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.

Morale rules are up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/03/new-warhammer-40000-morale/

Seems pretty simple stuff, if not a bit brutal.

Means you can keep your best guys from running by choosing who flees I guess?

Ya know, I haven't seen many departures yet from the AoS rules for 40K 8th edition. GW stated the new rules are 14 pages long... and I have no idea how they are stretching 4 pages into 14.

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Deamon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Ya know, I haven't seen many departures yet from the AoS rules for 40K 8th edition. GW stated the new rules are 14 pages long... and I have no idea how they are stretching 4 pages into 14.

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Deamon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

Given that single models don't take battleshock tests.. Good luck with that.

Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

 Tamwulf wrote:

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Deamon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

It's still a morale test, kinda like battle shock. Singular models aren't subjected to it. So no, mr. Bloodthirster is safe. Unless Daemonic Instability is still there.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Ya know, I haven't seen many departures yet from the AoS rules for 40K 8th edition. GW stated the new rules are 14 pages long... and I have no idea how they are stretching 4 pages into 14.

Gonna laugh a lot when that Greater Daemon of Khorne is removed from the table because it failed a Battle Shock test.

Not going to happen. Models have to die to trigger it. (Which in single model cases it's dead so won't test)

Most vehicles/ monsters that deploy in units will be pretty much immune without Ld shenanigans.

I could see a IG Sentinel/Ork Killa Kan decide to clear off if it's mates get obliterated. (But even then they'll have to lose almost an entire squadron before they'll test)

Note that Morale is triggered by lost models, not unsaved wounds - small units with high Ld will not need to worry about this very often. Singletons are immune.

Hordes, however, will be punished unless there's some way to mitigate it. In AoS there often is, I expect the same here. I bet Commissars will, say, kill one model on a failed Morale test, no matter how much you failed by (which would make them good again!), and Priests will probably let you re-roll. I bet Orks won't take Morale tests if there are more than 10 models in a unit, and a Bosspole will make rolls of 1 on Morale tests always pass, no matter how many models you lost. Tyranids, probably something with Synapse.

All speculation of course.

My guess for ATSKNF is that you'll roll two dice and pick the lowest.

Jesus, blobs better have some serious leadership buffs, otherwise they're fethed.

The fact that this can be triggered by shooting is what really drives it over the top.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Jesus, blobs better have some serious leadership buffs, otherwise they're fethed.

The fact that this can be triggered by shooting is what really drives it over the top.

Well they're not going to flee now they'll just lose more models. We might see that blobs get +1 Ld for for ever multiple of 10 or something


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
My guess for ATSKNF is that you'll roll two dice and pick the lowest.

That sounds pretty fair, hope its that.

 obsidianaura wrote:
Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

I can see it being some kind of modifier eg casualties + D6 - X or roll 2 D6 and use the lowest.

Fearless might be something similar and then we might get some weapons/units making moral harder. Maybe Banshee masks would be something like on the turn they charge one target unit rolls an extra D6 and discards the lowest.

It could be quick as if you assume both D6 options above SM would then just use the middle dice value.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Jesus, blobs better have some serious leadership buffs, otherwise they're fethed.

The fact that this can be triggered by shooting is what really drives it over the top.

Large units probably will have plenty of mitigating effects.
I imagine an IG Commisar will just shoot one guy and they'll get to ignore the test.
Ork boss-poles would be similar.
Synapse will probably hand out the Synapse creature's Ld


And (Hopefully) ATSKNF will just be removed so Space marines can finally feel the effects of morale that they have largely ignored since 3rd edition

Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

ScarVet101 wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
Wonder how "and they shall know no fear will work", if it even exists in 8th

I can see it being some kind of modifier eg casualties + D6 - X or roll 2 D6 and use the lowest.

Fearless might be something similar and then we might get some weapons/units making moral harder. Maybe Banshee masks would be something like on the turn they charge one target unit rolls an extra D6 and discards the lowest.

It could be quick as if you assume both D6 options above SM would then just use the middle dice value.

I think for fearless units, taking a wound/'mortal wound' rather than flat out losing a model might be better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

Hopefully its capped at 12 or something at least

With this rule why would I take anything other than min squads

They should have kept the name from AoS, "battleshock" seems much more suitable as im imagining this is not so much people fleeing as as people becoming unable to fight.
Injuries, damaged equipment, depleted ammo, healthy soldiers needed to carry the wounded into safetly etc.

I just cant see anyone from the 40k armies, save perhaps the orks, flee the battlefield.

One thing I noticed is that there's only one check per turn (at the end).

This is an interesting idea - this means that no matter how many casualties you lost to shooting, if you end up in close combat everyone will still get to fight.

It also makes losing a small number of people in shooting and then a small number in assault more punishing. If you lose 3 to shooting and 4 in the same turn to combat, it's one test at 7 instead of two tests at 3 and 4.

Conversely, the days of shooting at a unit before you assault and them falling back out of range is now a thing of the past, so I can't be too upset!

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

It's just one test per unit at the end of the turn not after each time the unit is shot or fights an assault. In 7th you could face up to 3 a turn, now it's a maximum of 1.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

In AoS, it really is not a major issue. Let me break down how it exactly works by the numbers.

Let's say I have a unit of guys with Bravery (i.e. Leadership) 8. There are potential ways to raise this in AoS, such as a standard giving +1, and numerous abilities that mitigate or ignore Battleshock rolls.

If this unit suffers casualties, it is a d6 added to the number of casualties, then compared to the Bravery value. So let's say I suffer 3 casualties (actual casualties, not just wounds), at the end of the turn I would roll d6+3 and compare that to the Bravery.

