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.

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think the 2" move thing would just feel fiddly most of the time. In edge cases, you maybe get arguments about how exactly the fall back is supposed to work if terrain gets in the way, if a vehicle would need to pivot, etc. But mostly it just sounds fiddly and unnecessary.

It works fine in TOW, which is by its nature a more complex and fiddly game. Though in that case it's usually on blocks of units moved via trays, to represent the close-and-separate of sword-n-board melee armies. It's the Ld test system with 3 states I'm saying is an interesting idea. Pass, partial pass, fail.

I'm open to different effects based on how well you roll on an Ld test, but we'd need to see meaningfully different and interesting results to help justify it. And those effects would ideally both fit the personality of the units involved and be mechanically elegant.

Randomly moving 2" after clashing with the enemy sounds like a roundabout way of just losing that unit to enemy shooting/charges if it happens at a bad time, or potentially a blessing in disguise if it means you just randomly get to charge the enemy on your own turn because nothing could capitalize on you falling back. Moving towards a board edge is fiddly from a model moving/book-keeping perspective, and how much you like it is probably going to depend on how much joy you get out of seeing your own units forced out of the fight. Plus it hits some units way harder than others depending on their threat range, job, etc.

So I'm open to it, but I don't think a direct port of the concept would be satisfying.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tactical retreat is not the same as being routed.

And three SMs should be able to wipe 2000 points of Guard off the board without breaking a sweat if we're being "realistic". It's an approximation/abstraction of any number of things, to allow all armies to engage comparably with a ruleset that provides the players with interesting decisions. I do agree that with a more interesting system elite armies like SMs should behave differently to routed guuardsmen or tyranids.

The thing is, marines make up like half the factions in the game. If your core mechanic is a bad fit for half the factions in the game, I feel like that's a red game design flag.

And while I won't just assume that it *doesn't* create interesting decisions, I don't think randomly being forced to fall back innately creates those interesting decisions on its own. So we're basically saying, "If you overhauled the old world's system into something that doesn't much resemble that system, you could maybe come up with something that's fluffy and interesting."

Which is pretty vague and hard to discuss without a more concrete example of a version that would work in 40k.

And as JNA points out, if the number of units that can wet their pants and run away without feeling unfluffy in 40k for lore reasons is sufficiently small, then it might make more sense to make peeing your pants a unit-specific or army-specific rule rather than a core mechanic.

(Hope that didn't come across as harsh. Not trying to bite your head off or anything.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Morale doesn't have to equal a complete rout. One problem with 2nd edition 40k was exactly this kind of thinking - faction X will be immune to virus, faction Y doesn't care about morale, etc.

That's why you abstract it a little and make it something more akin to suppression or forcing a change in combat approach. Yes, Custodes will never wholesale turn and flee, but under some circumstances they may very well pause, hold back and hunker down. The same can apply to any unit for different reasons. The first thing that's needed when thinking about having a good morale system is to make sure it affects everyone, however you want to rationalise it.

Sure. Which is why battleshock as a thing that makes you less capable of pulling off special maneuvers (performing actions, using strats) works pretty well as a concept. But if we can agree that custodes (and probably marines and probably a few other factions besides) wouldn't turn and flee, then it's probably reasonable to say that turning and fleeing might not be a good fit for a core mechanic in a game populated largely by marines, right?

 catbarf wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What units would actually rout?
Nids wouldn’t.
Necrons wouldn’t.
Marines wouldn’t.
Custodes wouldn’t.
Knights wouldn’t.
Daemons wouldn’t.

Guard, Tau, Eldar (dying race and all), Dark Eldar, Tyranids outside of Synapse, GSC (probably not the Stealers themselves, but the cultists), Orks, Chaos cultists and renegades, Votann, I'd argue Sisters and AdMech too. Could even make a case for Daemons, since daemonic instability is a thing. Remember, the mechanic doesn't have to mean 'wet themselves and ran for the hills', just 'combat ineffective'.

Either way, we're looking at a 50/50ish split, which is fine. Because the important thing is that the bit that Marines would get to ignore (routing) is secondary to the more immediately relevant and still applicable primary effect (pinning), as opposed to how it was in 3rd-7th where they got to ignore morale entirely. It's a continuum of morale effects rather than a binary y/n to functionally ignoring an entire mechanic.

