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.

Yeah, the damage aspect of morale isn't great. They should have just made it into debuffs instead of taking losses.

That way large squads of elite infantry won't be as severely impacted, as in theory they should have the base stats to mitigate any debuff, whereas cannon fodder would be severely impacted, as their terrible stats just got worse.

Also Crusader Squads can have up to twenty, making them especially vulnerable to morale which feels weird.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They should have just made it into debuffs instead of taking losses.

That way large squads of elite infantry won't be as severely impacted, as in theory they should have the base stats to mitigate any debuff, whereas cannon fodder would be severely impacted, as their terrible stats just got worse.

This is a pretty cool idea. Making it debuffs instead of losses might even make anti-Ld armies like Night Lords fun to play. Successfully inflicting "terror" on your enemies by reducing their Ld to the point where they have a high chance of failing morale would be similar to passing a psychic test on an offensive warlock spell, except it does better against low Ld units. Sounds pretty fluffy.

Very annoyed that CSM didn't get updated tactics which applied to vehicles when SM did a few months after our book came out. They better give us an update ASAP.

I don't mind morale being losses per se. The problem is that it doesn't effect the proper units, and doesn't make distinctions between cowardly and stalwart units.

Generally what you'd expect is that most types of infantry will be less cowardly the more of them there are. This bonus would be larger for more elite units. But currently in the base system, the size of your unit makes no difference to your cowardliness, except that you have more models to lose, and thus can take a bigger morale penalty.

What we should see is that small units ought to be more likely to have someone run, and big units less likely. And it makes no sense to have the amount be only based on the unit itself. Why does 1 squad of 10 marines get hit harder than 2 squads of 5?

In other words, I think the system should be based around leadership mattering, but squad size not mattering, and perhaps giving a leadership buff similar to how orks get. The number of models lost should probably be a percentage of the whole squad, not an absolute number. A horde failing morale should lose a bunch, a marine squad shouldn't, otherwise the morale mechanic will always punish elite units harder than hordes, which is the opposite of what it ought to do.

Hordes should be harder to break the larger they are, but when they break, they break hard. Marines should be harder to break the larger they are, but never lose all that much to breaking.

Or we could just get back the pre-8th style where morale breaks force you to move back, and you can get sweeping advanced. I liked that system more.

The current Ld system could really do with individual 'break' thresholds for every unit.

Marines could be Ld8/3, where every three points by which your failed check exceeds your LD value, you lose one extra wound.

Orks would, in comparison, be Ld7/1, and dropping like flies.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
The current Ld system could really do with individual 'break' thresholds for every unit.

Marines could be Ld8/3, where every three points by which your failed check exceeds your LD value, you lose one extra wound.

Orks would, in comparison, be Ld7/1, and dropping like flies.

Yeah, that'd be much better.

Maybe the problem is less 10 (or 20) man squads, and more that 40K's moral rules are gak!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe the problem is less 10 (or 20) man squads, and more that 40K's moral rules are gak!

proably, I mean the IDEA isn't a bad one. but.. clearly it has it's flaws.

i personally feel the moral system just needs to be deleted from the game. It has no relevence in the 40k setting. It only exists because of a World War table top game design concept for moral. "fearless blobs" can be handled easily if there are game concerns. 40k is no surrender no retreat (for every faction not just marines.)

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe the problem is less 10 (or 20) man squads, and more that 40K's moral rules are gak!

proably, I mean the IDEA isn't a bad one. but.. clearly it has it's flaws.

Thats basically GW game design for every rule.

ThatMG wrote:
i personally feel the moral system just needs to be deleted from the game. It has no relevence in the 40k setting. It only exists because of a World War table top game design concept for moral. "fearless blobs" can be handled easily if there are game concerns. 40k is no surrender no retreat (for every faction not just marines.)

Off topic but I agree as well. Whether it is a genetically engineered supper soldier, to a Warp infused creature, to an unknowable xenos, to a steely guardsman the setting of 40k is so insane it makes morale seem silly. If they are on the table top it should be assumed it is kill or be killed.

On topic very happy with the Iron Hands trait but I think you'll see crimson fists as the go to competitive option. The extra +1 to hit is so useful in the meta.

Sotahullu wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 aracersss wrote:
... new IH upgrade frame

... probably in conjunction with feirros coming later this month

Called it. I’d put money on each supplement having an upgrade come out with it or shortly before/after.

And possibly even special character to run with those Supplements. Or have everyone forgotten this one;

Please please please be kardan stronos....

Also does this mean that certain vehicles be more powerful in other marine armies?

Like will land raiders be better with iron hands or will they be better with imperial fists (with ignoring cover)

Actually thinking about it now, imperial fist one with a crusader is freaking insane. Along with making Deredo Dreadnoughts and Leviathan Dreads.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sotahullu wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 aracersss wrote:
... new IH upgrade frame
... probably in conjunction with feirros coming later this month

Called it. I’d put money on each supplement having an upgrade come out with it or shortly before/after.

