Switch Theme:

A new approach to Morale  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Morale is in dire need of improvement and is something 40K has never managed to do well. I’m fed up of it feeling irrelevant most of the time, and of so many units in the game ignoring or being able to shrug it off, but go too far the other way and it’s not fun. Losing total control of your units isn’t fun did anyone.

Morale should be important in the game and building an army around leadership debuffs and forcing morale checks should be a viable and fun way to play the game.

A lot of the proposed ideas for morale seem quite good, pinning and suppression mechanics are preferable to morale just being another way to remove models from units but it’s all a bit one-size-fits-all, and the trigger for testing means one model units are always immune to morale too.

So what I’m proposing is more of a concept than a fully thought through rule and I welcome ideas to build on it and improve the concept.

Essentially the idea is that every unit has a Leadership stat (as they do now, but not necessarily the same value as it currently is) and a core rule on what triggers a morale check and how to make the test. This could be exactly the same as now, or the old method of 2d6 compared to the leadership stat or something new. Personally I’d like to see a morale check triggered by losing melee again and in the shooting phase not by number of wounds but by volume of fire (eg. number of successful hit rolls made against the unit). But that’s all the core rules should cover , what triggers a morale check and how to make the test. The effects of morale should be faction ( or even unit) specific. I’m thinking like the old Tyranid Instinctive behaviour and daemonic animosity mechanics.

In this set-up nothing should be immune to morale. Necrons might be fearless killer robots, but they will still react to overwhelming loses or sustained weight of fire, but their reaction should be different to space marines, and Orks and Eldar etc. this would also eliminate the need for bravery to be represented by rules like ATSKNF etc.

So I guess what I’m asking is what do people think of this approach and what would be some thematic faction specific rules?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

I think universal stuff still works fine. Fail a check and can't shoot or charge for example. The reason you can't might be race fluff specific (Nids revert to instinctive survival behaviour if connection to hive mind disrupted, Necrons can't cope with the amount of battlefield data, etc.), but it doesn't need to be a radically different manifestation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/24 16:36:31


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hmm. So a couple thoughts:

A.) If you're making bespoke morale consequences for each faction, it becomes very difficult to write rules that interact with those consequences. You don't want to give the death jester a rule that lets him choose which models are removed for failing Combat Attrition tests if only one army in the game uses Combat Attrition tests.

B.) Giving each faction bespoke consequences also seems prone to making those consequences more severe for some factions than others. Which in turn makes it hard to balance rules that make failing morale more likely. So if failing morale for one army means losing 1/6th of the unit to Combat Attrition but failing morale for another army means the unit can't act at all in the next turn, how do you price a Night Lords rule that makes enemies more likely to fail morale?

C. I feel like bespoke consequences might actually be less interesting than bespoke ways of failing morale. Like, eldar and sisters probably exhibit similar lapses in judgement and coordination when they get freaked out. But eldar getting freaked out by the loss of precious lives is very different from sisters getting freaked out by the desecration of a sacred statue.

D. Creating bespoke rules for each faction is quite a bit of work. If someone were to go to the trouble to do that work, I feel like it might be more interesting to put that energy into bespoke weaknesses that aren't necessarily tied to morale. For instance, let necrons be fearless, but give them a new and improved version of We'll Be Back. Make eldar recover spirit stones to avoid losing VP. Make it more meaningful when tyranids are out of synapse again. Make daemons lose strength if they don't feed on emotion quickly enough. Make drukhari get reckless as well as powerful if they're too high on delicious pain. Let sisters fall into despair and lose their faith powers if the enemy kills the warlord and desecrates every corner of the battlefield.

You're not wrong about morale being kind of meh right now, but I feel like examples above would all be more interesting and satisfying than a hundred different flavors of running away.


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




Probably a better option then it is right now which is basically "Feth orkz and only orkz" with morale. Pretty much no other faction gives a damn about Morale.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

SemperMortis wrote:
Probably a better option then it is right now which is basically "Feth orkz and only orkz" with morale. Pretty much no other faction gives a damn about Morale.
Daemons care too!

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Probably a better option then it is right now which is basically "Feth orkz and only orkz" with morale. Pretty much no other faction gives a damn about Morale.
Daemons care too!


I haven't played a true daemons list in a long time. So, good, now there are two factions who have to use morale in the game

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

SemperMortis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Probably a better option then it is right now which is basically "Feth orkz and only orkz" with morale. Pretty much no other faction gives a damn about Morale.
Daemons care too!


I haven't played a true daemons list in a long time. So, good, now there are two factions who have to use morale in the game


Mind that daemons still don't have the 9th codex yet. We might be left alone in that pretty soon .

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Honestly, at this point in the edition I would not be surprised. GW really does not want orkz running counter meta with 150 T5 boyz on the table

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Neither do I, to be honest. But having the option to field 50-80 boyz/snaggas as a good choice is something a solid ork codex should grant.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
Neither do I, to be honest. But having the option to field 50-80 boyz/snaggas as a good choice is something a solid ork codex should grant.


And shortly after I made my joke about GW not liking orkz they hand us a nerf so powerful that it destroys the entire freeboota kulture

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Yes, they entirely destroyed my army. I was already thinking of leaving Speedwaaagh and Freebooterz to turn to Waaagh and Goffs but now it's really the time to re-write my lists from scratch.

 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

How about something like:

"If a unit (excluding Vehicles) suffers any casualties, then at the end of your turn roll 2D6 and apply the following modifiers:
- Unit is in Engagement Range of any enemies: +1
- Unit is under Half-Strength: +1
- Unit is within range of a Fearless* unit: -1
- Unit is within your own Deployment Zone: -1

If the result is higher than the Leadership of the unit, the unit suffers D3 Mortal Wounds and is Broken. Until the end of their next turn, Broken units must subtract 1 from their BS and WS stats, and lose the Objective Secured rule.

*Fearless would be an Aura for some units such as Commanders, Commissars, Warbosses, etc.

This way, the actual damage inflicted by Morale is reduced. You still take some damage, representing guys losing their nerve/focus and getting cut down, but their performance also degrades temporarily as well. Obviously some bespoke changes will be needed for some armies' units but this might be a good alternative.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Valkyrie wrote:
How about something like:

"If a unit (excluding Vehicles) suffers any casualties, then at the end of your turn roll 2D6 and apply the following modifiers:
- Unit is in Engagement Range of any enemies: +1
- Unit is under Half-Strength: +1
- Unit is within range of a Fearless* unit: -1
- Unit is within your own Deployment Zone: -1

If the result is higher than the Leadership of the unit, the unit suffers D3 Mortal Wounds and is Broken. Until the end of their next turn, Broken units must subtract 1 from their BS and WS stats, and lose the Objective Secured rule.

*Fearless would be an Aura for some units such as Commanders, Commissars, Warbosses, etc.

This way, the actual damage inflicted by Morale is reduced. You still take some damage, representing guys losing their nerve/focus and getting cut down, but their performance also degrades temporarily as well. Obviously some bespoke changes will be needed for some armies' units but this might be a good alternative.

Orkz are amost always within engagement range of the enemy...that is where they like to be, you just reduced their Morale from 7 to 6 and in some cases from 6 to 5. They are almost NEVER in their own deployment zone so the -1 for that is functionally useless except for Mek gunz who are LD4.

I mean, getting around my armies specific case in your mentioned changes...you could just have individual army rules for morale but in the end its still useless and applies to some factions significantly more then others.

Orkz lose -1BS, they are now hitting on 6s. Kind of a big deal to lose 50% of your shooting. A Marine unit fails and has -1BS...oh no, they dropped 25% shooting..or half as much as the orkz did.



As it currently stands the problem with morale is that it only really applies to 1 or 2 factions in any meaningful way. I can count on 1 hand how many times morale has mattered in any of my games against opponents (except other ork players), on the flipside i've lost hundreds of models to morale.

At this point I am more inclined to just fragging the entire system as opposed to letting GW try and fix it because they have yet to do it remotely well and it always inevitably ends with my faction getting hosed.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Valkyrie wrote:

"If a unit (excluding Vehicles) suffers any casualties, then at the end of your turn roll 2D6 and apply the following modifiers:
- Unit is in Engagement Range of any enemies: +1
- Unit is under Half-Strength: +1
- Unit is within range of a Fearless* unit: -1
- Unit is within your own Deployment Zone: -1

If the result is higher than the Leadership of the unit, the unit suffers D3 Mortal Wounds and is Broken. Until the end of their next turn, Broken units must subtract 1 from their BS and WS stats, and lose the Objective Secured rule.

What SemperMortis said. Plus:

* This is still a, "You lose models and punishment for losing models," mechanic, which I think most of us aren't overly fond of.
* Mortal Wounds are a bit wonky because you might be losing d3 Gretchin, or you might be losing d3 Incubi. Which is a pretty big difference in points.
* I'm not necessarily against to-hit modifiers as part of a morale mechanic, but Semper is right about it impacting some armies more than others.

As it currently stands the problem with morale is that it only really applies to 1 or 2 factions in any meaningful way. I can count on 1 hand how many times morale has mattered in any of my games against opponents (except other ork players), on the flipside i've lost hundreds of models to morale.

At this point I am more inclined to just fragging the entire system as opposed to letting GW try and fix it because they have yet to do it remotely well and it always inevitably ends with my faction getting hosed.

Yeah. Conceptually, I like the idea of morale mattering. But narratively, it usually feels weird for most armies to be impacted, and I've yet to play an edition where the consequences of morale felt fluffy and added to the game experience.


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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






What about more punishment but more options to get around it?

If a unit fails a morale check (which is done at the start of your turn for taking casualties etc. snce your last turn) then they are broken.

Broken units cannot move, shoot, and when they fight in CC each model only makes 1 attack.

When you start your turn, in the command phase (now after the morale phase) you gain a number of CP from your leader, and you can spend 1CP on each unit that is broken, to unbreak them. spare CP can be used as normal, so not breaking is a good thing for CP.

So high leadership armies get more CP for gimmicks, and low Ld armies may need to pick good leaders (EG a warboss gives more CP than a big mek, and breakin' heads may have an aura effect for 1cp instead of 1cp per unit), and morale is only a real issue when you lose your leaders and your army starts breaking.

Your leader can be changed (literally just pick a character and characters will have a stat for CP gained).

Big mobs of boys becomes more viable because 1CP can unbreak a big unit, whereas MSU will suffer on one front from being broken, but do better on another by relying less on CP to unbreak them because they have more other units to use).

Armies made of multiple detachments have less CP, so represent less coordinated armies with less command structure, so stay broken easier.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:
Spoiler:
What about more punishment but more options to get around it?

If a unit fails a morale check (which is done at the start of your turn for taking casualties etc. snce your last turn) then they are broken.

Broken units cannot move, shoot, and when they fight in CC each model only makes 1 attack.

When you start your turn, in the command phase (now after the morale phase) you gain a number of CP from your leader, and you can spend 1CP on each unit that is broken, to unbreak them. spare CP can be used as normal, so not breaking is a good thing for CP.

So high leadership armies get more CP for gimmicks, and low Ld armies may need to pick good leaders (EG a warboss gives more CP than a big mek, and breakin' heads may have an aura effect for 1cp instead of 1cp per unit), and morale is only a real issue when you lose your leaders and your army starts breaking.

Your leader can be changed (literally just pick a character and characters will have a stat for CP gained).

Big mobs of boys becomes more viable because 1CP can unbreak a big unit, whereas MSU will suffer on one front from being broken, but do better on another by relying less on CP to unbreak them because they have more other units to use).

Armies made of multiple detachments have less CP, so represent less coordinated armies with less command structure, so stay broken easier.


Summary: Feth low leadership armies and praise be the emprah for his space marines who will functionally ignore this rule as well. Which brings us back to my point. Morale tends to punish a few armies while being functionally useless against most.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 some bloke wrote:
Spoiler:
What about more punishment but more options to get around it?

If a unit fails a morale check (which is done at the start of your turn for taking casualties etc. snce your last turn) then they are broken.

Broken units cannot move, shoot, and when they fight in CC each model only makes 1 attack.

When you start your turn, in the command phase (now after the morale phase) you gain a number of CP from your leader, and you can spend 1CP on each unit that is broken, to unbreak them. spare CP can be used as normal, so not breaking is a good thing for CP.

So high leadership armies get more CP for gimmicks, and low Ld armies may need to pick good leaders (EG a warboss gives more CP than a big mek, and breakin' heads may have an aura effect for 1cp instead of 1cp per unit), and morale is only a real issue when you lose your leaders and your army starts breaking.

Your leader can be changed (literally just pick a character and characters will have a stat for CP gained).

Big mobs of boys becomes more viable because 1CP can unbreak a big unit, whereas MSU will suffer on one front from being broken, but do better on another by relying less on CP to unbreak them because they have more other units to use).

Armies made of multiple detachments have less CP, so represent less coordinated armies with less command structure, so stay broken easier
.

That seems like a lot of rules text for a kind of frustrating end result.

Army A is naturally better at passing morale tests > Army A ends up with more CP to spend on strats > Army A does more damage > Army B has to make more morale tests > Army B thus fails more morale tests > Army B has less CP to spend on strats > Army B does less damage > Army A is at a morale and damage output advantage all game. This would also make alpha strikes more powerful because whoever goes first is less likely end up at a CP/morale disadvantage right off the bat.

Plus, trying to balance the CP points generated across various HQs would probably be its own can of worms. I suspect you'd basically end up with a lot of extra rules to remember and an overall less enjoyable game experience.


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 ca
Implacable Skitarii




Canada,eh

Currently Morale is a mechanic that penalizes large units, for this and many other reasons MSU is still the order of the day. I think it should be the opposite, small units that lose 3/5 members should have a harder time passing morale then a large unit losing 5/20 members. I think some variation of the concept that you test against how many models are left vs how many are lost would go a long way to shift the scales slightly away from MSU.




I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.


1000pt Skitari Legion 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Pacific Northwest

What about the morale system in HamWarmer 24.5? (A community variant of 9th ed)

I'll post it here but you can also find it on Google in his core rules PDF.

Spoiler:
Who Must Test Morale?
A unit must test Morale if it:
• Suffered 25% or more casualties this turn, but is not currently within 1” of any enemy models.
• Took more casualties than it inflicted in the Fight phase and is currently within 1” of any enemy models.

The Morale Test
Roll 2d6 and compare the result to the unit’s Leadership (Ld). If the result is equal to or below the unit’s Ld, the unit passes the Morale test. A unit has -1 Ld if it is below 25% of its original model count and -2 Ld if it is below 50% of its original model count. A result of 2 always passes, regardless of any modifiers. If a unit has a Ld of “-”, it automatically passes all Morale tests.

Failing a Morale Test
A unit that fails its Morale Test must behave in certain ways during its next turn.

Movement
The unit cannot move closer to any enemy models.
It must move its maximum Movement distance towards terrain that provides Cover (pg. 5). If no eligible terrain is present, the unit must move towards the nearest edge of the battlefield. If this movement would take a model off the battlefield, the model is destroyed.
If the unit cannot move towards terrain or a battlefield edge without also moving closer to enemy models, the unit remains in place and takes 1d6 Mortal Wounds (pg. 3). Even if the unit does not move, all models count as moving for the purposes of weapons and special rules.
If any models are within 1” of enemy models, the unit must Fall Back (pg. 5), obeying the restrictions above.

Charge
The unit cannot Charge during the Charge phase. (edit: formatting)


There's really two take-aways that I can gather:
1. There are separate rules for in and out of melee combat
2. The main punishment for failing morale is a forced retreat.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 00:42:50


 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




Au'taal

Don't over-think this, just go back to what morale used to be before GW turned it into RNG mortal wounds. If you take casualties or lose combat you roll for morale, if you fail morale you run for the table edge as fast as possible and are destroyed once you cross it. No shooting, no scoring, no melee, until/unless you regroup you panic and run. And even marines could break and run, they just automatically regrouped at the start of the following turn instead of continuing to run. Morale tricks still had a purpose in forcing marines to run away from an objective, be unable to shoot heavy weapons (no more of this mere -1 to hit penalty, if you move you can't shoot at all), etc. Only a handful of units ignored morale entirely and they paid for it by taking extra casualties in melee because they were too stubborn to attempt to fall back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/03 08:27:50


One of their light walkers carried a weapon of lethal effect. It fired a form of ultra-high velocity projectile. I saw one of our tanks after having been hit by it. There was a small hole punched in either flank - one the projectile's entry point, the other its exit. The tiny munition had passed through the vehicle with such speed that everything within the hull not welded down had been sucked out through the exit hole. Including the crew. We never identified their bodies, for all that remained of them was a red stain upon the ground, extending some twenty metres from the wreck.

Bow before the Greater Good, gue'la. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
Don't over-think this, just go back to what morale used to be before GW turned it into RNG mortal wounds. If you take casualties or lose combat you roll for morale, if you fail morale you run for the table edge as fast as possible and are destroyed once you cross it. No shooting, no scoring, no melee, until/unless you regroup you panic and run.

Nah. The old morale system had plenty of flaws of its own. Switching back to it would be a horizontal move.

Losing units because your opponent got top of turn and made you fall back while you were still in your deployment zone was pretty sour. Plus, actively undoing a turn of movement was way more punitive for short-ranged and melee armies than for long-ranged shooty armies. Plus, figuring out the shortest route off your own table edge could get a bit wonky when impassible terrain was in the way. (You'd sometimes have to determine whether it was faster or slower to go down an L-shaped alley, crawl over a wall, etc. versus just walking all the way around a piece of terrain.) It was just very frustrating in general as you not only lost control of your units for a turn but you also had to take the time to actively measure/move them in a disadvantageous way. I don't love the current system, but at least it's usually just a couple dice rolls, removing a few models, and then it's done.


Only a handful of units ignored morale entirely and they paid for it by taking extra casualties in melee because they were too stubborn to attempt to fall back.

Ye olde fearless was also considered very frustrating, and for very similar reasons to the current "lose more" morale system. You could potentially lose a single guy in melee, fail morale, and then lose several more dudes to the fearless rule.

Admittedly, physically picking up the models and moving them further away did a better job of "feeling" like it represented units retreating, but it did so in a way that could be extremely annoying in practice.


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
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Pacific Northwest

What if when you fail a morale test you have to move 6" directly away from the closest enemy unit? That way it's like the old philosophy of controlling your enemy's movements. Pushing them into a trap or something.
I picked 6" so it's not too punishing to melee armies. Maybe 2d3" would work better.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 1999/12/31 23:59:59


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kingpbjames wrote:
What if when you fail a morale test you have to move 6" directly away from the closest enemy unit? That way it's like the old philosophy of controlling your enemy's movements. Pushing them into a trap or something.
I picked 6" so it's not too punishing to melee armies. Maybe 2d3" would work better.

I don't think that would really improve things. Alpha strikes would still see units running off the board before they contribute anything. Short-ranged/melee armies would still be hitting the enemy lines a turn or two later than they otherwise would (even if you made them move 2d3 (average 4) inches instead of a flat 6). You'd still be spending time picking up and moving models to your disadvantage thus resulting in a frustrating experience.

The main consequences I see coming from those adjustments are:
A.) You'd now be even more likely to kill off entire units with morale because you could make them run off the nearest board edge.
B.) You'd create weird situations where units run directly away from some gretching (the closest enemy unit) straight towards Ghazkull and his meganob friends who are a half inch further away from the fleeing unit than the gretchin.
C.) Also, randomizing the distance the unit runs adds another (admittedly small) step of dice rolling to the process which adds a tiny bit to the frustration of having to spend time moving to your detriment.

And all of those sound even worse to me. No offense, kingpbjames. I don't mean to come down on you too hard.


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
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Pacific Northwest

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Spoiler:

I don't think that would really improve things. Alpha strikes would still see units running off the board before they contribute anything. Short-ranged/melee armies would still be hitting the enemy lines a turn or two later than they otherwise would (even if you made them move 2d3 (average 4) inches instead of a flat 6). You'd still be spending time picking up and moving models to your disadvantage thus resulting in a frustrating experience.

The main consequences I see coming from those adjustments are:
A.) You'd now be even more likely to kill off entire units with morale because you could make them run off the nearest board edge.
B.) You'd create weird situations where units run directly away from some gretching (the closest enemy unit) straight towards Ghazkull and his meganob friends who are a half inch further away from the fleeing unit than the gretchin.
C.) Also, randomizing the distance the unit runs adds another (admittedly small) step of dice rolling to the process which adds a tiny bit to the frustration of having to spend time moving to your detriment.

And
all of those sound even worse to me. No offense, kingpbjames. I don't mean to come down on you too hard.

No offense taken. This is the forge. Unto the anvil and all that.

I do get how having to retreat an entire unit can be worse than just losing additional models but otherwise staying in the fight.
But I do still like the idea of some lucky grots chasing a group of conscripts right into a mob of nobs.

Edit: What if you retreat only the models that would be removed for morale/combat attrition? The models would be pushed out of unit coherency and instead of being destroyed would be "disabled", meaning on their next turn the models can't do anything but attempt to regroup.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 23:55:15


This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 1999/12/31 23:59:59


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kingpbjames wrote:

Edit: What if you retreat only the models that would be removed for morale/combat attrition? The models would be pushed out of unit coherency and instead of being destroyed would be "disabled", meaning on their next turn the models can't do anything but attempt to regroup.

I think avoiding that scenario is exactly why the out-of-coherency rules exist. It would be annoying to track which guardsmen squads your 5 different out-of-coherency units belong to and whether the 2 guys next to this CSM squad are actually part of that squad or just trying to get back into coherency with a different squad up ahead, etc.

Unless you mean they'd regroup and form their own new units, which would actually be pretty advantageous, and you'd be actively hoping you failed morale tests so that your MSU units could be even more MSU-y.


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
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Pacific Northwest

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think avoiding that scenario is exactly why the out-of-coherency rules exist. It would be annoying to track which guardsmen squads your 5 different out-of-coherency units belong to and whether the 2 guys next to this CSM squad are actually part of that squad or just trying to get back into coherency with a different squad up ahead, etc.

I did mean that the separated models would be trying to rejoin their original unit, but I see how they would get lost in a horde.

Hmm, well how about instead of falling back broken/routed models, they could just be stunned for a turn to account for them taking time to regroup with their unit? Then you would have two options on your next turn: hold your unit in coherency to give your downed men time to regroup, or move forward and leave the stragglers behind. (Letting them be destroyed by going out of coherency)

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 1999/12/31 23:59:59


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kingpbjames wrote:
 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think avoiding that scenario is exactly why the out-of-coherency rules exist. It would be annoying to track which guardsmen squads your 5 different out-of-coherency units belong to and whether the 2 guys next to this CSM squad are actually part of that squad or just trying to get back into coherency with a different squad up ahead, etc.

I did mean that the separated models would be trying to rejoin their original unit, but I see how they would get lost in a horde.

Hmm, well how about instead of falling back broken/routed models, they could just be stunned for a turn to account for them taking time to regroup with their unit? Then you would have two options on your next turn: hold your unit in coherency to give your downed men time to regroup, or move forward and leave the stragglers behind. (Letting them be destroyed by going out of coherency)


Because of the game's limited number of turns and high lethality, etting stunlocked for a turn is almost as bad as having to move in the opposite direction. Especially for short-ranged or squishy armies. And leaving stragglers behind to die is basically the system we have, and it's disliked enough for this thread to exist. So you're more or less pitching the current system but with the option to ignore morale casualties in exchange for being stun locked for a turn. Which will usually be a pretty easy decision to make based on the unit and where it's positioned. A small fire warrior squad camping a backfield objective, for instance, is probably perfectly fine taking no morale casualties in exchange for not firing a couple BS4+ shots. Whereas a mob of ork boyz or a squad of harlequins are pretty much screwed if they get stunned while crossing the table.

So functionally what you're proposing is a system with the same flaws as the current one, but also you're adding an extra rule that will let certain types of units basically ignore morale. It also gets a little weird in melee. Like, you've got a squad of Night Lord raptors revving their chainswords in your face. Your squad fails morale. Leaving stragglers "behind" (even though you're not moving) would wipe out your squad. So do you opt to regroup? And if you regroup, are you allowed to fight in the fight phase? If so, then morale functionally does nothing in melee. If not, then it's kind of weird that you're just... standing t here while the enemy chops you up.


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
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

The big problem for morale is that thematically it means different things depending on the faction.

For the Guard it is normal human fear. Space Marines are enhanced to be able to ignore it. Orks are fearless until their horde cohesion is lost (usually because someone killed their boss). Tyranids are not even capable of feeling fear, morale to them is just disruption of the synapse web. And the list goes on as each faction has their own behaviors that could be attributed to morale.

So having a rule that the unit is stunned? makes sense for Guardsmen, Tau and arguably Eldar. It doesn't make sense for anyone else.

Running away? also makes sense for humans and Tau, but I don't recall an Eldar ever running away. Broken Orks do run away, but in the Tyranids' case it actually depends on which type of organism.

More casualties? kinda makes sense for Daemons, Necrons (they are fading away/phasing out), Khornate humans, Orks and certain breeds of Tyranids (infighting).

Hell I would add an additional behavior of moving towards the enemy. A khornate horde losing cohesion is actually more likely to senseless throw themselves at the enemy, same goes for other breeds of Tyranids.

Morale is maybe the only example in the game that having bespoke rules for everyone makes sense, because everyone is different when it comes to morale.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/04 14:23:52


 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Pacific Northwest

By stunned I didn't mean standing there stupefied, I meant they were floored and need to fight through shell shock and confusion to get back in formation.
I was going to suggest next that stunned units lose combat effectiveness for a turn: BS6, WS6, Sv6, but I just realized I'm throwing away the sole purpose of the commissar. Shooting deserters is a time honored tradition and must stay in the game.

So the problem with faction-specific consequences to failed morale tests is that there are units like the Death Jester who have abilities directly tied into fleeing models...

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 1999/12/31 23:59:59


 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 kingpbjames wrote:
By stunned I didn't mean standing there stupefied, I meant they were floored and need to fight through shell shock and confusion to get back in formation.

And most factions in the game are biologically incapable of suffering shell shock.


So the problem with faction-specific consequences to failed morale tests is that there are units like the Death Jester who have abilities directly tied into fleeing models...


Looking at Wahapedia, they don't. They have a rule that facilitates failing morale tests by making ever model killed count twice for morale, but that isn't really tied into fleeing models.

IMHO "fear" based abilities like the Death Jester or the Night Lords should be about making failing morale more likely, but not really interact with the consequences of failing morale which could be faction specific.

Or at the very least have different morale related USR to cover all possible ways a unit can suffer from morale, from stunned or pinned down to running away or additional casualties or throwing yourself at the enemy in a suicidal insane charge.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/04 16:38:37


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: