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.
Going out on a limb, I don't think morale is the main problem.
I mean if it was there are options. Take 30 man blob. Someone kills 6. Haha, 5/6 chance to lose another 5. Very efficient as Semper complains about etc. Well, break out Insane Bravery - as its not like you were using it or the CP for anything else, now you have 24 Boyz to go do whatever.
I think the bigger issue is first that this "whatever" is quite weak - and second that opponents go "right, time to kill some boyz" and instead of killing 6, wipe out 20+ from a unit - then morale takes a few more. Now the unit's below a critical mass. Many things can weather a charge from 5-6 boyz and a nob, and then just delete it when they fight back.
They are too slow and too fragile for 9 points. So the answer's probably giving them say M7", the ability to reroll advances and maybe a 5+ save.
Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.
After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
The benefit of a large squad is: I lose tons (up to 18) of models, I'm still fearless. Doesn't happen with a min squad.
It doesn't make sense that a squad of 15-25 orks lose a significant amount of models due to morale. 6-7 orks might be scared of what's happening, 10+ of them should feel very brave . Never forget we're talking about a unit that doesn't deal much damage, nor is significantly resilient.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/11 12:44:04
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
I'm a variety junkie. I'd love it if they made the Terror Troops thing work. Most armies should have a phase focused subfaction - Obviously some parent factions will just naturally be at least somewhat phase focused - Like Thousand Sons in the Psychic phase. But most of the main factions should have a variety of themes to their subfactions. touching on the various phases as either a strength or weakness.
Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.
After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
The benefit of a large squad is: I lose tons (up to 18) of models, I'm still fearless. Doesn't happen with a min squad.
It doesn't make sense that a squad of 15-25 orks lose a significant amount of models due to morale. 6-7 orks might be scared of what's happening, 10+ of them should feel very brave . Never forget we're talking about a unit that doesn't deal much damage, nor is significantly resilient.
And 30 orks will be braver than 25 will be braver than 20 than 15 and so on. If diminishing returns diminish to 0 there's no benefit to going above 12. The mechanic should slide in scale across the entire size of the unit, not just 2 more than minimum so there's always thought going into bigger or big enough.
They are too slow and too fragile for 9 points. So the answer's probably giving them say M7", the ability to reroll advances and maybe a 5+ save.
We talked about that earlier as well - I had the idea of making Orks faster the more there are as they push each other forwards (Angry Mob). 10ish orks are 5" (and should be in a Trukk because as long as we're dreaming we're also making Transports not suck). 20ish- are 6" 30ish are 7" You can't give the minimum size (read default stat line) unit too much because they're still halfway between a guardsman and a Necron warrior unless you want to jump their points costs up. If guardsmen and fire warriors (i haven't seen the new stats) get a boost similar to Aeldari Guardians - then boys will have some room on their default stat line. Of course doing the research for this was depressing. A battle sister at marginally more than a Boy is much better than a Boy is significantly more than a guardsman in price. And a Battle Sister vs a Chaos Space Marine...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/11 13:15:19
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
I'm a variety junkie. I'd love it if they made the Terror Troops thing work. Most armies should have a phase focused subfaction - Obviously some parent factions will just naturally be at least somewhat phase focused - Like Thousand Sons in the Psychic phase. But most of the main factions should have a variety of themes to their subfactions. touching on the various phases as either a strength or weakness.
Then ask gw to saddle one of the factions you play with a mechanic that's functionally useless against the majority of the other factions in the game. Fear mechanics have never worked, don't currently work, and probably never will in 40k. The other mechanics Night Lords have had over the years do though: cover mechanics (Stealth Adept in 3.5, Stealth in Traitor Legions), speed mechanics (extra FA and Raptors in 3.5, Raptors as troops and rerolling charges in Traitor Legions), "dirty fighting" mechanics (A Talent For Murder in HH). I'll take those, thank you very much.
I'm just not a fan of units gaining abilities as you put more of them in a squad. I see the issue that if a unit's fast enough the Trukk does nothing - but... well... yeah. I think that's a bigger question than just what to do about Boyz.