And possibly even special character to run with those Supplements. Or have everyone forgotten this one;

Please please please be kardan stronos....

Also does this mean that certain vehicles be more powerful in other marine armies?

Like will land raiders be better with iron hands or will they be better with imperial fists (with ignoring cover)

Actually thinking about it now, imperial fist one with a crusader is freaking insane. Along with making Deredo Dreadnoughts and Leviathan Dreads.

? Yes, some units are better depending on which tactic you take? That's basically been the case for the entire history of the game :p

 Kirasu wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sotahullu wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 aracersss wrote:
... new IH upgrade frame
... probably in conjunction with feirros coming later this month

Called it. I’d put money on each supplement having an upgrade come out with it or shortly before/after.

And possibly even special character to run with those Supplements. Or have everyone forgotten this one;

Please please please be kardan stronos....

Also does this mean that certain vehicles be more powerful in other marine armies?

Like will land raiders be better with iron hands or will they be better with imperial fists (with ignoring cover)

Actually thinking about it now, imperial fist one with a crusader is freaking insane. Along with making Deredo Dreadnoughts and Leviathan Dreads.

? Yes, some units are better depending on which tactic you take? That's basically been the case for the entire history of the game :p

Genuinely asking a question but yes, I don't know if predators are better with salamanders over the other tactics. AS raven guard seem to be great with infantry like Devastators.

But now it is more defined than before.

I DOO like that CTs are no longer infantry bikes and dread only yes. it'll make some chapters naturally my synergistic with certain things. Ironhands are going to be a god too choice for ehavy armor lists. for example

I am very keen to see the updated rules for the BA in the free PDF, I’m hoping it includes the changes to their CT. Though unfortunately my prediction would be that they’ll get terbo charged engines built in for vehicles, and I play mainly Primaris, so if that’s the case it won’t affect me which is no fun! Even if this is what they do (just a guess anyway), I’m loving the extra attack on the charge, that’s tasty.

GW stated on fb, that ba, da and sw will not receive CT update in those pdf... -_-

Honestly BA, DA and SW's base ability is pretty solid.

Silver144 wrote:
GW stated on fb, that ba, da and sw will not receive CT update in those pdf... -_-

Dark Angels already have a 2 part Base CT. Reroll Ones in shooting and can never lose more than one guy to Morale.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
GW stated on fb, that ba, da and sw will not receive CT update in those pdf... -_-

Dark Angels already have a 2 part Base CT. Reroll Ones in shooting and can never lose more than one guy to Morale.

which are pretty solid, the second bit is mostly situational but it does allow dark angels to run large squads better

BrianDavion wrote:
Honestly BA, DA and SW's base ability is pretty solid.

No I agree, it’s more that it doesn’t overly stack well with vehicles. I wouldn’t have expected anything more for the base ability, more something a bit more comfortable on their metal boxes. That said it doesn’t matter anyway if they said it won’t be included in the PDF on Facebook.

Well, I hoped to get something for our vehicles, but looks like GW is not interested to sell those repulsors to SW and BA players)

well keep in mind odds are good we'll see a 2.0 space wolf, BA etc codex sometime next year. the blood angels where notably absent from Vigilius, and vigilius ablaze mentions Terra Sanguinius under attack. I dunno, seems a little too pat. My guess is we'll see a defence lead by the blood angels, and maybe the rest of Ragnar's great company (as only a small strike force was present on Vigilius which was IIRC fluffed as one that answered the call on their way back from a battle zone)

So blood angels get a detachment. and we see a plastic Dante and Ragnar released. as well as a codex BA and SW 2.0

following that we eventually get something involving the dark angels. maybe GW has the flesh tearer present as well, and we get a primaris gabriel seth, as well as a codex supplement flesh tearers

but I admit thats just wishful thinking/spitballing

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe the problem is less 10 (or 20) man squads, and more that 40K's moral rules are gak!

Never look to 40k for pointers when it comes to moral systems.

Morale systems, possibly, but not moral ones...

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe the problem is less 10 (or 20) man squads, and more that 40K's moral rules are gak!

Never look to 40k for pointers when it comes to moral systems.

Morale systems, possibly, but not moral ones...

........... burning heretics isn't a moral thing to do? well gak I got some explaining to do!

As a Crimson fist player with a fairly large fully painted Primaris army I'm delighted at the changes. Repulsors firing into blobs of infantry are basically lawn mowers now.

Also might actually use my intercessors with stalker's now!

I do like the slight improvement to the Salamander trait. I wonder if that wording to trying to get around it being used with banners though? That was always a stupid interaction.

Rogerio134134 wrote:

Also might actually use my intercessors with stalker's now!

Nobody commented this change before. Now stalkers seem worth it (depending on cost).
Plinking at heavy infantry/monsters/light tanks from 36 with damage 2 seems like a nice bonus for objective-sitting squads.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
GW stated on fb, that ba, da and sw will not receive CT update in those pdf... -_-

Dark Angels already have a 2 part Base CT. Reroll Ones in shooting and can never lose more than one guy to Morale.

while standing still, one might remember.