Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21 29 30 31
Results 601 to 602 of 602

Thread: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

  1. #601
    Commander Captain Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brum, UK
    Posts
    759

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    @Voss fair play I do like to assume things, and I know what that can lead to! Thing is Ive played AoS since its release and seen these rules and all the special rules that interact with them in practice - and i think theyre great!

    I like the distinction between the unit making a tactical, orderly withdrawal in the Movement phase, then failing a morale test in the Morale phase representing troops being ground underfoot, individuals (rather than the unit) fleeing the field, or succumbing to their injuries, or (my favourite) soldiers staying behind to get the critically injured to safety. Maybe they shouldve just called it Battleshock, which i think is nice and vague and doesnt come with the preconceptions associated with the old Morale rules.
    Marius Stormwrought

    Lord-Celestant of The Stormwrought, Warrior Chamber of the Astral Avengers Stormhost

  2. #602
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,899

    Re: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition formally announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny View Post
    Nids and Orks have ways to mitigate losses from moral, not ignore them.
    A well built nid army will outright ignore them until it doesn't matter anymore. Orks are more mitigation, but you have to burn down the hordes the hard way before you can hope to do any morale damage to the meganobs or burnaboyz riding along next to them. It doesn't matter if you kill all but one of an effective ork unit, if there is a morale blob nearby, they don't care.

    As for complaints of the morale rules favoring hordes; wasn't this always the case?
    Under all previous editions of the game, if you suffer 25% casualties you had to take a morale check. Which unit is more likely to have to take these tests, a 30 strong horde, or a 5 man elite unit?
    The horde, unless unlucky. It was more likely to take casualties, due to some combination of lower WS, T and armor. But keep in mind, in 8th, rubric marines run off and drop dead from heart attacks. The what is 'immune or mucks about with morale' is either really random or a bolt-on feature of hordes, not something fluff based.

    Would you feel happier if the same effects were achieved by stats? If Nids in synapse range had their leadership boosted to 456, and Nurgle zombies were given a leadership of 777?
    (Of course this issue there would be that this would make zombies immune to other effects based on leadership such a psychic powers)
    At least it would be consistent, rather than a bunch of special snowflake rules. (The death of USRs is a huge step backwards in terms of design).

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Marius View Post
    I like the distinction between the unit making a tactical, orderly withdrawal in the Movement phase, then failing a morale test in the Morale phase representing troops being ground underfoot, individuals (rather than the unit) fleeing the field, or succumbing to their injuries, or (my favourite) soldiers staying behind to get the critically injured to safety. Maybe they shouldve just called it Battleshock, which i think is nice and vague and doesnt come with the preconceptions associated with the old Morale rules.
    They should just call it Instability, since that's what it is. The unit magically takes more wounds in the end phase, unless they have especially customized anti-magic rules that prevent that kind of damage.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21 29 30 31

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •