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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah, if you wanna help Night Lords you need to give them the Jackal Scion rule.

You're aware that the Jackals bit applies to shooting attacks not combat or in general, right?

The same general principle applies though.

No. Drop the whole Scary Marines angle. Give us "A Talent For Murder". It's right there in 30k. It works. Stop trying to make a bad legion trait work.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it.

Because with two steps to it, they can affect the second roll rather than the first. If Night Lords had a -1 to the attrition roll, then that's models unit the unit dying on 1 or 2, rather than just a 1.

And on a 1-3 if the unit is half strength.

Night Lords don't have a -1 to attrition. We have a -1 to leadership. Unless they're redoing the legion traits. That won't happen without a new codex.

It was in context of it they changed to having it in attrition instead of leadership. I know they don't currently have an attrition rule, since attrition didn't exist in 8th.

So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

GW, is clear you dont know how to make morale rules (And when you do, you give inmunity to everybody)

Just stop trying. It would be for the best.

xoxo

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

Arent Ork Hordes pretty much immune to Morale? And same for Synapse range Tyranids?

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

For wiping the whole the squad, it favors hordes. If you kill 4 dudes out of a 5-man Chaos squad (Leadership 8) you've got a 1/3 chance of killing it for good.

But, to achieve the same or better odds of wiping a 30-man cultist squad (Leadership... 6, I think?), you'd need to kill 29.

However, if you just throw chip fire their way, say killing 3 Marines or 6 Cultists, the Marines won't lose anyone on average, whereas the Cultists lose 4-5 unless they get lucky and roll a 1.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Arent Ork Hordes pretty much immune to Morale? And same for Synapse range Tyranids?

Most things don't care about morale.

With this rule most things still won't care about morale, but the super-swingy "And now your unit is dead 'cause I killed half of them and you can't possibly pass the test!" thing is gone.

Net gain.

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

MSU unit of 5 loses 3, rolls 6, fails Ld8 by 1 so they lose a model, then on a 1 or 2 lose their last model.

The change also means that units like a horde of 30 who lose 15/30 models aren't wiped.

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.

So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Arent Ork Hordes pretty much immune to Morale? And same for Synapse range Tyranids?

Most things don't care about morale.

With this rule most things still won't care about morale, but the super-swingy "And now your unit is dead 'cause I killed half of them and you can't possibly pass the test!" thing is gone.

Net gain.

At least there is that.

I sincerely hope GW did some mass updates in the day one errata which will see some moves to splitting the attrition and leadership.

That and maybe chucks out more of the "morale? we don't need no stinking morale" nonsense.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Morale:

O_o

While I can get that this appears to be a mitigation to horde units to avoid Morale wiping a large unit that's just taken a big hit, this basically appears to just make morale simultaneously more complicated and less relevant.

Instead of just removing X casualties on a failed morale test where X = D6+Casualties-Ld, we still have to do that, but then roll individually for every remaining model again potentially for a 1/6 chance to flee, and have another condition (half strength) to check?

This is the perfect example of stereotypically bad GW game design. Take an existing mechanic, make it significantly more convoluted with substantially more dice rolling (seemingly just for its own sake), for an ultimately less impactful outcome.
Unless I'm missing something?

I partially disagree here.

I agree this is more complex a rule. But, it may prove more impactful depending entirely upon when enemy modifiers are applied.

Consider.

Nightlords currently have a native -1 to Ld ability.

With the new rule, if it’s only applied to the initial test, I agree they’re less impactful.

But. If it’s applied to Combat Attrition? Even slim combat wins could see a decent slice of the enemy unit leg it, making such modifiers rather more pronounced.

That I could see, but even then seems most powerful only in those cases where the test was close, while being less powerful in clear blowouts, unless they throw in some seriously powerful modifiers.

For example, currently a 10 strong unit with Ld8 loses 3 dudes, and will only lose anyone on a 6 for their Morale test. Same holds true with the new rule with a 1/6 chance for any of the rest of the dudes to run off. There a -1 to both Morale and Combat Attrition could see a whole lot more effect, resulting in a higher likelyhood of running and an average of 3 dudes in total lost. However, if that same unit lose 6 dudes initially, the current Ld rules would just result in the unit being completely gone if you rolled a 6, while this rule would mean you'd probably only lose one, average closer to 2 with a -1 to Combat Attrition as well.

