40K Online
Main => General 40k => Topic started by: Guildmage Aech on March 27, 2009, 01:45:46 PM
-
Hi guys, its time for a chat about the changing face of 40K.
Having had the oppotunity to read though the guard codex recently and checking out the new commissar rules it looks like we're going full circle again with efforts to bypass the morale system. Currently stubborn is all over it like rending on a 4th edition marine codex.
At this stage I'm not sure where exactly its going, sure stubborn works reasonably well in WFB where combat resolution has long since handed out massive penalties for losing combat (as well as outnumbering which was recently removed). But like fearless was in 3rd is it just becoming too common a solution, a quick an easy fix for the flavour of the month? As a way of tarpitting units in combat its without compare as fearless will see a unit that consistently loses combat to be whittled away by no retreat saves...
And of course the question is where is it going to stop? Are Tau Etherals going to be encouraging die hard fanatism in fire warriors? Necrons aren't the panic and cry sort naturally... I don't have an issue with a special rule, only with one that becomes so common its not special anymore.
Already it seems that all big girbbly things are immune to instant death meaning that the biggest thing a Libarian can fancy slicing with his force sword is an Orgyn or something... hardly an epic foe worthy of song and dance. And yet many players seem to want this to continue further; "Calgar is immune to instant death! Why isn't my general/warboss/shas'thingo immune too..."
While fix it with a special rule is a traditional design philosphy it is odd that its occouring so fast so quickly into 5th edition, the creep of special rules that spawned the USR theory took a long time to occour in 3rd ed 40K. Thoughts and feelings?
-
I haven't seen the new IG book, so I can't comment on that angle of it, but in general I do agree that this is a problem, especially as it applies to morale. In 4th Edition, morale was easily the least important part of the game, since everybody and their cousin had some way of making their units fearless or nearly so. With the advent of 5th Edition, I was pleased to see that all those fearless enemies out there might have to start paying for the fact that they could ignore a statistic on their sheet *and* that those folks who weren't fearless would be suffering slightly more in the CC phase when they were getting beat down. Now, with the introduction of Stubborn and (if Hymirl is right) the spread of that rule, we are coming full circle again until I will soon be able to write off the morale part of the game again.
As for the instant death thing, I find that Eternal Warrior or its proxies are so common as to make anything causing instant death worthless. Honestly, there are very, very few enemies out there worth instakilling that you actually *can* instakill. Let's see here:
Stuff Wyddr Thinks is Worth Instakilling:
Tyranid Monstrous Creatures
Daemon Princes
Wraithlords
The Avatar
Talos
Greater Daemons
Stuff You Can Actually Instakill From List Above:
Wraithlords and Talos (sort of--you need and Force Weapon, a Strength bump, some kind of special rule, or some mix of the three)
Greater Daemons (which, of all things, should be the one thing you *can't* instakill)
This makes instakilling a completely worthless special rule for just about anybody, unless you happen to need to kill the odd Chaos Spawn, Nob, or Ogryn in a hurry.
Don't even get me started and the virtual worthlessness of pinning, either...
-
You can't insta-kill a GD, unless you mean the generic crap bags in the Chaos Marine codex?
-
You can't insta-kill a GD, unless you mean the generic crap bags in the Chaos Marine codex?
Crap-bags, actually (never played deamons and know of no one who plays them). It is worth noting, however, that GDs elsewhere can't be instakilled. Just making that force weapon all the more worthless, aren't we?
Also: I don't mean to threadjack. We were talking about the increasing numbers of stubborn folk out there.
-
it is hugely dissatisfying that morale hasn't played an important part since 2nd edition. Most races should be susceptible to morale damage, not only Guard and non-Ethereal Tau. Personally, I would like to see more general morale attacks, like Fear and Panic.
The increase of special rules that cancel out other special rules is quite unwanted if you ask me.
The point of Instant Death was that powerful attacks should inflict a greater damage; it's not the same to be shot by a laspistol as it is to be hit by Multi-melta, and since GW removed the potential for weapons to cause multiple wounds there is no such way except Instant Death. For me, the only creatures that deserves such a rule as Eternal Warrior is Greater Daemons, Avatars, Tyrants and some special characters (Phoenix Lords etc.). Anyway, I would much rather see that powerful weapons had the potential to cause additional wounds even if they aren't double toughness.
-
Agreed on both points!
Stubborn is certainly looking sexy, but, if we are to take the Marine Codex as our 5th ed template, I think that Calgar's God of War ability may end up appearing more and more (Inquisitors and the like). It's better than Fearless/ Stubborn and Combat Tactics combined.
