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.

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

If the appetizer is covered in flies, the rest of the courses are probably going to give you food poisoning.

I work in the food industry, I gotta ask permission to use this gem.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

If the appetizer is covered in flies, the rest of the courses are probably going to give you food poisoning.

I work in the food industry, I gotta ask permission to use this gem.

Go ahead lol.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

Well isn't this exactly why we have an abundance of fearless and sudo-fearless right now, because the current system is broken.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

I don't understand how you guys have the energy anymore lol. Is what it is and as much as we've convinced ourselves that we've totally unlocked the secrets of 8th it'll be 6 months before we can say anything definitively even jf the june date is real. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

Leadership being really high on certain models like commisars or nobz could ballance this out. If a commisar or nobz leadership were say 20 that would mean you could loose 14 grunts and still be untouchable. Could also be solved by a modifier. I'm sure independent charectors will autopass a unit.

I'm more concerned about random wound allocation at this point. I can see the wrong guys surviving and castrating a squad. Like loosing. 4 random wounds on a platoon of 30 with 2 heavy weapons in it. What kind of roll do I do to figure that one out? This could be solved easily with the player who suffers thwcasualties picks the models that get removed. I mean either way extra kills are extra kills it's fair to let them choose if they protected the special weapons and guys in the back.

Rules like removing the closest models from that unit are going to matter a lot now. We have also seen nothing on split fire which has always been imho bad. I think sponsons should shoot what they want, transports specially open topped should be shooting all over the place and squads should be able to split fire. It would slow down the game if you did it all the time but in the game it would just be situational

ERJAK wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

I don't understand how you guys have the energy anymore lol. Is what it is and as much as we've convinced ourselves that we've totally unlocked the secrets of 8th it'll be 6 months before we can say anything definitively even jf the june date is real. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

We've got nothing better to do alright?!

So what's all the fuzz about the mob rule phase?

 obsidianaura wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


I don't understand how you guys have the energy anymore lol. Is what it is and as much as we've convinced ourselves that we've totally unlocked the secrets of 8th it'll be 6 months before we can say anything definitively even jf the june date is real. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

We've got nothing better to do alright?!

Or more to the point, for the first time in some people's living memory, GW have given us something to be *excited* about.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Generally AoS has protections for hordes, as well as bubbles that leaders can put out.

For Orks, I can easily see a rule of +1 Ld per 10 models. Toss in some rule of a bosspole, or the presence of a nearby boss to fortify that further, and the Ork horde suddenly gains a fair amount of morale resilience.

And that right there is the problem.

If a core rule requires certain units to have access to special rules.or abilities to reduce or negate its effect in order to not be unduly penalised, that's a sign of a bad rule.

Er, Why?
It's a staple of games design across pretty much every system ever to have a simple core system that's just basic enough to repeatably function on it's own for all players, and then add in all the special abilities, rules, and exceptions that create flavour and nuance.

Stats aren't limited to 10 now right? So maybe the Leadership of heroes will counteract the low leadership of units if they are added to them. Kinda like fearless did but not actually being fearless.

Edit: scratch that, according to the (salty) rumours characters can't join units ...

I like my hordes and I'm not entirely against this. It's simple, infrequent and in my opinion adequately highlights the distinction between hordes and elite small units. Tight-knit elite forces won't have to worry about morale as much whereas massive columns of infantry find morale to be a much more serious concern that they have to take precautions to counter.


Furthermore it covers the aspect of war that very few units 'break' wholesale like they way we see in current failed leadership tests. A squad might very well grit their teeth and fight on even if some of their more cowardly number break ranks or cower behind cover, effectively ineffectual in combat. It also allows one to see the effects of healthy and active squad members having their attention taken up by the wounded or fallen of their number. In modern engagements on a smaller scale, you can render up to half a squad combat-ineffective merely by wounding one or two of their number. The wounded person has to be secured, first aid has to be supplied, evac has to be actualised or called in. For Tyranids, Orks or others less concerned with such matters it still applies easily enough, such as trampling their own in the rush onwards or a few individuals in the horde becoming misdirected by the chaos. It doesn't have to mean death, just that those models are not effectively contributing to the fight anymore.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Er, Why?
It's a staple of games design across pretty much every system ever to have a simple core system that's just basic enough to repeatably function on it's own for all players, and then add in all the special abilities, rules, and exceptions that create flavour and nuance.

Sure. And that's not what I was objecting to.

I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes. Seems like armies that rely on large units of cheaper dudes are at a huge disadvantage.

I wonder how this is going to effect my harlequin army. I rather like my death jester forcing the enemy to run out of cover and towards me. additionally pinning was quite useful but it appears to be either signifigantly changed or completely gone now.

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes

What makes larger units more vulnerable to Morale is their capacity to take losses in the first place. You cannot compare a 5-man unit losing 3 models to a 40-man unit losing 5
You must compare BOTH units losing the same number. If both units lose 5 models, 1 unit is already dead before moral occurs.

I hope unit size will affect LD or that nearby characters can lead theirs.

 Galef wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes

What makes larger units more vulnerable to Morale is their capacity to take losses in the first place. You cannot compare a 5-man unit losing 3 models to a 40-man unit losing 5
You must compare BOTH units losing the same number. If both units lose 5 models, 1 unit is already dead before moral occurs.

I hope unit size will affect LD or that nearby characters can lead theirs.

orks will probably still have mob rule, tyrnids I forsee keeping immunity in synapse, and guard if in a blob have the command squad I am sure the commissar will do something. if they did away with these though I would be a sad panda as it would invalidate 2 or my armies 2 of which are already pretty weak

I too hope that Orks, Guard, Nids and even Daemons get some form of Moral manipulations. But unfortunately that plus the inevitable Marine bonus will mean that yet again Moral will be pointless dice rolling as 90% of the armies will be effectively Fearless.

Maybe Fear(or the 8th equivalent) will have an area affect that makes units nearby take -LD modifiers?

-

I bet the various sorts of Morale hackery that Harlequins and Dark Eldar are known for will actually be useful now, though!

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes. Seems like armies that rely on large units of cheaper dudes are at a huge disadvantage.

Uhh, sure, but who cares if a 40 man blob loses one guy to running? If your 5 man marine squad loses one guy, it's a hell of a lot more painful.

At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

The marines are only really going to notice this when they are running about in 10 man squads. Which is honestly pretty rare.

5 man marine squad loses 3 guys. (3 + 1d6) - 7 = (4 to 9) - 7 = -3 to 2

So, you lose 1 guy on a 5 and both on a 6. Then from then on you can ignore the moral rules as your unit of 2 men cannot take another moral test.

Orcs in AoS have a 5+ bravery. They can have a banner that gives them +2 bravery. And their warlords normally give another 2 bravery to all orcs near them. They also get to roll a save on all losses from this of 6+. That is their method of saving against losses.

The system is designed to speed up the game. It will do that by removing figures.

 Purifier wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I wonder if unit size will increase moral. As it sounds a 5 man marine squad who loses 3 guys will have far less chance of running than a 40 man blob of guard who lose 5 dudes. Seems like armies that rely on large units of cheaper dudes are at a huge disadvantage.

Uhh, sure, but who cares if a 40 man blob loses one guy to running? If your 5 man marine squad loses one guy, it's a hell of a lot more painful.

People aren't worried about losing 1 man from a unit of 40, its more if they lose 7+ guys from shooting and have a LD of 7 they're automatically going to lose 1 guy minimum to a max of 6

So taking 17.5% casualties can result in between 2.5% and 15% extra losses or around 14% to 86% again of how much you just lost

Compare that with a 5 man unit losing 20% with LD7, they wont lose anyone. They have to take 40% casualties to risk losing even 1 person to fleeing.

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

It's 1d6 PLUS the number of models you lost in the turn. So if you lost 10 models over the course of the turn then it's 1d6+10-leadership. Marines are L7 now so if we were to assume that guardsmen are leadership 6 then they would lose 7 models with average rolls- for a total of 17 dead models at the end of the phase. That fething sucks.

Now take it a step further, realize that it isn't hard at all for armies like Eldar and Tau to kill 40+ GEQ models in a single turn and you begin to see how this scales wildly out of control.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

It's 1d6 PLUS the number of models you lost in the turn. So if you lost 10 models over the course of the turn then it's 1d6+10-leadership. Marines are L7 now so if we were to assume that guardsmen are leadership 6 then they would lose 7 models with average rolls- for a total of 17 dead models at the end of the phase. That fething sucks.

Now take it a step further, realize that it isn't hard at all for armies like Eldar and Tau to kill 40+ GEQ models in a single turn and you begin to see how this scales wildly out of control.

We don't know how easy it is for Eldar and Tau to kill GEQ models. We don't have their stats yet.

I was wrong!

