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.

Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.

Just adding to the morale discussion: I think it's the one aspect where they went too far with the streamlining, but morale also didn't matter since at least 6th Edition because most factions were basically immune to morale.
I get the impression the only reason they implemented the attrition mechanic was not to make morale impactful (even fewer models flee than in 8th) but to actually trigger a "failed leadership check" that can be used for secondaries or missions (but other than that doesn't really matter). All the "immune to morale" rules seem to get relegated to "immune to attrition modifiers" to enable failed morale for every faction and therefore not making morale penalties some factions like to throw around pointless - at least that's what we've seen for Marines and Orks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.

That's a completely baseless objection. Epic Armageddon and Panzer Grenadier use similar concepts and those are both IGOUGO.

I struggle to see what criticisms you could aim at such a system that don't apply equally to the two styles of morale we've had in 40K; or, in other words, are criticisms of the morale systems rather than IGOUGO.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.

That's a completely baseless objection. Epic Armageddon and Panzer Grenadier use similar concepts and those are both IGOUGO.

I struggle to see what criticisms you could aim at such a system that don't apply equally to the two styles of morale we've had in 40K; or, in other words, are criticisms of the morale systems rather than IGOUGO.

Epic is different from the ones mentioned above and is quite similar to the old mechanic which was terribly unfun for many armies. Especially when they could block your run and wipe you anyway. Epic even gave free hits with no saves in addition to making the unit run. And Epic is not IGOUGO. I have no experience with PG.

You could articulate why IGOUGO makes common morale systems somehow not work instead of quibbling on the fact that Epic is not exactly the same game as 40K.

Flames of War/derivatives is IGOUGO and has pinning and morale mechanics way better than "casualties, but more".

Chain of Command has the best morale mechanics imho at 28mm, but it isn't IGOUGO I grant.

What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".

Karol wrote:
What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".

Some 2nd WW games have suppression mechanics like that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Flames of War/derivatives is IGOUGO and has pinning and morale mechanics way better than "casualties, but more".

Chain of Command has the best morale mechanics imho at 28mm, but it isn't IGOUGO I grant.

Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Karol wrote:
What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".

Some 2nd WW games have suppression mechanics like that.

Well lucky guess then. I think that something like incoming fire or losing models shouldn't kill more models. A unit that gets shot doesn't always run away, sometimes it even can't run away. Of course most mechanics that could be created would either lenghten the game, and I don't think people want that, or don't work for a game with 100+ models. It would be nice if weapons had a suppresion stat for example, that would impact stuff like movment or being able to shot back. If you are behind a wall, and someone just blasted the ruins with 4 flamers, the unit shouldn't be able to normally shot next turn.

Maybe there could even be different mechanics for different weapons. Some weapons like bolt stuff would make it harder for units to move and shot back, but being hit by a flamer would means the unit is moving away, and if it is not then maybe then it should be taking extra hits as the unit is litterally standing in the fire. Maybe sniper could make HQs stop using their abilities for a second and psyker could do some other crazy things, like make the ground harder to move if you get hit by a psychic power which says it reaps the ground apart etc.

But as I said, this could work in a game of 30-40 models, not for a game with often run 60+ per side.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Flames of War/derivatives is IGOUGO and has pinning and morale mechanics way better than "casualties, but more".

Chain of Command has the best morale mechanics imho at 28mm, but it isn't IGOUGO I grant.

Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?

*Shrug* you can think pinning isn't a good system, but that is fundamentally different than thinking it is impossible.

And nope, that is the old version of FoW. The new one is a bit different.

How about this for another IGOUGO game with more complex morale than "here are more casualties": Field of Glory

Face it; IGOUGO doesn't somehow fundamentally make morale impossible to model.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?

Once again, this is a weirdly baseless assertion to make. Suppression/pinning can be a mechanism for enabling melee armies to close to contact without getting shot up on the way in- in any historical/modern game that's how you deal with emplaced positions; suppress to cover while you move in for close assault. Even melee-heavy armies almost always have some shooting, and the ones that don't (Nurgle Daemons come to mind) have both alternate deployment and an archetype that ostensibly should be resistant to suppression.

Additionally, morale can be a mechanism for making melee a decisive point, by either limiting the loser's ability to fight back or compounding their losses. Some prior editions of 40K did this via Sweeping Advance, but there are other ways to accomplish the idea without the all-or-nothing nature of that mechanic.

What's next, decent morale systems won't work in 40K because it's 28mm?

Yes the game is too complex and combined with the price hikes and the ridiculous, expensive and endless rule books that are out of date 2 weeks later due to an FAQ - I think GW need to have a rethink

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?

Once again, this is a weirdly baseless assertion to make. Suppression/pinning can be a mechanism for enabling melee armies to close to contact without getting shot up on the way in- in any historical/modern game that's how you deal with emplaced positions; suppress to cover while you move in for close assault. Even melee-heavy armies almost always have some shooting, and the ones that don't (Nurgle Daemons come to mind) have both alternate deployment and an archetype that ostensibly should be resistant to suppression.