Anything over that Bravery value is a single MODEL that runs. So in this case of this unit, a d6+3 roll means I only lose a single model on the roll of a 6. Anything else is no effect whatsoever. So there's no ability to just plink a bunch of tests away, significant losses have to be inflicted on the unit.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Morale triggering and producing more casualties as the result of any single casualty...extremely open to abuse to me. No idea how it works in AoS, but it feels very easy to force a ridiculous number of tests just with stuff like rhino or drop pod stormbolters plinking off random dudes from different units, particularly against armies like DE or IG.

It also means that, particularly for lower Ld armies, anything an opponent shoots below half health might as well just be taken off the table then and there, and larger units that take lots of casualties can autolose absurd numbers of models. This seems to really promote high Ld small model count MSU lists that Morale wont significantly affect, while units relying on large model counts will basically be free casualty piñatas.

Not a fan...

In my experience hoards do fine with this mechanic. Yeah they tend to lose far more models then more elite units, but they also tend to be able to mitigate that by sheer volume. It's actually not nearly as bad as you think it is. I mean, to force a large unit to take a substantial amount of losses in the Morale phase you need to focus it to the point where its basically almost dead in one turn anyway. That takes up a lot of fire power and probably a charge or two. Also, taking only one or two models here and there really wont force any kind of test anywhere. You would need to kill, on average, 4-5 models out of a unit to even have a chance at them loosing even 1 or 2 models out of the unit, and they still have a chance to pass. So while MSUs can be stronger against Morale they might not be as effective overall because of a lack of numbers (less shooting and less combat attacks) and can be easier to simply wipe out.

torblind wrote:With this rule why would I take anything other than min squads

I know that in AoS if you take big enough units you can increase a units bravery by increments. Though not every unit can do this.

Soulless wrote:They should have kept the name from AoS, "battleshock" seems much more suitable as im imagining this is not so much people fleeing as as people becoming unable to fight.
Injuries, damaged equipment, depleted ammo, healthy soldiers needed to carry the wounded into safetly etc.

I just cant see anyone from the 40k armies, save perhaps the orks, flee the battlefield.

From the website "...represents warriors fleeing the battlefield, dying from the psychic feedback shockwaves of their allies, or retreating with injured or fallen brethren..." I think it does represent what you imagine it to it just keeps the old name because the update to 8th ed isn't as drastic as the change to AoS.

I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

It comes back to that trade-off from AoS Smaller units are better at soaking battle shock, and larger units are better in CC, since you get more attacks per activation. So in AoS you got your units as big as your leadership would allow because everything was in CC. In 40k shooting armies will probably go for smaller unit sizes whereas assault armies will go big.

That is assuming that we still have shooting turns like in 7th ed, and it's not IgoUgo like the assault phase. If they were looking to speed games up IgoUgo would do the job, and make it so I don't spend an hour on my phone for every 2 hour game of 40k.

patman1440 wrote:
One thing I noticed is that there's only one check per turn (at the end).

This is an interesting idea - this means that no matter how many casualties you lost to shooting, if you end up in close combat everyone will still get to fight.

It also makes losing a small number of people in shooting and then a small number in assault more punishing. If you lose 3 to shooting and 4 in the same turn to combat, it's one test at 7 instead of two tests at 3 and 4.

Conversely, the days of shooting at a unit before you assault and them falling back out of range is now a thing of the past, so I can't be too upset!

I think this is fairly insightful. It is yet another boost to Assault armies (if only a small one)

-

 Grimgold wrote:
It comes back to that trade-off from AoS Smaller units are better at soaking battle shock, and larger units are better in CC, since you get more attacks per activation. So in AoS you got your units as big as your leadership would allow because everything was in CC. In 40k shooting armies will probably go for smaller unit sizes whereas assault armies will go big.

That is assuming that we still have shooting turns like in 7th ed, and it's not IgoUgo like the assault phase. If they were looking to speed games up IgoUgo would do the job, and make it so I don't spend an hour on my phone for every 2 hour game of 40k.

Assault armies will also want a nice wide frontage so they can charge one unit and then pile in to other units that are nearby draining more firepower from the enemy army. (As they'll either have to stick in the combat or retreat an lose their shooting for a turn

I have never had problems with bloodbound hordes in Age of Sigmar. And I normally play 40-80 Bloodreavers/Marauders in every game.

Keeping my generals and inspiring units near them make the Battleshock phase a little annoying, nothing to be really worried about. Now, if they stack Bravery debuffes and kill my inspiring units, thats another thing, but thats strategy, no?

 Galef wrote:
I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

I respectfully disagree - mainly because with the loss of template weapons, there is little downside to large blobs of units.

I also like this as an answer to tarpits.

Sounds ominous for my boyz so far but I hope there are indeed some of the mentioned-above ways to mitigate this for hordes. My daily deflate and reinflate about 8th edition continues

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I like this method a lot. But it should mean that Horde units need to either get some form of boost (like higher LD for having more models) or are much cheaper in comparison to "Elilte" units.

I respectfully disagree - mainly because with the loss of template weapons, there is little downside to large blobs of units.

I also like this as an answer to tarpits.

large units already generally were at a disadvantage to MSU, usually always have been. It's hard to see where this was a necessary balance mechanism.

Likewise, template arent gone, they just have a set value range of hits, all you're missing out on are those really sweet, relatively rare moments when you catch a horde unit all bunched up, but your average number of casualties from these weapons probably wont change one iota.

My squads of 3 bikers and Land Speeders with two heavy flamers are going to put a LOT of hurt on horde armies.