied to my Plaguebearers:

-Poxbringer +1 Strength
-Spoilpox Scrivener +2" Move, +1 to-hit, and 7+ to-hit generates an extra attack
-Virulent Blessing (Psychic Power) +1 to-wound, 7+ doubles damage

Of them, I'd probably make the Scrivener's auras Command, but not the Poxbringer.

That seems reasonable. I don't know Nurgley stuff very well, but going off of names, I assume that the scrivener is somehow whipping the plaguebearers into action while the other two things are more "physical" (in so much as anything daemonic is physical) effects that are being applied to the bearers regardless of how focused they are on the task at hand. Is that about right?

Asuryani psychic powers are a bit harder to nail down because sometimes the fluff indicates the farseers is telepathically saying, "shoot left on my mark," and sometimes the fluff makes it seem like the seers are more... collapsing the wave function in such a way that their preferred possibility happens to be the one that comes to be.

Wyldhunt wrote:
That seems reasonable. I don't know Nurgley stuff very well, but going off of names, I assume that the scrivener is somehow whipping the plaguebearers into action while the other two things are more "physical" (in so much as anything daemonic is physical) effects that are being applied to the bearers regardless of how focused they are on the task at hand. Is that about right?

Asuryani psychic powers are a bit harder to nail down because sometimes the fluff indicates the farseers is telepathically saying, "shoot left on my mark," and sometimes the fluff makes it seem like the seers are more... collapsing the wave function in such a way that their preferred possibility happens to be the one that comes to be.

I'd make psychic powers NOT Command abilities. You already have to cast them.

And yeah-the Poxbringer is literally empowering them with its presence, whereas the Scrivener is directing them.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

Is it, though?

Honestly, given the current state of 40k, I'd rather remove morale for most armies, and reintroduce it as a rule for, say, Grots, Cultists, Guard Infantry, but not Marines and Nids.

I mean, why should Tyranids EVER take morale? Even in the case where they're out of synapse (which blankets the entire planet, but whatever) they're literally bred for that battle. Not war in general-that specific battle. They don't have a stomach or anything else they need to survive long-term, they just kill.

I'd be okay with this. The vast majority of units in 40k have compelling reasons to not lose their cool in the middle of battle. Marines are brainwashed zealots. Aspect warriors are axe murderer samurai fighting for their species' survival. Drukhari go out of their way to see way more frightening/gruesome things on the weekend. Tyranids can be programmed to not have a flight instinct. Daemons are supposedly incomprehensible murder spirits whose bodily destruction doesn't necessarily even mean "death" the same way it does for other creatures.

The units for whom morale matters are the minority. Making morale a special rule that only impacts them makes sense.

Of course, my pet preference is this:
* Take morale tests modified by casualties just like now.
* If you fail, you don't lose any models. Instead, you're "suppressed" until the end of the next player turn. (Or "broken" or "pinned" or whatever.)
* Label any stratagem, aura, etc. in the game that reflects units following orders or executing complicated maneuvers as "command" abilities.
* Suppressed units cannot benefit from command abilities.

Boom. Units that are taking heavy casualties are more likely to struggle to execute complicated maneuvers. Armies that focus on fear/disruption (like Night Lords) have a tangible benefit in the form of denying their opponent buffs. The only extra bookkeeping is sticking a "suppressed" marker next to a unit that fails morale. The hardest part is going through and deciding what counts as a command ability.

I like this idea too.

So we have a few good ideas now. Keep it going.

I like the idea of units becoming suppressed and not being able to use stratagems, benefit from psychic powers or perform Actions (like raising banners).

I don't know how much bookkeeping it would take but we could introduce suppression tokens. I would then have:

Suppressed - a unt with any suppression tokens is suppressed and cannot use stratagems etc. but otherwise acts normally

Broken - a unit which has more suppression tokens than its Leadership value is Broken, and cannot move or charge, and may only target the nearest eligible enemy unit with ranged attacks, which hit on 6's.

