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.

This occurred to me as I answered another post.

With the number of un-pinnable, un-breakable or simply high leadership armies is there scope or need to change the morale rules?

For example

Space marines are all Ld 10 (Unless you are dumb enough to not take the charachter), see also Blood angels, Dark Angels, Black templars or Space Wolves.

Chaos - full of unbreakable frothing loonies (or undivided with a Ld 10 and a re-roll)

Necrons Ld 10

Tyranids - Synapse

Orks - Mob size check

The above list is not exhaustive but the morale phase seems to be a formality these days.

 

This problem is widely recognised and some solutions have been proposed. I remember something put out by Yakface which penalised high morale armies by forcing extra casualties (or saving throws, I don't remember the details) for pushing on in the face of heavy fire.

It might have been on the previous incarnation of Dakka.

Another solution, of simply docking all armies two points from their Ld score, does not work because it cripples low morale armies even mroe than they already are.

The problem with any such proposal would be persuading GW to adopt it into the 5th edition rules.

I can just imagine the GW design team now:
"hmm, Ld really does need to get fixed, get balanced, what should we do?"
"I've got it!  Make ATSKNF better!  Instead of invoking No Retreat! when they get swept, it invokes No Retreat! on the other guys!"
"Wait, what other guys?  There are more armies than Space Marines?"
"For the love of Andy Chambers, what is happening to this game?!"

There won't be a 5th ed 40k rulebook, just another SM codex.  And another.  And another.

"For the love of Andy Chambers, what is happening to this game?!"

Can I quote that in my signature file?!?!?

I was thinking of just making it that any army with a ld of 8 or less normally be allowed to completely ignore check modifiers. Anything that would lower your ld below 8 would stop at 8 for anyone else. Even footing for everybody at that point and "Fear" is not insanely powerful against some armies while just a nuisance to others.

That's actually not a bad idea. I'd set the bar a little lower though: say LD6 is the lowest that you can be modified to. Maybe cap everything else at LD9 as well. That's a pretty narrow range, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You *should* be able to break high-morale troops if you outnumber them, and low-morale troops should still have *some* chance to stand firm...

Morale is all but gone from the game. Only Tau/Eldar/Guard are affected by it to any great extent. ATSKNF is the most annoying rule evar. It gives loyalist Marines an advantage even over Fearless troops, since the Marines can fall back from CC, regroup and shoot. Fearless troops get auto wounds from outnumbering instead. ATSKNF and Fearless both need a good looking-at.

I'd also get rid of the 'no rallying if <50% starting strength'; again, that only affects Tau/Eldar and any Guard player dumb enough to not take Iron Discipline.

The 'double fall-back' move (fallback in opponent's turn, then in your own movement) tends to run units off of the table too quickly, especially fast units. I'd rather see something like in Hordes, where you just have to take your *next* move as a fallback. Then Rally at the end of the movement phase or something like that.

The game would only be improved by having more breaking and falling back by all armies, as long as there was a reasonable chance of rallying before the unit left the table. Adds to the dynamic, and would tactically hurt more than numerically/pointwise hurt (ie your unit is out of position, but not gone).

So, basically, we want morale to come into play more often, but we don't want it to be as nasty as it is now when it does come into play.

Bugging out is stupid. On a medieval battlefield, sure, running away when your friends start dropping like flies around you makes a good deal of sense. You're just asking for a bullet in the back by bugging out on the battlefield of the future, though.

I'd propose that most failed morale checks simply force a unit to go to ground - BS is at -1, they can't move, and they pick up a +1 to their cover save, or they gain a 5+ if in the open. Additionally, all units could opt to enter this state instead of moving. Trained soldiers, especially superhuman veteran soldiers, aren't going to panic and do something ridiculously stupid when things get bad. Ld should represent how much trust a model places in its commanders - even if, in their judgement, it'd be better to hit the deck, higher Ld units won't do it if they think their commander knows what's going on and doesn't want them to take cover. Marines, whose commanders can instantly communicate orders or pick up observations from their troops, are going to be obeyed almost unquestioningly (hence the Ld 10), while Guardsmen are much more likely to think that their commander's left them to die. This mechanic would replace both fall back and pinning. Only supernatural abilities (the Deceiver, some psychic powers) or a lost close combat could force units to run away.

Because morale isn't as punishing, you'd be free to make it much easier to fail a morale check.

Edit: You'd also be able to spread out Ld values much more, and thus make target priority an issue for many armies.  Ld 4, for example, isn't nearly as crippling as it is now - it just means you're not going to be moving very far, but you get a cover save at the cost of some accuracy.  Things like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors could go as low as Ld 5 and still be viable.  You wouldn't need to instantly make all characters Ld 9 and 10, either - one could actually represent the psychic prowess of Farseers by giving them Ld 10 to the Marine Librarian's Ld 9.

How about just getting rid of ATSKNF and Fearless? Maybe make them things you can buy for something like a veteran squad but not a base factor for the entire army.

"For the love of Andy Chambers, what is happening to this game?!"

Can I quote that in my signature file?!?!?

Well, golly gee, I'm flattered. Feel free

Yeah, I think Dakka eat my proposed advanced morale rules.

Basically if your unit is in the open and fails a morale check it moves towards the nearest unoccupied cover. If it is already in cover it becomes pinned.

Fearless units, ATSKNF and units with re-rollable Ld (that pass the test with the re-roll) all suffer extra wounds ala the No Retreat close combat rule.

