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.

macluvin wrote:
The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.

Just check out the AOS rules for CC and add units charging gets to go first.

macluvin wrote:
The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.

it goes like this; the player who's turn it is picks a close combat - they then resolve said combat - the other player then picks another combat - they then resolve that combat - repeat untill there are no more assaults on going. As for who hits first it depends if a unit charged into the combat this turn, if so they hit first other wise if it's a preexisting combat then the player who picked the combat goes first. Edit: ninja'd as said above read the AOS rules free on GW store.

Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?

That just seems bass ackwards.

 insaniak wrote:
Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.

Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?

I was saying this sort'a thing right from the start when this whole "bespoke rules" nonsense started to emerge.

Vindication has never felt so... wrong.

I almost have nothing to add because things like this:

 insaniak wrote:
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

... cover it so completely.

 Alpharius wrote:
Otherwise, I guess I'll stick with 30K?

Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.

I don't understand what was so complicated about initiative.

You don't choose a combat to resolve, you choose a unit to attack with. Then your opponent chooses a unit, then you, until every unit has attacked that is within 1" of an enemy model.

Initiative wasn't hard to understand, it was simply too important and eliminated all player input into what happened in assault. With this new addition the players get to make legitimate decisions that may drastically affect the outcome of how a battle resolves.

As for msu and morale, the smaller unit dies when the bigger unit looks at it. Most "horde" unit in age of sigmar gain extra attacks for larger units, or better accuracy. Then there is also the fact that most bonuses granted by special abilities affect units, not models. So, commander tells 1 unit of 50 ork boyz that they are immune to battleshock, then 50 orks are immune to battleshock. A commander tells a unit of 10 marines they're immune to battleshock, then only 10 marines are immune to battleshock.

You trade msu survivability for large squad efficiency of bonuses. Combine that with the inherent bonuses that are almost certainly being granted in general to large squads and suddenly the game gains tactical versatility at the list building stage as opposed to being based entirely on mathematical efficiency of units in a vacuum.

 insaniak wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

I get your point, but did you like the previous editions' versions of morale where it was 95% pointless? Units falling back usually turned into a game of babysitting enemy units as they walked off the board even when it was actually relevant.

It wasn't perfect, but it had its moments. The particularly pertinent one was with forcing a unit to fall back off an objective. With 8th, you'll be forced to actually wipe them out instead.

Which happened almost never, because people favored fearless units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

macluvin wrote:
The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.

it goes like this; the player who's turn it is picks a close combat - they then resolve said combat - the other player then picks another combat - they then resolve that combat - repeat untill there are no more assaults on going. As for who hits first it depends if a unit charged into the combat this turn, if so they hit first other wise if it's a preexisting combat then the player who picked the combat goes first. Edit: ninja'd as said above read the AOS rules free on GW store.

Careful on that wording...

Let's say I have a LoC, 5 rubrics, and 5 scarabs.

You are in combat with the rubrics and scarabs and you just charged the LoC. Since you charged you roll against the LoC.

Now we move to the "normal" sequence and you get to pick a unit first. You can't hurt the scarbs very well so you decide to attack the rubrics. Now it's my turn. Since you already attacked the rubrics and the LoC it only makes sense for me to attack with my scarabs to prevent any accidental casualties. Then you attack the scarabs and then I finish up in any order with the rubrics and LoC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:
I don't understand what was so complicated about initiative.

It wasn't, but it didn't add much to the game. Picking combats is quite tense and interesting.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really wonder if Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear are even going to be a thing in 8th. It stands to reason to reason that Fearless would be an Auto-pass for Morale, but it should probably be hard to get. As for ATSKNF, I could see it being a bonus to Morale tests. Marines shouldn't be running from fights.

It says in there that failing morale isn't just running away, it might be a marine tending to a casualty, or hanging back for another reason rather than just being a scared.

If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guys and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

v0iddrgn wrote:
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.

This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years

 Kirasu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.

This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years

Oh okay so, nothing new then. These guys make it sound like 8th will make MSU even more powerful.

*Edit* BTW I would still rather have my 75 points worth of Orks than MSU Marines.

 Kirasu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.

This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years

And it's been said over...and..over again...

-An MSU unit of 5 will lose all of it's special weapons. A unit of 10 will not.
-Force multipliers will influence a bigger unit more.

There's far more nuance to the outlay including what the point costs and minimum unit sizes are that it is clearly obtuse to hang your hat on this.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.

This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years

And it's been said over...and..over again...

-An MSU unit of 5 will lose all of it's special weapons. A unit of 10 will not.
-Force multipliers will influence a bigger unit more.

There's far more nuance to the outlay including what the point costs and minimum unit sizes are that it is clearly obtuse to hang your hat on this.

Depends on the army? There are plenty of units which can pack a lot of punch into minimum sized units. Sure if you run a bunch of already useless tactical squads but they don't do any damage anyway.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?

That just seems bass ackwards.

Huh. Yeah, obviously they were trying to go for a linear as simpler thing there, but you're right that's completely counterintuitive now that you've pointed it out.

 Kirasu wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.

This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years

And it's been said over...and..over again...

-An MSU unit of 5 will lose all of it's special weapons. A unit of 10 will not.
-Force multipliers will influence a bigger unit more.

There's far more nuance to the outlay including what the point costs and minimum unit sizes are that it is clearly obtuse to hang your hat on this.

Depends on the army? There are plenty of units which can pack a lot of punch into minimum sized units. Sure if you run a bunch of already useless tactical squads but they don't do any damage anyway.

Sure but those units are ALWAYS expensive in points. i.e. Terminators, Centurians, Obliterators, etc... Losing even one of those is going to hurt.

 Kirasu wrote:


Depends on the army? There are plenty of units which can pack a lot of punch into minimum sized units. Sure if you run a bunch of already useless tactical squads but they don't do any damage anyway.

They were useless. Now that you can move and shoot heavies and get solid armor behind cover...i'm not so sure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?

That just seems bass ackwards.

 insaniak wrote:
Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.

Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?

I was saying this sort'a thing right from the start when this whole "bespoke rules" nonsense started to emerge.

Vindication has never felt so... wrong.

I almost have nothing to add because things like this:

 insaniak wrote:
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

... cover it so completely.

 Alpharius wrote:
Otherwise, I guess I'll stick with 30K?

Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.

You have to be correct first before you can be vindicated.

Remember that stats can get buffed above 10. Horde armies might have special rules (there's that phrase again) to mitigate this.

Wait and see guys wait and see...

 Skerr wrote:
Remember that stats can get buffed above 10. Horde armies might have special rules (there's that phrase again) to mitigate this. ...

If armies need special rules in order to not be unduly penalised by a core game rule, that's a sign of a poorly thought out core rule, right there.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?

That just seems bass ackwards.

Huh. Yeah, obviously they were trying to go for a linear as simpler thing there, but you're right that's completely counterintuitive now that you've pointed it out.

I must have missed something on the page talking about morale that makes smaller units a better choice.

So a unit of 5 guys loses 2 models and they're morale/courage/bravery stat is 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 more guys and the unit is destroyed completely.

A unit of 10 guys loses 2 models and has the same courage state of 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 ore guys and there are now 5 dudes left.

Also, fielding MSUs seems that you increase the chances of morale tests since the loss of a single model forces a roll.

Again, may have not read the factors that make my understanding above incorrect.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Skerr wrote:
Remember that stats can get buffed above 10. Horde armies might have special rules (there's that phrase again) to mitigate this. ...

If armies need special rules in order to not be unduly penalised by a core game rule, that's a sign of a poorly thought out core rule, right there.

Exactly. TSKNF has been doing this since at least since 3rd edition.

@insaniak. What has happened?! I take a year off of 40k and come to DakkaDakka and you're an angry cat.

I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.

So you think the fact that orks might be uniquely good at their shtick is annoying? I'd be annoyed as heck if everyone could horde assault equally well as orks! I'd very much want to have abilities and mechanics that others can't match in that arena. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?

 Azazelx wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

Personally I perfer to be playing the game rather than reading books, arguing over definition of rules or moving retreating models backwards slightly only to regroup them.

Agreed.

...not to mention being able to play a game without 6 inches of books and badly layered rules which are filled with unique bespoke rules with bespoke exceptions to one another. Which is why I haven't played in years, and am excitedly looking forward to playing again. Games should be able to be fast enough to avoid being bogged down with bs, and if you finish too fast, you can always play another game.

I'd rather have one really good steak than three or four bargain-store mystery-meat hamburgers. That's not to say present 40K is steak, but I'd rather they tried to make it steak than chop up one grotty burger into three or four small grotty burgers. I might be hungry atm, hmm. Also, where are you getting the impression Age of Rowboat is going to drop badly layered rules with bespoke rules slathered all over the top? They merely appear to be moving the bloat and the bespoke slather onto the Datasheets rather than having it in books, the extra speed of the gameplay is coming from upping the lethality to levels so high you'll need a snow shovel for casualty removal.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?

That just seems bass ackwards.

 insaniak wrote:
Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.

Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?

I was saying this sort'a thing right from the start when this whole "bespoke rules" nonsense started to emerge.

Vindication has never felt so... wrong.

I almost have nothing to add because things like this:

 insaniak wrote:
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

... cover it so completely.

 Alpharius wrote:
Otherwise, I guess I'll stick with 30K?

Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.

Well, if you knew AoS rules then you would have known that for every 10 models, a unit gets an additional bravery, and like many said, units get bonuses for getting more models. Maybe you could try reading a 4 page rulebook and play a couple of quick AoS games and see how that goes since you are ok with games that are long and tedious anyway.

""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "

Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oop FW models for several armies,
and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.

mortar_crew wrote:
""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "

Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oop FW models for several armies,
and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.

They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?

mortar_crew wrote:
""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "

Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oop FW models for several armies,
and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.

And what have you done the last 4-5 editions worth of unupdated rules?

 Lobukia wrote:

I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.

Yes. Again, if special rules are required to allow certain armies to function as intended, then there's something seriously wrong with the core rules.

Special rules should be there to add special stuff to armies... not to plug the holes created by core rules that don't take them into account.

. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?

That's a bit of a simplification, but in general yes, that's pretty much what I want. That is, after all, the whole point of the statline. Everybody and his dog having special rules is fine in a small-scale skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it just makes things too complicated. Special rules should either apply to entire armies, or should apply to actual special things. Special rules on individual basic troop units should be avoided as much as humanly possible.


My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.

Daedalus81 wrote:

mortar_crew wrote:
""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "

Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oop FW models for several armies, and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.

They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?

Well, they are out of print then what?

There was a lot of out of print models for the Iperial Guard range
when they released FW Imperial Armour book second edition, and all of them were covered.
It is not like we were talking about imperial robots from RT.
A lot of these models were in the FW catalog a few months or even weeks ago.

We bought these (rather expensive) models, I believe that rigth to (ie rule for) use them
in the game is not such a claim.

It is called customer support.

 privateer4hire wrote:


I must have missed something on the page talking about morale that makes smaller units a better choice.

So a unit of 5 guys loses 2 models and they're morale/courage/bravery stat is 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 more guys and the unit is destroyed completely.

A unit of 10 guys loses 2 models and has the same courage state of 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 ore guys and there are now 5 dudes left.

Also, fielding MSUs seems that you increase the chances of morale tests since the loss of a single model forces a roll.

Again, may have not read the factors that make my understanding above incorrect.

The size of the unit has nothing to do with whether or not you test. It is the models lost, the roll, and bravery.

The thing people are noting is that if you clean out a unit of 5 with shooting you "waste" the bravery check losses. If you kill 5 from a unit of 10 you don't waste the bravery check.

It's just that they are hanging their hat on killing 4 or 5 models out of 5, but even 4 heavy bolters can't kill 4 marines who are not in cover - on average (assuming -1 and S5). Lascannons do even more poorly. Maybe plasma cannons could do it (3.7 assuming D3 hits after rolling to hit and -3).

I mean if you only always kill 4 or 5 models of an MSU unit then their army will clearly win the game!

gungo wrote:


And what have you done the last 4-5 editions worth of unupdated rules?

All were covered by a book or an army list update as far as I am concerned.
Here are the armies or list I am taking in consideration here:

-Orks
-Imperial guard (imperial armour range)
-Elysian drop troops
-Renegades

I believe we lost the sabre platform for the Renegades (which I bought and they are collecting dust
since this list update), but other items are covered a way or another.

Remove all of the oop models from the playable rules?!
You must be kidding...

 insaniak wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.

Yes. Again, if special rules are required to allow certain armies to function as intended, then there's something seriously wrong with the core rules.

Special rules should be there to add special stuff to armies... not to plug the holes created by core rules that don't take them into account.

. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?

That's a bit of a simplification, but in general yes, that's pretty much what I want. That is, after all, the whole point of the statline. Everybody and his dog having special rules is fine in a small-scale skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it just makes things too complicated. Special rules should either apply to entire armies, or should apply to actual special things. Special rules on individual basic troop units should be avoided as much as humanly possible.


My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.

Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?