Thinking on it, it's not quite as totally absurd as I'd initially thought, but still feels unnecessarily convoluted unless they're going to do a whole lot more with Morale than GW historically has.

With the morale change... It's still not very impactful. GW really either needs to make morale affect EVERYONE, and be a significant part of the game, or do away with it almost entirely. Add it back as a bespoke or codex rule to certain units, like Conscripts and Grots, but otherwise leave it away.

Doohicky wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.

So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead

To sum it up, because with Blast Weapons, Hordes get more damage and therefore Moral was changed that the remaining models (if there are any) are not destroyed as well

So overall. we stay about the same, but just the weapon used is different now

 kodos wrote:

Doohicky wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.

So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead

To sum it up, because with Blast Weapons, Hordes get more damage and therefore Moral was changed that the remaining models (if there are any) are not destroyed as well

So overall. we stay about the same, but just the weapon used is different now

Not really-since Morale only works if your opponent is out of CP or if you manage to inflict it on 2+ units.

Tell you one thing, my world eater's army is gonna be a lot better with strategic reserves. Gonna try the 20 man Khorne Bezerker epic outflank at least once

Until board edge conga line meta is a thing

 JNAProductions wrote:
With the morale change... It's still not very impactful. GW really either needs to make morale affect EVERYONE, and be a significant part of the game, or do away with it almost entirely. Add it back as a bespoke or codex rule to certain units, like Conscripts and Grots, but otherwise leave it away.

To be fair, to fix that we need them to errata the codexes, the core rules won't fix that issue.

If we have morale mitigation then it needs to go back to having drawbacks. Stuff like: Stubborn can't fall back, bring back RAGE so more units who are fearless require more finesse to effectively funnel where you want them to hit, Fearless has a -1 to attrition, but doesn't lose any models to the initial failed morale check (representing them getting dragged down by the enemy), ect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Doohicky wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
So say you have a unit of 20 models, highest Ld is 8. They take 3 casualties, and you roll a 6 for Morale.

In 8th that means one guy flees.

In 9th that means one guy flees, and the other 16 make a roll too, averaging in a little more than 2 guys fleeing too on top of the initial one.

So far I don't see how it favours hordes, but I can be wrong.

Because that is an edge case.
In your same scenario, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing, 4 casualties = around 3 fleeing etc etc (In fact the more that die from enemy the less are likely to flee)
In old rules the more casualties the more that flee.

So once you hit 10 casualties the unit is basically destroyed in old rules, but in new they lose a few models instead

To sum it up, because with Blast Weapons, Hordes get more damage and therefore Moral was changed that the remaining models (if there are any) are not destroyed as well

So overall. we stay about the same, but just the weapon used is different now

Not really-since Morale only works if your opponent is out of CP or if you manage to inflict it on 2+ units.

I'm hoping that goes away honestly.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah, if you wanna help Night Lords you need to give them the Jackal Scion rule.

You're aware that the Jackals bit applies to shooting attacks not combat or in general, right?

The same general principle applies though.

No. Drop the whole Scary Marines angle. Give us "A Talent For Murder". It's right there in 30k. It works. Stop trying to make a bad legion trait work.

Or they get a variation of both.

The idea is a step in the right direction, but the math still works out to not much real impact on the game, and the hot take that it hurts MSU is really exaggerated.

5 man unit with LD 7, takes 3 casualties:

8th edition: On a 5+, you lose one model. On a 6, you lose both.

9th edition: On a 5+ you lose one model, then on an additional roll of a 1-2 you lose the last model.

These are essentially identical probabilities. And Space Marines are still effectively immune to morale.

The impact this system will have on the game is still extremely minor because anything that was run in big units was already moral immune, and anything small was already effectively morale immune.

Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

This seems very interesting

yukishiro1 wrote:
The idea is a step in the right direction, but the math still works out to not much real impact on the game, and the hot take that it hurts MSU is really exaggerated.

5 man unit with LD 7, takes 3 casualties:

8th edition: On a 5+, you lose one model. On a 6, you lose both.

9th edition: On a 5+ you lose one model, then on an additional roll of a 1-2 you lose the last model.

These are essentially identical probabilities. And Space Marines are still effectively immune to morale.