I also fear comparing Boyz to Sisters raises the ERJAK symbol over Gotham, and you are destined for a fairly accurate paragraph on why basic sisters are decidedly not great (and would be downright Boyz level catastrophic if their minimum unit size jumped to 10.)
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
Tyel wrote: I'm just not a fan of units gaining abilities as you put more of them in a squad.
That's OK. I still like it as a lean into the mob mentality gimmick they get.
I see the issue that if a unit's fast enough the Trukk does nothing - but... well... yeah. I think that's a bigger question than just what to do about Boyz.
Yeah there was another thread around here about Dedicated Transports in general being bad.
I also fear comparing Boyz to Sisters raises the ERJAK symbol over Gotham,
Oh not just sisters, I opened a datasheet for Sisters, Firewarriors, Guardsmen, Chaos Marines, Boys, and Eldar Guardians. That's what I meant about it being depressing. Trying to draw a smooth power curve between 5 point this, and 12 point that just didn't work. Battle Sisters look a whole lot better than Boys for a smaller point difference than Boys over Guardsmen. Or Firewarriors at the same price and not as interesting as even Boys. Or Skitarii Vanguard and Boys at the same price. Perhaps the first thing we ought to do if we're pretending to be a competent GW is balance all the troops against each other, then use the troops to balance the rest.
and you are destined for a fairly accurate paragraph on why basic sisters are decidedly not great (and would be downright Boyz level catastrophic if their minimum unit size jumped to 10.)
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
I'd play Battle Sisters before I played boys, but I'd play boys before I played (pre-new-release) Fire Warriors or Guardsmen, so you don't have to tell me about troops being bad. I still laugh every time I see the Veteran Intercessor entry in the Codex. I mean they're not awful, but paying more for a Troops Choice pretending to be an Elites choice so that it doesn't get ObSec is... not the best choice. Eventually GW will figure out a "Troop Tax" is not the healthy balance model they're looking for. Well I hope they will.
What the hell do you think the other squad of Kroot will be doing? Nothing? One of those ork mob is gonna get double teamed, probably.
Your argument is incredibly disingenuous or incredibly ignorant.
No, again it seems people to like to run away with comments.
I'm saying you don't go put 10 Kroot into marines and say they would have done just as good as Boyz had I had five more models in that fight. Saying Kroot are as good as Boyz in a fight when they're 3:2 doesn't play like that on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Didn't you argue the Objective Secured as a selling point over other Ork units though?
Obsec is always going to be useful. If you roll up on Custodes with Kommandos you won't kill them. If you tag the objective with enough Boyz you'll still steal it before they score.
Kroot getting three units to the Boyz two means they cover more territory, but not that they necessarily do more on the table overall.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/11 13:52:27
And 30 orks will be braver than 25 will be braver than 20 than 15 and so on. If diminishing returns diminish to 0 there's no benefit to going above 12. The mechanic should slide in scale across the entire size of the unit, not just 2 more than minimum so there's always thought going into bigger or big enough.
You're completely ignoring reality here. We're talking about morale for suffering casualties, a unit of 12 suffering 5-6 casualties will defintiely suffer from morale. That's why you may want to go up in numbers. 30 is better than 20 since losing 15-20 models is super easy. You may want a max unit of 30 to soak a lot of firepower and casualties before starting losing models to morale since with 18 dead you're still fearless; if you bring two squads of 15 it takes less casualties overall to start suffering from morale since with 9 dead for each squad the units are both very vulnearable to morale. That's where the benefit is.
Units' rules shouldn't changed according to their size. SM morale rule is the same for every squad's size. Same should be about orks. And since malus (Blast) against hordes are triggered at 11+ I don't see why also bonus towards hordes shouldn't be triggered at 11+.
Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz. At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa. Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.
I see where you are coming from here Daed. But the game scenario you are trying to build is a bit of a strawman/red herring combination because we are talking about Point for Point whats better. In a game setting yeah you will never have that match up happen likely, but its the only fair metric, that and comparing how boyz stand up to return fire as well as kroot and the dmg they inflict on their likely targets. Add in the movement element and the cover element and you get the point. In a 1 for 1 comparison a boy is better than a 6pt kroot, but a point for point comparison, I'm going to have to give it to the kroot. They are head and shoulders faster while being significantly more deadly at ranged combat than the boyz can ever hope to be. They actually do the job of choppa boyz point for point almost as good and do the job of Shoota boyz better.
So, I will say Kroot absolutely have the objective game on lock. That doesn't feel like something Boyz should resign themselves to.
Its not just objective game. Kroot are significantly faster and inflict more dmg in the shooting phase than the boyz by a significant margin. They are better objective holders AND they are better alpha strike troops since they can basically move to within 4' of the enemy deployment zone turn 1. They have decent strats btw as well. Being able to give a blob of Kroot a FNP for 1-2CP is pretty good, not great, but pretty good.
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
As already stated by the 1 nightlords player I have ever met that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of dmg against boyz does 72 shots, 48 hits, 16 wounds and 13.3 dead Orkz. Those orkz now have a 83% chance to fail morale, when they inevitably do they lose 3 more models to attrition. But the more apt comparison since we are talking about Kroot vs Orkz here is Kroot. Those Kroot can take MSU squads of 10 just like boyz, but the difference is, they can pay 25pts more for a shaper who can buff 1-3 units with relative ease and give them +2 leadership (Marine level) AND re-roll 1s to hit. Hes also significantly better than a normal kroot to the point where hes a no brainer for 25pts.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
Not hating on Marines, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement. Marines take MSU units of 5. They have LD8, they just don't worry about Morale in the slightest. You can lose 80% of your unit and still have a better than average chance to pass morale. Compare that to Orkz, I would love for my orkz to be functionally immune to Morale until they are down to 20%. And again, the only night lords player here calls BS on your comment because their army rule DOESN'T WORK against most armies.
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
Same logic than, MSU Marines are 5, 10 is max. So 1-5 should be the "weak" zone, 6-8 should be the "Swing zone" and 9-10 should be the "Strong" zone. I'll even go a step further, Marines should be IMMUNE to morale at 9-10 models. At 6-8 they should have their current "normal" Morale, and at 1-5 they should be LD 5 because screw you just like you are saying to orkz
Dudeface wrote: What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed? Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.
Not sure what you are asking for here Dudeface. Are you suggesting Boyz should test when 21+ models are left with a result of a 1? I'm assuming you mean Models lost +1 as opposed to just fearless because otherwise boyz would be fearless at the start of the game. The only problem I have with that is that its not all that difficult to kill 7 boyz which causes you to auto-fail Morale now as opposed to still having a 16% chance to pass on a 1. Look above, to kill 7 boyz takes 38 Bolter shots, not exactly hard to do right now (dmg to boyz that is) The same is true for units between 11-20 btw. Not hard to remove the minimum requirement, maybe play it more risky and only kill 6 now so you fail 66% of the time, id likely just finish off the mob. And the 10 or less is just normal as it is now...no change, so again, screw you to the specialist mobz. Compare this again to the Kroot who for 25pts can get LD8 on squads of 10-20 as well as re-roll 1s to hit.
Tyel wrote: Going out on a limb, I don't think morale is the main problem. I mean if it was there are options. Take 30 man blob. Someone kills 6. Haha, 5/6 chance to lose another 5. Very efficient as Semper complains about etc. Well, break out Insane Bravery - as its not like you were using it or the CP for anything else, now you have 24 Boyz to go do whatever.
I think the bigger issue is first that this "whatever" is quite weak - and second that opponents go "right, time to kill some boyz" and instead of killing 6, wipe out 20+ from a unit - then morale takes a few more. Now the unit's below a critical mass. Many things can weather a charge from 5-6 boyz and a nob, and then just delete it when they fight back.
They are too slow and too fragile for 9 points. So the answer's probably giving them say M7", the ability to reroll advances and maybe a 5+ save.
Spending CP to fix an inherent problem with a unit is bad game design. But more so in the fact that you can only use that Strat once per game. yes the orkz have a 2CP strat they can use once per turn as well, but you still end up killing 2 of your own guys for the privilege.
I do like the Movement buff, re-roll to advance should probably be given to a buffing character or a kulture, and I think honestly a 5+ save would be the minimum. At that point they might be worth 9ppm and worth taking MSU mobz of 10 and damn the morale casualties.
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
LVO top 4 lists were riddled with troops.
Siegler had over 25% of his list as Troops choices.
The two Custodes players below him had just under and just over 25% troops choices.
The GSC/Nid guy had 1/3rd of his army as troops, without including the transport.
So some armies can make troops work very well. That is 3 right there that can.
The biggest issue here is that in no world are Kroot considered the "go to" Tau troops choices. You have Breachers and Strike teams. Both of which are somehow 1pt cheaper than Ork boyz and are beyond a shadow of a doubt significantly better. So Tau have 3 troops choices which are competitive, and make Boyz look bad by comparison. Orkz have Boyz, Beastsnaggas and Grots. None of them are competitive, the Beast snaggas see some play at top tables but only because the player was taking a KillRig and only beastsnaggaz can ride in it, so you might as well take a Battalion as opposed to several patrols or lose out on CP.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
No, Gw has failed with early dexes and troop design.
Aswell as the current ruleset makes some types of troops (marine equivalents / more expensive marine equivalents) not desireable.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
And CSM players have been avoiding bringing actual Chaos Space Marines since Cultists became available to all of the Legions/Renegades in the 6th edition codex. So, 10 years now?
One thing I keep getting annoyed by is how people keep just saying that ork boyz should take leadership stuff. I mentioned it earlier, but their base design since 3rd has had them be completely immune to it once there’s like more than 10 orks. Especially with new leadership stuff that just straight kills more it’s a needed thing, and the lack of a way to ignore it just shows how rushed the new ork dex was.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
As already stated by the 1 nightlords player I have ever met that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of dmg against boyz does 72 shots, 48 hits, 16 wounds and 13.3 dead Orkz. Those orkz now have a 83% chance to fail morale, when they inevitably do they lose 3 more models to attrition. But the more apt comparison since we are talking about Kroot vs Orkz here is Kroot. Those Kroot can take MSU squads of 10 just like boyz, but the difference is, they can pay 25pts more for a shaper who can buff 1-3 units with relative ease and give them +2 leadership (Marine level) AND re-roll 1s to hit. Hes also significantly better than a normal kroot to the point where hes a no brainer for 25pts.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
Not hating on Marines, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement. Marines take MSU units of 5. They have LD8, they just don't worry about Morale in the slightest. You can lose 80% of your unit and still have a better than average chance to pass morale. Compare that to Orkz, I would love for my orkz to be functionally immune to Morale until they are down to 20%. And again, the only night lords player here calls BS on your comment because their army rule DOESN'T WORK against most armies.
A) That's not what he said. I went and checked and nowhere did he ever mention "90%". He said he wanted a trait that works. He said "Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons." He listed three "other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes" and I mentioned a fourth in Nids. How many army books are there? 16? We're at what, 25%? Please tell me what the other 65% are.
B) A sample size of 1 is quite the high ground.
C) For not whining about Marines you're only talking about Marines. Again.
D) I'd like to be able to secure an objective with my 95 points of Intercessors or my 130 points of Custodes, vs your 90 points of Boys. But it aint gonna happen. That's one of the elite army weaknesses.
E) What exactly do you think hypocrisy means? I've said I want to see MSU Marines get enticed into going 10 man squads. I've said I hate the 3 and only 3, the 3/6 and (most of) the 5 man min squads. I've said I don't think any army should be fearlessly immune to morale. Including Marines. I'd even say Nids are closer to it and it's bad for the game. I've said I want to see anti-leadership armies and traits work better for more variety. Which of these is what you're calling hypocritical?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
Same logic than, MSU Marines are 5, 10 is max. So 1-5 should be the "weak" zone, 6-8 should be the "Swing zone" and 9-10 should be the "Strong" zone. I'll even go a step further, Marines should be IMMUNE to morale at 9-10 models. At 6-8 they should have their current "normal" Morale, and at 1-5 they should be LD 5 because screw you just like you are saying to orkz
Could you show me where I said "Screw You" to orks? Was it when I said they should get a boost? I believe I said Orks should get a boost but not to fully immune to morale. Because- again- nobody should be immune to the morale phase. I also believe I said Marines should face hard choices between 5 and 10 man units and the game should be flipped in some areas to penalize 5's and reward 10s. Finally Orks aren't LD5. This isn't worth it if you have to be fact checked.
