Switch Theme:

Pinning - A New Morale-Esque Mechanic to Decrease Lethality and Because Morale Is Kinda Lame  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






You know what two systems rarely seem to make much impact in 9th edition games? Blast and Morale. Seems like mostly, morale just doesn't do much of anything because everyone fields min squads to avoid it, and that subsequently makes blast kinda pointless as well. The uncertain nature of Blast weaponry also tends to turn people off, I've found - you might roll a 1 for your shots, after all, and it doesnt work in melee. Lots of strikes against.

You konw what else hasn't been much of a thing in a bit? Grenades and auto-hitting "Flamer" type weapons.

Pinning

Against the terrifying weaponry of the 41st millennium, even the most steel-hearted warriors and emotionless cyborgs must contend with the reality that they must occasionally duck and cover to avoid certain death.


When a unit making a shooting attack targets only a single enemy unit with a shooting attack, and scores any hits with weapons in the below categories, the target unit must make a Pinning test before rolling to wound.
-Blast weapons
-Grenade weapons
-Weapons that hit automatically, e.g. flamers

To take a pinning check, roll 2d6. If the result exceeds the highest leadership characteristic in the unit, the test is failed. A unit may instead choose to automatically fail their pinning check. A unit that automatically passes morale checks also automatically passes pinning checks and may not choose to fail them. If a unit fails a pinning check that unit becomes pinned.

While pinned, a unit receives +1 to their save rolls against all shooting attacks, which is cumulative with any bonuses that they may receive from cover - including against the shooting attack that caused the pinning check originally.

In the Command phase, a player should take a rally test for each currently pinned unit in their army- roll 2d6 for each unit. If the result exceeds that unit's highest leadership characteristic, the unit remains pinned. Any unit that ignores penalties to Attrition tests also automatically passes rally tests.

Pinned units may not declare shooting attacks or charges, may not perform actions, may not make overwatch attacks or set to defend, but may fight in close combat if they begin the fight phase within engagement range of an enemy unit. They may move but only if that move results in equivalent or more models in the unit being within 1" of a piece of terrain. Pinned units continue to receive +1 to their save rolls against shooting attacks.

Units that successfully rally may act normally and are no longer pinned, but receive -1 to all hit rolls they make during that turn.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:30:01


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I like the concept, however, it will drive people towards MSU even more.
They can throw out more pinning shots whilst also being harder to pin themselves (since two five man squads would need to fail two checks to be fully pinned).
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I like the concept, however, it will drive people towards MSU even more.
They can throw out more pinning shots whilst also being harder to pin themselves (since two five man squads would need to fail two checks to be fully pinned).


from my perspective, people are currently at MSU. Unless mechanics are added that actually incentivize larger units, there's currently zero reason to take larger units. If you're already at minimum, I dont see it as there being any way to further divide things up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/01 12:17:30


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in de
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Just for understanding because I keep confusing it: does +1 save mean the save gets better or worse?

~6550 build and painted
819 build and painted
830 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 the_scotsman wrote:
from my perspective, people are currently at MSU. Unless mechanics are added that actually incentivize larger units, there's currently zero reason to take larger units. If you're already at minimum, I dont see it as there being any way to further divide things up.
There was a brief period in 8e where "horde" units were getting the Age of Sigmar treatment – buffs for having above a certain number of units. Poxwalkers got +1 to hit with 10+ models, so did Gretchins with 20+ models. Termagants and Hormagaunts got to re-roll wound rolls of 1 with 20+ models. Genestealers had +1A with 10+ models. All the Daemon Troops got a bonus like that.

Some of those abilities are still around, but they're being phased out with each updated codex – and I can't figure out why, nor why GW stopped using them in the first place.

If you want to encourage larger units without straightforward buffs like that, the best route is to make extra models more appealing through context. Make buff effects more expensive/limited, reduce the prevalence of auras as much as possible in favour of targeted effects, reduce the number of Stratagems that cost less on smaller/weaker units, increase the cost of special equipment or weight its availability towards large units, add an extra cost to "sergeants", etc. If The Torturer's Craft always costs the same on a WRACK unit, no matter how many models it has, I'm getting more out of it when I field a large unit of Wracks. If the Acothyst costs twice as much as a regular Wrack, then taking 3x 5-man Wrack squads will cost the same as 1x 18-man Wrack Squads. If I get two liquifier guns for every 10 models instead of one for every 5 models, then I need to bulk up to get my guns. If my HAEMONCULUS can only give one unit +1T per round, then I'm getting more out of slapping the buff on a giant blob than picking one of several smaller units.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just for understanding because I keep confusing it: does +1 save mean the save gets better or worse?


better. The unit is on the ground, suppressed but gaining benefits to their defenses.

The goal of the rule is

1 - make morale feel like more of a relevant factor on the battlefield and more of a present concern that you cant just avoid in the strategic listbuilding phase, as it currently feels like it is

2 - reduce lethality by giving pinned units increased defense and decreased offense and incentivize players to prioritze targeting things to weaken them ("i'm gonna spread my fire around to try and pin multiple enemy units") rather than the current default of always attempting to destroy a maximum number of enemy models.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






Pinning is an old mechanic from several prior editions and while narrative, it was not without issue.

The age old tactic was IG mortar teams Pinning an entire army and keeping it pinned round after round, effectively shutting down the opponent from doing anything all game.

No... We do not need to bring back Pinning.

   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





This is a great rule write-up and I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunately 40k now requires so many varying house rules to make it not suck that at this point its much better to simply play bolt action instead.

And pinning wouldn't ruin 40k movement. They would just create a 1cp strategem to avoid all the effects of pinning. Marines could also never be pinned (they shall know no pinning). And on and on we will go.

*edit*

I would add some more granularity to pinning....make it so that only half of the unit can shoot in the next turn, or they all shoot with reduced accuracy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/01 14:14:13


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 oni wrote:
Pinning is an old mechanic from several prior editions and while narrative, it was not without issue.

The age old tactic was IG mortar teams Pinning an entire army and keeping it pinned round after round, effectively shutting down the opponent from doing anything all game.

No... We do not need to bring back Pinning.




No, what you are saying is 'we do not need to bring back the type of pinning mechanics that allowed for my example'. That version is not the sum total of the concept of pinning.

Every other modern skirmish scifi game uses pinning and suppression mechanics absolutely fine.

   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I don't think Pinning is a great mechanic for the game. Taking a unit out of action for 1 of 5 battle rounds, especially as easily as you have presented, it too much gain for too little cost.

If anything, I would be more receptive to a replacement of the Morale rules from dead models to suppressed units.

So a simple, untested idea would be upon a failed Morale Test, a unit becomes Suppressed until the end of their next Morale phase and immediately fails any actions being undertaken. A Suppressed unit suffers a -1 modifier on all Hit rolls, Charge rolls, and Advance rolls and cannot perform actions.

So a simple rule that reduces combat effectiveness without taking the unit out of the game. Come up with some rules around large units (bonus to Morale test?) and other Morale rules (what happens to rules that enhance or reduce Combat Attrition test?) and you have something more interesting that either your dead or you can't use this unit.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 alextroy wrote:
I don't think Pinning is a great mechanic for the game. Taking a unit out of action for 1 of 5 battle rounds, especially as easily as you have presented, it too much gain for too little cost.

If anything, I would be more receptive to a replacement of the Morale rules from dead models to suppressed units.

So a simple, untested idea would be upon a failed Morale Test, a unit becomes Suppressed until the end of their next Morale phase and immediately fails any actions being undertaken. A Suppressed unit suffers a -1 modifier on all Hit rolls, Charge rolls, and Advance rolls and cannot perform actions.

So a simple rule that reduces combat effectiveness without taking the unit out of the game. Come up with some rules around large units (bonus to Morale test?) and other Morale rules (what happens to rules that enhance or reduce Combat Attrition test?) and you have something more interesting that either your dead or you can't use this unit.


I agree with the general thrust of this. Wanting to reduce the game's lethality and make morale more meaningful/interesting are good objectives. However, the system OP has presented...

