40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**Chikout**

Mezmerro wrote:
Chikout wrote:
These will allow rerolls of fluffed charge and morale throws among other things. Then you have unit and hero abilities. I can't imagine that a commissar will not give you some way to affect a morale roll for example.

Imagine a 30 model unit. Something Guard, Nids or Orks are waiting yo do with new template-free shooting.
That unit have an Ld of 6 and suffers 12 casualties (easily achieved in one shooting phase). Now it must roll D6+12 over Ld6 (or 9 if it takes +1Ld for every 10 models like the guys above suggest). It would take 7-12 (or 4-9 with Ld bonus), 8.5(6.5)average extra casualties. No matter how much you re-roll they would loose at lest 7(or4) extra models.
Now let's MSU that unit into three 10-model units
Each takes 4 casualties (12 total as before).
Each takes an Ld test on D6+4 against Ld6 (7)
On 1-2(3) it passes the test, then takes up to 4(3) casualties, average 1.6(1)
Multiply it on 3 - 0-12(9), average 5(3).
Boom
MSU takes far less tamage from morale on average from the same ammoutn of firepower, with a slight chance to take slighly more at extreme rolls, offset by a chance tyo take no damage at all. ANd that's if the damage is evenly spread which it would not. In reality one unit would likely be wiped out by shooting alone wasting potential morale damage (and proabbly some shooting damage too), another unit would suffer minor casualties and the thir would not be shot at at all.

Put that unit within 12 inches of your general assuming it has this immune to morale ability (like AOS) , it loses 0, the 3 units of ten lose 3 or 4. As before we don't know the core abilities that armies have, we don't know the unit abilities, we don't know how specific command abilities work. There are some units in AOS that gain extra attacks when fighting in large units, so there will be perks that balance out a weakness to morale.
Hopefully the battle forged armies info coming in a couple of days will tell us more.

**xttz**

Vaktathi wrote:

Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.

With a Leadership value of 7 a Russ squadron would need to lose two models AND roll a 6 to fail a test. Ld8 would basically make them immune.

I think only larger squadrons of vehicles (like Killa Kans) need to worry about this.

**Mezmerro**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.

I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.

**tneva82**

Lord Kragan wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
]

No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.

And those 5-man squads will have to make two separate leadership checks. You're assuming that the opponent will do focus the same effort on two half-size units rather than split attention.

Whicg miggt not be possible(you shoot with one unit), increases chance of no check(you kill one model per unit). Even at worst msu is better. You can see best btw with ultimate msu lone models. This is big part why monsters are popular in aos...

No need to get bttw overly defensive. All rules help certain units more than other and leadership has benefitted msu line forever. Nature of the beast. In return 8th ed h2h order goes from neutral to anti-msu(assuming one unit can split attacks vs multiple units in contact which would be ridiculous msu boost)

Just because one rule helps mpu or horde doesn't make it bad. Not many possible good rules if it did

**Lord Kragan**

tneva82 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
]

No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.

And those 5-man squads will have to make two separate leadership checks. You're assuming that the opponent will do focus the same effort on two half-size units rather than split attention.

Whicg miggt not be possible(you shoot with one unit), increases chance of no check(you kill one model per unit). Even at worst msu is better. You can see best btw with ultimate msu lone models. This is big part why monsters are popular in aos...

Monsters with heroes are popular because they are, generally speaking, the best way to ensure holding objectives and because of their resilience/damage output ratios. Leadership is literally the last of the things you check when saying whether or not you want a monster.

**Mezmerro**

Chikout wrote:

Put that unit within 12 inches of your general assuming it has this immune to morale ability (like AOS) , it loses 0, the 3 units of ten lose 3 or 4. As before we don't know the core abilities that armies have, we don't know the unit abilities, we don't know how specific command abilities work. There are some units in AOS that gain extra attacks when fighting in large units, so there will be perks that balance out a weakness to morale.
Hopefully the battle forged armies info coming in a couple of days will tell us more.

You're right, we don't know the whole picture, but that's not the reason for hoping for the best.
I analyze what we do know now. It's not pretty so far, so I expect the worst.
If I'm wrong it would be a nice surprise for me. If you're wrong it would be a nasty disappointment for you.
I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of nice surprises instead of nasty disappointments.

**tneva82**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

So the MSU is wiped then? Because it started with 5 models.

Yes but it would have unit of 5 untouched while one big unit would have 0-5 sized unit left.

**Mezmerro**

Lord Kragan wrote:
Monsters with heroes are popular because they are, generally speaking, the best way to ensure holding objectives and because of their resilience/damage output ratios. Leadership is literally the last of the things you check when saying whether or not you want a monster.

With this new system Leadership is basically just another part of resilience.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

Mezmerro wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.

I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.

That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

**sturguard**

I really think GW is incapable of creating a rules system where they learn from their past mistakes. For those of you complaining that 7th edition was full of rules bloat, this seems to be an area where you will see exactly that. So GW has outlined the morale system- but then Nids will have the Snyapse rule that will ignore or modify the system and Orks will have some sort of mob rule which will ignore or alter the system and Marines may have ATSKNF which may affect the system and you may have command points which ignore the system etc etc. So we end up with a rule, that for most of the game isn't a rule anymore. So while the core system might be fine, it will be broken by individual army rules. 7th edition actually wasnt a bad rule set without the army books/formations/ and data slates that followed after. I fear this edition will end up in a similar vein.

**tneva82**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate

**Mezmerro**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Mezmerro wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.

I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.

That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Let's imagine 30-model squad from my example is lead by Ld10 IC. It'd lower average morale damage by 10-6=4 models to 4.5(2.5).
Which is still higher then MSU take without that expensive IC's support

**Lord Kragan**

Mezmerro wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
Monsters with heroes are popular because they are, generally speaking, the best way to ensure holding objectives and because of their resilience/damage output ratios. Leadership is literally the last of the things you check when saying whether or not you want a monster.

With this new system Leadership is basically just another part of resilience.

And it was before. Because they didn't give a damn.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

tneva82 wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate

Except MSU infantry units get crippled or outright killed even faster by the morale system and the additional casualties. Meanwhile the system allows for granularity to better simulate Tyranids and Orks having very low morale in the lore when they lose synapse or are no longer outnumbering their enemy/have lost most of their models as their low profile Ld kicks in when they lose their special morale buff effects and simulates parts of the unit deserting or retreating off the battlefield.

**gorgon**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I'm imagining non-synapse Nids will have very low bravery and will compensate by having synapse make them auto pass all bravery tests or something.

Right...just like a Termagant unit's Ld characteristic doesn't tell the whole story now. Instinctive Behavior and Synapse are important considerations.

**Formerly Wu**

tneva82 wrote:
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate

It's too bad bespoke unit rules aren't a core concept of the game, then. /s

**Azreal13**

tneva82 wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate

This is being unnecessarily harsh IMO. "We're aware that this sort of thing needs an alteration to be balanced, so we've taken steps to make it fair." "Yeah, well that just means your core rules are biased!"

The rules only favor X or Y if they're inherently better when you factor in all the rules.

There's being critical for something that's a poor design choice, and then there's holding things to an impossible standard (everything has to be viable, but you're not allowed to modify rules on different units to ensure that, it all has to come from the core.)

**EnTyme**

If you really don't expect Commisars or Orks to be able to execute a model from a Guard or Boyz unit to prevent the rest from having to take a Morale test, do you even 40k, bro?

**andysonic1**

tneva82 wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate

And what's the problem with this exactly? Most armies will benefit from the default MSU while other armies will get specific boosts to hordes, hell some armies may get special bonuses for having fewer models per unit. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

**Mezmerro**

EnTyme wrote:
If you really don't expect Commisars or Orks to be able to execute a model from a Guard or Boyz unit to prevent the rest from having to take a Morale test, do you even 40k, bro?

It'd likely be a re-roll if they keep the current theme. And with D6+casualties vs Ld system re-rolls aren't that useful for horde units.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

andysonic1 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
And what's the problem with this exactly?

The fact that MSU-spam slows the game, and GW claims to speed it up.

**Halfpast_Yellow**

Mezmerro wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Mezmerro wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.

I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.

That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Let's imagine 30-model squad from my example is lead by Ld10 IC. It'd lower average morale damage by 10-6=4 models to 4.5(2.5).
Which is still higher then MSU take without that expensive IC's support

Maybe MSU is indisputably better for Morale.

But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).

It's entirely possible to have tradeoffs in different phases of the game, and some won't favour MSU.

**Mezmerro**

EnTyme wrote:

If you really don't expect Commisars or Orks to be able to execute a model from a Guard or Boyz unit to prevent the rest from having to take a Morale test, do you even 40k, bro?

It'd likely be a re-roll if they keep the current theme. And with D6+casualties vs Ld system re-rolls aren't that useful for horde units.

andysonic1 wrote:
And what's the problem with this exactly?

The fact that MSU-spam slows the game, and GW claims to speed it up.

**Vaktathi**

andysonic1 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
And what's the problem with this exactly? Most armies will benefit from the default MSU while other armies will get specific boosts to hordes, hell some armies may get special bonuses for having fewer models per unit. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

the problem is that it requires codex level patching (which, with GW's track record, is sketchy at best) for certain units (units that often are the most fundamental basic core of many armies) to function right and leaves avenues for weaknesses that can be exploited that are simply an an artefact of the rules not scaling their functionality properly as opposed to being an intended mechanic.

**Latro_**

Am i being a bit thick or with MSU why don't i just shoot a little bit at a lot of units to force lots of checks opposed to a lot of shots at one unit for a bigger check

are we mathing even f that is the case bigger units suffer...

e.g. i have 2 units of 10 boys you kill an ork from both
ld6 (for sake of argument) i roll a 6 then a 6 for both units i'v lost 4 orks

i have one unit of 20 boys you kill two
i roll a 6 you killed 2 more for a total of 4 as above

except i had to roll 2 sixes not one in the second example

**Ragnar Blackmane**

Mezmerro wrote:
It'd likely be a re-roll if they keep the current theme. And with D6+casualties vs Ld system re-rolls aren't that useful for horde units.

Mhm, and what tells you that it will "likely be a re-roll"? There haven't really any been mentioned in the new rules so far.
Looks to me that you are basically making that up in order to convince us how the morale system will still suck because commissars and similar Ork rules will likely not be worth it.
Assuming the worst by any means necessary, kek.

**davou**

xttz wrote:

I think only larger squadrons of vehicles (like Killa Kans) need to worry about this.

Kans are the only vehicle model in the game right now that has to contend with leadership; and in order to be graced with that privilege, their points cost nearly doubled.

I don't worry TOO much about how kans will do in the next edition, because either they've realized that no one plays them anymore after the nerfs and cost increase and will adjust it accordingly, or else they didn't and life goes on as it is now.

**Azreal13**

I wonder if swapping "models" for "mortal wounds" doesn't solve a lot of the initial misgivings people have got?

**Mezmerro**

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).

That's assuming Melee is actually worth the trouble. With MSU you send one small unit to eat the charge and die, then shoot enemy melee guys do bits. If they somehow don't kill your tiny cheap expendable squad it's even better then before - you can now withdraw it out of melee and still shoot them to bits, only now you have a remnant of a sacrificial unit you can use as a speedbump once again.

**kestral**

Mezmerro wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.

Per these new rules Ld7 grans immunity to morale tests from one lost model, Ld8-from two and so on. So unles Russes have LD6 or lower (unlikely) it won't happen.
At least until something *cough*psykers*cough* lowers their Ld.

I will HOWL with laughter if exploding vehicles have been replaced with running away vehicles. In some ways it's not a terrible thing or that unrealistic - they bug out, or they stop to help their friends and take no further part in the battle.

**Oaka**

I like the premise of the new morale phase. If Dark Eldar and Harlequins still get all their negative modifiers to leadership, it's a more consistent strategy. Each stack of -1 leadership will kill an extra model per unit per turn, with no saves allowed. That's easier to plan around rather than hoping you pin or cause units to flee.

I'm a little disappointed to see that the time saved from no longer measuring models to spread out for templates seems to be replaced with precisely measuring firelines to be 3.1" away from each other.