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.

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.

A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.

It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.

A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.

It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.

A blob of 30 that loses 15 is either useless (in which case, dead or alive doesn't matter) or costs you 2 CP to stick around, assuming no other morale mitigation.

This change is a pointless waste of time.
It’s just a bunch more dice rolling creating very little affect in the game..

Everyone will still pass morale and if they fail they will use whatever reroll, bespoke morale rule or whatever..

Before if they failed you did some math and removed casualties if you couldn’t mitigate it. It wasn’t great but it was quick whether you failed or passed.

Now it’s a bunch of dice rolling fishing for 6s (really 1s but you get my point) which I thought they wanted to remove!!!

The vast majority of the time this will be just waste of time rolling dice! They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..

If they wanted to make the game quicker this morale rule isn’t helping.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.

A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.

It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.

A blob of 30 that loses 15 is either useless (in which case, dead or alive doesn't matter) or costs you 2 CP to stick around, assuming no other morale mitigation.

You're forgetting that if they're alive they can still be performing actions to score points.

If GW has a lot of scoring done at the start of your command phase like they showed in that four pillars mission than morale not autokilling your unit becomes huge and means your opponent has to focus on a smaller number od targets at the same time to achieve the same result of wiping a squad that happened automatically in 8th via morale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So Reese mentiones that tripointing is "very different in 9th" but didn't say it was gone.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.

A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.

It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.

A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6

The more I look at it the more I think 7th ed was actually better for it's basic moral rules (probably the only thing it was better at). You took a leadership test and if you failed your unit fell back towards your board edge and had to pass another moral check to regroup. The problems came from being forced to take moral checks after every phase you took a casualty, meaning you could fall back multiple times in a turn, and that GW handed out Fearless like sweets making it potentially overly punishing to the armies it did apply to whilst the majority ignored it. This new set up is just a minor change to 8th's already bad system, and one that more often than not will have no impact.

I'm really liking the strategic reserves change, though of the 5 armies I play I think Nids might be the only one to get any benefit out of it. The only real problem I've seen so far is that you calculate the CP spent based on PL, which is utterly moronic, especially since GW had changed calculating reserves from PL to points in 8th because everyone told them how stupid it was already.

 JNAProductions wrote:
A blob of 30 that loses 15 is either useless (in which case, dead or alive doesn't matter) or costs you 2 CP to stick around, assuming no other morale mitigation.

Really?

8th Edition: Lose 15 of 30 Cultist in one turn. They roll a 1 on they Morale test and lose 10 models (15 + 1 = 16- 6 Leadership = 10) and are down to 5 models. For each point higher on the dice, another model is lost with the entire unit dying on a 6.

9th Edition: Lose 15 of 30 Cultist in one turn. They roll a 2+ on they Morale test (because a 1 is now an auto-pass) and lose 1 model then roll Combat Attrition. They are now under half strength, so approximately 1/3 the unit flees leaving 9 or 10 models alive.

Tell me that's nothing? That's a chunk of firepower your opponent must dedicate to killing the rest of the unit in a future turn. That's a unit that can do something during your next turn, like sitting on a objective, screening out your more important units, or charging something a vehicle that won't scoop them up in one round of close combat.

gungo wrote:
They should have left the old rule in place and simply made A failed morale check into 1 casualty mandatory regardless If an armies bespoke morale rules. That’s quick clean and makes failing morale have some consequence..

Not sure I follow. The new rule states that a failed morale check causes 1 mandatory casualty exactly the way you're describing, no?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.

A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.

It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.

Okay but that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say it hurt hordes more than 8th, but that small units are affected less due to having less potential models to lose.

gungo wrote:

A) hordes are already being beaten with a stick this edition an you will rarely see 20-30 model units since they get absolutely decimated by the plethora of blast weapons.
B) the vast majority of those blob units have morale mitigation in 8th that limits those casualties significantly.
This entire morale change is mostly a pointless waste of die rolling time fishing for 1s on a d6

1. People have made a lot of claims but I highly suspext hordes have strengths all their own. I understand that MSUs benefit more than hordes from most of the changes, but that doesn't mean that hordes don't benefit. Missions and scoring will make large ripples on if large units are needed more, as will if GW puts that targeted aura rule to good use in 9th.
2. I understand how things work in 8th, but let's not pretend that 9th isn't coming with a stack of errata and points changes that could swing the game even further.

And even if MSU is the meta at the start of 9th, I doubt it'll stay that way. Look at how much 8th changed over 3 years for example. Meta will shift and we'll see the pendul2 swing eith the subtly of a thunderhammer in a fine china shop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that.

A horde of 30 that loses half is dead in 8th. In 9th you statistically lose 1 to the failed check, and then 1/3 of the remaining 14 models.

It doesn't hurt hordes nearly as much as the old rule did.

Okay but that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say it hurt hordes more than 8th, but that small units are affected less due to having less potential models to lose.

Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.

With all these previewss I'd really just like GW to spill the beans so we can stop this assumption based arguing and get to the real meaty, hands-on-the-rules 'arguing' Dakka is so we'll known for.

Overall though, the edition looks like it's building on 8th alright. Probably won't be perfect, but it'll be enough to have fun with.

 Kirasu wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.

You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that. Small squads with good LD still don't care.

Regardless of morale rules, you can indeed 'only' lose 2 more models from a under half strength squad of 5... I don't know what your point is there.

Also, you don't seem to understand what I suggested. This makes a morale test for those 2 remaining models actually difficult to pass. The horde unit will not lose more units under most scenarios as it would fail morale anyway on a 2+ when it gets shot to under half strength in one turn. Doubling the casualties does not change anything there. Only when a large unit is shot over several turns and suffers a few casualties to bring it under half strength then my suggestion would hurt them more than what is the current case. But then again, if you're being shot multiple times and suffer heavy casualties, isn't it fair that morale starts to become an issue? So yeah, my suggestion hurts small units a lot more than 30 model units, which is precisely its intent.

A 5 man needs to lose 3 models to even have a chance of losing 1 model on a 6 (which they then reroll).

If they lose 4 models they have a chance to only lose 1 model, and can reroll a 5 without fear of then rolling it into a 6 (since it’s still 1 model lost). It’s most likely a very similar model loss. However a larger unit that loses only a few models could fail a check and then has to roll for every model. It’s a much higher opportunity risk.

I don’t see a realistic situation where msu marines are more vulnerable.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.

No, they aren't, because just like with hitting, wounding, and most everything else, loyalists can reroll failed morale checks. And I wouldn't put it past gw to tack "reroll failed attrition rolls" on to atsknf.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.

No, they aren't, because just like with hitting, wounding, and most everything else, loyalists can reroll failed morale checks.

Reroll is not the same as autopass.

And I wouldn't put it past gw to tack "reroll failed attrition rolls" on to atsknf.

More likely, it would be something like they take a Mortal Wound instead of losing a model. For the Oldmarine stuff, it's the same effect but it doesn't hurt the Primaris stuff as much.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Ld8 (Space Marine SGT LD) actually is at a greater risk of being wipes in the new edition than the current edition, so the claim that it doesn't hurt MSU more than the current rules isn't entirely true.

No, they aren't, because just like with hitting, wounding, and most everything else, loyalists can reroll failed morale checks.

Reroll is not the same as autopass.

And I wouldn't put it past gw to tack "reroll failed attrition rolls" on to atsknf.

More likely, it would be something like they take a Mortal Wound instead of losing a model. For the Oldmarine stuff, it's the same effect but it doesn't hurt the Primaris stuff as much.

Sure, there's a whopping 2.7% chance of failing a morale check after losing 3/5 marines and a massive 11.1% chance of losing the last marine after you lose 4/5.

Why, accounting for the odds to fail the check in the first place, there's an ENORMOUS 0.9% chance of losing the fifth squad member in a marine squad when you kill 3/5 members.

WOWEE ZOWEE that's the marine nerf we needed right there, well done GW definitely a rule to HAMMER those elite MSU's!