Morale Phase:
Roll as we do now. If you pass, remove all suppression tokens. If you fail, add that many suppression tokens.

some guns would also gain the "suppressive" rule, which would state that any unit suffering 1 or more wounds from a weapon with this special rule gains 1 suppression token at the end of the phase.


That all said, it may introduce too much bookkeeping. Though suppression suggested already needs people to note which units are and aren't suppressed.

I would also definitely apply "command" rule to auras. getting marines to lose their rerolls could tip the balance!

 some bloke wrote:
I like the idea of units becoming suppressed and not being able to use stratagems, benefit from psychic powers or perform Actions (like raising banners).

I don't know how much bookkeeping it would take but we could introduce suppression tokens. I would then have:

Suppressed - a unt with any suppression tokens is suppressed and cannot use stratagems etc. but otherwise acts normally

Broken - a unit which has more suppression tokens than its Leadership value is Broken, and cannot move or charge, and may only target the nearest eligible enemy unit with ranged attacks, which hit on 6's.

Morale Phase:
Roll as we do now. If you pass, remove all suppression tokens. If you fail, add that many suppression tokens.

some guns would also gain the "suppressive" rule, which would state that any unit suffering 1 or more wounds from a weapon with this special rule gains 1 suppression token at the end of the phase.


That all said, it may introduce too much bookkeeping. Though suppression suggested already needs people to note which units are and aren't suppressed.

I would also definitely apply "command" rule to auras. getting marines to lose their rerolls could tip the balance!

Once again, hits big units really hard.

A Marine Devastator Squad (so you kill the Sarge first) loses 4 guys. They fail on a 6 (even after the reroll) and get...

2 Suppression tokens. They're barely suppressed, not even CLOSE to being broken.

A 10-Man Dev Squad loses 9 guys, leaving one man left. They roll a 6 on morale (after the reroll) and gain 7 suppression tokens. STILL not broken.

Whereas my 30-man Plaguebearer squad loses 10 guys. They're now suppressed on a 1 (unless you keep 1s always pass) and broken on 5.

Make 'activating a unit' to require d6 roll & compare to Ld, Add 1 to the roll for each model removed as casualty.

If roll exceeds the Ld, then the [unit selected to act]'s phase ends immediately. Otherwise, the [unit selected to act] acts as normal.

Roll of 1 automatically passes and the selected unit acts as normal.

 skchsan wrote:
Make 'activating a unit' to require d6 roll & compare to Ld, Add 1 to the roll for each model removed as casualty.

If roll exceeds the Ld, then the [unit selected to act]'s phase ends immediately. Otherwise, the [unit selected to act] acts as normal.

Roll of 1 automatically passes and the selected unit acts as normal.

That powers up Alpha strikes ridiculously.

T1, facing, say, Guard, I spread my fire around, kill about four guys from each squad. Then, on their turn, half their squads just do nothing.

Alternatively, it forces you to a character and vehicle heavy meta, since those are immune to this, effectively.

And, once again, it craps on hordes.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That powers up Alpha strikes ridiculously.

T1, facing, say, Guard, I spread my fire around, kill about four guys from each squad. Then, on their turn, half their squads just do nothing.

This sounds more like a tactical play than alpha strike abuse. The said player can easily have focused all their shots elsewhere, knowing that whatever s/he has in range of the said guardsmen wouldn't be able to make a big impact.

Also, under the proposal unmodified roll of 1 is auto pass so the guardsmen will always have 1 in 6 chance of acting as normal. You can also bring a commisar to buff their Ld.

The proposal also calls for morale check at each phase, so even if you failed the check to move, the unit may still pass the check during shooting phase.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Alternatively, it forces you to a character and vehicle heavy meta, since those are immune to this, effectively.

Single model units <10W are susceptible to high S, high D weapons - so they already have a counter against them.

Single model units +10W can be made to use their damage charts or roll 2d6 for activation check.

Also, 9th ed FOC deters you from going all characters so that point is moot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And, once again, it craps on hordes.

It only craps on hordes by the virtue of these horde units having low Ld in the first place.

There are no mechanical bias towards hordes in this proposal.

There's practically no difference between Ld 1~6 - Ld value given to typical 'horde' units (more likely to fail than pass, # casualty based on rolls), no difference in Ld in 7~8 range - Ld value typically given to 'elite' infantry who generally operates in 1-5 man unit (practically immune to morale except for unlucky rolls), and then you have your Ld 9~10 which are essentially immune to morale (by the time when morale actually does come into play, the unit is already depleted enough for the results of the morale test to be negligible - its a difference between 1 model left standing vs 2 model left standing).

The thing is, the 40k stats have a general trend where there's linear correlation between Sv, T & Ld where lower the model/units' Sv and/or T, they generally have low Ld. This trend hasn't been explored in full in any of the editions yet. And by design, theses low Ld units are supposed to be taken in large blocks to make an impact - allow me to reiterate: by design. By that extension, Ld is meant to be a system that keeps hordes in check, and yet no profound system has been introduced yet.

And yet, we have nothing that really 'counters' hordes, is there? The best thing we have now in 9th ed is the return of the blast rule - and yet can we really say this is a 'counter' when it only guarantees number of shots when they're over 5 models?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I like the idea of units becoming suppressed and not being able to use stratagems, benefit from psychic powers or perform Actions (like raising banners).

I don't know how much bookkeeping it would take but we could introduce suppression tokens. I would then have:

Suppressed - a unt with any suppression tokens is suppressed and cannot use stratagems etc. but otherwise acts normally

Broken - a unit which has more suppression tokens than its Leadership value is Broken, and cannot move or charge, and may only target the nearest eligible enemy unit with ranged attacks, which hit on 6's.

Morale Phase:
Roll as we do now. If you pass, remove all suppression tokens. If you fail, add that many suppression tokens.

some guns would also gain the "suppressive" rule, which would state that any unit suffering 1 or more wounds from a weapon with this special rule gains 1 suppression token at the end of the phase.


That all said, it may introduce too much bookkeeping. Though suppression suggested already needs people to note which units are and aren't suppressed.

I would also definitely apply "command" rule to auras. getting marines to lose their rerolls could tip the balance!

Once again, hits big units really hard.

A Marine Devastator Squad (so you kill the Sarge first) loses 4 guys. They fail on a 6 (even after the reroll) and get...

2 Suppression tokens. They're barely suppressed, not even CLOSE to being broken.

A 10-Man Dev Squad loses 9 guys, leaving one man left. They roll a 6 on morale (after the reroll) and gain 7 suppression tokens. STILL not broken.

Whereas my 30-man Plaguebearer squad loses 10 guys. They're now suppressed on a 1 (unless you keep 1s always pass) and broken on 5.

Maybe the game doesn't have enough balance on how to get a moral test?

Why not do something like the old ways, old Moral had a rule once you are at or lower than 25% of unit size you have to take a moral test each turn, and if you loose more than 50% in the same turn you took a test, you could do something like that. This makes hyper elites harder to take the test (3mans) but effects 5mans the same as 10mans and even 30mans for the most part.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I like the idea of units becoming suppressed and not being able to use stratagems, benefit from psychic powers or perform Actions (like raising banners).

I don't know how much bookkeeping it would take but we could introduce suppression tokens. I would then have:

Suppressed - a unt with any suppression tokens is suppressed and cannot use stratagems etc. but otherwise acts normally

Broken - a unit which has more suppression tokens than its Leadership value is Broken, and cannot move or charge, and may only target the nearest eligible enemy unit with ranged attacks, which hit on 6's.

Morale Phase:
Roll as we do now. If you pass, remove all suppression tokens. If you fail, add that many suppression tokens.

some guns would also gain the "suppressive" rule, which would state that any unit suffering 1 or more wounds from a weapon with this special rule gains 1 suppression token at the end of the phase.


That all said, it may introduce too much bookkeeping. Though suppression suggested already needs people to note which units are and aren't suppressed.

I would also definitely apply "command" rule to auras. getting marines to lose their rerolls could tip the balance!

Once again, hits big units really hard.

A Marine Devastator Squad (so you kill the Sarge first) loses 4 guys. They fail on a 6 (even after the reroll) and get...

2 Suppression tokens. They're barely suppressed, not even CLOSE to being broken.

A 10-Man Dev Squad loses 9 guys, leaving one man left. They roll a 6 on morale (after the reroll) and gain 7 suppression tokens. STILL not broken.

Whereas my 30-man Plaguebearer squad loses 10 guys. They're now suppressed on a 1 (unless you keep 1s always pass) and broken on 5.

Maybe the game doesn't have enough balance on how to get a moral test?

Why not do something like the old ways, old Moral had a rule once you are at or lower than 25% of unit size you have to take a moral test each turn, and if you loose more than 50% in the same turn you took a test, you could do something like that. This makes hyper elites harder to take the test (3mans) but effects 5mans the same as 10mans and even 30mans for the most part.

% based system scales unevenly as turns progress because of rounding issue, which at a certain point, makes anyone potentially immune (can no longer fall below X% i.e. single model) or make them unable to beat morale check (a single casualty causes to fall below X%).

For example, unit of 20, unit of 19, unit of 18 & unit of 17 all needs to take the 25% casualty morale test when they lose 5 models - meaning having a unit of 17 models is more 'morale efficient' than a unit of 20.

On the other hand, a unit of 4 models is no more 'morale efficient' than a single model unit (obviously you wouldn't need to check for morale if the unit is wiped out, but for arguments sake).

TLDR - the 25% base system pushes for 4n+1, where n = coefficient for multiples of 4, when determining the 'best size' for units for the purpose of morale, and thus scales unevenly.

Morale has always been a rubbish system in 40k. It's evidenced by the fact that 50% of units in 6th and 7th were Fearless, because otherwise they were useless.

A better approach to morale would be to make it a check for using stratagems.

roll 2D6, if you roll higher than morale, you may not use the strat on this unit (you don't lose the CP for trying).
+1 if you are below 25% of starting strength
+2 if you are below 50% of starting strength

so the new steps would be select a unit to use stratagem on > roll morale to see if they can use the stratagem > either proceed with the stratagem or use them normally.

Stratagems would need to be overhauled a little so they all work immediately, rather than "at the start of X phase" - so replace "at the start of the fight phase" with "when a unit declares a charge" or "when a unit is selected to fight in close combat" - the relevant time frame.

then we remove the morale phase of units running away entirely.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

It’s only fluffy for certain guard regiments and conscripts.
Not really for much else.

Andredre wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

It’s only fluffy for certain guard regiments and conscripts.
Not really for much else.

It's worth noting that morale should be reflecting tactical retreats, getting pinned, etc. It should really be an impact of attacking an enemy, which isn't necessarily physical damage.

40k is very much concerned with killing the enemy - if you didn't kill it, you failed. There's no pinning any more, and there never really was covering fire or tactical retreats.

I don't know how you could accurately reflect these into 40k without putting another layer of imbalance into the game, though.

Fluffwise, if the marines are taking heavy fire from, say, a mob of flashgits, they aren't going to calmly walk out into a hail of high-velocity anti-armour fire and steadily aim their guns and shoot back. They are probably going to stay in cover, or try to get to it!

options for making morale - whether it be through fear or a tactical decision - affect a unit are seldom very smooth. can't move - sucks to be a CC unit. can't shoot? sucks to be a gunline. Can't move or shoot? just sucks. no-one wants their units to be forced to do nothing.

Which is where my suggestion comes in - alow units to work entirely autonomously if they fail their morale, but refuse to let them work beyond their own capabilities - no stratagems, no psychic powers, no auras.

40k currently works on a simple premise - any consequence = death. failed morale? models die. failed a save? models die. can't place a model? models die. out of coherency? models die. and lo and behold, everyone was complaining that it was too lethal of a game.


Instead, add a "broken" facility to the game. then you can say: Failed morale? squad broken. Failed a save? models die. Can't place a model? models die. out of coherency? squad broken, and if you're still out at the end of your movement, models die.

Broken = no auras, no stratagems. just their basic stats.

Andredre wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

It’s only fluffy for certain guard regiments and conscripts.
Not really for much else.

Yeah, plus orks, eldar, daemons, Tau, Adeptus mechanicus, genestealer cults.... so pretty much anyone but space marines would for one reason or another need morale.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

Andredre wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I think morale is fluffy. If an army is disheartened to see many of its compatriots felled by enemy fire, they’re more likely to see a battle as hopeless and run to fight again another day.

It’s only fluffy for certain guard regiments and conscripts.
Not really for much else.

Yeah, plus orks, eldar, daemons, Tau, Adeptus mechanicus, genestealer cults.... so pretty much anyone but space marines would for one reason or another need morale.

Orks mostly ignore morale between mob rule and crackin' 'eads and such. It's mostly grots that have to worry about it. Making it a special rule for them makes sense. Da uvuh boyz should be spoilin' fer a good fight.

Eldar generally ignore morale because they're encouraged to play MSU. Fluff-wise, aspect warriors are stuck in a semi-fearless blood lust mode. It sort of makes sense for guardians and rangers. It would make sense for it to be a special rule for them.

Daemons... wait. Why did you put the extradimensional aliens who only sort of die live in the setting's version of hell on that list? If anyone has a reason to ignore morale, it's daemons.

It makes sense for tau to get freaked out. Make morale an army-wide rule for them. Make drones and guys standing near an ethereal ignore it.

Mechanicus are frequently partially lobotomized, pumped full of drugs, or have their will overridden by their mechanically-detached commanding officers. If they're falling back, it should be because a calculation was made and is being calmly executed. Some tech priests might freak out, but most mechanicus squads are either skitarii or servitors.

Genestealer cultists are hypnotized to the point that they'll betray their friends, family, and planet for the sake of their alien overlords. A magus can reach into any individual's mind to bolster their will at a distance. If they're falling back, it's probably to set up an ambush; not because they're freaking out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
Morale has always been a rubbish system in 40k. It's evidenced by the fact that 50% of units in 6th and 7th were Fearless, because otherwise they were useless.

A better approach to morale would be to make it a check for using stratagems.

roll 2D6, if you roll higher than morale, you may not use the strat on this unit (you don't lose the CP for trying).
+1 if you are below 25% of starting strength
+2 if you are below 50% of starting strength

so the new steps would be select a unit to use stratagem on > roll morale to see if they can use the stratagem > either proceed with the stratagem or use them normally.

Stratagems would need to be overhauled a little so they all work immediately, rather than "at the start of X phase" - so replace "at the start of the fight phase" with "when a unit declares a charge" or "when a unit is selected to fight in close combat" - the relevant time frame.

then we remove the morale phase of units running away entirely.

I don't know. That seems slightly annoying to do each time you want to use a stratagem, and it devalues strats quite a bit if they just randomly don't work sometimes. Plus, not all strats seem like they represent commanders giving orders. The marine strat that lets a dreadnaught reduce damage, for instance, isn't the result of a captain yelling, "die slower, venerable dread brother!"

I always thought morale should be something like this. Take the morale test same as now, if it's failed the unit becomes shaken. A roll of 1 always passes the test regardless of modifiers. If the test is failed on a natrual roll of a 6 the unit is also broken (see below)

A shaken unit suffers -1 to their hit rolls and cannot be chosen to fight until after all other units have fought. During the moral phase each shaken unit must take a morale test adding the usual modifiers for any casualties suffered that turn. If the test is passed the unit is no longer shaken, but if it's failed the unit becomes broken.

As soon as a unit becomes broken take a combat attrition test as it works currently. A broken unit is also considered shaken but in addition, they do not benefit from friendly auras and cannot be the target of friendly stratagems. If a broken unit passes a morale test in the following morale phase it is no longer broken or shaken.

Would be suler easy to track, just need to lay a shaken marker or broken marker next to the unit.

honestly, people should differ between breaking and surpressing.

I can break non indoctrinated infantry. Results should range from desertion to outright flight.

Supression should be a whole other effect, with various stages, dependant upon the ammount of fire, the amount of armor and the ammount of cover units take / have.

Necrons don't break and run...granted, we might phase out, but that should be a unit rule, like oldcrons.

Not Online!!! wrote:
honestly, people should differ between breaking and surpressing.

I can break non indoctrinated infantry. Results should range from desertion to outright flight.

Supression should be a whole other effect, with various stages, dependant upon the ammount of fire, the amount of armor and the ammount of cover units take / have.

That touches on JNA's earlier point. Only a relatively small subset of the units in 40k can be "broken" without contradicting their fluff. "Suppression" could reasonably represent anything from a unit freaking out to simply having their coordination thrown off by concentrated fire to being thrown into a rage at the enemy's audacity.

Which is why I like my pitch. It grants a simple, one size fits all representation of suppression that doesn't require a ton of bookkeeping and meaningfully alters the game state.

I just want to throw out that regardless of what morale actually does on a failed test, the current system of 1D6 + casualties dramatically favors MSU and penalizes larger units. To me it seems like a basic realism element that blobbing up your troops for safety in numbers should make them more resistant to morale, not less.

I'd rather go back to the old system of 25% casualties triggering a test on 2D6, and then have penalties to Leadership based on proportion of the unit lost.

Regarding the general fearlessness of units in 40K: Failing a morale test doesn't have to mean 'scared and running'; it can easily be a mechanism to model friction/disruption as a result of casualties. You could represent this through penalties to movement/shooting/charging, inability to use auras or stratagems, or some other mechanic to represent temporarily degraded capabilities of the unit.

For example, a unit of Marines that lost half their number and failed a morale test aren't running, they're pulling casualties out of the firing line, stabilizing the wounded, pulling special weapons/gear off a dead comrade, establishing a new leader since the Sergeant is down, and so on.

Same goes for Tyranids: It's a recurring theme in the fluff that losing Synapse instantly degrades their coordination. Tyranid units failing morale out of Synapse range doesn't have to mean they're running away, it could just be that they are in disarray and unable to coordinate a coherent response to damage.

Then for units that should be specifically vulnerable to morale- Guard, for example- you could add an additional rule that forces them to fall back on a failed test, in addition to the normal penalties.

Morale is a way to have units accomplish meaningful effects through fire beyond just raw casualties. It's an essential tool to making a wargame be about more than just who can kill faster.

IMO morale should cause a unit to fail their check to have maluses to them.

Things like -1 to hit, cannot overwatch, half movement, forces movement towards their deployment, reduced range on their guns, etc.
I'd make it so when you fail a morale check, you add one of these random modifiers from a table instead of losing models.
And morale would always count every model lost in a unit, not just the ones you lost during the current turn.

This would make it so morale isnt jsut a way to get a few extra lucky kills but rather to make some units les effective.

Sure it doesnt make sense for some units to fail morale at all but these units should simply have a higher leadership stat to represent that.

To fix the "hordes are at a disadvantage" problem, just base morale checks on the % of the unit that died. 25% -> Roll 1x on the table, 50% -> roll 2x on the table, 75% -> roll 3 times on the table. Still, i think thats kind of the point of MSU units, you witness less carnage when 2-3 models die in your unit vs when 10 die.

ATSKNF could become "roll one less dice when rolling".
Night lords could become "roll an additionnal dice".

I'm obviously spitballing so the balance isnt there, i'm just throwing ideas out there