Some Guard. Not ogryns, for example.
Tau, sure.
Eldar-would they route? Or retreat?
Dark Eldar have clones and thrive on pain.
Orks… that’s laughable. They might run TOWARDS a fight irresponsibly, but not away.
Some cultists, sure. Others are zealous like Sisters.
Votann, sure. Some.
Sisters are zealous in the extreme.
So are GSC, and they also have outright mind controlled ones.
AdMech are pretty similar to Necrons, and Necrons ain’t running. Sure Skitarii don’t regenerate-but the priests don’t care.
Daemonic instability isn’t routing.

That feels like a pretty bad-faith response, given that I explicitly said routing as a mechanic doesn't have to mean literally running away.

I have no trouble imagining the remaining couple of Eldar in a squad would be more concerned with retrieving the spirit-stones of their fallen brethren than throwing themselves into the meat grinder. Ogryns are brave but dumb and the last one alive might want to stay with his critically injured mates rather than fight, or wander off to find an officer. Dark Eldar understand how discretion is the better part of valor and aren't into the whole 'die gloriously for a noble cause' thing. There's definitely fiction where Orks squabble or retreat after Beefcake McProtagonist kills the boss. The difference between Daemons 'running away' or 'fading back into the immaterium, the magic binding them to physical reality eroding' is a line of flavor text.

Many factions in the game could plausibly become combat ineffective from the loss of C&C, the need to care for the wounded, pragmatic recovery of irreplaceable technology, or the sheer disruption to unit cohesion imposed by casualties. Use your imagination here.

 catbarf wrote:
That feels like a pretty bad-faith response, given that I explicitly said routing as a mechanic doesn't have to mean literally running away.

I have no trouble imagining the remaining couple of Eldar in a squad would be more concerned with retrieving the spirit-stones of their fallen brethren than throwing themselves into the meat grinder. Ogryns are brave but dumb and the last one alive might be more concerned with keeping his mates from bleeding out than fighting, or needs to go find an officer to tell him what to do. Dark Eldar understand how discretion is the better part of valor and aren't into the whole 'die gloriously for a noble cause' thing. There's definitely fiction where Orks squabble or retreat after Beefcake McProtagonist kills the boss. The difference between Daemons 'running away' or 'fading back into the immaterium, the magic binding them to physical reality eroding' is a line of flavor text.

Many factions in the game could plausibly become combat ineffective from the loss of C&C, the need to care for the wounded, pragmatic recovery of irreplaceable technology, or the sheer disruption to unit cohesion imposed by casualties. Use your imagination here.

Please elaborate on what sorta mechanics you'd want, then.

Edit: Also, I do apologize if I was too combative. Just in a bit of a mood, and that bled through into the text.
Sorry.

Disruption and loss of cohesion affect everyone, whether it scares them or not. When you are suffering a deluge of fire, it will reduce your visibility, hearing, pull you in multiple directions.

Imo a distinct set of behavioural options for each faction would do a good job of covering this. You only have to remember the one your army uses, but it allows you to reflect voluntary retreats over routes, holding ground at disadvantage, freezing because you can't Compute the next move etc.

It allows different play styles for each faction and building their behaviour into the tactics.

Or, you could make a blank slate morale that all armies are affected identically by, and then provide each a strategem that reflects the unique behaviour. The way armour of contempt isn't active all the time.

 Hellebore wrote:
Disruption and loss of cohesion affect everyone, whether it scares them or not. When you are suffering a deluge of fire, it will reduce your visibility, hearing, pull you in multiple directions.

And this, I feel, is somewhat well represented by 10th edition battleshock in that it prevents you from scoring or doing actions (too scattered to place the beacon, chant the ritual, etc.) and prevents you from using more coordinated maneuvers (stratagems.)

Imo a distinct set of behavioural options for each faction would do a good job of covering this. You only have to remember the one your army uses, but it allows you to reflect voluntary retreats over routes, holding ground at disadvantage, freezing because you can't Compute the next move etc.

It allows different play styles for each faction and building their behaviour into the tactics.