-
pinning has its effect though if your oppo rolls high enough or facing guard squads ;)
I dont like that marines get vet sgts on everybody, bad enough they got ATSKNF but now they are all ld9 with it too which is what chaos marines used to get instead of ATSKNF. even a guard player complained to me the other day that ld7 is crap, and I'm like thats average and right for humans but hes right in 40k it is crap, marines have ATSKNF, orks have mod rules, chaos are mostly fearless, sisters and the like probably are too, tau get their ethereals effects.
i think the 2 biggest armies effected by morale effects are guard and eldar but even they can mitigate it somewhat. guard have commissars and eldar can huddle round the avatar. so people are right, morale in 40k is pretty much being thrown out the window.
-
i think the 2 biggest armies effected by morale effects are guard and eldar but even they can mitigate it somewhat. guard have commissars and eldar can huddle round the avatar. so people are right, morale in 40k is pretty much being thrown out the window.
Eldar have basic Ld8 with all aspects at 9. So they don't care much about morale either.
It's a pretty useless stat to be honest. As others have said; when 5th appeared and we saw the Ld modifiers for losing combat it made sense and was definitely a good addition. Stubborn is also fine as a rule, as long as it's spread around a bit.
If a Commisar can make basic humans stubborn then you'd think most of the other races in the 40K galaxy should have it also.
Commissars were fine with just shooting the squad leader. It was an effective way of keeping a squad on the field.
-
Leadership was useful in 4th edition, what with target priorities. Now it's a dump stat that's only used every now and again (like Charisma in D&D).
~Andromidius
-
I love morale. Personnaly I think the morale systtem in WHFB is far more realsitic and does encourage a more tactical game. The only people nwho should be reall f fearless are some marines, the oddd eldar guys, nids and of course the crons. Everyone should have to take morale.
-
Leadership was useful in 4th edition, what with target priorities. Now it's a dump stat that's only used every now and again (like Charisma in D&D).
~Andromidius
Maybe, but unlike D&D you aren't really paying anything for LD. LD is built into the cost of the unit given how important LD is. Just like the old dark elf assassin having a BS9 wasn't a stat they had to pay for because they could never take a ranged weapon, and there are a lot of other examples of the same sort of thing. If there is a fearless unit they could give it a base LD of 2 or 12 and it wouldn't make a difference, so they aren't going to charge them for LD10 on top of the points they paid for fearless in the first place.
I also don't see stubborn* making LD that much less important, it doesn't change what you need to roll for panic for taking wounds, it doesn't change being tank shocked or LD based on enemy special abilities. All it does is means a side that looses combat is less likely to run away from that combat. In many cases this isn't really going to help much, because a guard unit is just going to die more the next turn of combat as well. I actually see it as more of a liability to guard then an advantage, it just means they are likely to hold when charged by a CC unit, meaning the combat drags into the guard players turn and then he can't shoot at that CC unit because its tied into combat.
*I'm assuming stubborn is exactly the same as in fantasy, I don't actually remember it every coming up in any games of 40k yet so I've kind of forgot if the 40k version is different.
I also know that high LD doesn't mean you can't fail, it just makes it less likely. I know all too well with my Dark Elves that even taking a basic panic check on LD9 will find things running (or standing still doing nothing) now and again. It doesn't have to happen all the time to make the ability that causes the test worth while.
LD has always been something that is only supposed come up now and again, its supposed to add some chance to the game without making a win or a loss based on random chance.
-
I agree that such USRs shouldn't be spammed across all of the codecies and that Leadership has been castrated as a useful unit statistic (especially with respect to Pinning), but I want to clarify something
Raktra said (I misunderstood). :-\
Only two(?) of the Space Marine Special Characters have God of War (Eternal Warrior) in the new codex and the Admantine Mantle has been removed as a Wargear option. So, with the exception of the older BT, BA, SW, and BA codecies, Space Marines now have only very limited options when seeking immunity to Instant Death.
NewHeretic
-
New, I never said most of that...
Only Calgar gets the rule, and I never mentioned the other Codices...
-
Only two(?) of the Space Marine Special Characters have God of War in the new codex and the Admantine Mantle has been removed as a Wargear option.
You mean Eternal Warrior not God of War. God of War is what Calgar has instead of Combat Tactics and Rites of Battle.
-
Only two(?) of the Space Marine Special Characters have God of War in the new codex and the Admantine Mantle has been removed as a Wargear option.