 Kirasu wrote:
A 5 man needs to lose 3 models to even have a chance of losing 1 model on a 6 (which they then reroll).

If they lose 4 models they have a chance to only lose 1 model, and can reroll a 5 without fear of then rolling it into a 6 (since it’s still 1 model lost). It’s most likely a very similar model loss. However a larger unit that loses only a few models could fail a check and then has to roll for every model. It’s a much higher opportunity risk.

I don’t see a realistic situation where msu marines are more vulnerable.

Okay, so you either didn't read correctly or didn't understand what I wrote. Fair enough, I'll elaborate.

What I suggested would be a nice addition to the current rules, is that if you get under half strength, any casualties taken in a turn double for morale purposes. So those 5 marines losing 3 would then need to roll a 8 - (3*2) = 2 or lower to pass morale, rather than a 5 or lower to pass morale.

For those 30 Daemonettes, they lose 3, are still above half strength and therefore need to roll the same as without my suggestion. Only when there's 17 of them left and they'd lose 3 in a turn, they need to take a morale of 7 - (3*2) = 1 to pass. Without my suggestion, that'd be a 4 or lower to pass. So yes, in this case, it hurts hordes and by the nature of the rules spoiled by GW, hordes can lose more models than small squads. Still, I'd say my suggested addition is a lot more impactful on those small squads than on half-shot hordes that lose a minor amount of casualties.

.9%>0%

I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.

And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
.9%>0%

I wasn't claiming that it was a massive nerf to MSU, but it is a nerf.

And that's assuming your doom and floom about ATSKNF is right.

That's without any changes to ATSKNF. You have a 1/36 chance of failing morale with 3 guys dead from a 5 man squad, then a 1/3 chance of the last one fleeing.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Better now?

Spoiler:

Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.

So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.

The spoiler as-written could just as easily be taken to mean the entire unit has to be set up within 1" of your board edge.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So hordes have the benefit here versus MSU, while MSU has the benefit over Blast weapons.

A bold take, given that the change to morale for MSU is

CURRENT SYSTEM

Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees.

NEW SYSTEM

Jimmy's space marine squad takes 3/5 casualties. Jimmy rolls a 6 for morale, Then rolls another 6. 1 model flees. Then he rolls another die. On a 1, 1 more model flees.

Damn, such a BIG HIT to MSU's! Who's gonna take 5-man squads now?

oh also BTW we're making -LD abilities into -Attrition Test abilities because it was just too easy to make those useful against small squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morale will still be ignored 99.99% of the time by the following factions

100% of the time:

Knights, Chaos Knights

99.9% of the time

All Loyalist Marines, Custodes, Tyranids

99% of the time

Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Necrons, Admech, All Chaos Marines (Field almost always 5-man squads, especially now with all the nerfs to larger units)

Leaving *checks notes* Tau, Guard, Orks and GSC to ever possibly care about morale.

So, same as always. Good deck chair rearranging, GW!

I know they aren't the popular faction but Daemons benefit greatly from the new morale rules.

Are punchy assault units, daemonettes and bloodletters, are t3 with 5+ save. Bloodletter bomb was popular in 8th ed. The problem was that you bring down 15 or 20 bloodletters from reserve, you hope to make the charge (not difficult with the Banner of Blood allowing 3d6 charge), lose a few to OW, probably kill the squad you charged and then next turn lose so many models to shooting you either get wiped out or lose a good chunk to failed morale.At least with the changes to morale failing a morale test is not nearly as devastating in 9th. I lose ONE bloodletter automatically and the other 4 fail on rolls of 1. Currently depending on how many casualties are taken the odds are good the last 5 run away. 4 Bloodletters are no longer scary but they still need to be taken care of by my opponent in his shooting/charge phase which is one less unit shooting/charging something else in my army.

Daemonettes very rarely see play since they aren't the ideal "bomb" unit and with being t3 they just get shot to hell and back and any survivors run away. Now at least for people play mono-Slaanesh daemons they won't see entire units of 'nettes pop on turn 1 except through focused fire.