See, I'm open to bespoke behaviors for each faction, but that sounds like a ton of work and an easy way to inject an extra layer of imbalance into the game. It's also potentially just more complicated than it needs to be depending on what you want morale to do for the game. If GW (or someone in the proposed rules section) wanted to go to that effort, I'd be open to it. I just don't see GW wanting to give themselves that much extra work.

Or, you could make a blank slate morale that all armies are affected identically by, and then provide each a strategem that reflects the unique behaviour. The way armour of contempt isn't active all the time.

Depending on how stratagems are handled in future editions, I'm not sure I'd want 1/6th of each detachments stratagems going towards a strat for modifying morale-related behavior. Especially if such strats tended to basically boil down to ignoring the downsides of battleshock. (Which feels like the most likely direction someone would go when designing a morale-related strat that costs CP for a faction like marines.)

'Morale rules are bad because Marines ignore morale rules' is raw apologetics, since Marines only ignore morale rules because GW decided to have Marines ignore morale rules.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
'Morale rules are bad because Marines ignore morale rules' is raw apologetics, since Marines only ignore morale rules because GW decided to have Marines ignore morale rules.

How can someone fairly judge the system when most of the game ignores the system theyre meant to judge? The system might not be poor in isolation, but if it's rarely used it still doesnt serve a purpose in reality and that is still poor design.

I think it's currently subjective whether the rest of the games interactions (or lack of) are considered part of the question. If they are? 3rd-7th was abysmal. If it isn't? Then it merely is bad imo.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Morale doesn't have to equal a complete rout. One problem with 2nd edition 40k was exactly this kind of thinking - faction X will be immune to virus, faction Y doesn't care about morale, etc.

That's why you abstract it a little and make it something more akin to suppression or forcing a change in combat approach. Yes, Custodes will never wholesale turn and flee, but under some circumstances they may very well pause, hold back and hunker down. The same can apply to any unit for different reasons. The first thing that's needed when thinking about having a good morale system is to make sure it affects everyone, however you want to rationalise it.

Sure. Which is why battleshock as a thing that makes you less capable of pulling off special maneuvers (performing actions, using strats) works pretty well as a concept. But if we can agree that custodes (and probably marines and probably a few other factions besides) wouldn't turn and flee, then it's probably reasonable to say that turning and fleeing might not be a good fit for a core mechanic in a game populated largely by marines, right?

Seems reasonable. I'm not advocating for a mechanic that forces units to flee as I think it's mechanically difficult to implement in a game like 40k and doesn't represent the effects of battlefield morale degradation particularly well.

Battleshock is a decent attempt at a morale system, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. BS should turn off more than just OC and strats, IMO. I'd prefer to see it remove all detachment, army and datasheet rules from a unit, essentially leaving them as their stat line. That better represents a loss of combat cohesion and becomes an actual disadvantage, whereas many times BS effectively does nothing. If we also had any Battleshocked unit having to roll to recover even if above half strength that would improve things further. Finally, I'd probably look at reducing Ld across the board. Setting SM Ld at 6+ as a baseline has also led to far too many units passing BS tests too easily.

 catbarf wrote:
Because the important thing is that the bit that Marines would get to ignore (routing) is secondary to the more immediately relevant and still applicable primary effect (pinning), as opposed to how it was in 3rd-7th where they got to ignore morale entirely.

Marines in 3-7 didn't ignore morale.

Pinning affected them normally.
Tank shock affected them normally.
Morale causing weapons (nightmare shroud, terrorfex, etc) worked normally.
Morale tests from casualties were taken as normal.
Marines would fall back from both shooting and close combat, and could be run off the board if they were too close to the edge.
Marines that fell back could be wiped out due to the 'trapped' rule
Leadership penalties worked as normal.
Like any other unit Marines could not regroup while an enemy unit was nearby (until it was removed for all factions in 6e)

ATSKNF only did the following:
-marines that ran and were chased down suffered fearless casualties rather than being wiped out.
-automatically passed regrouping tests (with other edition specific benefits like ignoring minimum squad size for regrouping)
-ignored the fear rule (6e onwards).

Voted 10th because it’s the least worst. Would like to see a move to heresy style effects from weapons next edition though.

A.T. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Because the important thing is that the bit that Marines would get to ignore (routing) is secondary to the more immediately relevant and still applicable primary effect (pinning), as opposed to how it was in 3rd-7th where they got to ignore morale entirely.