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
The two Custodes players below him had just under and just over 25% troops choices.
3 min size Custodian Guard Squads are 20% of 2,000. Four of them are just over 25%, 3 of them each at 5 to squeak under Blast is closer to 33%. 3 of them with 3 weilding the blade and shield upgrade are 22.5% - Custodes and % of army may not be the best measuring stick
The GSC/Nid guy had 1/3rd of his army as troops, without including the transport.
So some armies can make troops work very well. That is 3 right there that can.
The biggest issue here is that in no world are Kroot considered the "go to" Tau troops choices. You have Breachers and Strike teams. Both of which are somehow 1pt cheaper than Ork boyz and are beyond a shadow of a doubt significantly better. So Tau have 3 troops choices which are competitive, and make Boyz look bad by comparison. Orkz have Boyz, Beastsnaggas and Grots. None of them are competitive, the Beast snaggas see some play at top tables but only because the player was taking a KillRig and only beastsnaggaz can ride in it, so you might as well take a Battalion as opposed to several patrols or lose out on CP.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
I don't usually run intercessors, but my current list is assault intercessors, 2 heavy intercessors, and infiltrators.
They haven't made troops ineffective exactly; I mean they still do the job (of sitting on an objective and counting to enemy unit +1) - but they have made troops boring. And we've fed the meme. It's a "troop tax" to take the "fun stuff" - and sitting on an objective twiddling your thumbs isn't fun. Troops are usually not a jack-of-all-trades. They usually don't do anything special. They cost as much as the "fun stuff" in a point for point pound for pound kind of way. Jidmah was talking about this a couple pages back - his MANZ are roughly the same points as Boys wound per wound, but they just have more versatility.
Lets say TH/SS is 100% of what you can expect for man-portable anti-tank (it's probably not, nor is whatever is that important - but for the sake of argument) Whatever It Is - now lets say that troops units all get a thematic way to reliably do a points ratio balanced % (expensive units get closer to 100%, cheaper units get less close) of a TH/SS vs a vehicle/Dread/Monster/etc because Krak Grenades are good, and hormagaunts can slash hydraulic lines and even run-flat tires. Now let's say Troops are also significantly cheaper than the "fun stuff" point for point and pound for pound. You still want the "fun stuff" for your army shenanigans and/or the 100% of whatever they specialize in, but now Troops are your safety valve. All of your special purpose "fun stuff" can be replaced by your Troops if you're in a pinch. And one of the problems troops will have is they're expected to sit on objectives to secure them. They're not moving, they only get to "do stuff" when the opponent brings someone into actionable range. Give them an action on the secured objectives. At the beginning of your command phase troops on primary objectives can start a rearm and reload action. It finishes at the end of your movement phase. Until your next command phase pick another unit to get +1A or +1 shot, or -1 to armor save or whatever. Command and Control - start this action at the beginning of your command phase, and the end of your movement phase, get a command point. These actions can be done in addition to any other actions the unit does, but can only be done by troops. I'm sure those are wildly unbalanced and wacky, but I was just going for the theme not something to playtest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/11 17:21:08
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: One thing I keep getting annoyed by is how people keep just saying that ork boyz should take leadership stuff. I mentioned it earlier, but their base design since 3rd has had them be completely immune to it once there’s like more than 10 orks. Especially with new leadership stuff that just straight kills more it’s a needed thing, and the lack of a way to ignore it just shows how rushed the new ork dex was.
...or it is a sign of a deliberate design decision that you don't like.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: One thing I keep getting annoyed by is how people keep just saying that ork boyz should take leadership stuff. I mentioned it earlier, but their base design since 3rd has had them be completely immune to it once there’s like more than 10 orks. Especially with new leadership stuff that just straight kills more it’s a needed thing, and the lack of a way to ignore it just shows how rushed the new ork dex was.