If it's casualties + d6 - leadership, you will be losing models. Assuming the average dice roll is a 4, for Guard (I assume) it would be casualties - 2.

So if you lose 3+ guards you're taking more losses.

But let's remember, you get an armor save against some things you never did before. For instance, you get a 5+ save against basic Boltgun fire.

But let's remember, your tanks will be tougher, too.

Perhaps it's because I don't play current 40K, but personally...the rules don't sound bad.

If you have a blob unit of 40-50 models and you lose 20 in a single turn...that unit should absolutely fall apart, run away, collapse etc. I think people are used to gaming a game system and miraculously expecting a unit to walk into fire until it's shot down to the last man...I like that it isn't the case with the new rules.

As mentioned, I expect a lot of tag-along rules to accompany Morale tests (as well as wargear, characters, leadership, bla bla bla).

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

Sisters [10, 2 flamers, 130 points], fire on 20 Guardsmen [20, 2 plasma, 130 points]

7 hits average from the flamers with the new rules, 11 hits average from the bolters. 12 wounds total, average. Guardsmen are leadership 7, they test 12+D6 vs 7 and lose an additional 8.5 models. There are now no guardsmen left.

20 guardsmen shooting at the Sisters gives us: 34 lasguns and 4 plasma shots, giving 17 lasgun hits and 2 plasma hits, giving 8.5 lasgun wounds and 1.6 plasma wounds, giving a total of 4 casualties. The Sisters test battleshock at 4+D6 vs 8 and lose an additional 0-2 models.

Compare the effect if we split up the squads into 2 5-girl squads with 1 flamer each and 2 10-man squads with 1 plasmagun each.

Sisters concentrate fire, we get 12 wounds, and one guard squad is gone, the other is untouched to retaliate.
Sisters split fire, we get 3.5 hits from the flamers on each squad and 5.3 hits from the bolters, resulting in 6 wounds, resulting in two battleshock test that kill an additional 2.5 guardsmen each. Note that this time, Battleshock killed 5 men versus 8.
Guardsmen concentrate fire, inflicting 4 casualties on one squad, it tests battleshock and loses an additional 0-1 models.
Guardsmen split fire, inflicting an average of 2 casualties on each squad, both test battleshock and will always lose an additional 0 models.


Note the effect battleshock had on the blob squads versus the small squads.


This can get more drastic:
40 guardsmen [40, 3 plasma] versus 20 sisters [20, 2 flamers]

40 guardsmen fire on the 20 sisters, getting 69 shots, 34.5 hits, 18 wounds, and 6 casualties with lasguns and 6 shots, 3 hits, 2.5 wounds, and 2 casualties from plasma. Sisters test 8+D6 and lost 1-6, averaging 3.5 additional models.
If 4 separate squads of guardsmen fire on 4 separate squads of sisters, we get the same result we got before: 2 from each squad, with 0 from battleshock, a total of 30% reduction in wounds for being MSU.

Going the opposite direction, the Sisters now inflict 21 wounds on the guardsmen, and kill off 15-20 with battleshock. There are no guardsmen left.
Dispersed guardsmen take 6 wounds on 2 squads and 4.5 on 2, which results in an average of 5-6 losses from battleshock total.



There's always been a tactical advantage to having small units, but this really magnifies it in a drastic way. I can probably plot out the casualty distributions.

Commissars will probably negate battleshock, making them as absolute necessity. Synapse will probably continue to confer fearless, and Mob Rule will probably also cancel battleshock. The armies that rely on big blobs of weak things won't be hung out on the line, but I can expect to see lots more small squads than big ones anyway.

 Marmatag wrote:
I was wrong!

If it's casualties + d6 - leadership, you will be losing models. Assuming the average dice roll is a 4, for Guard (I assume) it would be casualties - 2.

So if you lose 3+ guards you're taking more losses.

But let's remember, you get an armor save against some things you never did before. For instance, you get a 5+ save against basic Boltgun fire.

But let's remember, your tanks will be tougher, too.

Let's also remember that we only have the basics of the rule so far. it is entirely possible that the more models a unit has, the higher their LD might be, just like AoS.
Stuff like Synapse, Mob rule and Commissars will almost assuredly give Morale bonuses

-

Mob rule was about orks killing each other to ignore a failed leadership causing the whole unit to run. Battleshock appears to be a Mob rule for everyone. Giving orks mob rule to ignore battleshock is similar to gIvins orks battleshock to ignore battleshock.