What's next, decent morale systems won't work in 40K because it's 28mm?

Is it baseless?

A British Rifleman Platoon 7 points. Panzergrenadiers are 7 points. 40K goes from 5 points up to 40+ for models than can feel morale. You also don't get to have squads outside roughly 7 to 13 models in Bolt Action. Even stuff like Soviet partisans are limited.

I'm not saying another system wouldn't work. I'm saying there's a lot more to consider than just slapping some other mechanic in and expecting it to apply without causing uneven outcomes.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.

That's a completely baseless objection. Epic Armageddon and Panzer Grenadier use similar concepts and those are both IGOUGO.

I struggle to see what criticisms you could aim at such a system that don't apply equally to the two styles of morale we've had in 40K; or, in other words, are criticisms of the morale systems rather than IGOUGO.

The f...? Epic Armageddon isn't anywhere close to IGOUGO. All sides activate one formation at a time with the option of activating another in the same go with a penalty if they desire, modified by certain rules like Commanders being able to coordinate massed charges in one go. With ten or so formations per side in an average 3-4k game, that's definitely in alternating activation territory.

As for Daedalus' point, the gradual degradation in ability as represented by blast markers and such is not necessary at an easy home in an IGOUGO. Especially in a shooting heavy game like 40k. If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Is it baseless?

A British Rifleman Platoon 7 points. Panzergrenadiers are 7 points. 40K goes from 5 points up to 40+ for models than can feel morale. You also don't get to have squads outside roughly 7 to 13 models in Bolt Action. Even stuff like Soviet partisans are limited.

I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant to the idea that melee is less viable in a game with significant morale effects.

Sherrypie wrote:The f...? Epic Armageddon isn't anywhere close to IGOUGO. All sides activate one formation at a time with the option of activating another in the same go with a penalty if they desire, modified by certain rules like Commanders being able to coordinate massed charges in one go. With ten or so formations per side in an average 3-4k game, that's definitely in alternating activation territory.

Fair enough on Epic, I did cross a wire there- but I want to point out it also isn't alternating activation by unit, and at a standard-sized game you are not doing ten formations per side. So each impulse has a substantial fraction of your army activating and inflicting damage at once.

Sherrypie wrote:If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).

But there's the crux of it: 40K already has a problem with the first player able to do massive damage to the other. Under the current system it's actually worse if you do play an army susceptible to morale, because the current system means your whole army gets shot up and then you lose more models to morale before you can do anything. And that's on top of the general issues resulting from a system where most armies can fire across the board turn 1 at full or near-full effectiveness.

With a more incremental morale system you can reduce the raw damage output while still having forces inflict measurable results on one another. It's not uncommon, for example, to have a failed morale result in a unit 'going to ground' and becoming more resilient to further fire. Additionally, the game could be rebalanced around outcomes of fire that aren't just models removed; you can tone the lethality way down while still having units accomplish things.

So I mean, if the argument is that adding relevant morale to 40K with zero other changes would be a bad idea, then sure. But that's not because such mechanics don't work with IGOUGO games; it's because 40K in particular has core design issues that IGOUGO exacerbates.

It is very hard to add traditional morale effects to a game like 40k which is you go I go with very high potential lethality. One bunch of implementations simply make it worse for the guy under fire, the other traditional ones (does a charge go home etc.) just give more advantage to shooting.

At this point it may as well be stripped out and LD just used for the odd test like psychic power stuff etc.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is very hard to add traditional morale effects to a game like 40k which is you go I go with very high potential lethality. One bunch of implementations simply make it worse for the guy under fire, the other traditional ones (does a charge go home etc.) just give more advantage to shooting.

At this point it may as well be stripped out and LD just used for the odd test like psychic power stuff etc.

Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.

I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.

I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.

Compared to what? A squad of 10 Marines firing twice at 30" at a -2 save mod is decidedly more lethal than say, 3rd edition. There's a whole spectrum here.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.

We're talking about a morale mechanic that is literally lethal to squads (moreso, in fact, as it's more dangerous than even mortal wounds), and you're going to say with a straight face that the lethality in 40K is overstated?

catbarf wrote:

Sherrypie wrote:The f...? Epic Armageddon isn't anywhere close to IGOUGO. All sides activate one formation at a time with the option of activating another in the same go with a penalty if they desire, modified by certain rules like Commanders being able to coordinate massed charges in one go. With ten or so formations per side in an average 3-4k game, that's definitely in alternating activation territory.

Fair enough on Epic, I did cross a wire there- but I want to point out it also isn't alternating activation by unit, and at a standard-sized game you are not doing ten formations per side. So each impulse has a substantial fraction of your army activating and inflicting damage at once.