The impact this system will have on the game is still extremely minor because anything that was run in big units was already moral immune, and anything small was already effectively morale immune.

It's more that it hurts MSU more than it hurts hordes. Hordes used to have to be fearless or get wiped from massed casualties under 8th's method (or otherwise be able to mitigate the morale, like Orks Breaking Heads rule) which was a problem.

Sure, MSU can end up in the same situation as it is in 8th, it doesn't benefit as much from the reduced casualty numbers. Additionally they gets penalized faster than horde units do.

Everything else with morale is codex level, so we have to wait for those codex level rules updates (day one FAQ/Errata namely) to bring stuff inline with the new rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

This seems very interesting

More rules sillyness!

I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

This seems very interesting

It's badly worded, but it's not presented as the actual rule, just a summary, so presumably they've thought of that in the wording of the actual rule. I would guess it's "set up within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

This seems very interesting

More rules sillyness!

Spoiler:

DS etc != general strategic reserve rules

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

This seems very interesting

More rules sillyness!

Spoiler:

Which makes me hope that a unit or 3+ models will have to deploy in coherency of at least 2 other models in the same unit to prevent daisy chaining.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.

That's a problem with the fundamental system. Morale shouldn't result in models being destroyed, it should result in models getting penalties to their ability to fight. The modern GW approach is completely backwards in that it adds to overall lethality instead of reducing it as it should.

In other words, if you fail a LD test, you should, say, be unable to move for the round except directly away from the nearest enemy models, and you should suffer a -1 to your hit rolls (that stacks above the normal -1 cap) with attacks from those models. Or something like that.

This would also address the problem of leadership being irrelevant for single entity units. Why should a mek gun be immune to morale when the grots manning it run away at the slightest trouble if they're not manning a gun?

But alas, they clearly haven't gone in that direction. They've just reshuffled the deck chairs on the sinking ship - an improvement, but a very marginal one that is still based on the wrong paradigm.

I feel like it's okay to go back to running 9man rubric marine squads instead of 5man units. A pretty significant change considering there are reasons to buff a 9man currently, they just hate morale tests

Example: Mid or Late game, I'd be ok putting Prescience and Weaver of Fates on a 9man unit, but it's not worth it on a 5man.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.

While understandable to some degree, the issue is that in actual combat and battles, morale and psychology are significant elements, and making an enemy decide to be elsewhere is an order of magnitude more common occurrence in the taking of ground than physically killing everyone on it and seizing it by direct assault. And whiles yes 40k is a game, these concepts factor heavily into the background and lore that drives 40k far more than any of its game-rules do. More to the point, morale/fear/psychology/etc form the cornerstone of the basic battle strategies of many factions, and that basically doesn't ever get a chance to really play out, resulting in many far more directly attritional battles than the game's universe would otherwise suggest.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm honestly okay with Morale having a minimal impact on the game. It's never fun to me when I lose models to a bad morale roll rather than to attacks from my opponent.

That's a problem with the fundamental system. Morale shouldn't result in models being destroyed, it should result in models getting penalties to their ability to fight. The modern GW approach is completely backwards in that it adds to overall lethality instead of reducing it as it should.

In other words, if you fail a LD test, you should, say, be unable to move for the round except directly away from the nearest enemy models, and you should suffer a -1 to your hit rolls (that stacks above the normal -1 cap) with attacks from those models. Or something like that.

This would also address the problem of leadership being irrelevant for single entity units. Why should a mek gun be immune to morale when the grots manning it run away at the slightest trouble if they're not manning a gun?

But alas, they clearly haven't gone in that direction. They've just reshuffled the deck chairs on the sinking ship - an improvement, but a very marginal one that is still based on the wrong paradigm.

Morale is abstracted for portray a lot of different things in 40k. It's people fleeing, it's troops running out of ammo, it's soldiers hauling wounded buddies off the line, dudes getting lost during the chaos of combat, all sorts of things that represent a combatant being removed from the fight without being directly harmed. There really is no actual "suppression" mechanic however to represent stuff line troops getting pinned down, or being shell shocked, or anything like that.

 Latro_ wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

This seems very interesting

More rules sillyness!

Spoiler:

DS etc != general strategic reserve rules

Agreed:


They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well