Plaguebearers become even better at sticking around and being annoying. T4 with -1 to hit if 20 or more plus the changes to morale. Barring bad rolling all 20 have to be killed to more or less guarantee a unit wipe and any daemon player knows you find a way to fit in points for a banner to give a chance to get plaguebearers back.

 Carnikang wrote:
With all these previewss I'd really just like GW to spill the beans so we can stop this assumption based arguing and get to the real meaty, hands-on-the-rules 'arguing' Dakka is so we'll known for.

Overall though, the edition looks like it's building on 8th alright. Probably won't be perfect, but it'll be enough to have fun with.

At this point, I don't think it would matter what the actual full rules are--quite a few folks are bending logic into knots just to keep arguing their viewpoint.

I vote that they continue teasing it out, bit by bit, and get people absolutely frothing for the rule books.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.

Because those termagants would already be moral immune.

That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.

My Daemons beg to differ. I have to pay 2 CP to auto-pass Morale, or for units that can have a banner and I pay for it, hope I roll a "1" to gain models, not lose models.

Best daemons can hope for is LD 10 from GD's and DP's LD bubbles.

But thanks for making assumptions based on your jerking your knees out of their sockets to try to prove a point.

There's no need for hostility.

If Daemons are an exception (I thought they had ways to ignore morale too, but I'll take your word that they don't) then maybe there is indeed one faction that benefits significantly from this, assuming all the other nerfs to large units don't make them disappear in the first place.

Like I said to the other guy in the post responding to that post which you don't seem to have read, if this helps you, I'm happy for you. Unlike some here who use this thread as an opportunity to attack others they have taken a disliking to, I'm just interested in discussing the rules interactions, and if they genuinely are beneficial for you, that's great.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's no need for hostility.

If Daemons are an exception (I thought they had ways to ignore morale too, but I'll take your word that they don't) then maybe there is indeed one faction that benefits significantly from this, assuming all the other nerfs to large units don't make them disappear in the first place.

Like I said to the other guy in the post responding to that post which you don't seem to have read, if this helps you, I'm happy for you. Unlike some here who use this thread as an opportunity to attack others they have taken a disliking to, I'm just interested in discussing the rules interactions, and if they genuinely are beneficial for you, that's great.

My "hostility" is not from your assumption about horde armies.

I, like a few others, just find it annoying (and yes I realize having been a member here for over a decade) that the Dakka way, FOR THE MOST PART, is to knee jerk until you can't walk and claim the sky is falling whenever new rules come out for GW games and yet funnily enough almost every single instance of knee jerk reactions is proven to not be knee-jerk worthy at the end of the day. Do GW write perfect rules? Of course not, no company is ever going to write perfect rules. I know most people aren't assuming GW can but you'd think from all the armchair game developers on Dakka spewing word vomit about how crappy the 40k rules are that Dakka as a collective could develop a game to rival 40k but of course that won't happen because to have a few thousand people try to coherently come up with a rules set that incorporates hundreds of ideas for how rules should work would lead to more convoluted garbage than what GW gives us.

I've tried quote/unquote home made codeciies for past editions and house rules to fix current rules in 8th ed (and past editions) and none of what I tried worked any better IMO than what GW has given us. Back in the 5th edition days of 40k I was very vocal about some of what I saw, too the point I and another user got one another banned a few times for our back and forth. So far your knee jerk attitude isn't as bad as his.

It's good to be critical but when your criticism comes off sounding like you hate the game in it's entirety don't be shocked when other members on here ask you to quit playing or tell you to quit playing. I mean, I doubt very many people, if any, will see a commercial on TV for a new car, see that it doesn't have anything they want in a car or they find things to complain about with the car and then go out and buy said car. Even billionaires aren't going to buy stuff they hate.

Back on your point I wish Daemons could be made Fearless too. Maybe some of the FW daemons can but I don't use FW models or rules so yeah suffering 10+ casualties will hurt less in 9th than it does currently. Biggest reason for Daemon soup is not because our units suck per se, it's because daemons need units that can last beyond turn 2 and Rubrics and Dreadnaughts seem to be the popular choice (or hell any CSM unit) to be able to fill the role of speed bump so our soft T3 5++ save mdels can MAYBE have a chance.

