PDA

View Full Version : 6th edition leadership concerns



Scaryscarymushroom
09-07-2012, 18:58
I'm going to try and be brief; so I'll just provide a little bit of background about my perspective and address a main point:

I played 40k 3rd and 4th edition quite a lot. At the tail end of 4th, I was losing all my games. I got frustrated and re-tooled all my units, min-maxing where appropriate and I felt like my army lost all of its spirit for the sake of efficiency. I would routinely score hollow victories that left me wanting. Immediately after the release of 5th edition, I quit playing. Several years later, I bought AoBR and got into it again with my brother. I played several very entertaining games of 5th edition, but even then, I always tried to find ways to play the game differently. Playing 3rd edition and 4th edition games "out of a can" worked for me. Throw down some terrain and follow the rules. Bam, you've got a fun game. But 5th edition games needed a little spice. I'd try playing games with roads. Games with special objectives that granted relentless (or other rules) to units in range. Games in which certain characters had FNP or Eternal Warrior, just because I thought that, they always should have had the rule in the first place. I'd go so far as to using long-obsolete codices that are 'compatible' to write new and unusual army lists. Even if it almost certainly meant I'd lose.

Now here I am, looking over the rules for 6th. It looks like a solid game. I imagine that it would be fun to play.

...If you were going to play it. Which I don't intend to do. :shifty: ***DISCLAIMER*** Yes. I am making educated guesses (assumptions, if you prefer) about how much I will enjoy the game before I try it.

It has nothing to do with the switch from a vehicle-heavy to an infantry-heavy meta (which I understand to be a huge point of contention for several players). It actually has more to do with the way that leadership has been getting less and less representative of the role I believe leadership should play in a wargame.

When I started playing the game, reducing a unit to half-strength and then breaking it was a legitimate strategy. You could see permanent and meaningful changes out of an opponent failing a leadership test, even in the shooting phase. Now, it appears that units are very difficult to shift from strategic locations on the table. Short of wiping out squads with a sweeping advance, there's no dramatic downside to failing leadership tests.

I'd go on about my lamentations about the rise of "Joe 'Badass' Guardsman" (in 3rd, he would have been named "'Lonely' Joe Guardsman," a title that I prefer) holding his own in an onslaught of terror and heroism, but that isn't really the point. It's more about gameplay.

Does anyone else feel that the game, as solid as the rules might be, just "isn't your cup of tea?" Does anyone (perhaps people with 6th edition playing experience) want to point out something about the role of leadership that might change my mind about giving the game a shot?

I must admit, I'm not completely sure what I hope to get out of posting. I'm very happy and complete with my 3rd edition through 5th edition gaming supplements. But I feel like I'm becoming disconnected with a community and a hobby that I love, and I'm hoping that (despite my intention to keep playing older editions of the game and other games from other companies) I can still go to a store from time to time and see a game of 40k and be able to relate to it.

Bubble Ghost
09-07-2012, 19:11
I pretty much agree, but as much as there being no dramatic downside to failing a Leadership test, the problem is that there often is a dramatic pentalty to passing one - if one of your units holds against a charge, you are punished by being unable to fire at their attackers. It's often preferable by far to get butchered to a man or run like sissies. This would be utterly bass ackwards for any game, but it's especially so for one with pretensions of being optimised for cinematic, heroic drama:

"CHAAARGE! But not to too much! Just charge a bit!"

"Hold the line, men... no wait, don't! It's our 'turn' next and we want to shoot them! No, don't be brave you idiots!!"

And 5th ed had exactly the same problem, it's unchanged.

If not for that aspect of it, though (and it is a huge problem as far as taking 40K remotely seriously goes), I don't think things are as bad as all that. Morale is on about the same popcorn level as the rest of the rules. It never had a remotely interesting or intuitive effect on the game anyway, so the fact that it's become less of an all-or-nothing kick in the balls for not being Space Marines is probably for the good of the game overall.

Giltharin
09-07-2012, 21:47
I pretty much agree, but as much as there being no dramatic downside to failing a Leadership test, the problem is that there often is a dramatic pentalty to passing one - if one of your units holds against a charge, you are punished by being unable to fire at their attackers. It's often preferable by far to get butchered to a man or run like sissies. This would be utterly bass ackwards for any game, but it's especially so for one with pretensions of being optimised for cinematic, heroic drama:

"CHAAARGE! But not to too much! Just charge a bit!"