Marines in 3-7 didn't ignore morale.

Pinning affected them normally.
Tank shock affected them normally.
Morale causing weapons (nightmare shroud, terrorfex, etc) worked normally.
Morale tests from casualties were taken as normal.
Marines would fall back from both shooting and close combat, and could be run off the board if they were too close to the edge.
Marines that fell back could be wiped out due to the 'trapped' rule
Leadership penalties worked as normal.
Like any other unit Marines could not regroup while an enemy unit was nearby (until it was removed for all factions in 6e)

ATSKNF only did the following:
-marines that ran and were chased down suffered fearless casualties rather than being wiped out.
-automatically passed regrouping tests (with other edition specific benefits like ignoring minimum squad size for regrouping)
-ignored the fear rule (6e onwards).

Issue was, base Ld8 base, usually Ld9 because Vet Sarge, and higher if you stick a character in them. They basically had Dwarf like resistance to psychology. Now, not out of character for them as a force. But it did mean you couldn’t factor psychology type things into your battle plan against them. And, as Marines are so prevalent? Nobody really leaned into psychology tricks as a result.

That I feel was the main failing. Marines can have higher than average leadership as befits them. But when average is Ld7? Better than average rapidly moves you to “near to immune”. Now. If your average Ld is 5 or 6? You’ve more room for more reliable troops to not be Completely Reliable. Which matters when it’s a 2D6 roll and chance swings wildly between rolling under 8 and rolling under 9.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Issue was, base Ld8 base, usually Ld9 because Vet Sarge, and higher if you stick a character in them. They basically had Dwarf like resistance to psychology. Now, not out of character for them as a force. But it did mean you couldn’t factor psychology type things into your battle plan against them. And, as Marines are so prevalent? Nobody really leaned into psychology tricks as a result.

That I feel was the main failing. Marines can have higher than average leadership as befits them. But when average is Ld7? Better than average rapidly moves you to “near to immune”. Now. If your average Ld is 5 or 6? You’ve more room for more reliable troops to not be Completely Reliable. Which matters when it’s a 2D6 roll and chance swings wildly between rolling under 8 and rolling under 9.

In 3e at least, there were modifiers to take into account. My Orks frequently got Marines down to -3, and even -5 in later turns. Then they'd run, and be cut down by my bikes in a Crossfire.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now. If your average Ld is 5 or 6? You’ve more room for more reliable troops to not be Completely Reliable. Which matters when it’s a 2D6 roll and chance swings wildly between rolling under 8 and rolling under 9.

I would guess that was avoided in the original 3e onwards due to how devastating a failed Ld test was.

And ultimately what made ATSKNF so powerful - in 5e it only took 3 wounds for your Ld9 veterans to be making an Ld6 test. Marines were then rolling 50/50 to lose another model while other factions were rolling 50/50 to lose everything.

In combat. I don’t recall you deducted anything from break tests forced by 25% casualties in a single shooting phase? And even then, you only tested once.

And to be honest? If you’ve lost three Marines in combat, and or indeed, lost a Combat with Marines by three points? That unit is in most instances already well knackered.

And for Fearless causing extra wounds? That was after 3rd Ed (where Fearless allowed you to just ignore break tests entirely), and I think you got an armour save against those.

But as established, it seems my memory here is dreadful. So To The Best Of My Recollection.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In combat. I don’t recall you deducted anything from break tests forced by 25% casualties in a single shooting phase? And even then, you only tested once.

Shooting was a -1 if the unit was below half-strength, but that was the only modifier.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And for Fearless causing extra wounds? That was after 3rd Ed (where Fearless allowed you to just ignore break tests entirely), and I think you got an armour save against those.

3e no wounds, 4e one wound if badly outnumbered, 5e onwards many wounds.

It was a bad time for hordes like gaunts where trading 2-3 models to kill one enemy meant you were winning, but the combat resolution meant that you were losing.

Don't know why GW changed it from the old outnumbering rules, perhaps someone has insight on edge cases and oddities from 4e.

A.T. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And for Fearless causing extra wounds? That was after 3rd Ed (where Fearless allowed you to just ignore break tests entirely), and I think you got an armour save against those.

3e no wounds, 4e one wound if badly outnumbered, 5e onwards many wounds.

It was a bad time for hordes like gaunts where trading 2-3 models to kill one enemy meant you were winning, but the combat resolution meant that you were losing.

Don't know why GW changed it from the old outnumbering rules, perhaps someone has insight on edge cases and oddities from 4e.

5th ed switched from model outnumbering effecting combat resolution to number of kills/wounds inflicted. I remember this distinctly because it was brutal for Necrons. In 4th a 20 Warrior blob might take some casualties but still stick it out on Ld 10. In 5th if you lost 3 models your Ld dropped to 7 and you had a good chance of losing the other 17 to Sweeping Advance. I remember winning a game by just charging Kharn into a blob and sweeping them in a round, and it did not feel good.

A.T. wrote:

ATSKNF only did the following:
-marines that ran and were chased down suffered fearless casualties rather than being wiped out.
-automatically passed regrouping tests (with other edition specific benefits like ignoring minimum squad size for regrouping)
-ignored the fear rule (6e onwards).

I'm pretty sure Marines behaved differently post Regroup too. I think normal troops counted as moving and could not Assault, but Marines specifically ignored those restrictions Maybe that was only 5th or 6th onward though. Whatever it was I remember it being wildly useful as a Marine player.

Edit: Looked it up. I'm thinking of 5th edition. Usually a unit that regrouped could not move, but also counted as moving (so could not shoot Heavy Weapons) but could Assault. ATSKNF ignored that. Marines could move freely if they wanted to, but if they didn't they counted as not moving, (and so could fire Heavy Weapons). This was also the edition where they had the rule Combat Tactics, which allowed them to choose to fail a Morale test. So you could choose to Fall Back out of Combat, then fire Heavy Weapons back into your attackers, for example. Or you could move further away with your normal move and Assault somebody else. I always took Sicarius in this edition, as he kept the Rites of Battle rule (which was generic Captain ability in 4th ed) which allowed every friendly Marine unit on the table to use his Ld of 10. So if you wanted to pass you just had to beat a 10, but if you wanted to fail you simply chose to fail and Fall Back in order to cause more trouble in the next turn. It was really great for throwing wrenches into opposition plans.

In 6th ed Combat Tactics wasn't a thing anymore, but apparently there was a Regroup move for typical troops of 3". ATSKNF gave Marines the regroup move AND their normal move, so upon automatic regroup your Marines could move 9". Crazy. But also in 6th ed units couldn't Assault after regrouping, which is a hefty change from 5th. A lot more shifted around than I remember, that's for sure.

Slipspace wrote:

Seems reasonable. I'm not advocating for a mechanic that forces units to flee as I think it's mechanically difficult to implement in a game like 40k and doesn't represent the effects of battlefield morale degradation particularly well.

Battleshock is a decent attempt at a morale system, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. BS should turn off more than just OC and strats, IMO. I'd prefer to see it remove all detachment, army and datasheet rules from a unit, essentially leaving them as their stat line. That better represents a loss of combat cohesion and becomes an actual disadvantage, whereas many times BS effectively does nothing. If we also had any Battleshocked unit having to roll to recover even if above half strength that would improve things further. Finally, I'd probably look at reducing Ld across the board. Setting SM Ld at 6+ as a baseline has also led to far too many units passing BS tests too easily.

I could definitely see labeling a bunch of abilities a "tactial" or "command" keyword and then have battleshock turn those off. So no lethal hits from your lieutenant while you're battle shocked, for example. That gives you a lot of levers to pull. You don't have to take away, for instance, reanimation protocols from necrons, but you could make it so that deathmarks aren't getting free shots at incoming reserves while they're shocked. Although that comes with the obvious minor downside of having to go through and mark every "command" ability in some way.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Seems reasonable. I'm not advocating for a mechanic that forces units to flee as I think it's mechanically difficult to implement in a game like 40k and doesn't represent the effects of battlefield morale degradation particularly well.

Battleshock is a decent attempt at a morale system, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. BS should turn off more than just OC and strats, IMO. I'd prefer to see it remove all detachment, army and datasheet rules from a unit, essentially leaving them as their stat line. That better represents a loss of combat cohesion and becomes an actual disadvantage, whereas many times BS effectively does nothing. If we also had any Battleshocked unit having to roll to recover even if above half strength that would improve things further. Finally, I'd probably look at reducing Ld across the board. Setting SM Ld at 6+ as a baseline has also led to far too many units passing BS tests too easily.

I could definitely see labeling a bunch of abilities a "tactial" or "command" keyword and then have battleshock turn those off. So no lethal hits from your lieutenant while you're battle shocked, for example. That gives you a lot of levers to pull. You don't have to take away, for instance, reanimation protocols from necrons, but you could make it so that deathmarks aren't getting free shots at incoming reserves while they're shocked. Although that comes with the obvious minor downside of having to go through and mark every "command" ability in some way.

That is literally something I was gonna include in my recent rules proposal.
But there’s too much “Would this count?” For me to include it, and I do not want to go over every codex.

I think the primary issue is still checking for Battleshock. I'd much rather see "Terrorizing" as a weapon keyword that forces a check and from there we can decide what the effect does. Checking during the command phase just lacks drama.

A.T. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Because the important thing is that the bit that Marines would get to ignore (routing) is secondary to the more immediately relevant and still applicable primary effect (pinning), as opposed to how it was in 3rd-7th where they got to ignore morale entirely.

Marines in 3-7 didn't ignore morale.

Pinning affected them normally.
Tank shock affected them normally.
Morale causing weapons (nightmare shroud, terrorfex, etc) worked normally.
Morale tests from casualties were taken as normal.
Marines would fall back from both shooting and close combat, and could be run off the board if they were too close to the edge.
Marines that fell back could be wiped out due to the 'trapped' rule
Leadership penalties worked as normal.
Like any other unit Marines could not regroup while an enemy unit was nearby (until it was removed for all factions in 6e)

ATSKNF only did the following:
-marines that ran and were chased down suffered fearless casualties rather than being wiped out.
-automatically passed regrouping tests (with other edition specific benefits like ignoring minimum squad size for regrouping)
-ignored the fear rule (6e onwards).

And depending on the edition the marines fleeing may have found themselves ineligible to regroup which voided ATSKNF. Meaning you could "escort" them off of the table.

Hight LD helped but even Necron warriors could be chased off of the table with a bad roll and poor positioning.

Crossfire and sweeping advance were solid mechanics and rules I was thrilled to see return in HH2.0.

Attacking Morale was a very valid tactic in 3rd, I remember a Dark Eldar army constructed to rout the enemy into crossfires.
3rd, 3.5 and 4th were quite enjoyable unless you played Space Marines..

 LunarSol wrote:
I think the primary issue is still checking for Battleshock. I'd much rather see "Terrorizing" as a weapon keyword that forces a check and from there we can decide what the effect does. Checking during the command phase just lacks drama.

You can make the tests happen at the end of each phase. Ie at the end of the shooting phase check if units that suffered casualties need to take tests.

You get a bit more tactical dynamism where shooting can cause effects, and them you assault battleshocked units.

It should be a tool

Which is where switching to a "pressure" system where you track stress points or whatever on each squad is good... taking fire effects a squad without being an immediate test of some kind. except of course those systems mean more tokens/tracking. "Go to ground" as a result in 5th always felt like a good "taking fire, casualties, morale check"

 RustyNumber wrote:
"Go to ground" as a result in 5th always felt like a good "taking fire, casualties, morale check"

It would have made for a good intermediate morale result in oldhammer - squads above half strength failing their morale test getting pinned at range or pressured in melee (dropped to I1, opponents benefit from a fresh charge), while squads below half strength run but can recover until below 1/4.
Less catastrophic morale results allows for a system with more frequent failures (lower base Ld) and more limited immunities.

It was also ironic that the main benefit of ATSKNF/combat tactics was that marines were far better at running away from fights than anyone else.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Seems reasonable. I'm not advocating for a mechanic that forces units to flee as I think it's mechanically difficult to implement in a game like 40k and doesn't represent the effects of battlefield morale degradation particularly well.