...or it is a sign of a deliberate design decision that you don't like.
Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
If I'm not mistaken, a good portion of why LD isn't considered meaningful is because of the prevalence of various things like Mob Rule and ATSKNF that outright negate or severely limit the impact of LD on actual play. I definitely agree that LD should be more than "how many extra dudemen do I lose after they get shot/stabbed", and I've no problem with Boyz getting morale immunity, but we'd have to be careful to make other changes as well or else it just functions as more of a "feth you" to the few armies that don't get some reliable means of negating it (and for my part, I don't believe that something like Insane Bravery is a good fix here - relying on that just means that you're playing at -2 CP/turn and hoping that you only need to use it for a single unit).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/11 20:06:24
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
As already stated by the 1 nightlords player I have ever met that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of dmg against boyz does 72 shots, 48 hits, 16 wounds and 13.3 dead Orkz. Those orkz now have a 83% chance to fail morale, when they inevitably do they lose 3 more models to attrition. But the more apt comparison since we are talking about Kroot vs Orkz here is Kroot. Those Kroot can take MSU squads of 10 just like boyz, but the difference is, they can pay 25pts more for a shaper who can buff 1-3 units with relative ease and give them +2 leadership (Marine level) AND re-roll 1s to hit. Hes also significantly better than a normal kroot to the point where hes a no brainer for 25pts.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
Not hating on Marines, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement. Marines take MSU units of 5. They have LD8, they just don't worry about Morale in the slightest. You can lose 80% of your unit and still have a better than average chance to pass morale. Compare that to Orkz, I would love for my orkz to be functionally immune to Morale until they are down to 20%. And again, the only night lords player here calls BS on your comment because their army rule DOESN'T WORK against most armies.
A) That's not what he said. I went and checked and nowhere did he ever mention "90%". He said he wanted a trait that works. He said "Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons." He listed three "other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes" and I mentioned a fourth in Nids. How many army books are there? 16? We're at what, 25%? Please tell me what the other 65% are.
SemperMortis said "90% of the game", so was probably referencing the fact that the majority of opponents out there are running some form of Marines. And did you just count all Marines as one codex? Even ignoring that the loyalist codex covers multiple chapters, and the aforementioned fact that they comprise a LARGE portion of the player base, that just isn't correct.
First off, ignoring factions without a codex (Inquisition, Ynnari, and Assassins), and those soon to be rolled into another codex (Harlequins) there are 19 codexes in the game. And "other Marines" are 5 of those. So even ignoring all of the Chapters and their supplements covered in the loyalist codex, you have these codexes that just don't care about Anti-leadership mechanics:
1: Loyalist Scum - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 2: Death Guard - Ld8-9 except Cultists (which no one uses) and Poxwalkers (who auto-pass morale), usually run as MSU, all Marines ignore attrition modifiers
3: Thousand Sons - Ld8-9 except Cultists (see above) and Tzaangors. Rubrics and SOTs auto-pass morale, usually run as MSU 4: Grey Knights - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 5: Chaos Space Marines- Ld8-9 except Cultists, usually run as MSU 6: Custodes - everything is Ld11
7: Necrons - everything is Ld10
8: Tyranids - Synapse
(And the two we both forgot, because factions made up of single model vehicle units just don't care about morale)
9: Imperial Knights
10: Chaos Knights
So, no not 90% of the codexes out there, just over half. And then you have factions like Orks that can be gutted by Anti-leadership mechanics. It's bad design, and I hope that leaked Night Lords Legion trait is wrong.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
Agreed. Morale should mean more than just "more stuff dies". And I'd be thrilled if gw would focus on other aspects of Night Lords than "Scary Marines".
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
I think the only argument against what you're saying is just "You're playing it wrong!" Which is ridiculous.
But people in this thread have been making that argument.
I do know that at various times GW has made certain units underpowered specifically to make them underpowered; or vice versa, in the case of Matt Ward's army book for Chaos Demons, which was made overpowered on purpose according to him.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/12 00:06:39
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
What makes you think that? Run some numbers and come back to is on that horde that's "unkillable."
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
Buddy. Buster brown. Bucko.