You mean Eternal Warrior not God of War. God of War is what Calgar has instead of Combat Tactics and Rites of Battle.
@ Raktra:
My mistake. Benis has it right. I'm sorry for falsely interpreting your post. :-\
NewHeretic
-
as a guard player i thought morale was a very important part to my army. It kept my grunts close to their platoon leaders for ld boosts and made me think twice about charging into enemy units. Now with the game-wide use of fearless,stubborn, and ld 10 it makes the game a little predictable. I am overhwhlemed when i actaully pin a squad with my mortars, or when an enemy squad falls off the table (usually thats me).
i feel stubborn is a lot more interesting than just bumping ld to 10. for IG, most morale checks will be on 8, and stubborn on 8 isn't all that bad. all it does is gives a few units in the new dex some tarpitting ability. commisars used to make units ld10, when it comes to shooting, we're losing out now.
as for stubborn space marines, thats just not fair.
-
Marines are better than Stubborn, or Fearless. The ability to auto-fail and try and fall back with no risk of getting swept and little chance of taking much damage from fearless wounds is amazing. More than worth the occasional risk of breaking in combat, not getting swept, and actually falling back at the end of your own turn. Not to mention Ld 9 across the board now.
-
I'm pretty ok with the things that can and can't be instakilled. It doesn't make sence to me that a little man with a sword could kill a massive monster in one blow, even if its force. The little man can barely reach the tops of some of their legs! I like that they removed adamantine mantle, and that almost all infantry characters can be instagibbed. I could see weapons doing extra wounds though. Maybe an extra wound is caused for each 3-4 str the weapon is over the target? So a lascannon could do 2 wounds to a carnifex etc. Some of the rules are that way purely for balance reasons though. Nid Warriors would be largely unplayable if they could be instakilled.
As for leadership, it is definitely messed up. Too much fearlessness, and fearlessness hurting the things it should be great for. Tyranid swarms are basically unplayable because fearlessness results in massive squad deaths, including the deaths of their betters, even though this is exactly what should not be happening.
The one I hate most though is pinning. I don't care if your fearless. Pinning is about keeping the target hiding because if they move, the get blown up/shot. Think of paintball or something. You can be as brave as you want and it doesn't matter if there are bombs going off all around you. Its intelligence, not fearlessness that keeps you down. Maybe make it so that all units must test, and if they pass, they can either choose to stay down or go forward and take extra hits or something, maybe one per model hit originally or 1/model in the squad. It rewards high leaderships still, and means that tough targets can naturally run through bombs without worrying, while wusses will both want and need to stay down. Maybe even make the fearless ones autopass, and then still have that choice to run forward and get hit or get down. Makes you gauge how dangerous it is to go on and adds tactical play?
Most pinning weapons are essentially useless for their pinning, so this maybe gives them a needed boost, although a point rise of 1 or so might also be in order
-
The one I hate most though is pinning. I don't care if your fearless. Pinning is about keeping the target hiding because if they move, the get blown up/shot. Think of paintball or something. You can be as brave as you want and it doesn't matter if there are bombs going off all around you. Its intelligence, not fearlessness that keeps you down. Maybe make it so that all units must test, and if they pass, they can either choose to stay down or go forward and take extra hits or something, maybe one per model hit originally or 1/model in the squad. It rewards high leaderships still, and means that tough targets can naturally run through bombs without worrying, while wusses will both want and need to stay down. Maybe even make the fearless ones autopass, and then still have that choice to run forward and get hit or get down. Makes you gauge how dangerous it is to go on and adds tactical play?
Part of fearlessness too would be realizing that despite the danger to yourself, you have a better reason to keep going. My Deathwing don't particularly care about any pinning weapons besides Sniper Rifles. Tau Pulse Carbines, Earthshaker rounds...all are pretty unlikely to even harm them. Chaplain squads are on the verge of a frenzy, ready to fight anything to the death and are heedless of their own danger. Nids are literally being remote controlled by a greater power that doesn't give a crap if they die. I'm pretty okay with fearless ignoring pinning.
I would like to see more stuff be instakillable. By Force Weapons/Wraithcannons and the like at least. I don't care how much armor you have, if the guy in a powersuit runs up and rips your soul (or equivalent!) out and fries your entire nervous system, you're dead. Same goes for having chunks of your body ripped free by tiny warp holes. More serious morale systems would be nice too, on one hand...but on the other, I don't want to see every game decided by my opponents squads all running off the table in a panic. I love that aspect of Fantasy, and I think it's great. In 40k though, I think I prefer the close range firefights and bloody combats to single decisive shooting phases and the charge turn being nearly everything. Watching one poor sergeant try to powerfist down a Dreadnought, or having squads of guardsmen be overrun by bugs is cool, too.
-
I guess I'm suggesting that pinning cause something other then just holding down the heads of poor morale troops. Yes, you can keep going no problem, esp if its something not deadly (snipers to marines), but they should be shot for it... like running at the snipers in the open in real life. Fearless could auto pass the test, but doesn't let you avoid taking hits (even ineffective ones) as you continue forward.
I do agree that having everything always running away is not quite as fun. I think they are currently doing ok on having it be something considered, but not game dominating. A bit too much fearlessness and equivalents has taken some of that away, just as stubborness may. Guard sort of have it right, as you have to consider it, and can do things about it, but squads still run. I guess I only see a problem with marines, mostly as there are too many ppl playing them, making their high ld. and crazy special rules seem like they apply to everyone.
Some things definitely have it that don't need it, I think. Like terminators. They are already plenty awesome, and if something rightly can beat them in combat, they should be scared. I understand they are heroes, higher ld and all that, but don't need to be fearless. In some ways, good stats make up for ld, as awesome stats make it less likely you will lose/ need to test for ld. in the first place. We just never see this effect, because they are already fearless. In that sense, Ld all around could be dropped a bit.
-
I think someone pulled the wool over your eyes.
Marines (including Terminators) are not fearless.
-
Marines are better than Stubborn, or Fearless. The ability to auto-fail and try and fall back with no risk of getting swept and little chance of taking much damage from fearless wounds is amazing.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if they fail the leadership test (or choose to fail) and the enemy wins the sweeping roll, aren't they caught in combat anyway, only now they also take saves from No Retreat. That's probably what you're getting at, I'm just saying that it's not as easy to fall back intentionally like that, given that Sweeping Advance favours the victor of the combat, so unless you were being sweeping advanced by Orks or 'crons (with their amazing Initiative), there is only about a 50% chance or less of successfully breaking out of combat (Correct me if I'm wrong but I 3 with the advantage vs I 4 is equal chance, and any higher Initiative means that the chance of breaking off is even less?)
I agree that morale seriously needs to play a bigger part in the game, a quick-fix USR is not always the answer to problems. I did notice the boost it received after my first read through the 5th edition rule book, as I realised that the leadership would now be modified by the difference in casualties, rather than who had more guys (which in my mind made more sense) and as such many units would see their leadership drop to something around 4 or so. Given this, having your leadership un-modifiable is a terrific boon.
Don't even get me started on instant-killability (or lack thereof). As if Calgar or Lysander could take a hit from a Wraithlord or Carnifex and stay standing. Even if they weren't killed, they'd be in no state to keep on fighting...
EDIT: Lysander, not Dorn *facepalm* I'm sure Dorn is one of the few who could take such a blow and keep on fighting.
-
I do agree with Hymril that Stubborn is becoming more and more widespread, and it will be a shame to see it as often as we saw 4th edition Rending.
Most of the whining I see about Leadership not affecting games is just theory hammer, though. People say it doesn't affect 40k as much as Fantasy but in some ways I beg to differ. Count how many leadership checks you make in a game of Fantasy. Then check how many Leadership checks you make in a game of 40k.
Because in my 40k games I wouldn't be that afraid to say I make at least 3-4x as many as my Fantasy ones (and I don't play Undead...) and if 40k Leadership was as average as it is in Fantasy our armies would all have run off by the top of turn 4.
I find a bad leadership fail - pinning or falling back - at the wrong time can really change a game of 40k and you can really punish a unit for it (escort it off the board by staying within 6").
I love the way leadership is dealt with in 40k, and wouldn't have it any other way. So that's why I'm hoping Stubborn doesn't become commonplace everywhere.
-
I think that Calgar's God of War ability may end up appearing more and more (Inquisitors and the like). It's better than Fearless/ Stubborn and Combat Tactics combined.
Hmm....yes and no. Stubborn stuff gets to take a leadership check and if it passes (on a 9, normally), then no No Retreat! wounds. Use God of War, and you will take the extra wounds (because you auto-passed your morale test).
I can't decide about stubborn. In the marine codices, It pops up for two characters, and (a) it makes you no better against gunfire and (b) costs you combat tactics, so I can't say I mind. For Imperial Guard, 50-strong stubborn infantry squads are ANNOYING. They are just the uber-tarpit...
-
I agree that such USRs shouldn't be spammed across all of the codecies and that Leadership has been castrated as a useful unit statistic (especially with respect to Pinning), but I want to clarify something Raktra said (I misunderstood). :-\
Only two(?) of the Space Marine Special Characters have God of War (Eternal Warrior) in the new codex and the Admantine Mantle has been removed as a Wargear option. So, with the exception of the older BT, BA, SW, and BA codecies, Space Marines now have only very limited options when seeking immunity to Instant Death.
NewHeretic
SW only wish they had something to make them immune to instant death. As a side note SW actually have had the reverse happen in 5th Ed regarding leadership and combat resolution. Since they don't have access to Stubborn or Fearless and No Matter the Odds is no longer an effective rule, they are much much easier to break in CC.
-
SW only wish they had something to make them immune to instant death. As a side note SW actually have had the reverse happen in 5th Ed regarding leadership and combat resolution. Since they don't have access to Stubborn or Fearless and No Matter the Odds is no longer an effective rule, they are much much easier to break in CC.
This has little to do with Stubborn and the general application of universal rules and sounds, to me, more like whining and thread de-railing.
Most of the whining I see about Leadership not affecting games is just theory hammer, though. People say it doesn't affect 40k as much as Fantasy but in some ways I beg to differ. Count how many leadership checks you make in a game of Fantasy. Then check how many Leadership checks you make in a game of 40k.
I would generally say that this is not the case but I have never really measured it, I guess it depends on armies involved but the effects of panic in WHFB means that there are many more sources of leadership tests and that's something I wouldn't have anything against if it was brought back to WH40k. The main thing I find annoying though is the widespread morale protection that almost all armies have.
-
i agree, WHFB has far more morale tests, from panic cos a unit next to your is fleeing to widespread terror when a dragon lands in the middle of your army. and if you face undead you have morale checks for every charge unless you are immune to fear.
-
I would generally say that this is not the case but I have never really measured it, I guess it depends on armies involved but the effects of panic in WHFB means that there are many more sources of leadership tests and that's something I wouldn't have anything against if it was brought back to WH40k. The main thing I find annoying though is the widespread morale protection that almost all armies have.
It really does depend on the army being played. Chaos, for example, is virtually never vulnerable to morale breaks, barring massive combat losses, so morale ceases to be a part of the game for them (and that's for the non-Fearless units). Daemons are the same, but more so. Everyone else has some reliance on LD, though 'Nids can build a list which doesn't (Nidzilla) and Space Marines mostly just manipulate the whole thing to their own benefit. Play against a Tau or Guard player and tell me that their LD plays no part in the game, and even Eldar and Necrons can be broken with some applied effort. The simple fact is that a lot of people overemphasize the Space Marine style armies and forget that it's far from impossible to strip Orks, Eldar and Tyranids of their morale protection, while most armies have no (or very, very limited) access to Fearless at all. I guess it really does depend on experience, but I often find that morale is quite important to the game.
-
The other observation about stubborn - it is good, possibly better than fearless, to keep you there in combat provided you have a good leadership to start with.
Stubborn Ld9 (fists and sororitas) rocks
Stubborn Ld8....not so hot.
The extreme case is snotlings. Stubborn Ld4. I mean, why?
Part of the problem is that everything has such an immensely high leadership. Ld7 is average guard-fashion. But squad leaders are usually +1........and elite-ish troops +1.....meaning that most armies have a functional leadership of 9 or 10.
At least guardsmen no longer have the bubbles of massed rerollable Ld10 as officers no longer project their leadership around them. Yes, you can make individual squads stubborn with leadership rerolls but you pay through the nose for it....
Yes, all right, there are exceptions (commissar lord, and command platoon issuing the Get Back In the Fight! order)
but they're exceptions, not the rule.
-
As mentioned up thread, Stubborn can really hurt the Guard, by having a squad stick in when getting charged means the attacker would have stood out in the open and taken it on the chin. Now the squad stays, and gets wiped on the Guardsmen's turn, which frees the attacker to go after something else.
-
That depends ENTIRELY on how big the squad is.
50 guardsmen formed up is highly unlikely to go down in a couple of assault phases......
-
That depends ENTIRELY on how big the squad is.
50 guardsmen formed up is highly unlikely to go down in a couple of assault phases......
Vs Orks, it might, but not against Assault Marines or Scops or Banshees, sure. Of course I hold the right to laugh my ass off if you try to charge 10 men, assualt focused or not, into a Stubborn 50 man unit.
Besides, something that unwieldy, with the usual Guard 5+, is going to get chewed up in shooting against templates, and I don't believe Stubborn helps against pinning, though I may be wrong on that counts.
-
No, it doesn't. But equally, with (a) the countercharge move and (b) the fact that I don't give a damn about actually winning rounds of combat, means the platoon can be stretched out as much as coherency allows. Given the numbers of men likely to be involved in guard armies now, fitting them all into a deployment zone means your entire army is a martry to area effect weaponry, whether split into individual squads or not!
-
No, it doesn't. But equally, with (a) the countercharge move and (b) the fact that I don't give a damn about actually winning rounds of combat, means the platoon can be stretched out as much as coherency allows. Given the numbers of men likely to be involved in guard armies now, fitting them all into a deployment zone means your entire army is a martry to area effect weaponry, whether split into individual squads or not!
Heh, field two full platoons, by the time you're done, your opponent has fallen asleep, you win by default. ;D
-
I personally think that units with fearless and maybe even stubborn should suffer badly in cover, I refuse to believe a squad that will stick in the fight with a greater demon, take basilisk fire from behind a hill etc, will hide behind trees/walls and do their best to avoid being hit.
Likewise units with good stealth/scouting abilitys should have very poor morale naturally.
In short, if your unit wont drop flat, and keep up shooting in response to sniper fire, they should get rounds to the face from the aforementioned sniper.
-
I personally think that units with fearless and maybe even stubborn should suffer badly in cover, I refuse to believe a squad that will stick in the fight with a greater demon, take basilisk fire from behind a hill etc, will hide behind trees/walls and do their best to avoid being hit.
Likewise units with good stealth/scouting abilitys should have very poor morale naturally.
In short, if your unit wont drop flat, and keep up shooting in response to sniper fire, they should get rounds to the face from the aforementioned sniper.
whilsti agree with the 1st part i dont with the stealth/scouting ones having poor morale. they wouldnt be fearless but to go out on your own and scout the enemy without support requires you to be brave. scouts etc should be elite type units as look at things like SAS, or recon etc all elite troops.
-
it is hugely dissatisfying that morale hasn't played an important part since 2nd edition. Most races should be susceptible to morale damage, not only Guard and non-Ethereal Tau. Personally, I would like to see more general morale attacks, like Fear and Panic.
The increase of special rules that cancel out other special rules is quite unwanted if you ask me.
The point of Instant Death was that powerful attacks should inflict a greater damage; it's not the same to be shot by a laspistol as it is to be hit by Multi-melta, and since GW removed the potential for weapons to cause multiple wounds there is no such way except Instant Death. For me, the only creatures that deserves such a rule as Eternal Warrior is Greater Daemons, Avatars, Tyrants and some special characters (Phoenix Lords etc.). Anyway, I would much rather see that powerful weapons had the potential to cause additional wounds even if they aren't double toughness.
mm, additional wounds... the necromunda las cannon... the heavy bolter... :D
so much has changed from 2nd to 5th. general rules have replaced races. so much depth has simply been ripped right out: granades :-X Now its more that a 1-2points of str, toughness, ws, bs, init, is really all that sperates races. 'fleet' is simply a better form of the universal 'run.' sure that's not so bad, wraithlords and wraithguard can 'run' to get into cover now, but it makes races much less flavorful. stats and equipment are the biggest differences, the rest just feels more cookie-cutter.
it bugs me that every year it seems eldar and the other races have more and more in common with space marines, or rather, that space marines gain the option to take more abilities that can make them more like anyone else. except generally better. :P
anyways, moral.. my friends have recently started playing necromunda - which has a lot inline with 2nd Ed, a system that, if cleaned up a bit and brought inline with the current racial codexes, would be AWESOME! 2nd has a huge amount of depth, and the modifier system is far superior to the 'all or nothing' system that IS 5th ed.
incidently, that is EXACTLY the problem with moral in 40k. its 'all or nothing,' generally siding with the 'nothing' side of things, but such that when moral actually FAILS, the result is devastating...
pinning = wtf pwned! WHEN it happens.
unit broken = the unit may still have 9 guys left in it, but it's gone!
a modifier system would make so much more sense, and it would allow Leadership to actually become an important stat, rather one that is generally at 9 out of a possible 10 for basicly every race.
(modifiers like, pinning test failed = unit moves as if it was in difficult terrain and takes a -1 to ws, bs, and init - for any additional pinning tests failed by the squad the stat modifers are cumulative.) - its still not good, but its not like 'miss a turn.' it also really plays up units that have 'move though cover' - scouts - who seem the least likely to suffer from pinning.
for moral, you should always be able to test to regroup if you are atleast 12" from an enemy and out of LoS, OR, if you are within 6" of a friendly HQ, or something of that effect.
Moral modifiers could be applied based on the condition of the squad (full strength = +1Ld, under full strength = -1) would make for things like 'fear' to come back into play, especially later in the game, when very few squads will be getting their moral bonus (could also make things like 'stubborn' count as "this unit always uses its base leadership." - its never super good, but its never super bad either.)
-
whilsti agree with the 1st part i dont with the stealth/scouting ones having poor morale. they wouldnt be fearless but to go out on your own and scout the enemy without support requires you to be brave. scouts etc should be elite type units as look at things like SAS, or recon etc all elite troops.
And do the SAS run screaming at the machine guns or retreat and wait in cover for other units to clear it?
-
they tend to clear them themselves, but not run screaming at them. and in a 40k sense I would say they are fearless infiltrators.
just because you are fearless doesnt make you stupid, you can understand the situation but follow it through, just not in a suicidal way
-
@ Phantomine.
Why? If you like better morale play 40k. Seriously.
Their is a reason those rules work for necromunda. BECAUSE IT IS SMALL SCALE. Try to play a gang of over 50 mdoels. See how long that game lasts. You will see that this is a game for different systems. In 40k it is meant to be quick and brutal. I play 40k for a quick game and not a marathon length game. If your changes were implemented the game would last far too long.
-
Why? If you like better morale play 40k. Seriously.
Do you mean Fantasy Battle?
-
@ Phantomine.
Why? If you like better morale play 40k. Seriously.
Their is a reason those rules work for necromunda. BECAUSE IT IS SMALL SCALE. Try to play a gang of over 50 mdoels. See how long that game lasts. You will see that this is a game for different systems. In 40k it is meant to be quick and brutal. I play 40k for a quick game and not a marathon length game. If your changes were implemented the game would last far too long.
about 2 hours ;) really that was 2nd ed and it worked fine. although if you used rogue trader (which is same as 5th basically) close combat rules then it could go quicker.
in fact if you used rogue trader movement, firing, combat it would all go quicker as people die more due to save mods, combat is like 5th and you only get one move in a turn so lose a move. making use of 5th vehicle rules would keep it fast although these really dont represent vehicles very well and 2nd ed did that better (although alot longer).
for detail RT and 2e beat 3-5th hands down and are better games for it. 3-5th is good if you want uncomplicated and/or kids to play.
-
@ Phantomine.
Why? If you like better morale play 40k. Seriously.
Their is a reason those rules work for necromunda. BECAUSE IT IS SMALL SCALE. Try to play a gang of over 50 models. See how long that game lasts. You will see that this is a game for different systems. In 40k it is meant to be quick and brutal. I play 40k for a quick game and not a marathon length game. If your changes were implemented the game would last far too long.
more like, "if you want to play a real game with tactics, moral and amphetamine parrot, play fantasy" except i like 40k's fluff better and wonder why they needed to dumb IT down... bigger player base? whatever the reason, i would perfer a system that didnt focus on faster and faster games, but rather on more indepth ones with... i dunno, feeling...
yes necromunda is a smaller scale, and so you can add more stuff to make the game more interesting and challenging as opposed to, "i see you, roll a dice and get wiped out." speed doenst make better games. simple, consice, unambiguous rules that still allow for depth and strategy make for great games.
simply put, a necromunda or kill team style game would, imho, make a better 'quick' game alternative than dumbing down 40k. they just need better senarios and options for these systems.
Also, if you have ever played battletech (which uses a modifier system and a crazy 'realative hit-location' chart for damage) you will know that it all comes down to knowing how the game plays (it has about the same play time as a good game of 40k.)
as long as rules are easy to understand, picking it up and developing straegies comes easily, and game time decreases cause you arent constantly having to look up this or that rule or disputing LoS (which sadly happens a lot due to the fact that, now, if you can draw LoS to That model, the ENTIRE SQUAD is screwed.)
anyways, as it stands now, 'fast and bloody' does make for a quick game that comes down to terrain placement (and type of terrain), and luck. roll crap on the wrong turn, it can be unrecoverable, which is fine if you like playing games where it can be over by turn two though very little fault on your part. new game.
-
they tend to clear them themselves, but not run screaming at them. and in a 40k sense I would say they are fearless infiltrators.
just because you are fearless doesnt make you stupid, you can understand the situation but follow it through, just not in a suicidal way
They should at least be pinable, the issue here is that fearless is an all or nothing thing, they would likely be fearless in some situations but would have the sense to withdraw in unfavorable circumstances (which 40k penalizes badly, with off table = dead, no commander with any sense will try and retreat their forces off the table in bad situations, which should be to an extent promoted)
As far as fearless goes, I think pinning from barrage should be separate as part of it is the disorientation of shells falling everywhere smoke concussive waves, noise etc that no amount of courage will save you from confusion.
simple, consice, unambiguous rules that still allow for depth and strategy make for great games.
Agreed totally.
-
Why? If you like better morale play 40k. Seriously.
Do you mean Fantasy Battle?
:-[ :-[
Yeah, whoops.
-
Okay, just played a test game vs. the Imperial guard codex...
Ended up with a bloody 50 man conscript unit tarpitting the crap out of my DC with a commisar who stayed out of LOS behind a terrain piece giving them stubborn.
That was just stupid...
IMO, Stubborn = better than the old fearless...
-
Well, your opponent cheated, intentionally or not. A Commissar has to join a unit for them to become Stubborn, though the Lord can bestow his Leadership onto a nearby unit. So, in other words, the only way for those Conscripts to become stubborn is for the Lord to join them, and the Lord is an Indy Character. Of course, there is Special Characters.
-
Yes, that new special commisar (commisar Chenkov, I believe) hided out with another unit of 20 conscripts behind a wall...
Twas annoying, but I still managed to pull a draw...
-
Yes, that new special commisar (commisar Chenkov, I believe) hided out with another unit of 20 conscripts behind a wall...
Twas annoying, but I still managed to pull a draw...
AH, Yes, Chenkov does transfer stubborn onto units in a 12" radius. But to clarify, he's not a Commissar, he's an officer. Though you friend may have just proxied him withe a Commissar.
-
In relation to pinning, my scouts never do squat with that. however, my ork friend (who hates to think like an ork . . . is this heresy?) uses 10 strong mobs, and as long as you pour enough dakka into something, it can fall back (Or in his case, lose a quarter of his army from a dread, scouts and a tac squad in 2 turns.)
Leadership is still a key part, or you lot are facing lots of fearless stuff.
-
Yes, that new special commisar (commisar Chenkov, I believe) hided out with another unit of 20 conscripts behind a wall...
Twas annoying, but I still managed to pull a draw...
AH, Yes, Chenkov does transfer stubborn onto units in a 12" radius. But to clarify, he's not a Commissar, he's an officer. Though you friend may have just proxied him withe a Commissar.
Could be, I dunno, I just gave a quick glance over his list and saw a weird special character and a bunch of conscripts.
-
Wouldn't weedy stubborn units like conscripts with poor leadership still fail their morale checks (eventually) when they get pwned by death company in hand-to-hand combat? There's only a 58% chance to pass LD7 (and LD6 and LD5 only have 42 and 28% chances of success, respectively).
-
Wouldn't weedy stubborn units like conscripts with poor leadership still fail their morale checks (eventually) when they get pwned by death company in hand-to-hand combat? There's only a 58% chance to pass LD7 (and LD6 and LD5 only have 42 and 28% chances of success, respectively).
Ah yes, Concsripts have Leadership 5. But the problem is that a Commissar provides Leadership 10 over them. And then you get the re-roll. In the end you're more likely to just kill them all then sap their morale.
-
Wouldn't weedy stubborn units like conscripts with poor leadership still fail their morale checks (eventually) when they get pwned by death company in hand-to-hand combat? There's only a 58% chance to pass LD7 (and LD6 and LD5 only have 42 and 28% chances of success, respectively).
Ah yes, Concsripts have Leadership 5. But the problem is that a Commissar provides Leadership 10 over them. And then you get the re-roll. In the end you're more likely to just kill them all then sap their morale.
Regular Comissars are only LD8 now, not LD10. The Lord could get them to 10, and Chenkov give them Stubborn, all without putting a vulnerable IC into combat, but such a setup is expensive, does no damage and is a one-trick pony to boot. Regular Comissars can't be put into Conscript squads, IIRC, so the only way to actually do this is to spend over 300 points on it, which is far from broken.
-
Regular Commissars are Leadership 9, but your point stands.
-
You could bring Yarrick. He gives his LD to units within 6 and makes them Stubborn. Much cheaper and Yarrick is pretty decent in hand to hand, too.
-
He just used a lord commisar + chenkov (especially that "send in the dogs" ability he now has...).
As for yarrik, that sounds good, I'll recmomend it to mu opponent.