Battleshock is a decent attempt at a morale system, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. BS should turn off more than just OC and strats, IMO. I'd prefer to see it remove all detachment, army and datasheet rules from a unit, essentially leaving them as their stat line. That better represents a loss of combat cohesion and becomes an actual disadvantage, whereas many times BS effectively does nothing. If we also had any Battleshocked unit having to roll to recover even if above half strength that would improve things further. Finally, I'd probably look at reducing Ld across the board. Setting SM Ld at 6+ as a baseline has also led to far too many units passing BS tests too easily.

I could definitely see labeling a bunch of abilities a "tactial" or "command" keyword and then have battleshock turn those off. So no lethal hits from your lieutenant while you're battle shocked, for example. That gives you a lot of levers to pull. You don't have to take away, for instance, reanimation protocols from necrons, but you could make it so that deathmarks aren't getting free shots at incoming reserves while they're shocked. Although that comes with the obvious minor downside of having to go through and mark every "command" ability in some way.

That is literally something I was gonna include in my recent rules proposal.
But there’s too much “Would this count?” For me to include it, and I do not want to go over every codex.

It would be a lot of work, yes. One thing I did think might work, is switching off all the stuff listed as "Abilities" on the datasheet and also the detachment ability - so not the USRs and not the army rules. Or you could just not switch off the army rule. There are a few blanket options that might work without having to go through every last ability.

 RustyNumber wrote:
I don't think it would be too much to specify what units do when they break, ie grots always flee, elite infantry go to ground, space marines straight up ignore it...

But then that sounds too interesting and unique for modern it-has-to-be-competitively-balanced 40k.

Actually TOW with its three layers of leadership test makes for a very interesting one.

Sounds similar to how Tyranids used to play when out of Synapse range, which all things considered wasn't very difficult to keep track of.


I didn't vote, because Leadership in 40k has always been terrible; either too heavy-handed (8th-9th), weak (~3rd & 10th) or nearly irrelevant due to Fearless (7th).
Personally, in 10th, I've never seen "Battleshock" affect the game in a meaningful way. It sounds good on paper...but GW really needs to play around with how it interacts with and is removed from units.

I have seen battleshock affect games by denying critical scoring or strats just at the right time.

But the same problem remains that you cannot rely on battleshock and such events were definitely up to a lot of chance.

10th's overall basic idea is fine but it really needs to polish the ways it can be forced.

 RustyNumber wrote:
Which is where switching to a "pressure" system where you track stress points or whatever on each squad is good... taking fire effects a squad without being an immediate test of some kind. except of course those systems mean more tokens/tracking. "Go to ground" as a result in 5th always felt like a good "taking fire, casualties, morale check"

Honestly, the lack of token tracking, which is something I like about 40k is also the problem with the morale system in general. So much time occurs between when morale conditions are triggered and when they're checked its easy to forget which units need one and so much time between when they fail and when that actually matters that a unit being battleshocked is often forgotten. This is the kind of stuff tokens are good for really, but I wouldn't hate a tokenless system either.

As someone who loves leadership/morale shenanigans in other games, I would love to see 40k introduce/re-introduce some mechanics that play into the mind games.

If we can't agree on a one size fits all solution, why not think of a solution for each codex? Why can't every army interact with LD differently? Is it a pain for you, the opponent, to remember how LD effects the opposing army? Maybe, but keep the rules simple and standardized.

I love the idea of three different results, extrapolate that out to each army and make three unique responses to LD failures. I loved when Tyranids started to fall apart outside of synapse because it gave flavor to the army that I feel is sorely missing now. It gave incentive to your opponent to focus on synapse creatures to start controlling the board state.

Daemons having phase out or on a lucky roll getting models back was a cool touch.

Have Orks lose bonus attacks when their morale starts to falter and at a catastrophic enough event, fall apart and retreat. No in-fighting, never again...

Necrons could have a modified version of the 8th/9th rule as their command structure falls apart some of the lower level warriors go back into stasis.

Marines could fall back and regroup, that way you can force them off of objectives but they still aren't just disappearing because of LD checks.

I mean, I am really just spit balling ideas off the top of my head but I personally have so little interest in 10th edition because it removed so much of the complexity of the game on the altar of "balance" that I yearn for something more dynamic. LD is a great way to reintroduce some of that complexity that isn't just layering special rules to make each army more and more powerful.