Oh, and morale checks are caused both by suffering casualties AND just being shot at by more shots then you have models in your unit (regardless of how many hits the unit even takes).


I'll see if I have a hard copy of those rules floating around somewhere but I think it might be lost for good.

I like your ideas Yakface, things like this would allow a nice extra aspect of the game. I think we do need a level of rules complexity to stop it becoming snakes and ladders.

What does anybody think to the release of a trial set of rules by GW? As I remember it the 3rd edition trial assault rules were quickly and almost universally taken up, especially by the club community.

For Gotchaye, please don't try to lever real life issues into what is a table top game of alien toy soldiers. Therein lies madness!

To add fun to the game, Morale effects need to be something that

A) The player can tactically manipulate, for example to force a morale check by outflanking an enemy unit, or to increase your morale by supporting a unit with another unit.
B) Does not cripple lower morale armies while leaving high morale armies unaffected. Partly thanks to the 2D6 system, the difference between Ld7 and Ld10 is too great.

But the rules also need to be fairly simple. The morale rules in some Ancients rules sets are quite complicated.

At the moment you can only cause Morale effects by shooting enemy troops. This does not encourage manoeuvre, and it's its own reward anyway (because you kill the enemy troops.)

Maybe most people don't want Morale rules really.

Sorry for the ramble...

I wouldn't make armor saves for people that get to re-roll their check and pass it. That punishes Guard far too much considering how not cheap getting those options is. A good guard unit set up to stand and fight with iron discipline and the doctrine letting you re-group if below 50% with voxes and a banner nearby is costing almost as much as a marine unit when you take the extras in to keep them all there like marines, but they don't get the stats or save to justify being marines. Requiring them to take saves is just mean when they pay out the wazoo anyway. I'd let the guard go since the most you see statistically is an average of 1 dead marine if they had a -3 to morale. That's 2 dead guardsmen.

I do like having to go to ground or being pinned. Suddenly running away is not a bonus.

How would you deal with the darn Templars though. They tend to WANT those checks...

Midnight:

What you're failing to grasp is that Guardsmen are cheap, and they only suffer a single wound. Other armies with high Ld that lose models due to the morale rules are losing much more than guard.

The whole point is that when units stand and fight when they should probably get their heads down will tend to take more casualties to represent this fact.

I reposted my full rules in this thread for anyone who wants to check 'em out:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=16&postid=80889&view=topic

Another interesting idea that might serve to make morale make more sense - for units needing at least a 7 to pass their test, the player chooses whether he wants to Fall Back (or equivalent, as in yakface's or my suggestions). If he wants to Fall Back, then the unit Falls Back on a passed Ld check. If he doesn't, then they Fall Back on a failed check. If the unit needs at most a 6 to pass the test, the other player gets to choose which result a pass gives you. There are times when I'd rather like my units to Fall Back, or at least I would if Falling Back worked in a sensible manner, as in yakface's rules.  As well, there are times when things like Guardsmen and Fire Warriors actually want to Fall Back out of combat - lower Ld shouldn't make them more useful.

A good guard unit set up to stand and fight with iron discipline and the doctrine letting you re-group if below 50% with voxes and a banner nearby is costing almost as much as a marine unit when you take the extras in to keep them all there like marines, but they don't get the stats or save to justify being marines.

What you're failing to grasp is that Guardsmen are cheap, and they only suffer a single wound. Other armies with high Ld that lose models due to the morale rules are losing much more than guard.

Actually, what I was getting at was that Guardsmen that would be effected by rules making them take armor saves like marines thanks to re-rolls wouldn't be cheap. They'd be pretty close thanks to the marine bargain bin price. Factoring in a banner to re-roll the unit's morale tests and the squad holding it, Iron Discipline, (whichever lets you rally below 50% for guard), you are looking at at least 10pt/model. You aren't exactly cheap anymore when the marines are only 5pts more and they get all those stat increases and power armor.

I agree, high ld armies have it too good. Your original explanation made it sound like it was taking armor saves as the "No Retreat" special rule. Seeing your post now I see how you meant it and agree with it. 1 dead guy no matter what the ld modifier if they can't fail a morale check is actually not too bad, but I would have two changes.

"If it is the last model in a unit, it cannot be killed due to morale" I don't think it is fair to shoot 2 fearless troops and then giggle as one guy dies and you ignore the unit from then on since the other model will die at the end of the shooting phase.

Inquisitors using Iron Will should not have to lose models. It's one of their ONLY advantages and it helps the Inquisitor keep up. They could choose to fall back or roll the dice. It's not like they don't have a ld 10. Letting them keep that one ability would actually make them a worthwhile choice in those cases and it is essentially that you treat it as if the Inquisitor had rolled a check and either failed it or passed depending on desire. Fearless units don't get a choice, they have to pass.

Posted By yakface on 06/26/2006 10:38 PM

Yeah, I think Dakka eat my proposed advanced morale rules.

Basically if your unit is in the open and fails a morale check it moves towards the nearest unoccupied cover. If it is already in cover it becomes pinned.

Fearless units, ATSKNF and units with re-rollable Ld (that pass the test with the re-roll) all suffer extra wounds ala the No Retreat close combat rule.

Oh, and morale checks are caused both by suffering casualties AND just being shot at by more shots then you have models in your unit (regardless of how many hits the unit even takes).


I'll see if I have a hard copy of those rules floating around somewhere but I think it might be lost for good.

Yakface your summary alone presents a simple clean ruleset that could add color without becoming overly complicated.  Noog like.