"Hold the line, men... no wait, don't! It's our 'turn' next and we want to shoot them! No, don't be brave you idiots!!"

And 5th ed had exactly the same problem, it's unchanged.

If not for that aspect of it, though (and it is a huge problem as far as taking 40K remotely seriously goes), I don't think things are as bad as all that. Morale is on about the same popcorn level as the rest of the rules. It never had a remotely interesting or intuitive effect on the game anyway, so the fact that it's become less of an all-or-nothing kick in the balls for not being Space Marines is probably for the good of the game overall.

This edition actually made it more difficult to fire for people that fall back, if you fall back you can only snap shot, same for the turn you regroup, snapsots only. That's more restrictive then in 5th. Also, though regrouping under 25% of strenght is teorically possible, it takes a double 1, not likely. Overall the rules on morale look balanced: you can still try to break enemy so they run away, but leave room for "heroic" comebacks.

cheers
Giltharin

Bubble Ghost
09-07-2012, 21:57
This edition actually made it more difficult to fire for people that fall back, if you fall back you can only snap shot, same for the turn you regroup, snapsots only. That's more restrictive then in 5th.

I wasn't talking about the losing unit itself falling back and then shooting. What I was referring to above was the rest of their army wanting to fire at the chargers, and not being able to because the last couple of guys were stupid enough to be brave. You end up rooting for your guys to either run for it or to get wiped out. And the attacker is crossing his fingers that he doesn't kill you too much, because he doesn't want to be fired at. Yeah. For the Emperor. Woo.

Daedalus81
09-07-2012, 22:03
It really depends what army you play against. Sometimes its hard to kill 25% of a unit due to high armor saves or lots of models. And sometimes their rolls are just lucky. You're looking at a 7-27% chance to fall back on LD8 or better. Much more against Orks with average LD 7. Sniping leaders out will help. There are no rerolls like in Fantasy and no LD bubble from the general (except the trait).

Daedalus81
09-07-2012, 22:05
I wasn't talking about the losing unit itself falling back and then shooting. What I was referring to above was the rest of their army wanting to fire at the chargers, and not being able to because the last couple of guys were stupid enough to be brave. You end up rooting for your guys to either run for it or to get wiped out. And the attacker is crossing his fingers that he doesn't kill you too much, because he doesn't want to be fired at. Yeah. For the Emperor. Woo.

If you've got one unit in combat there should be others not far behind. The only time I see this happening is when they're unsupported.

Von Wibble
09-07-2012, 22:09
Actually Orks rarely fail ld checks - their mob rule means they get a reroll on Ld equal to number of models in squad (usually 12 or more so an auto pass). Unless you reduced them to less than 7 models its very unikely they will run - but then you have pretty much wiped them out anyway so it doesn't really matter. Stupid rule as Orks should be uncooperative imo.

And IG have ld bubbles from commm links and standards for ld 9 reroll across the board. MEQs have ATSKNF or fearless on everyone. Tau reroll checks.

The only armies that look cowardly are eldar and dark eldar. Ironically their warhammer equivalents of high elves and dark elves boast the highest Ld in the game, so definately something wrong there.

Bubble Ghost
09-07-2012, 22:12
If you've got one unit in combat there should be others not far behind. The only time I see this happening is when they're unsupported.

So, hang on. You're saying that since you can play the game in such a way that reduces the impact of an unintuitive, dramatically unsatisfying game mechanic, it doesn't matter that the game mechanic is unintuitive or dramatically unsatisfying..?

Leth Shyish'phak
09-07-2012, 22:14
It really depends what army you play against. Sometimes its hard to kill 25% of a unit due to high armor saves or lots of models. And sometimes their rolls are just lucky. You're looking at a 7-27% chance to fall back on LD8 or better. Much more against Orks with average LD 7. Sniping leaders out will help. There are no rerolls like in Fantasy and no LD bubble from the general (except the trait).

Orks with LD7? Sounds great. :(

scapegoatboy69
09-07-2012, 22:35
I'm acutally a big fan of 6th edition.

...but morale being too hard to break is one of my biggest pet peeves. The vast majority of the armies being effectively immune to such things make me a sad panda.

Scaryscarymushroom
09-07-2012, 23:04
This edition actually made it more difficult to fire for people that fall back, if you fall back you can only snap shot, same for the turn you regroup, snapsots only. That's more restrictive then in 5th. Also, though regrouping under 25% of strenght is teorically possible, it takes a double 1, not likely. Overall the rules on morale look balanced: you can still try to break enemy so they run away, but leave room for "heroic" comebacks.

cheers
Giltharin

Practically speaking, I find it makes little difference that you can snap shot if you fall back. In 5th, I rarely found the opportunity to fire on targets with a unit that was falling back. The restriction on the turn you regroup is interesting. I had overlooked that.

Regrouping under 25% isn't really what I'm concerned with... It's regrouping in that 25%-49% range. A squad of 20 minis that is reduced to 4 (in a single round of shooting, let's say) quite understandably should be required to pass a very difficult leadership test to stay on the table. A squad which is reduced from 20 minis to 8 or so should also be required to pass a difficult leadership test, IMO. But the rules don't seem to support the idea that all but the most battle-hardened troops GTFO when a substantial number of their buddies get turned to mincemeat. I think it's funny that a squad which is hit with severe shelling would fail a leadership test, run away, then (in the next movement phase) say "Nevermind, men! Turn around! Back to our certain doom!", be reqiured to take a leadership test on a score of 8-10, and be good to go until they die again.

Nevermind that over half (but less than three quarters) of the squad died to a defiler cannon last turn and you're staring down the throat of a really big gribbly that will almost certainly eat your brains and like it. Nevermind that your little unit of guardsmen is completely outclassed and guaranteed to die the next time a stiff breeze blows by.

From a fluff perspective, they should be running for their lives. Not just because they're going to get killed in the next few seconds, but because there's no outcome they could reasonably expect that would result in them being alive tomorrow if they stayed. And if personal preservation isn't a priority, maybe they have a geneseed to live for.
From a gameplay perspective, the whole process of shooting is more meaningful when it has results beyond simply... "woo. I killed a few marines." The ability to force your opponent into making difficult decisions (for me) is a hallmark of good game design. Leadership tests exist to impose a consequence on exposing your troops to 'dangerous' situations; yet more often than not the consequences don't even come close to weighing against benefits of putting yourself in a position where taking a leadership test is necessary. The decision is too easy to make. Stay put, get shot, and even if you don't pass your leadership test, you'll pass one next turn and you'll be unlucky if you lose anything more than a few low-profile troops with basic weapons.

Units which are almost guaranteed dead should flee. Maybe 25% makes sense for space marines or something, but not as a standard rule. Units should not pace 2d6" back and 6+d6" forth like a unit in starcraft with a pathing problem. :shifty:
Which is what they've done for years; and what will be extremely exacerbated by lessening and lifting the regroup requirements in 6th. (compiled with the shift to an infantry style meta, I imagine battles are going to be long and redundant. Failing and passing leadership tests to walk back and forth until a huge portion of the squad is dead.)

Cantina Fly
09-07-2012, 23:40
Leadership has definitely changed over the years. I still remember 2nd Edition Terminators rolling double 6's and being removed completely for "Craven Cowardice." It's current role is to force units to temporarily move away from you (off an objective possibly,) not break them completely.

My advice to the OP would simply be to find a group of players you enjoy playing with. The rest is minor detail after that. I've been playing with the same group since college. New people come and go over the years (mostly WAAC types that leave,) but I very rarely have a "bad" game. When everyone in the group isn't picking their army list specifically to win games, it gets a lot more fun (in any edition of any game.) We all know what the "best army" fads are. We just choose not to field them.*


* Unless both players agree they want to play a WAAC game. Min/Maxing can be fun if both players know what they're getting into.

Bubble Ghost
09-07-2012, 23:49
...


Agree with this whole post. But like you said, 40K gameplay has been about nothing but keeping score with casualties for a long time now. Even Ye Most Holy Second Edition had a pretty functional morale system (although that was perhaps more forgivable at the time).

But the whole reason morale is such a tiny part of 40K is that the guys in suits have this box-ticking, flow chart mentality where "people like it when their guys kill other guys, and dislike it when their guys run away, so we'll make it so that things kill more and run away less, and therefore the game will be better." It's what always happens when business muscles in on creativity - just look at conveyor belt Hollywood action movies, thinking that star actors + explosions + one liners = good movie by default.

GW is the wargaming equivalent, sadly - the same thing that means we get the amazing miniatures and shiny books means we also get conservative rules. GW just want the explosions, i.e. the killing parts. Frankly, after the death-fest that WFB 8th turned into, I'm relieved 40K hasn't slid even further in this direction than it did. I think the way they see it is that the whole thing needs to be geared above all else to go over well in intro games - and if one kid's army spends the game running away, that kid is not going to be enthused, so they've halved their potential customer base. Same reason movie producers put the explosions in the trailer.

Thing is, now at least morale is more consistent. One of 40K's bigger problems is that it's often a game of extremes, of all-or-nothing, which makes it difficult to balance and sometimes difficult to enjoy - morale was amongst those things, being ignored by some and a total kick in the teeth for the underclass who were actually affected by it. So morale in 40K is rubbish, but for me, 6th ed is better at being this particular kind of rubbish than 5th ed was - it's more fair, and for me, that's the next best thing to just starting again with a completely new game. Which, even if they did, would not feature very much running away.

Scribe of Khorne
09-07-2012, 23:56
Im playing orks now, and unless its a huge blob, if i am testing, its dicey :p

Completely enjoying 6th for what its worth, learning a new army as I go!

Spell_of_Destruction
10-07-2012, 01:56
The only armies that look cowardly are eldar and dark eldar. Ironically their warhammer equivalents of high elves and dark elves boast the highest Ld in the game, so definately something wrong there.

Yet they still have some of the highest base Ld in the game.

Shows you how pointless a statistic it is when only a small number of units actually care about it and they have good Ld anyway.

When I played with my Empire in 6th and 7th ed WHFB I used to really enjoy trying to keep the army together against Terror tests by using Ld bubbles and the like. It was part of the challenge.

2nd ed was really the last edition of 40k with decent morale rules. The Space Marine rules worked really well IMO.

big squig
10-07-2012, 07:17
Back in 2nd ed a unit could rally so long as it was at least 25%. Back in 3rd they changed it to 50% and I've always felt that was way too high. 25% feels just right.

Spell_of_Destruction
10-07-2012, 08:21
I liked the 'shaken' rule for marines as well (which was a special indermediate stage before they could be fully broken). Much better than ATSKNF.

In WHFB Chaos Lords can run away from Goblins. Why does every unit in 40K have to be such a grim faced bad @ss? It's boring.

It goes against the whole Lovecraftian element of the setting IMO, where the mere sight of warp entities and the realization of their existence is enough to break the mind of mortals.

Corvus Corone
10-07-2012, 09:03
I too worry about morale. Of the armies in the game, far less than half truly give a damn about morale. For something thats in the BRB and supposed to be a core part of the game, it just feels kinda wrong tbh. Morale ought to play a far bigger role in the game. Look at WFB; GW clearly know how to make it important; I'm not really sure why they don't in 40k.

Spell_of_Destruction
10-07-2012, 09:33
I too worry about morale. Of the armies in the game, far less than half truly give a damn about morale. For something thats in the BRB and supposed to be a core part of the game, it just feels kinda wrong tbh. Morale ought to play a far bigger role in the game. Look at WFB; GW clearly know how to make it important; I'm not really sure why they don't in 40k.

Honestly, I think it started with the release of 3rd ed and the decision to turn marines into the biggest bad @sses in the galaxy by giving them ATSKNF (a big step up from the old 'shaken' rules). This started a sort of bad @ss arms race and they started putting fearless on everything.

totgeboren
10-07-2012, 10:01
Some positive things about the new Ld rules.

First I like that a unit with an IC can always rally. I have 'killed' characters like Eldrad many times by simply winning an assault, he and less-than-50%-of-his-unit breaking, then it was bye bye. It felt a bit silly that characters as powerful as him would simply flee the battle.