T5 with a 6++ is the same as t4 with a 5++. But now we’re more expensive, don’t have unstoppable green tide, and run faster than a conscript fighting a titan. We’re less durable than in 8th, and the DLC train has skipped boyz station.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
Buddy. Buster brown. Bucko.
T5 with a 6++ is the same as t4 with a 5++. But now we’re more expensive, don’t have unstoppable green tide, and run faster than a conscript fighting a titan. We’re less durable than in 8th, and the DLC train has skipped boyz station.
T5 6++ isn't always the same as T4 5++.
It's worse against Strength 1-3, 6-7, and 10+. Wound the same, save worse.
Against Strength 4, 5, and 8-9...
S4 vs. T4 5++ does .33 wounds per hit
T5 6++ does .28 wounds per hit
S5 vs. T4 5++ does .44 wounds per hit
T5 6++ does .42 wounds per hit
S8-9 vs. T4 5++ does .56 wounds per hit
T5 6++ does .56 wounds per hit
So, with that math done...
Strength 1-3, 6-7, and 10+ hit the T5 Orks HARDER.
Strength 8-9 hits them equally hard.
Strength 5 does 96% of the damage that T4 Orks took.
Strength 4 does 85% of the damage that T4 Orks took.
Given that Orks went from 8 to 9 points, an 11% increase, that means that, point for point, S4 is 95% as effective as it used to be, S5 is 107% as effective as it used to be, S8-9 is 111% as effective as it used to be, and all other Strength values are 141% as effective as it used to be.
Now, admittedly, S4 is hecking COMMON. A crapload of weapons are S4. But... It's still 95% as effective as it used to be.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Now fit 120 models in wholly within 9" for those T4 Boyz and apply that 5++ ONLY in shooting whereas is applies in melee now, too.
Not as cut and dry as sterile math hammer would have you believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: What makes you think that? Run some numbers and come back to is on that horde that's "unkillable."
Ok, I'll restate. Incredibly hard to inflict enough casualties before they get to you ( remember that you still have to get objectives ) and then you have the other half of the army to worry about.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/12 03:16:40
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
I'm a variety junkie. I'd love it if they made the Terror Troops thing work. Most armies should have a phase focused subfaction - Obviously some parent factions will just naturally be at least somewhat phase focused - Like Thousand Sons in the Psychic phase. But most of the main factions should have a variety of themes to their subfactions. touching on the various phases as either a strength or weakness.
Then ask gw to saddle one of the factions you play with a mechanic that's functionally useless against the majority of the other factions in the game.
You mean like +1LD? or being able to fall back with a -1 to shooting on my Inceptors that could already fall back without the -1 to shooting? Or like Hatred: (Race)? I've been on that end - that's probably why I've also been against hard-counters when I'm agreeing boys need a boost and want all armies to work with their special sauce not just my own. I've been for Marines into larger units, reducing Synapse and other parts of this "solution".
Fear mechanics have never worked, don't currently work, and probably never will in 40k.
It worked OK in 2nd Edition. Bringing back the 2nd Ed psychology and updating a bit would help but might confuse on the difference between fear and FEAR.
The other mechanics Night Lords have had over the years do though: cover mechanics (Stealth Adept in 3.5, Stealth in Traitor Legions), speed mechanics (extra FA and Raptors in 3.5, Raptors as troops and rerolling charges in Traitor Legions), "dirty fighting" mechanics (A Talent For Murder in HH). I'll take those, thank you very much.
Especially given how weak Anti-LD Mechanics are you should absolutely have a second "power". As someone else mentioned most of these CT/Superdoctrines/etc have two powers.
SemperMortis said "90% of the game", so was probably referencing the fact that the majority of opponents out there are running some form of Marines. And did you just count all Marines as one codex? Even ignoring that the loyalist codex covers multiple chapters, and the aforementioned fact that they comprise a LARGE portion of the player base, that just isn't correct.
Yep, when its an army wide rule I count the whole codex. When its subfaction specific I count the supplement. How many Klans are in the Ork book? Legions in the CSM book? Kabals in the Thousand Sons book? We don't have 5+ Space Marine codexes anymore. They're now one army book.
