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.

Hello fellows! I feel battle shock might have too little impact during games and compare poorly with classic rules effects like pinning or sweeping advance. Here is my suggestion to add some spice:

Failing battleshock has its regular OC becomes zero and no strategems can target the unit. But also the unit can not move or shoot. The battle shocked state is only cured at the end of the owning players turn.

If you are locked in combat when failing battleshock, the unit is killed and removed from play.

What do you think? Would this add some spice to the game or ruin it?

 Gitdakka wrote:
Hello fellows! I feel battle shock might have too little impact during games and compare poorly with classic rules effects like pinning or sweeping advance. Here is my suggestion to add some spice:

Failing battleshock has its regular OC becomes zero and no strategems can target the unit. But also the unit can not move or shoot. The battle shocked state is only cured at the end of the owning players turn.

I think not being able to move is the opposite of what you want, you want them to be running away from the scary enemies. I think maybe -1 to hit and/or -1 to Toughness could work.

If you are locked in combat when failing battleshock, the unit is killed and removed from play.

Bad idea because of things that can give full-strength units battleshock tests.

No my intent was not to represent troops running away. Them being combat inneffective is the intent. And i belive a pinning effect to be far more troubling for the commander than a free disengage move.

Also i dont understand why full strength units dying in melee is an issue? Just like classic 40k where full strength units could be sweept of the battlefield if they failed morale. I think it would bring tension to the game

 Gitdakka wrote:
No my intent was not to represent troops running away. Them being combat inneffective is the intent. And i belive a pinning effect to be far more troubling for the commander than a free disengage move.

Also i dont understand why full strength units dying in melee is an issue? Just like classic 40k where full strength units could be sweept of the battlefield if they failed morale. I think it would bring tension to the game

I think it'd be frustrating to lose a 400 pt deathstar that hasn't lost a single wound.

 Gitdakka wrote:
No my intent was not to represent troops running away. Them being combat inneffective is the intent. And i belive a pinning effect to be far more troubling for the commander than a free disengage move.

Also i dont understand why full strength units dying in melee is an issue? Just like classic 40k where full strength units could be sweept of the battlefield if they failed morale. I think it would bring tension to the game

Battle Sweeping is a bad mechanic.

I can't see any problem at all with this suggestion and Tyranids forcing army-wide battle shock tests.

Well you'd only loose the unit if it was stuck in combat

@paintingowl yeah exactly, the tyranid ability now is pretty weak, i think with chance to clear some enemies it would be very strong and more interesting. Scary indeed, truly a cosmic horror.

And you still always have the ignore failed morale strategem if you feel that deathstar must succed.

Pinning and Sweeping Advance were both highly complained about rules when they were a thing. Generally, losing a unit (or having it stunned for 20% of the game) to a morale test that you have basically no control over feels pretty bad.

So I feel like you're going to have a pretty limited number of people interested in bringing those back.

There's also the issue that being rendered combat ineffective by failing morale is kind of unfluffy for most factions in 40k. Sure, guardsmen and tau and maybe craftworlders can freak out, but that's about it. Everyone else is either brainwashed, mind-controlled, or a robot to the point that it's weird for them to stand around doing nothing while they're cut down.

In contrast, you can reasonably see space marines being momentarily thrown off their game by Brother Larry being laid low and leaving a hole in their formation. Or various robots taking a moment to recalculate their formation/tactics when a big chunk of their squad gets blasted to pieces. They're not freezing up and holding still, but they're thrown off enough to maybe not be able to pull off that complicated maneuver (strategem) they were going to do.

 Gitdakka wrote:
@paintingowl yeah exactly, the tyranid ability now is pretty weak, i think with chance to clear some enemies it would be very strong and more interesting. Scary indeed, truly a cosmic horror.

It may be too weak now but your proposal swings it way too far in the opposite direction. Having an at-will ability that entirely shuts down half your opponent's army for a full turn and kills any of the units in the failed half that happen to be in engagement range is the kind of egregiously overpowered nonsense that makes pre-nerf Eldar look fun and reasonable. Same thing with units like cheap guard artillery forcing battle shock tests from across the table.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Pinning and Sweeping Advance were both highly complained about rules when they were a thing. Generally, losing a unit (or having it stunned for 20% of the game) to a morale test that you have basically no control over feels pretty bad.

So I feel like you're going to have a pretty limited number of people interested in bringing those back.

There's also the issue that being rendered combat ineffective by failing morale is kind of unfluffy for most factions in 40k. Sure, guardsmen and tau and maybe craftworlders can freak out, but that's about it. Everyone else is either brainwashed, mind-controlled, or a robot to the point that it's weird for them to stand around doing nothing while they're cut down.

In contrast, you can reasonably see space marines being momentarily thrown off their game by Brother Larry being laid low and leaving a hole in their formation. Or various robots taking a moment to recalculate their formation/tactics when a big chunk of their squad gets blasted to pieces. They're not freezing up and holding still, but they're thrown off enough to maybe not be able to pull off that complicated maneuver (strategem) they were going to do.

This. Morale as running away works fine for some Guard, Gretchin, some Cultists, some Tau...
But not so much for Necrons, or Marines, or Nids, or Daemons.

Units of 20 Warriors running away after taking 3-6 casualties was one of the things I hated most in 5th-7th, a lot of the time I would run units of 13-14 just to minimize the impact of sweeping advance, the last 5 models had no impact it felt like. At least with OP's suggestion most things would need to kill a full half before there was a danger of getting annihilated and as OP mentioned there is the autopass. Still not for me.

Additional penalties is a thick design space that I think GW has failed to explore unless it is hidden somewhere. I don't know if some of you play a relevant faction but maybe you can come up with something. My Necron Psychomancer is once again a bit of a wet noodle, change:

Nightmare Shroud (Aura): While an enemy unit is within 9" of this model, subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of models in that unit.

to:

Nightmare Shroud (Aura): While an enemy unit is within 9" of this model, subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of models in that unit. Subtract 1 from the Toughness characteristic of enemy Battleshocked units within 9" of this model.

 Gitdakka wrote:
No my intent was not to represent troops running away. Them being combat inneffective is the intent. And i belive a pinning effect to be far more troubling for the commander than a free disengage move.

Also i dont understand why full strength units dying in melee is an issue? Just like classic 40k where full strength units could be sweept of the battlefield if they failed morale. I think it would bring tension to the game

This is not executed well I am afraid.

We shall put it into context. You have a 10 man deathwing knight squad, lead by Termi Libby and ancient. Thats pretty much a 400-600 pt unit depending on the leaders. we will say 500 for now and round it off as a quarter of your army.

You send the quarter of your army into a unit of 20 gaunts who points cost vastly cannot do much to the knights, this is their fortea, they are doing what they are built for.

Both you and your opponent are out of CP because CP is alot harsher these days.

The Nid player activates battle shock tests because nids.

You roll a 10, you cannot re roll and cannot auto pass with CP.

In a single bad roll, a quarter of your army is wiped out, gone. Because of one bad roll.

No one roll should have the power to do this.

Battleshock is not a morale roll, it is a Command Efficiency roll. When a unit fails Battleshock it becomes disorganized. This is why classically fearless units have to make Battleshock test. Even fearless units can become disorganized when a bunch of artillery shells land in their midst.

Morale, combat effectiveness, who cares? same same. If a unit refuses to follow orders or even dies because it is dirstrupted, or scared? I dont think selecting whatever words floats your boat to describe the roll is relevant here, the effect is the same.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Morale, combat effectiveness, who cares? same same. If a unit refuses to follow orders or even dies because it is dirstrupted, or scared? I dont think selecting whatever words floats your boat to describe the roll is relevant here, the effect is the same.

The effect should follow what is happening, if a bolter shoots it does it at S4 because of the lore of bolters, if a lasgun shoots it does it at S3 because of the lore of lasguns. So what lore is behind a unit of Terminators being wiped out in melee against a unit of Termagants because a battleshock test is triggered and failed?

 Gitdakka wrote:
Morale, combat effectiveness, who cares? same same. If a unit refuses to follow orders or even dies because it is dirstrupted, or scared? I dont think selecting whatever words floats your boat to describe the roll is relevant here, the effect is the same.

Loss of cohesion and imperfect discipline is not the same as outright removing a unit.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Morale, combat effectiveness, who cares? same same. If a unit refuses to follow orders or even dies because it is dirstrupted, or scared? I dont think selecting whatever words floats your boat to describe the roll is relevant here, the effect is the same.

The point is the entire Leadership and Battleshock rules in 10 Edition are built around a completely different concept than the rules you proposed for your more dramatic battleshock. You are basically proposed the old 3rd-7th Edition Morale rules where all units had better Leadership scores and far too many were functionally if not literally immune to the effects of Morale.

Well I realise my suggested rules seems odd to many of you. Maybe I am alone in thinking dramatic and more impactfull battleshock would be fun. I don't really have the current balance in mind, i know for example a knight getting disabled would mean game over for that player.

If any proposed rule does not change the game, there would not be much reason for proposing anything, exept for maybe for increased readability.

I think im gonna try this with some friends for a one off scenario or something. I just wanted to share my ideas but it's fine if you find them too radical or imbalanced. They mostly play balanced lists without deathstars anyway so who knows maybe it works with them.

 Gitdakka wrote:
I don't really have the current balance in mind

Then don't make suggestions if you're not going to bother with thinking about the repercussions in game.

If you don’t want feedback on your proposed rule, maybe you shouldn’t post it to this forum.

And no, most of us don’t think it idea of losing a unit to overly dramatic battleshock sounds like fun.

Players have different intentions with playing the game. For me, fun and immersion comes way ahead of balance. I think the balance is unaittainable for 40k 2023 anyways.

Why the hell would i not be allowed to post on this forum?
Oh I can take critique just fine, but you don't have to be meanspirited and tell me to leave the forum, that stuff annoys me.

Never said you shouldn't be allowed to post in the forum. I said if you don't want feedback then maybe you shouldn't post. That's you choose not to do something, not anyone forbid you from doing so.

I wish you luck in your playtest.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Players have different intentions with playing the game. For me, fun and immersion comes way ahead of balance. I think the balance is unaittainable for 40k 2023 anyways.

Why the hell would i not be allowed to post on this forum?
Oh I can take critique just fine, but you don't have to be meanspirited and tell me to leave the forum, that stuff annoys me.

A squad of 10 Lychguard, backed by a Chronomancer and and their Overlord, get into combat with some Gants. They are in no way threatened by the Gants-but there's enough that they fail to completely remove the foes. They take one wound, maybe two, but the damage will be gone within moments with Reanimation Protocols. But then, the Shadow In The Warp comes out, striking at the souls of all present (that thing Necrons don't have) and, due to an unfortunate roll, the Lychguard fail their Leadership. They are all removed as casualties.

Does that make sense, in the lore? Is that immersive?

 Gitdakka wrote:
For me, fun and immersion comes way ahead of balance.

Then why suggest a rule that goes so thoroughly against both? Where a Warlord titan in engagement range with a single grot, a pathetic model so incapable of hurting the massive walking fortress that the titan's crew are probably not even aware of its existence, can be removed as a casualty because of one bad roll?

 alextroy wrote:
Never said you shouldn't be allowed to post in the forum. I said if you don't want feedback then maybe you shouldn't post. That's you choose not to do something, not anyone forbid you from doing so.

I wish you luck in your playtest.

This. I think we all wish you well and encourage you to do whatever you and your gaming group find fun. But the point of the Proposed Rules forum is that you propose rules, and then people provide feedback on the proposal. If you post your proposed rules here, people will respond with feedback. If you don't want to hear feedback that sees flaws in your proposals, then this might not be the place you want to post your stuff.

As others have pointed out, your proposed rules would have consequences that many people might find unfun and unfluffy. If your goal is to have rules that are fun and fluffy, you may want to consider the feedback being offered.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Gitdakka wrote:
For me, fun and immersion comes way ahead of balance.

Then why suggest a rule that goes so thoroughly against both? Where a Warlord titan in engagement range with a single grot, a pathetic model so incapable of hurting the massive walking fortress that the titan's crew are probably not even aware of its existence, can be removed as a casualty because of one bad roll?

Well i once killed a fleeing hydra with some 2 bat swarms in fantasy battles, wich was also ridiculus. But we had a laugh about it, imagining the bats picking at it's eyes.

I suppose first you have to wear down half the damage of the warlord titan to force the test. Then maybe the crazy grots sneaks through some ripped up armour panels and manage to reach a critical servo, wich he unscrews and the whole machine just crumbles ^^

Maybe it would be more fair if these effects I suggested could only trigger on units wich actually has been reduced to half strength. Not by other effects such as the tyranid ability.

I think weakining a unit and then disabling it would feel more justified than some arbitrary ability.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Well i once killed a fleeing hydra with some 2 bat swarms in fantasy battles, wich was also ridiculus. But we had a laugh about it, imagining the bats picking at it's eyes.

I suppose first you have to wear down half the damage of the warlord titan to force the test. Then maybe the crazy grots sneaks through some ripped up armour panels and manage to reach a critical servo, wich he unscrews and the whole machine just crumbles ^^

Sure, it was funny (for you at least) the first time it happened. Would it still be funny when it happens every game to multiple units? I doubt it. That's when the silly nonsense crosses the line from "the memorable story we laugh about years later" to "this game is stupid and I'm not playing it anymore". Even if you enjoy the silly nonsense (many of us don't) things like a grot taking down a Warlord should be incredibly rare one in a million events, not something where you can put a token model into engagement range and then trigger battle shock tests until one of them is failed.

Maybe it would be more fair if these effects I suggested could only trigger on units wich actually has been reduced to half strength. Not by other effects such as the tyranid ability.

This would be less obnoxious but if you have to nerf it to the point where it only applies to units that are almost dead anyway and rule out all of the interactions with forced battle shock tests is there really any point to it anymore? Is shutting down shooting from a three-man tactical squad remnant really so important that it outweighs the frustration of "oops, my Baneblade is damaged so now it can be auto-killed by a grot"?

I was thinking about this earlier. A cool solution might be if battleshocked units:
▪︎ movement-wise, are only eligible to Fall Back or embark on transports.
▪︎-1 to Hit Rolls
▪︎+1 to Armour Saves

This seems a bit more fluffy, and also a bit less feels-bad ("at least my unit gets a better save", etc).

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I was thinking about this earlier. A cool solution might be if battleshocked units:
▪︎ movement-wise, are only eligible to Fall Back or embark on transports.
▪︎-1 to Hit Rolls
▪︎+1 to Armour Saves

This seems a bit more fluffy, and also a bit less feels-bad ("at least my unit gets a better save", etc).

They should just IMHO make it like legion. Each unit can have a "break" stat. (Courage)
Battle shock stays unless you roll to remove it.

Being battle shook removes OC and halfs movement and cnanot use stratagems etc. But gets +1 to svaes as they go to ground.
If they reach their "break" stat for the amount of battleshock they have then they retreat and must move directly to closest board edge if eligible to do so.

A good year ago we did 40k game using legion game system, # of acitivations of a 800pt legion games is equivelent to 2000 40k. so the game time was the same. it just flowed soooo much better.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I was thinking about this earlier. A cool solution might be if battleshocked units:
▪︎ movement-wise, are only eligible to Fall Back or embark on transports.
▪︎-1 to Hit Rolls
▪︎+1 to Armour Saves

This seems a bit more fluffy, and also a bit less feels-bad ("at least my unit gets a better save", etc).

Similar things have been discussed in the past. That would be better than the OP's proposal, but I'm not sure I prefer it to what we have now. Issues you run into:

* Nerfing movement hits different units/factions differently. Stopping a tau strike team already sitting on an objective from moving? So what? Stopping a blob of ork boyz or bloodletters from moving? Very punishing.
* -1 to hit rolls is a little iffy in that means a BS3+ army loses 25% of their hits, but a BS5+ army loses 50% of their hits. And then there's the weirdness of non-stacking to-hit penalties. Already suffering a -1? May as well shoot at the Stealthy venom spending CP to do a barrel roll.
* +1 to saves is probably fine. It helps different units/armies disproportionately, but having the option to go to ground was generally well received back in the day. So was jink for that matter.

The current version of battleshock basically just hurts your ability to hold objectives and prevents you from using force multipliers on shocked units. Which is nice in that it's similarly impactful to most units/armies, easy to resolve, and lore-wise it's pretty easy to believe that a given unit was thrown off its game just enough to prevent it from doing a special maneuver (like a stratagem.) Whereas believing that you scared some khorne berzerkers into not running towards the enemy is a bit more of a stretch.