* Makes it pretty easy to pin the enemy. Every 3 man mortar team in an IG army can force 3 pinning tests on their own. A squad of AML war walkers could force 6 such tests on their own each turn. Force enough rolls, and your chances of pinning down a big chunk of the enemy army are pretty high. This also makes me think that your proposal has the potential to make alpha striking more of an issue as elements not destroyed by the alpha strike might potentially be stunned thus exaggerating the difference in points worth of models available to the second player at the bottom of round 1.

* You introduce a little bit of bookkeeping. You have to track pinned units, recently unpinned units, and remember the handful of special rules associated with each of those statuses.

* Being forced to not use your units seems like it has a lot of potential to just be frustrating/not fun. Especially given that it sounds like there isn't much player choice involved for the player being pinned. So if my shining spears hidden behind a building could save the day but aren't allowed to because a lucky mortar pinned their unit, I'm not going to be kicking myself for a bad tactical decision; I'm just going to be annoyed that I'm arbitrarily not allowed to use a key unit that turn.

My broken record pitch for a suppression mechanic:
* Mark a bunch of abilities/effects with the COMMAND ABILITY keyword.
* Morale tests work the same way they do now, but combat attrition tests go away. (No more taking morale casualties.)
* Units that fail morale tests are SUPPRESSED until the end of the next player turn.
* SUPPRESSED units can't benefit from COMMAND ABILITIES.

So if my blob of wyches take a bunch of casualties, I might not be able to use stratagems or character auras to buff them or make them pull off fancy tricks. This reduces lethality by temporarily preventing units from using certain buffs and forces the suppressed player to rethink their plans on the fly. It doesn't really address MSU armies being less vulnerable to morale though.

If you wanted to make some weapons (such as blasts and flamers) better at suppressing the enemy, you could add a SUPPRESSING ability to some weapons. Units that suffer casualties from at least one SUPPRESSING weapon take a -1 penalty to their morale tests. Or something like that. This part always gets fuzzy because making it -1 per casualty feels like double-dipping on the morale penalties, making it -1 per weapon that targets the unit makes it too easy to stack up lots of penalties by splitting fire, and leaving it at a flat -1 feels a little toothless. Maybe it would be better to have suppressing weapons turn off overwatch/set to defend and allow the suppressor to hurt suppressed enemy units if they fall back or something. Maybe you can use the Cut Them Down(?) strat for free when a suppressed unit falls back. *shrug*.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I like the idea of a pinning mechanic, but I'm not sure it would be a great addition to the game in isolation. Really we need an overhaul of the whole morale system and the way the leadership stat is used, which includes some sort of pinning/suppression system.

That being said, if a pinning mechanic were to be introduced without changing other rules, then i think the OP is going in the right direction. I don't agree with all of the points, but with some tweaking I think it could work well.

Ideally I'd like to see pinned units being unable to use strategems, or benefit from auras, something like "if a unit is pinned it is never able to be selected as the target of friendly strategems" and "if a unit is pinned it is never considered to be in range of any aura abilities" the phrasing would need some refinement!

Also, I'm not sure if preventing pinning units from taking part in quite so much of the game is the right approach. Not being able to move, shoot and/or take actions might be too big a penalty. Maybe it would be better if a pinned unit always counts as in "difficult terrain" so -2" movement, and this could stack with actual difficult terrain for -4", and rather than being unable to shoot, perhaps they can only hit on a 6 or get -1 BS or some such? Play-testing would probably be needed to get the balance right.

I agree with previous posters that the current rules encourage minimum size units, so ideally a pinning mechanic inserted into the current rule-set should benefit larger units to help counteract this. Maybe a +1Ld for pinning tests if the unit has more models than the highest Ld stat in that unit? (assumiing the test is score equal to or less than the highest Ld in the unit on 2d6).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/02 12:11:13


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Leadership and morale is currently a bit naff.

The problem is bringing in effective mechanics without they being either too much of a disproportionate impact, and curbing GWs love of exceptions and immunities.

An idea I posted a while back was:-

Maybe Morale needs to be turned on its head and become a bonus not a negative.

Only problem is its a slower system and 40K drags already.

But something like

Test on 2D6 each time you lose models. +1 for every model lost this turn.

Melee
Under or equal to LD - no effect
Exceed LD
Break and die. Move once away from closest enemy, ending move further away than when started, lose any bonuses, aura buffs etc for rest of turn, lose one model for every point you are over LD.

All other casualties caused by the enemy (shooting, psychic powers, etc. - does not include out of coherency removal)
Under or equal to LD - no effect
Exceed LD
1st time - contact drills, receive +1 save for remainder of turn against shooting (mark unit or lay model down as reminder)
2nd time - go to ground, receive -1 to hit for remainder of turn against shooting (mark unit or lay 2nd model down as reminder)
3rd time - Break. Move one full move away from enemy closest enemy unit ending move further away than when started, lose any bonuses, aura buffs etc for rest of turn (including step 1 and 2 above) - face models away from enemy or mark unit in some way.
4th time - Lose one model for every point you are over LD.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




If taking a unit out of the game entirely would be too oppressive and boring – and I think it would – one potential way to approach "shaken" or "broken" states would be to limit the actions they can take, rather than preventing them from taking those actions entirely. Only being able to shoot the closest eligible target, only being able to charge the closest enemy unit – not being able to charge at all, only being able to Fall Back – not being able to Fall Back or Advance – not benefiting from aura abilities or Stratagems – that sort of thing. Or a penalty, but the hit roll penalty cap means that has less teeth than it once did.

While I do prefer the idea of "state"-based Morale – i.e. units that are "broken" or "shaken" or "panicked" – instead of just removing models and moving on, I can't help but wonder if the amount of extra book-keeping would be too much. You'd need to roll Morale tests when the condition was met, then track which units were in which state, then roll Morale tests to end the state, then track which units weren't in that state any more...

This is actually where Detachments could do some good, if they weren't already occupied with being a way to permit-but-discourage soup; you could roll for the Morale of a Detachment, instead of your whole army. Tie them in to deployment, and make them more like Fire Teams in KT, or Battle Groups in Warcry.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







RevlidRas wrote:
If taking a unit out of the game entirely would be too oppressive and boring – and I think it would – one potential way to approach "shaken" or "broken" states would be to limit the actions they can take, rather than preventing them from taking those actions entirely. Only being able to shoot the closest eligible target, only being able to charge the closest enemy unit – not being able to charge at all, only being able to Fall Back – not being able to Fall Back or Advance – not benefiting from aura abilities or Stratagems – that sort of thing. Or a penalty, but the hit roll penalty cap means that has less teeth than it once did.

While I do prefer the idea of "state"-based Morale – i.e. units that are "broken" or "shaken" or "panicked" – instead of just removing models and moving on, I can't help but wonder if the amount of extra book-keeping would be too much. You'd need to roll Morale tests when the condition was met, then track which units were in which state, then roll Morale tests to end the state, then track which units weren't in that state any more...

This is actually where Detachments could do some good, if they weren't already occupied with being a way to permit-but-discourage soup; you could roll for the Morale of a Detachment, instead of your whole army. Tie them in to deployment, and make them more like Fire Teams in KT, or Battle Groups in Warcry.


Games with "two actions per activation" rather than 40k's phases often do suppression mechanics as "only take one action"; Crisis Protocol's Stunned state, Legion's suppression, Warmachine's "forfeit movement or action," that kind of thing. 40k's structure lends itself more to complicated "this unit is worse in (some phases)" setups that are hard to remember, unfortunately.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






To quote The_Real_Chris above "GWs love of exceptions and immunities"... This is the root cause of the issue.

For the last two editions GW has proclaimed that the Moral phase will matter and effect everyone. And it did, at first, but then the codexes start coming out; full of exceptions and immunities, rendering the Moral phase irrelevant.

I'm not sure what the best answer is, but whatever it is, it needs to flow with the game. Currently the Moral phase does not flow smoothly. It's a hard stop to game play to execute the motions.

But again... Reintroducing Pinning is 100% NOT the answer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/02 18:05:55


 
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





 oni wrote:
To quote The_Real_Chris above "GWs love of exceptions and immunities"... This is the root cause of the issue.

For the last two editions GW has proclaimed that the Moral phase will matter and effect everyone. And it did, at first, but then the codexes start coming out; full of exceptions and immunities, rendering the Moral phase irrelevant.

I'm not sure what the best answer is, but whatever it is, it needs to flow with the game. Currently the Moral phase does not flow smoothly. It's a hard stop to game play to execute the motions.

But again... Reintroducing Pinning is 100% NOT the answer.

Imo it’s more the guys who should have to worry about morale don’t, and the ones that don’t do. Due to gw stupidity ork hordes run easier than anyone else, and we can consistently lose full on vehicles to morale.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







The example above about a guard mortar unit forcing a lot of morale checks is, I think, really important.

If you shoot a mortar at a unit of five troopers, and one of them gets knocked down, that's a significant event for that squad. If you shoot a mortar at a unit of 30 troops, and one of them gets knocked down, why would the other 29 troopers care?

Likewise, I imagine that if the troopers in your army had the right sort of training, they'd be able to treat groups of squads as one unit (to lessen the impact of negative events, but at the same time once you get to negative consequences those consequences are going to apply to more squads).

Then again, I think if a game really wanted to be serious about morale, it wouldn't be messing around with deciding the matter with a single die roll or two. Instead, that sort of game should be treating morale like unit health. The only rolling you should be doing involving morale should be if you've invented "morale saves" to avoid morale damage caused by events.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





A thing that we've discussed in past morale/pinning threads that merits repeating here:

Most units in 40k are described as being at least mostly immune to fear. Marines are brainwashed into fearlessness. Necrons are robots. Tyranids have synapse and probably only have a sense of self-preservation because it lets them kill and eat things more efficiently. Skitaari are lobotomized and can be directly controlled by the tech priests. And then you have all the zealots, the axe murder samurai elves whose brains are full of blood lust, orks who live to fight...

Basically, more things in the game should probably be immune to panic than susceptible to it. So having a universla mechanic (morale) that mostly tests against how many dudes died next to you that turn doesn't feel like a great fit. If morale is meant to represent how freaked out you get when your friends die, then it should probably be a special rule that only applies to the handful of factions that should actually be impacted by it. If it's meant to represent the sudden spike in casualties causing your squad to become less coordinated, then morale casualties seem like a bad fit.



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 oni wrote:
Pinning is an old mechanic from several prior editions and while narrative, it was not without issue.

The age old tactic was IG mortar teams Pinning an entire army and keeping it pinned round after round, effectively shutting down the opponent from doing anything all game.

No... We do not need to bring back Pinning.


Erm
Pinning was morale reliant for the most years.
Most armies also had way to high morale or simply didn't care about it so couldn't get pinned period.

So no i don't think that was an issue.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Likely not a terribly popular option, but could this be done with a Universal Stratagem? Let’s call it Suppresive Fire.

Depending on how it’s implemented, it becomes another universal tool, and not necessarily one you need to build your army around.

Exactly how it would work? That I’m not really versed enough in the game to give particularly workable solutions should be kept in mind.

Suggestion 1

Unit the stratagem is used on can only target one unit. The targeted unit has its next turn move, advance and charge rate reduced, in addition to any casualties suffered. Bit book keepy, but perhaps by 1” for every Hit in excess of the targeted unit’s model count.

In theory, this will mean MSU can’t easily suppress larger units, and the rule really benefits when you’ve got lots of shots.

No Ld test, just hose them down, and hope you’ve got enough dakka to make the reduction significant.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Thinking on it, I don't hate how some of the units that already have suppressing fire handle it. There are a few units that can turn off overwatch or slow the enemy down. I'm thinking death jesters and interceptors(?), but I feel like there are probably more.

Maybe "suppressive fire" could just be a thing rolled into the devastator equivalents of each army. That way, heavy weapon squads could stop needing to be the glasshammer counterparts to main battle tanks and could instead focus on supporting allies as a side-effect of their attacks.



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Wyldhunt wrote:
A thing that we've discussed in past morale/pinning threads that merits repeating here:

Most units in 40k are described as being at least mostly immune to fear. Marines are brainwashed into fearlessness. Necrons are robots. Tyranids have synapse and probably only have a sense of self-preservation because it lets them kill and eat things more efficiently. Skitaari are lobotomized and can be directly controlled by the tech priests. And then you have all the zealots, the axe murder samurai elves whose brains are full of blood lust, orks who live to fight...