You're wrong. Believe me, I play Epic regularily, last time barely two days ago.

For E:A in particular, aiming for 3-4 activations per 1000 points is ideal and going with less is a strategic choice that can see you struggle to leverage your large formations properly because you're being outmanoeuvred. Depending on the game state, it can very much be one to one activations while baiting the enemy out, then followed by more frantic double activations as things heat up, but that is still so solidly alternating it's like a textbook example on how to do it dynamically and interestingly (remember retaining initiative gives a command penalty, thus not always being desirable even if you feel like you should go for it).

catbarf wrote:

Sherrypie wrote:If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).

But there's the crux of it: 40K already has a problem with the first player able to do massive damage to the other. Under the current system it's actually worse if you do play an army susceptible to morale, because the current system means your whole army gets shot up and then you lose more models to morale before you can do anything. And that's on top of the general issues resulting from a system where most armies can fire across the board turn 1 at full or near-full effectiveness.

With a more incremental morale system you can reduce the raw damage output while still having forces inflict measurable results on one another. It's not uncommon, for example, to have a failed morale result in a unit 'going to ground' and becoming more resilient to further fire. Additionally, the game could be rebalanced around outcomes of fire that aren't just models removed; you can tone the lethality way down while still having units accomplish things.

So I mean, if the argument is that adding relevant morale to 40K with zero other changes would be a bad idea, then sure. But that's not because such mechanics don't work with IGOUGO games; it's because 40K in particular has core design issues that IGOUGO exacerbates.

40K isn't a terribly good rules chassis to start from, so things being bad in it isn't saying much in favor of the other bad thing being good actually. 40K in particular has this problem, but it is still applicable in the wider sense: if whole sides activate at once, any mechanics that hinder the operational capabilities and freedom of action will hurt the second player more. Thus, IGOUGO in general is less conducive to good games if judicious firepower is available, whereas more staggered activation schemes provide better interplay of mechanics and player choice while retaining better mapping to the subject matter.

So yeah, point isn't that morale and friction wouldn't be better than straight up killing in an IGOUGO game, it's that they work much better in an AA game where you don't actively have to fight the system to have a meaningful time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.

I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.

If you only lose what you expose that's pretty much the definition of too lethal. What you're saying is if it's a target it'll die.

40k is so complex and therefore cannot be compared to other games, and it is so much harder to balance it than all other games.
And it is really simple and easy to teach players, as the basic rules are so simple and you do not really need to know much for the game to work.

I see people go though so much contradictory ideas of 40k I think it’s kinda sad, people will analyse so much of 40k as the best constantly with no sense of anything else.
When I think 40k is so bogged down in it’s own piles of rules that it cannot ever really improve as the effort require wouldn’t be worth it until 40k players stop buying it.

Depressing.

Complex ? No

Bloated? Yes by design.

Complexity arives due to the extra rules special bloat.
Incidentally a propperly designed USR system could massively streamline it.

Then curb some of the obsolete nonsensical stratagems and behold you'd have a decent system under it,

I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.

That is good for armies that have its power based on raw stats and quality of their unit rules and weapons. Kind of a hard to pull the same thing with a force which is designed to use stratagems as a rules filler.

For example the new GK had their ability to cast two powers cut, on almost all characters, at the same time the need for characters to cast multiple psychic powers was not removed from the army. So playing without the statagem that allows the use of an extra psychic power would be a big problem. Same with gear and psychic powers that were turned in to stratagems. half the rules of having a specific brotherhood is linked to have a specific stratagem and psychic power, so playing without it would be cutting off half the rules.

The question I have: does anyone trust GW could come up with a better system?

Each new edition gave them the chance to build a better 40k. That's 8 attempts to get to where we are now, plus offshoots like Apocalypse and Kill Team.

I'm all for radical rethinking of 40k but question whether the creative brainpower exists internally to reshape game mechanics into something more satisfying. My guess is a better 40k would have to come from outside the company, which is hard without a profit incentive. GW lawyers would find a way to shut down any initiative that actually gains traction.

Blndmage wrote:I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.

That's largely how we play too. Any stratagems are minimal, and only really reserved for things like the standard reroll. I don't play with any of the faction benefits or battleforged bonuses, and it's basically just the most streamlined version we can do.

Works a treat for us.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.

We're talking about a morale mechanic that is literally lethal to squads (moreso, in fact, as it's more dangerous than even mortal wounds), and you're going to say with a straight face that the lethality in 40K is overstated?

Did everyone get amensia and forget that you could be forced to pick up a whole squad last edition if you took enough casualties? The codexes have been literally loaded with defensive buffs on top of terrain being more protective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
If you only lose what you expose that's pretty much the definition of too lethal. What you're saying is if it's a target it'll die.

That isn't really true, either, unless the opponent has enough units in range to take out whatever it is - and that's after you put your guns down range.