Fearless needs to die as it currently exists. No morale mitigation rule should be free of penalties to balance them out.

 addnid wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 addnid wrote:


The sort of army we all have come to love to play against ! So thematic ! Death from above ! Death from above !

Well, if Wraithknights were equally as good as Imperial/Chaos Knights, if close combat stuff like Striking Scorpions or Wraithblades could tangle in a world of Assault Centurions and Possessed Bombs, if Wraithlords & such could see eye to eye with the popular Forge World Marine dreads, etc.. you'd perhaps see more variety

I agree, I also like my eggs best that way

That particular games was against Ravenguard with 17 Centurions (pre FAQ). We are all big boys and girls who voluntarily paid to play in a two day tourney. I went 4-1 and had zero complaints about my army. We all had similar expectations and folks had a good time. Please go troll elsewhere.

jivardi wrote:

It's good to be critical but when your criticism comes off sounding like you hate the game in it's entirety don't be shocked when other members on here ask you to quit playing or tell you to quit playing. I mean, I doubt very many people, if any, will see a commercial on TV for a new car, see that it doesn't have anything they want in a car or they find things to complain about with the car and then go out and buy said car. Even billionaires aren't going to buy stuff they hate.

"I don't think this is going to have much impact" is precisely the opposite of "the sky is falling," isn't it?

If visiting this site makes you angry because you encounter opinions you find overly negative, rather than taking out your frustrations by telling people who disagree with you to quit the game, wouldn't you be better off just ignoring their opinions, or, if you are unable to do that, not visiting in the first place? Doesn't that follow from your own analogy about not doing things you don't like?

This place is more pleasant for everyone when people can disagree without making things personal and resorting to the extremely boring hater/white knight paradigm.











Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Fearless needs to die as it currently exists. No morale mitigation rule should be free of penalties to balance them out.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the result of that would be a huge nerf to big units, because they're almost all (except daemons, apparently) run with morale immunity or close to immunity currently.

And if we're going to work on cases of morale not being useful, I would think it'd be better to start on MSU marines with their ~2% chance to lose a model after 3/5 casualities or their ~11% chance to lose the last model in a 5 man squad after losing 4/5s of it.

It'd be great if morale impacted everybody, but there's a very long way to go to make that actually happen.

yukishiro1 wrote:

jivardi wrote:

It's good to be critical but when your criticism comes off sounding like you hate the game in it's entirety don't be shocked when other members on here ask you to quit playing or tell you to quit playing. I mean, I doubt very many people, if any, will see a commercial on TV for a new car, see that it doesn't have anything they want in a car or they find things to complain about with the car and then go out and buy said car. Even billionaires aren't going to buy stuff they hate.

"I don't think this is going to have much impact" is precisely the opposite of "the sky is falling," isn't it?

If visiting this site makes you angry because you encounter opinions you find overly negative, rather than taking out your frustrations by telling people who disagree with you to quit the game, wouldn't you be better off just ignoring their opinions, or, if you are unable to do that, not visiting in the first place? Doesn't that follow from your own analogy about not doing things you don't like?

This place is more pleasant for everyone when people can disagree without making things personal and resorting to the extremely boring hater/white knight paradigm.



You said this rule won't have much of an impact but you have been pretty hateful and vocal and argumentative about the other rules so far and not wanting to listen to other opinions that contradict yours.

All I'm saying is that to make generals assumptions like you have about the game and certain armies getting effed or nerfed to oblivion over what we KNOW of the rules is a knee jerk reaction, not civil discourse.

Burning the American flag isn't a civilized response to hating the USA; stating why you hate America and giving examples of why it sucks IS a civilized response.

Lower morale across the board, make it so fearless only ignored the model lost to the initial morale check, or has a -1 to attrition rolls, make stubborn unable to fall back normally, make ATSKNF something other than a refill (maybe autopass on a 1 or a 2?) and bring back Rage as an alterns2tive2 to fearless.

That's my hot take coming out.of 8th at least.