Basically, more things in the game should probably be immune to panic than susceptible to it. So having a universla mechanic (morale) that mostly tests against how many dudes died next to you that turn doesn't feel like a great fit. If morale is meant to represent how freaked out you get when your friends die, then it should probably be a special rule that only applies to the handful of factions that should actually be impacted by it. If it's meant to represent the sudden spike in casualties causing your squad to become less coordinated, then morale casualties seem like a bad fit.



^The thrust of this is generally what I was going for, actually.

Think about any Impossible White Man movie with the impossibly cool calm protagonist who never ever worries about anything, your Rambos your various Johns (wick, mclane, etc) - that's essentially the headspace people like to get into when they think about their ultra-badass unshakeable unflappable 40k guys.

There's USUALLY a point in any given one of those movies where, regardless of whether or not he's AFRAID of the thing he's avoiding, the impossible white man has to dive for some cover to avoid a weapon that would just kill him if he were to stand and take it on the chiseled abs. Grenades, flamethrowers, miscellaneous explosions that he doesn't look at, etc.

In my eyes the main problems with morale currently are twofold in terms of crunch:

1 - it basically just becomes "We've had one yes, but what about SECOND casualty removal?" and it doesnt feel meaningfully distinct from just shooting guys

2 - for most armies since most units have min squad size 5 and base ld 7 or better, morale is essentially solveable in the strategic layer, before the game is even played.

maybe the mechanic I've proposed is too broad/too easily triggered, but in general I think a system that reduces the baseline level of lethality present in 9th edition and utilizes LD in such a way that it can't just be ignored for everyone but orks is fairly necessary.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/07 12:00:29


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Those Impossible White Men stories are boring and have no tension. Something great about Cronenberg's A History of Violence (and Eastern Promises) is that while the Impossible White Man wins, the viewer is really along for the toll winning takes. Also why Predator was great.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






This is somewhat of a separate issue, but comes up in this discussion, which is split fire.

A huge issue with current 40K IMHO is that units can freely split fire however they want, which means you're able to squeeze every amount of potential lethality out of your shooting attacks. In older editions, your shooting choices often had to consider how much fire was appropriate and where the shooting output of a unit was best directed.

In regards to pinning, the face that a six person mortar team could shoot and potentially pin 3 different enemy units is an unfortunate consequence. Units shouldn't be able to freely split fire IMHO. Or if the do, it should be limited (e.g. a unit can split fire once and shoot at two separate targets, but must pass a leadership test first).

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Mezmorki wrote:
This is somewhat of a separate issue, but comes up in this discussion, which is split fire.

A huge issue with current 40K IMHO is that units can freely split fire however they want, which means you're able to squeeze every amount of potential lethality out of your shooting attacks. In older editions, your shooting choices often had to consider how much fire was appropriate and where the shooting output of a unit was best directed.

In regards to pinning, the face that a six person mortar team could shoot and potentially pin 3 different enemy units is an unfortunate consequence. Units shouldn't be able to freely split fire IMHO. Or if the do, it should be limited (e.g. a unit can split fire once and shoot at two separate targets, but must pass a leadership test first).


^I'd point out here that limiting units to NOT split fire almost always caused issues with any unit configuration not equipped exclusively with one type of weapon being completely suboptimal every single edition until they added mass split fire in 8th.

If you asked me to fix the issue of split fire, I'd say that when declaring ranged attacks for a unit, the player may choose one weapon the unit is equipped with, and fire all instances of that weapon at a different target than the initial target selected.

E.g. my unit of veterans with 3 melta guns could select an infantry unit as their primary target, and select "Melta gun" as their split-firing weapon and fire that weapon at a tank.

That would fix the currently brutal situation of having a hyper-buffed 20-man squad of skitarii and going '5 are shooting this unit, 5 are shooting that unit, 3 are shooting that unit, 5 are shooting that unit, 2 are shooting that character, OK now I'm using these 3 strats and these 2 auras and this character ability, oh look, all 5 target units are wiped out!' while not sending units like the poor defiler back to the dumpster they had to live in throughout 3rd-7th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To resolve the issues with pinning as proposed, I have re-worded the trigger to the rule:

When a unit making a shooting attack targets only a single enemy unit with a shooting attack, and scores any hits with weapons in the below categories, the target unit must make a Pinning test before rolling to wound.
-Blast weapons
-Grenade weapons
-Weapons that hit automatically, e.g. flamers

So, in order to force a pinning check, the firing unit must select only 1 target unit for their shooting attacks. No guard mortar squads forcing 3 pinning checks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:31:36


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

I'd go a step further and give some weapons specific rules, ala the old Tarantula Sentry Guns, for who they fire at.