First off, ignoring factions without a codex (Inquisition, Ynnari, and Assassins), and those soon to be rolled into another codex (Harlequins) there are 19 codexes in the game. And "other Marines" are 5 of those. So even ignoring all of the Chapters and their supplements covered in the loyalist codex, you have these codexes that just don't care about Anti-leadership mechanics:
1: Loyalist Scum - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 2: Death Guard - Ld8-9 except Cultists (which no one uses) and Poxwalkers (who auto-pass morale), usually run as MSU, all Marines ignore attrition modifiers
3: Thousand Sons - Ld8-9 except Cultists (see above) and Tzaangors. Rubrics and SOTs auto-pass morale, usually run as MSU 4: Grey Knights - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 5: Chaos Space Marines- Ld8-9 except Cultists, usually run as MSU 6: Custodes - everything is Ld11
7: Necrons - everything is Ld10
8: Tyranids - Synapse
(And the two we both forgot, because factions made up of single model vehicle units just don't care about morale)
9: Imperial Knights
10: Chaos Knights
So, no not 90% of the codexes out there, just over half. And then you have factions like Orks that can be gutted by Anti-leadership mechanics. It's bad design, and I hope that leaked Night Lords Legion trait is wrong.
And 5 of your 8 are on the list because they "usually run as MSU". If they don't they're not "immune". I've also pointed out the game should encourage them to run as 10 in most units. I've already said Synapse should probably change - even without the anti-LD mechanic it shouldn't be autopass for every synapse, so there's 6. That leaves Necrons and Custodes. I've got no problem with tweaking them to be susceptible to Anti-LD mechanics.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
Agreed. Morale should mean more than just "more stuff dies". And I'd be thrilled if gw would focus on other aspects of Night Lords than "Scary Marines".
It does, they just haven't supported it enough. Lower LD can affect the psychic phase, it affects SOME decision making like Deathwing/InnerCircle/whatever Falling back, (which probably means -LD abilities should be +/- at the discretion of the owning player) Attrition should also be explained as more than people running away. It should just be explained as Attrition with various examples of it from various armies. The Space Marine who dies/hibernates from injuries sustained, but doesn't run away. The termagant that gets clawed to death during the BLAST explosion by another Termagant trying to get away. The commisar shooting a guardsmen in the back. The Nob cracking two eadz together. Right now Morale and Attrition are daisy-chained. You can only suffer attrition if you fail morale - they should be seperate. I don't know how - but theoretically morale for any casualties, attrition for many (however many many are) casualties. And like undead who couldn't fail Morale attrition should probably be worse for units that find it harder to fail morale. - i.e. lets say attrition comes from losing half current strength 10 intercessors get shot to pieces. They have to roll morale (they fail morale and its like the old shaken rule - can't move towards the enemy and -1 to hit in shoot and fight - or whatever but morale would need its own penalty) they lost MANY so they also have to roll attrition(same way you roll morale - I'd do straight LD test roll with modifiers). And you lose 1 wound for each point you miss attrition by. The difference is for morale you have to roll under, for attrition you have to roll over.
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok, I'll restate. Incredibly hard to inflict enough casualties before they get to you ( remember that you still have to get objectives ) and then you have the other half of the army to worry about.
I said do the math. I don't want to hear your explanations about what "should" happen, which always seem to favor the idea that everyone's army except yours is perfectly balanced and they should shut up. Do the math so we can see if you're right or wrong.
Just to clarify one thing though. Ork boyz' min size squad is 10, correct. But specialists such as tankbustas, burnaboyz, lootas, kommandos and stormboyz, which are all just boyz basically, are all 5-15 or 5-20. And they all are affected by orks morale issues unless playing the cheap min squad.
10 guys is definitely perceived as a full mid sized squad, even for orks standards. It's just that boyz can't run small squads, that's it. 11+ is a large squad even for orks as it's pretty close to the max squad for multiple units of 1W models. For multiwounds units like nobz, meganobz and flash gitz 10 models is the max squad.
. Never forget we're talking about a unit that doesn't deal much damage, nor is significantly resilient.
design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead. 
that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of 