Also, an improvement is that these new rules evens out the playing field for fearless/ATSKNF/Stubborn/normal armies. Eldar and Tau simply become more mobile on the table, withdrawing in the face of heavy firepower more often than say humans or orks. I mean, they will still usually rally, and in the case of Eldar and assaults, they can often withdraw from CC and just shoot their enemies to bits. ATSKNF is of course still the best rule now, and I really hate that they may do both the 3" regroup move AND a normal move in addition to that. I mean, on average a fleeing SM unit will still move 2" forward if they want to (flee 2D6 then move 9" back).

Sure, it would have been better with some Ld rules that actually made pinning and such easier. But GW are pushing their 'cinematic' theme, and having your warriors flee a lot doesn't really fit the theme. Making the game more even for the different races is a better solution imo, considering the constraint.

Corvus Corone
10-07-2012, 10:35
Honestly, I think it started with the release of 3rd ed and the decision to turn marines into the biggest bad @sses in the galaxy by giving them ATSKNF (a big step up from the old 'shaken' rules). This started a sort of bad @ss arms race and they started putting fearless on everything.

Yea, I think that this is the root of the problem. ATSKNF should be regarded as the mighty and privileged rule that it is; space marines used to pay a premium for it (I'd argue that vanilla marines still do) and rightly so. Now that ATSKNF models seemingly cost the same as everything else (and, somewhat inexplicably, grey knight marines cost almost the same as tactical marines) it just feels like everyone else needs some kind of fearless to keep up.

There are some armies where, undoubtedly, it makes sense. Tyranids within synapse, for example, are characterized by selfless murder for the hive mind in spite of any personal danger. Orks ought to have a mob mentality (though I'm not sure I agree that the current mob rule does it right, as it mostly just equates to 'fearless' which is pretty bland) that boosts their morale while they're plentiful. Chaos demons have no concept of courage.

Which leaves just IG, eldar, dark eldar, tau, necrons and chaos marines to do morale. Most of them have ways of getting LD9+ fairly readily and/or fearless, which they need to keep up with all the others.

Which really leaves me wondering; how can the situation be salvaged? Nerf ATSKNF?

omegoku
10-07-2012, 13:58
This is one of my biggest peeves with 40k.
Morale is very rarely of any consequence.
I would nerf all the Morale rules to make it more dicey.
quick (overly harsh) first draft

Any unit that loses 25% in a phase must take a Ld test or fallback
Any unit that loses a combat must take a Ld or fallback
Unit is hit (not wounded) by sniper/barrage must take Ld or be pinned
Modifiers:
Lost 50% of unit in this phase -1 Ld
Ordinance Hit -1 Ld
Barrage Hit -1 Ld (to pinning test only)
Successful Sniper fire -1 Ld (to pinning test only)
Outnumbered 2:1 -1 Ld
Outnumbered 3:1 -2 Ld
Outnumbered 4:1 -3 Ld
Lost combat by X Wounds -X W

Mindless - Ignore Morale, can never claim objectives (Tyranid gaunts under synapse, Rippers, etc)
Fearless - Ignore all Morale Modifiers
Stubborn - Half all Morale Modifiers, rounding down
ATSKNF - May always regroup, even when below 25%

Amnar
10-07-2012, 17:06
Unfortunately, 40k is a relatively poor wargame that looks awesome on the tabletop. Loads of flash, little substance. The base mechanics aren't great, yet there are loads of special rules, exceptions, etc to add complexity.

I'm 31, I still play, but rarely. When I was younger I absolutely loved it, and couldn't get enough of it. From what I've seen, people in their late 20's/30's only still play because it's accessible and an excuse to toss around dice with buddies.

GrogDaTyrant
10-07-2012, 17:25
Actually Orks rarely fail ld checks - their mob rule means they get a reroll on Ld equal to number of models in squad (usually 12 or more so an auto pass). Unless you reduced them to less than 7 models its very unikely they will run - but then you have pretty much wiped them out anyway so it doesn't really matter. Stupid rule as Orks should be uncooperative imo.


That's incorrect. Ork morale actually took a hefty nerf from their previous (3rd ed) green codex to this current one. You are thinking of the old mob rule, which gave them a reroll counting their unit size as the new Ld value (in effect, though not wording). But it literally affected all their units, with exception to gretchin. The current rule is they can switch out their Ld for their unit's size, to a max of 10, with 11+ making them fearless. The 'reroll' still exists in a sense, but only in the form of Bosspoles, which are a Nob upgrade (and inflict 1 wound to the unit).

Now, here's where the kicker comes in. Ork Nobs and Warbosses used to be +1 Ld to what they are now, namely due to a wargear item (Big Horns/Iron Gob). Meaning your Warboss was *always* Ld 10, and your nobs Ld 8. When the codex was updated, the stat-lines were effectively just copy-pasted from the old codex, and Big Horns/Iron Gob was tossed out. Effectively reducing Ork character Ld values by 1. Not a big deal? Well, consider this... in the old codex, the Orks had numerous units that could be fielded up to at least 20 models. Examples included Boyz of all three types (Shootas, Slugga/Choppas, Stikkbommas) which capped at 30, 'Ard Boyz (20), Skar Boyz (20), Flash Gitz (20), Stormboyz (20), and iirc, Kommandos (20) as well. And keep in mind that all units rerolled their failed morale checks with the unit's size due to Mob Rule. With the advent of the current codex, only 2 (ork) units number above 15 when maxed out, and those are Stormboyz and Boyz. Everything else is capped at 10 or 15, which doesn't do a good job of retaining the benefits of the new Mob Rule.

Even worse, is quite a few units have no access whatsoever to Bosspoles or a Nob leader with a Bosspole (now Ld 7). Such units that lack a Morale reroll (and subsequently tend to be painfully short on Mob Rule size), include Deathkoptas, Mega Nobs, Flash Gitz (expensive character upgrade being an exception), Lootas, and Burnas. Other units tend to be rather small and brittle despite having access to a Nob with a Bosspole, and fielding them up to full size is often viewed as 'pointless' if you're doing it for the Mob Rule effect. Examples of this include Warbikes, Tankbustas, and Kommandos. Warbikes are actually more survivable at 8 or 9 strong as opposed to 12, due to smaller footprint and being easier to hide behind terrain. The lack of bosspole availability to certain mobs, led to what has been termed as "babysitter HQs"... meaning, the unit's very likely to run off unless they are led by an adequate HQ "baby-sitter" with a bosspole (see reference, Mega Nobs).


These changes in how the Orks handle their morale, is part of what led to the greater focus towards Boy mobs. Doubtlessly planned, because the point cost dropped ludicrously by 1/3rd, while their individual model's lethality dropped as well. But the final major change, was the removal of Mob-Up. Orks used to have a way of "regrouping" when below 50% unit size, by effectively 'rallying' into other mobs. The idea, was when a fleeing unit began it's turn within roughly 6" of another mob that was not fleeing, that non-fleeing mob would take a Ld check (8 on the Nob, with bosspoles adding a reroll). If they passed, the fleeing mob counted as destroyed from then on, but all the models of both units became one mob. This resulted in sometimes terrifying results of 2 (or more) units fleeing of different types, and rallying up to a "catcher" unit, that was often far beyond it's initial size. Often with several Nobs leading it. The loss of Mob-Up was the death of a very characterful, though sometimes confusing rule. So in 5th we had smaller units of Orks overall, that broke and fled easier, and could not rally in most situations due to the 50% casualty mark.

TL;DNR: For an Ork player, the 25% casualty change in 6th is a sizable boon for the numerous units that were made particularly 'weedy' with the 4th ed codex.

Gwyidion
10-07-2012, 18:04
I don't know about leadership not mattering in 6th.

First, there is a psyker power which actually removes fearless - this is a big deal, as simply getting someone to roll a Ld test is a big improvement over auto-passing.

Second, allocated and closest-wound allocation means that the high Ld models which give units a much better chance at passing Ld tests are more vulnerable. In my 2nd game of 6E, i sniped a Sgt. out of a marine unit and he failed his pin test. That NEVER happened in 5th, on any wound i scored with a sniper weapon.

Egaeus
10-07-2012, 19:27
Quick disclaimer: I haven't purchased the new rules yet, as I'm not sure I would get much use out of them as I haven't played in quite a while, although I do like trying to keep up with the rules just in case I decide to start playing again.

For me it has always seemed like the problem is that there are armies that are affected by Morale and those that aren't (ATSKNF, Fearless, etc.), and the feeling that they really aren't well balanced to have that sort of dichotomy. That is, if you have an army that can stand to the last man should be worth more than one that can easily be broken and run from the field. As one poster mentioned with Marines apparently getting cheaper and cheaper it only widens that divide. So making morale harsher only hurts units/armies that actually have to rely on Morale.

There's also the part of me that thinks the setting sort of dulls one to the idea that any soldiers should be greatly affected by morale...an individual Guardsman may have seen the horrors of war on a dozen different planets, so, yeah, there's a Demon over there, big deal...he's seen worse and lived (so far). Or perhaps he's just afraid of getting executed by the Commissar or even just letting down the Emperor (indoctrination can be a powerful tool). So basically any "regular" soldier in any army should have pretty good Morale (I'm definitely not saying everyone should be Fearless, just fairly hard to shift...so maybe this edition would be enjoyable to me). That, to me, should be an affect of "there is only war" nature of the 40K universe.

I've always argued in the past that the Morale rules shouldn't be harsher, but should me more graduated...that is, there should be multiple levels of effect for failing Morale tests rather than simply "running away" or "being pinned". Basically this would be a layer of Movement/Shooting and perhaps Assault penalties that get harsher (although I'm not sure what would determine which affect was applied). So for Movement you would have "slowed" - the unit moves as if in difficult terrain (re-rolling dice if the terrain doesn't provide a cover save) and may fire normally, "fixed" - the unit may not move but may fire normally, "suppressed" - the unit may not move and may only Snap Fire (not sure if this is appropriate but from what I understand of the new rules should work), "staggered" - a mini-fall back of d6 inches, fires as normal (moving) and "routed" - normal fall back rules apply. These are just off the top of my head as I am writing this post, and as I mentioned don't cover any possibilities of Assault.

Additionally, other rules could be modified, so for example, ATSKNF becomes that they subtract one or two levels off their result (if there were some way to incorporate the actual Morale roll with modifiers it could also become a modifier itself).

Note that adding greater levels doesn't change any of the core mechanics, although how one determines which level affects the unit may require changes to the Morale system.

Gonefishing
10-07-2012, 19:50
Which leaves just IG, eldar, dark eldar, tau, necrons and chaos marines to do morale. Most of them have ways of getting LD9+ fairly readily and/or fearless, which they need to keep up with all the others.


Tau are generally pretty screwed on the leadership front - Commanders are 9 / 10 depending on how many points you want to invest (and they can only boost the leadership of two of your units).

You can take Shadowsun whos Drone gives everyone within 18" Ld 10 for Morale checks - But other than that she is a awful special character, cant join a unit while her drones live and not may people use her, or an Ethereal, who makes the unit he is with fearless and gives a reroll to morale checks. Downside is that if he dies your whole army has to take tests at an average leadership of 7/8, as Tau tend to be near the Table Edges runnung away can easily take them off the table (The other downside is the Ethereal goes into Battle with 2W at T3 wearing a bathrobe and is pretty damn useless).

Generally Tau suffer quite alot from morale tests, pinning tests etc - probablly one of the most effected armies I would say?

Lord Inquisitor
10-07-2012, 19:58
I find the kicker with this edition has got to be the Fearless change, or rather reversion with the removal of No Retreat. Fearless is really Fearless now (again). Ork and Tyranid players should be rubbing their hands with glee, it is a big change for them.

Scaryscarymushroom
10-07-2012, 20:07
I'll definitely agree with the 'no retreat' rule being a major change. I had a friend playing Daemonhunters through 4th and 5th edition. 'No Retreat' was essentially what killed his grey knights. Every. Single. Game. They would lose in combat against my regular ol' battle sisters. Which is kind of embarrassing.

But now that GK's aren't fearless, that's a moot point. Still, it'll really help small, elite fearless units.

Despite my feelings about the lax regroup rules, I'm very happy that 'no retreat' is gone.

lanrak
10-07-2012, 20:13
Hi all.
I agree that 40k morale is a bit vapid.(And for cinematic game play,running away should be limited to catastrophic events.)
And having a multiple level morale effects as Egaeus suggested would be a good solution .

However I belive this could be achived with fewer morale effects.(As other games seem to manage like this.)

Supressed.(Shaken.)
The unit may remain stationary and fire at the closest enemy unit , or the unit that supressed it if it was in range.(Counts as moveing for determening effects.)
OR.
The unit may move to cover within 6",or retire from all enemy units .(Eg move + move 2d6 in assault phase in the same direction.)

Neutralised,(Stunned.)
The unit may not move , and will not fire any ranged weapons.(But will fight normaly if assaulted.)

Routed.
The unit flees (away from all enemy units , towards nearest available exit point.)And is destroyed ifi it is assaulted.


Simple LD modifiers.
At 75% of SS-1
At 50% of SS-2
At 25% of SS-3

Outnumbered -1
All alone -1

Fail LD test by up to 3 unit becomes Supressed.
Fail LD teast by 4 to 6 unit becomes neutralised.
Fail LD test by 7 or more unit routes.

Fearless units count one less effect.(EG ignore supressed, count neutralised as supressed and routed as neutralised.)

Lord Cook
10-07-2012, 21:03
And IG have ld bubbles from comm links and standards for ld 9 reroll across the board.

No they don't. It hasn't worked like that for years. Pretty much all Imperial Guard units are Ld7, with a Ld8 squad leader. Some units (like Heavy Weapons squads) don't even have a squad leader. Commissars can make a unit Ld9 Stubborn, but these are only truly viable in large merged units of 20 to 30 men, and the new targeting rules allow the Commissars to be sniped out and killed. Only special characters have access to Fearless, and there's only one Ld10 HQ who isn't a special character, and he's very expensive and T3.

I like the new change that allows rallying so long as you have 25% strength. I don't like being able to rally when within 6" of an enemy. Swings and roundabouts...

Lord Inquisitor
10-07-2012, 21:12
Meh, I like the removal of the 6" rule for rallying. Getting escorted off the board was just annoying.

I also really like the rule for characters in units below rallying strength still being able to rally. It was really dumb when you just wished you could kill that irksome trooper that's forcing your mighty hero to hold hands and run off the board when the character would rally if on their own.

Egaeus
10-07-2012, 22:03
Hi all.
I agree that 40k morale is a bit vapid.(And for cinematic game play,running away should be limited to catastrophic events.)
And having a multiple level morale effects as Egaeus suggested would be a good solution .

However I belive this could be achived with fewer morale effects.(As other games seem to manage like this.)

Thanks for that. As I mentioned I was basically coming up with those on the fly and trying to get the most "bang for the buck"...I suppose it depends on how much effect you really want, as I believe that having more levels would allow the Morale system to be a bit harsher without unduly disrupting the game. That is, as it is now, being pinned or falling back in a limited-turn game is a significant penalty for any unit. If you reduce the harshness of the penalty by adding some fine tuning you could make it somewhat easier to cause those results and the units would still get to remain "in play" albeit at reduced effectiveness...so it's sort of a "win-win" from a game play perspective...the unit isn't completely neutralized but it isn't as good as it would otherwise be.

Now obviously having more levels increases the complexity of the game as there are more things to keep track of, so I can see the advantages of having a simpler system as well. So it really does seem to come down to player preference, as I don't really think either system is inherently better than the other...they both have their pros and cons.

And to try to feel like I'm not attempting to derail the thread with a discussion that properly belongs in the game development section: Each edition GW tinkers with things. Sometimes it seems they are legitimately trying to make things better, to fix issues that caused problems before. But is also seems like they change things for the sake of change, that to some extent they just want to try something new or different. From what I've heard it sounds like a number of the changes to the Morale system are a good thing and address problems with previous editions. Rallying ICs sounds like a great change to me. Lowered rallying limits also seems like a positive change if one chooses to look at it from the perspective of large units...it makes hordes more viable. Rallying near enemies seems more like a "neutral" change...I can see why people wouldn't like it, but I think I do.

GrogDaTyrant
10-07-2012, 23:09
I find the kicker with this edition has got to be the Fearless change, or rather reversion with the removal of No Retreat. Fearless is really Fearless now (again). Ork and Tyranid players should be rubbing their hands with glee, it is a big change for them.

The removal of No Retreat is indeed a major improvement, but does not make me rub my hands with glee. It was a terrible rule and a problem, but IMO far from 40k's *only* problem. What could finally get me excited about 40k again depends entirely on the next Ork codex, and if the rumors regarding FW doing codices prove true (provided they don't just use it as an excuse to do nothing but more marine codices).