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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not gamebreaking but it did make my pre-PA Night lords a total joke.

They were already a joke, because anything morale related IS a joke besides only the Jackals subfaction of Scions, and even then that was kinda eh.

I mean, the only times my chapter tactic wouldve mattered, my opponent just paiid 2 cp

Well Necrons originally paid for an army wide rule they almost never used. Consider yourself lucky your opponent spent 2CP in order to stop yours.

How is that relevant to a post specifically talking about morale?
And how is "but butbut, this army had it worse!!" even an argument to justify someone's complaint?

I was merely saying it could always be worse. Don't think too hard on it.

I wish they’d bring back units actually running away when they lose morale. Roll the scatter die and see how far they fall back. Call it forced retreat instead of a break test if you want. But it would let us drive people off objectives without having to kill every last one. Then you could roll to make the unit get back in the fight, or it might retreat further.

I wish they’d bring back units actually running away when they lose morale. Roll the scatter die and see how far they fall back. Call it forced retreat instead of a break test if you want. But it would let us drive people off objectives without having to kill every last one. Then you could roll to make the unit get back in the fight, or it might retreat further.

I worry that would be too much book keeping with the scale of the modern game. Plus, with the smaller tables now, you have a higher chance of just running off the edge. That said, I wouldn't mind trying something like, if you fail morale, immediately having to fall back your full movement stat +d6. Then you "recover" on your turn. IDK - I'm sure there's issues with that too, but I can agree that current morale ... is not good ....

 argonak wrote:
I wish they’d bring back units actually running away when they lose morale. Roll the scatter die and see how far they fall back. Call it forced retreat instead of a break test if you want. But it would let us drive people off objectives without having to kill every last one. Then you could roll to make the unit get back in the fight, or it might retreat further.

Nah, I disagree. Let’s not bring back that time consuming, unrealistic step. Random movement on the open when under fire? Nahhh. I much prefer the new abstracted version. Quick and simple.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I don't think it's going to prove useful more than once per battle anyway.

Basically nobody cares about morale. MSU armies have squads that are small enough such that when there's a possibility of failing morale, the squad is also combat-ineffective [and even then, they only fail on like a 6], and horde armies essentially all have ways of circumventing it though Mob Rule, Synapse, or being both MSU and a horde in the case of Guard.

Particularly since only one guy flees on a failed test, and then remainder only run 1/3 of the time, you would basically only use this stratagem if your squad has been shot down to 1 and that guy is completely critical to victory. Which could happen, but isn't going to be happening every turn.

Daemons say hello. Strong incentives to use big combat blobs, extremely weak morale mitigation.

Daemons and Necrons were really the only morale vulnerable armies in 8th, and now morale is just ignorance, so like nobody really cares.

Unless you have 1 guy left of your squad and they're going to obsec the point, you dont really need insane bravery anymore, and i don't think one guy on the point as the deciding factor is going to be that frequent.

I beg to differ, daemons care a lot about making those morale tests.

The Newman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I don't think it's going to prove useful more than once per battle anyway.

Basically nobody cares about morale. MSU armies have squads that are small enough such that when there's a possibility of failing morale, the squad is also combat-ineffective [and even then, they only fail on like a 6], and horde armies essentially all have ways of circumventing it though Mob Rule, Synapse, or being both MSU and a horde in the case of Guard.

Particularly since only one guy flees on a failed test, and then remainder only run 1/3 of the time, you would basically only use this stratagem if your squad has been shot down to 1 and that guy is completely critical to victory. Which could happen, but isn't going to be happening every turn.

Daemons say hello. Strong incentives to use big combat blobs, extremely weak morale mitigation.

Daemons and Necrons were really the only morale vulnerable armies in 8th, and now morale is just ignorance, so like nobody really cares.

Unless you have 1 guy left of your squad and they're going to obsec the point, you dont really need insane bravery anymore, and i don't think one guy on the point as the deciding factor is going to be that frequent.

I beg to differ, daemons care a lot about making those morale tests.

It's not that Daemons ignore morale.

It's that, if you lose 2 in a 30-strong squad, failing morale will lose you 5-6 more.
If you lose 14 in a 30-strong squad, failing morale will lose you right about 6 more.

Which is bad, true! But not as bad as it used to be-it's virtually impossible to lose a squad that has even a few guys left.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 argonak wrote:
I wish they’d bring back units actually running away when they lose morale. Roll the scatter die and see how far they fall back. Call it forced retreat instead of a break test if you want. But it would let us drive people off objectives without having to kill every last one. Then you could roll to make the unit get back in the fight, or it might retreat further.

Nah, I disagree. Let’s not bring back that time consuming, unrealistic step. Random movement on the open when under fire? Nahhh. I much prefer the new abstracted version. Quick and simple.

I'd say the 9th edition version is much more time consuming and complicated than 'Fail = fallback 2d6.'
You're still making the same base test, but now you're removing a model and then rolling even more dice for each member of the squad. And then checking if you made a stupid error in removal that will cause even more models to suddenly vanish into the ether.

Its much less interesting and tactical as well.

And I'm definitely not sure how troops running away from combat is more 'unrealistic' (something soldiers have done throughout history) than troops just magically vanishing (something that's never happened at all).

Voss wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 argonak wrote:
I wish they’d bring back units actually running away when they lose morale. Roll the scatter die and see how far they fall back. Call it forced retreat instead of a break test if you want. But it would let us drive people off objectives without having to kill every last one. Then you could roll to make the unit get back in the fight, or it might retreat further.

Nah, I disagree. Let’s not bring back that time consuming, unrealistic step. Random movement on the open when under fire? Nahhh. I much prefer the new abstracted version. Quick and simple.

I'd say the 9th edition version is much more time consuming and complicated than 'Fail = fallback 2d6.'
You're still making the same base test, but now you're removing a model and then rolling even more dice for each member of the squad. And then checking if you made a stupid error in removal that will cause even more models to suddenly vanish into the ether.

Its much less interesting and tactical as well.

And I'm definitely not sure how troops running away from combat is more 'unrealistic' (something soldiers have done throughout history) than troops just magically vanishing (something that's never happened at all).

Not random but falling back towards own deployment zone/ away from enemy seems to do the trick. Things like getting pinned etc. are mechanics I like.

At some point you simply can't have "depth" without things taking a bit longer.
Obviously 40k GW rules writers since Priestley departure is just a different beast.

As the strat existing I think once per battle is powerful enough. But I would argue it just shoulditn exist. Its potentially a game wining strat. If for some reason there is that one dude on an objective you were almost guaranteed to kill and rolled all 1's, if spending 2 CP will net you that 10VP in your command phase, thats game winning.

Ive had plenty of games that hinged on a lonely exarch or guardian holding an objective lol.