Heavy Bolters prioritize firing at enemy Infantry or Monsters within LOS.
Lascannons and Missile Launchers prioritize firing at enemy Vehicles or Monsters within LOS.
Autocannons don't have a priority.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 the_scotsman wrote:

If you asked me to fix the issue of split fire, I'd say that when declaring ranged attacks for a unit, the player may choose one weapon the unit is equipped with, and fire all instances of that weapon at a different target than the initial target selected.


Pretty close to what we do in ProHammer. We set it up so that you can just flat out split fire "once" with whatever weapons you want. Limiting to just one weapon can likewise create some oddness when you have units equipped with multiple different special/heavy weapons. A classic tac squad with a lascannon + melta gun, under your ruling, would only be able to pick one of those to split fire. Given both are anti-tank it would seem like both should be able to fire at the tank.

The single split, regardless of weapon, does mean that you could shoot 5 bolters at infantry A and 5 at infantry B, but that doesn't come up all that often and the cases where that would creates a problem seem pretty limited.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




 Mezmorki wrote:
. A classic tac squad with a lascannon + melta gun, under your ruling, would only be able to pick one of those to split fire. Given both are anti-tank it would seem like both should be able to fire at the tank..


Yeah those two would just shoot at the tank and then the other eight guys split to fire at something else.


 the_scotsman wrote:


^I'd point out here that limiting units to NOT split fire almost always caused issues with any unit configuration not equipped exclusively with one type of weapon being completely suboptimal every single edition until they added mass split fire in 8th.

If you asked me to fix the issue of split fire, I'd say that when declaring ranged attacks for a unit, the player may choose one weapon the unit is equipped with, and fire all instances of that weapon at a different target than the initial target selected.


Why this instead of having defensive weapons and primary ones? Other than some factions are capable of having mixed devastators and some players even do it.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 oni wrote:
Pinning is an old mechanic from several prior editions and while narrative, it was not without issue.

The age old tactic was IG mortar teams Pinning an entire army and keeping it pinned round after round, effectively shutting down the opponent from doing anything all game.

No... We do not need to bring back Pinning.



This... never happened back in the day. Nice try though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Problem of Suppression was that it boiled down to a simple LD check. So units with high LD (9 and 10) were almost never affected.

You would need to do the following:
1. Decide if all template weapons cause suppression.
2. Decide if you want to use modifiers to LD check, if a unit gets hit by multiples of such weapons (recommended).
3. Decide whether modifiers apply by hits or only by casualties taken.
4. Decide what kind of effects Suppression causes. All/nothing or levels of Suppression. Video game Planetfall has three stages of Suppression because units have three action points.
5. Large units should get a bonus for those LD checks. If it is per 5 models or 10 is up to you.
6. Can only infantry be suppressed or even vehicles (heavy units) too? If vehicles are also susceptible then Suppression will come in different threat levels as battle cannons would be able to suppress vehicles but frag grenades wouldn't.
7. Small elite armies (power armour & terminator armour) might get a bonus against certain Suppression weapons due to wearing fully enclosed, heavy combat armour.
8. Differentiate between Suppression weapons with a "Ragdoll" effect (e. g. Explosions) and those who instill fear (Sniper Rifles). Why? Because a "Ragdoll" effect will affect ALL infantry as they are flung in all directions by the force of the shot while on the other hand a sniper rifle would be useless against units with a "Mindless" trait.
Mindless: Daemons, Plague Zombies, Servitors and inferior Tyranid creatures still under Synapse Control.
9. Do you use ALTERNATE ACTIVATION (AA) ? This decision will affect everything listed above and with AA you can design Suppression to be more of a threat.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/24 12:06:26


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: