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.

Not-not-kenny wrote:

 oni wrote:
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

I'm just glad they asked anyone. Please explain why their input makes you upset.

I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

Eyjio wrote:Well, that morale phase post was disappointing. I mean, I like the system... but we already knew everything other than 1 test per turn. I guess 1 test per turn is good because assault armies get to do combat before they lose models to morale shock via shooting? Anyway, I was more hoping for things like pinning to be shown (or even say whether it exists at all). It's good though, leadership is now actually a meaningful stat at least, and elite units are okay in that they expect to take fewer casualties and have higher leadership, whereas hordes will presumably get mulched.

 oni wrote:
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

Interesting. What do you dislike which has been shown so far?

As I mentioned in my reply to Not-Not-Kenny, I prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". I've been in the hobby since 2nd edition; back when Movement stats, To Hit modifiers and Armor Save modifiers were a thing. These mechanics had some issues back then and so I'm a little skeptical to see them return. I really don't like vehicles having the same state line as everything else. I don't understand how/why people cannot connect the dots that Armor Value + Hull Points is literally the same thing as Toughness + Wounds. Also, I'm not a huge fan of adopting the AoS Battle Shock mechanic for Morale.

Breng77 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.

My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.

I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.

Jambles wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.

Yeah I'm not sure what the argument is, here. The game is going to be somehow worse specifically because people who play it all the time are providing input on the new rules? Like you said, their style of play is the one that's more restrictive in any case - even if GW wasn't trying to account for both styles, which they are, you can mend your play experience with ease.

And oh my goodness, 'for profit'... I don't think you could say their motivation is money from any point of view... just saying, if you start an FLGS or a hobby gaming convention/tournament in the interest of walking away rich, you're gonna have a bad time!

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

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.

Well other than re-rolls the only other useful way is to ignore morale tests completely.
Which means GW themselves admit their system suck and use special rules to curcumvent it.
Either way the core system suck
And yes, I do subscribe to assuming the worst mindset. Partly because it's GW we're talking about, but mostly because it's a sure way to avoid being thoroughly disappointed.

Oh, and I also provide math to my side of argument. Optimists provide hope to theirs. Math beats hope. Always.
*sorry, Tzeentch, i didn't mean to*

 Ragnar Blackmane 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

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.

Umm no. MSU units are MORE resilient to the damage. As I showed: 10 tac vs 2x5. You lose 5 models. 2x5 suffers 5 casualties. 10 suffers 5-10 casualties due to the battleshock...(and idea of trying to shoot multiple units for small checks doesn't help. For one it means you TOO are MSU so lol for second it increases chance of no roll for battleshock and third this rule favours trying to concentrate lots of damage to one unit over lots of units suffering 1 casualty)

If you want to be more resilient against this you want as many units as small as possible. Ideally 10 tacticals would be 10 units of 1. Albeit that would kick you in the teeth h2h but for shooty units 10 units of 1 would be ideal. 5 units of 2 second best etc.

It's pretty damn obvious that without bespoken rules to help horde units the LD rules favour MSU. Which is just as it is. As I pointed out h2h activation rules favour few big units. Every rule tends to favour something over other so it's not even something worth getting fretted over. Some could say this is good after edition of death stars.

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I'll be glad of not having running away units do illogical things.

Losing models though? Harsh tradeoff! Interested to see how this plays out. (I guess "Like AoS" is the answer, but I've not played it yet)

 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.

Nothing. I'm pointing out the rules are obviously NOT same whether you are MSU or non-MSU. That's so blindingly obvious only biggest white knight would try to rush to defend imaginary attack against rule(so rule favours MSU? So frigging what? Combat order favours few big units. Wopedoo. LD has from 2nd ed onward favoured MSU. Big wopedoo) by trying to claim it's same when it's obviously not.

Look LD even with everything factored in can favour MSU and that's just statement without being attack against rule so no need for any white knights to pretend it was. This rule favours MSU. Other rules favour big horde units. That's wargame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
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.

Yay this. Every rule basically tends to favour one kind of unit or another. Even in 7th ed there were rules that favoured assault army over shooty army. Whether game favours one over other too much is then decided by COMBINATION of those tradeoffs.

 Mezmerro wrote:
Oh, and I also provide math to my side of argument. Optimists provide hope to theirs. Math beats hope. Always.
*sorry, Tzeentch, i didn't mean to*

The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.

Analyzing the core rules in isolation, when the system is specifically meant to be relatively simple with more complex interactions brought in from army rules, seems kind of pointless to me.

 Latro_ wrote:
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

Average is 0 casualties from both. With 2 casualties to 1 unit increases odds.

Basically you want to concentrate fire to ensure you overcome that LD and thus in the end cause MORE casualties.

If you kill 1 model from unit you start with -5. If you kill 2 models you start at -4. After you kill 5 models _every casualty is automatic dead ork_. With small tests here and there one dead ork does not result automatically into dead ork in battleshock test.

theocracity wrote:
The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.

So far the best I achieved with variables (that do not override the core system completely) was to lower the gap between Horde and MSU, but even then not bu much.

Freakshow lists get a nice buff to killy killy death dealing. I like that.

I have no doubt that Mob Rule or Synapse or Commisars will negate the problems with the new Morale tests against horde styled armies.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I have no doubt that Mob Rule or Synapse or Commisars will negate the problems with the new Morale tests against horde styled armies.

In this case we would have a morale system that everyone ignores because of bespoken rules. Same as now! Yay for a Change that changes nothing!

It does simplify to one phase, all tests, simple resolution and no fleeing squads. Big change, tbh.

 Mezmerro wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
I have no doubt that Mob Rule or Synapse or Commisars will negate the problems with the new Morale tests against horde styled armies.

In this case we would have a morale system that everyone ignores because of bespoken rules. Same as now! Yay for a Change that changes nothing!

Which is why I don't expect them to negate it completely but reduce effect. Extra LD or something. Maybe rerolls. Either way units that ignore it completely will likely be few except for units of 1.

 Mezmerro wrote:

theocracity wrote:
The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.

So far the best I achieved with variables (that do not override the core system completely) was to lower the gap between Horde and MSU, but even then not bu much.

Well considering the only ways you could think of to affect it were rerolls and ignoring entirely, I think I'll wait to see what the actual rules are. I can already think of several ways that armies could interact with Bravery that could change the calculation in an actual game scenario, rather than just assuming that bespoke rules get ignored in a system that was designed to utilize bespoke rules.

For example, a Necron army could spend command points to have a Bravery test restore models to the unit instead of losing them. Khorne units could gain buffs based on the number of models lost to it.

I get that those are 'bespoke' rules and that QED that means the core rules suck, but ignoring that the bespoke rules are an intended part of the system is myopic imo.

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

You're misinterpreting me. That's not the narrative I'm trying to paint.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
My initial reading of the morale rules leaves me far less certain about the functionality of this ruleset, as it will inherently already require patching in codex books with Ld gimmickry reinforcement for high model count units simply to make them usable. That's a bad sign.

High Ld MSU units almost wont care unless they're mostly dead anyway, Ld will be a potential finisher, but no more. For horde armies, Ld can easily turn 10 or 15 casualties out of a 30 strong unit into an almost total unit wipe.

It also means that stuff like drop pod storm bolters can be used to simply force tests on almost every unit in an opponents army through simple plinking.

Expect to see even fewer horde armies and yet more MSU if there is not significant patching done at the codex level.

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.

This morale system in 40k feels open to way too much abuse and I can't see this having been properly playtested.

Yeah, it doesn't look good for hoards. Hopefully they will get something to mitigate that. Maybe Mob Rule will involve morale shenanigans, like in 4th ed.

Didn't it say that vehicles don't have to test for morale?
Just checked - it says single model units don't check, and as vehicles have ld it would seem that they can take morale tests.
However, the ld appears to be pretty high, and vehicle squadrons are small. This means that assuming that LRBT are LD8 like dreads, losing a vehicle will not be enough to kill another tank, as you can't exceed 8 on a D6+1, or even D6+2

It seems more and more obvious that all the playtesting has been focused on mostly space marines while using a very limited set of xeno armies.

I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.

My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.

I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.

Having run a GT, worked at a convention etc. I can say it is foolish to assume that they are gaining something monetary from these events. Lots of people lose money/break even or at best re-invest in things like terrain etc. I lost money (for a small GT bordering on $500 or so) every year. These things are super expensive to put on. Fronting money to rent space, tables, storage for terrain, new terrain. Go look into renting space at a convention center/hotel and then look at GT tickets and tell me where all the profit comes from.


Trust me the incentive for the people who run these events is at worst the notoriety within the community, but most just enjoy putting on a well run event for others. Now you may not enjoy the playstyle of a balanced game, but it seems to me that the system in general was developed by GW and then tested by these competitive groups (who better than those that routinely break the game, have large groups of potential testers etc.). The similarities to AOS speak to as much. The insinuation that profit that these guys are making on any level plays a part is absurd. Even if this were the case they would be the best suited as they have the biggest incentive to make the edition as enjoyable for as many people as possible.

Fragile wrote:
This could really hurt Tyranid hordes, hopefully Synapse will prevent it but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect bring in synapse range will mitigate it entirely cancel the effects of battleshock, just like it does now with the conferred fearlessness.

I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.

Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.

Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.

 Asmodas wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This could really hurt Tyranid hordes, hopefully Synapse will prevent it but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect bring in synapse range will mitigate it entirely cancel the effects of battleshock, just like it does now with the conferred fearlessness.

And I suspect it does not.

There will be very few units indeed that will not feel its effects.

Since every 1 model unit already ignores it that should take quite a lot of "very few units indeed". Having army with plenty of ways to make units ignore it like synapse would go agains that statement.

Hefty discount sure. But cancel entirely? Not so sure.

theocracity wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

theocracity wrote:
The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.

So far the best I achieved with variables (that do not override the core system completely) was to lower the gap between Horde and MSU, but even then not bu much.

Well considering the only ways you could think of to affect it were rerolls and ignoring entirely, I think I'll wait to see what the actual rules are. I can already think of several ways that armies could interact with Bravery that could change the calculation in an actual game scenario, rather than just assuming that bespoke rules get ignored in a system that was designed to utilize bespoke rules.

For example, a Necron army could spend command points to have a Bravery test restore models to the unit instead of losing them. Khorne units could gain buffs based on the number of models lost to it.

I get that those are 'bespoke' rules and that QED that means the core rules suck, but ignoring that the bespoke rules are an intended part of the system is myopic imo.

Good points, and to add a couple more, using the example of a pair of 5-man squads to one 10-man squad. The larger squad could have an option to upgrade to a veteran sergeant, granting a higher leadership. The smaller squads could, combined, have a higher points cost than the larger squad (like in 30K). The larger squad may, in general, just have more options available to it.

So far, all of the rules that have been previewed wouldn't even fill a single page, much less the 12 pages we've been told. I'll reserve judgment until I see more than a handful of teasers.

 jhnbrg wrote:


I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.

I disagree with everything you said, even the parts I snipped out.

We will be getting our saves against bolters and other similar weapons.

We will (probably) be able to take wounds from the backs of our units).

Our trukks are going to get a toughness value and potentially some kind of save.

We can finally ignore the I2 crap that's plagued us.

LD mechanics mean that suddenly our units wont be running off the table because they got splattered a little too much; instead we lose models (which we do all the time now as it stands).

There's a HUGELY STRONG implication that our stuff will finally be costed appropriately.

There's commitment to fix rules when they don't work with a regular schedule rather than whenever they happen to get around to the ork codex or decide to re-issue a supplement that already exists.

ALL of the models rules will be available day one (and possibly for free), and then afterwards we are probably going to be among the first to get an update in print.

I'm sorry, but you are on actively the hunt for stuff to hate if you actually cannot see the silver here. The ONLY thing thats kinda a shaft for xeno armies is that GW has suddenly decided to bring the chaos/imerium narrative to the forefront, so they will probably get a bit more focus in the fluff than we will.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Good points, and to add a couple more, using the example of a pair of 5-man squads to one 10-man squad. The larger squad could have an option to upgrade to a veteran sergeant, granting a higher leadership. The smaller squads could, combined, have a higher points cost than the larger squad (like in 30K). The larger squad may, in general, just have more options available to it.

So far, all of the rules that have been previewed wouldn't even fill a single page, much less the 12 pages we've been told. I'll reserve judgment until I see more than a handful of teasers.

Those are more of army list things. Rules would still favour MSU. It would just be reflected in points funnily enough. MSU would still be more powerful but would reflect in points. Just like S10 weapon is more powerful than S1 and is reflected in points.

Veteran sergeants from small units are unlikely to go away(and didn't AOS even have 1 automatically in each squad...).

It's pretty damn obvious that without bespoken rules to help horde units the LD rules favour MSU.

Doesn't need bespoke rules, it just needs some rule you don't yet know about.

The common, default everyone has it, it rule in AoS is that the general can make 1 unit immune to morale for 1 turn. That makes a single horde unit better than MSU. But it does not of necessity make mean several horde units are better. Of course general might have other abilities they use which are better so you don't use that default one.

All hordes also get bonus bravery in AoS as well. That gives higher LD so means less lost models per failed morale (or no fail at all). In the simple examples above talking about losing 1 or 2 models then the horde is better, as that will have a higher LD for the test. You will still get focus fired to death, but heh hoh anything getting focused on will probably die, but hordes are better at handling the smaller casualties than MSU in that regard.

Also AoS favours big units in combat due to alternate activation, not sure whether new 40k has that yet? So their may be a tension there.

Then there are also those tangential things; like units that affect everything within a range e.g. some things that charge in AoS inflict auto wounds on each unit within X". That favors a large unit over MSU, less you lose models from multi units, and take morale tests from multi units. I know my Lizard men with their Basiladon loves MSU enemies - more near by units = more mortal wounds dished out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Those are more of army list things. Rules would still favour MSU. It would just be reflected in points funnily enough. MSU would still be more powerful but would reflect in points.

Maybe, have they said anything about points? Cos in AoS there is no points for upgrades like that. Every unit just gets the leader, banner, musician and wpn choices it wants. You buy the unit and choose how it is configured.

If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?

 Kirasu wrote:


Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.

Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.

Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.

I kind of agree with this. You're right that rules suited for tournaments can be fit for casual play, but I don't think that is necessarily so. Some games can be so precise in how they are written and so strict in how they are played that it can be very difficult to enjoy them in a casual setting. They are fit for tournament play and the mindset that tournament players approach the game with, but they repel casual players by erecting various barriers, whether that's reading annoyingly-written rules or engaging in fiddly measurements. These tight rules also tend to lack the bits of character and diversity that make a game appealing to a casual player in favor of flattening out the rules, making pieces similar, and reducing things to a small number of variables.

Now, I don't think that 8th Edition will go too far in this direction, and we certainly don't have enough information to form an opinion either way, but there is certainly the possibility that it will become a more tournament-driven game. I like some of what the Frontline guys do, but based on the battlereports and other videos I've seen from them a lot of things that they enjoy in the game are not the same as what I like or would want to see. I do have faith in their ability to break the game and expose glaring imbalances, so giving them things to play test is a good idea, but I hope that 8th Edition isn't entirely a tournament-driven affair.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?

They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.

I am not sure why people don't look at the AoS warscrolls for orcs to see how they actually are working. It's not like Orcs are going to work differently. For example:



So, based on that. If one guy is modeled with a banner in the unit. Then they have a 7 bravery with a 6+ save on all boyz that attempt to run away. And if they have that hero nearby they have a 9 bravery.

You are going to have to kill alot of boyz to make those guys run.

 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.

Which post was that? The one with assumptions about everything and not a shred of evidence to support your position? Ah, my mistake.