Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i'm tired of leadership and morale resulting in losing me bodies. it's stupid, especially with marines who 'shall know no fear' and orks who just simply like to fight.

i want to go back to some sort of pinning type mechanic where it prevents/limits movement or debuffs WS/BS. it punishes a unit that fails leadership tests, but doesn't kill any models

i think this will also help the lethality issue in the game, in a 5 man unit losing 3 to shooting is likely to lose the last two to morale failures for a lot of armies.

Link to comment
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/377896-leadership-should-be-reworked/
Share on other sites

Losing models to a failed morale check isn't an issue at all. Losing models from a unit that got nuked to the point of being useless before it got to do anything is the issue. Leadership doesn't need to change, the Morale Phase should have Apocalypse casualty phase added into it.

  • successful wounds in round add wound marker to target unit
  • make saves equal to markers
  • take morale for anything left

There we go. Your unit now has a chance to do something in a full battle round, and lethality stays where it is. Everyone wins.

of course this is only a quick idea, I'd need more time to come up with a proper working system.

Edited by Cpt_Reaper

Its annoying that too many models and units just ignore morale, like nids, single entities, small units, etc etc

 

Its certainly a phase I wouldn't miss if it got the axe. 

 

Or a rework so everyone is effected rather than just the select few:yes:

 

 

Leadership does need to be reworked.

 

Failed leadership checks should be more common, and the effect needs to manifest differently for factions based in thematic differences.

 

Guard, Eldar, Votann, Tau etc could flee if they fail a check. Further checks with potential modifiers could allow them to rally again. 

 

Nids, Astarted, Custodes etc could be pinned in place, unable to act.

 

Daemons would vanish. Orks would suffer casualties due to a Nob bashing heads, etc

 

They could even be more granular or bespoke.

I mean, at this point leadership is a meaningless mechanic really. Back in the ol' days (read 4th edition for myself, not sure how far back for others), leadership tests were a lot more...odd.

 

First, any unit that suffered 25% of its unit count (can't remember if it was starting count or current...) had to take a check at the end of the phase. Any unit that failed would immediately begin moving 2D6" towards your table edge. Start of your turn, you could attempt to rally IF the unit was above 50% strength and didn't have an enemy unit within 6" of it, rallying was just another check (which by the way, I forgot to mention is 2D6, roll equal to or lower than your LD to pass) however if you failed or couldn't rally because of the above then you continued moving 2D6" towards table edge which if the unit touched said table edge it was immediately removed from the game.

Comically however, 2 sides to this: this made it incredibly gamey because you could literally have in theory a single grot escort an entire squad of guardsman off the board and never need to worry about them. I do believe this fall-back movement also denied any shooting. Which was also a thing, rallying meant you couldn't do anything else. However even back then, there was so many ways to ignore leadership or just bypass all this it was pointless. Space Marines notably ignored ALL of the rallying rules and just auto-rally on the next check, regardless of unit strength, enemies nearby and could even still do stuff normally.

Lets not get into how this all worked with melee...because that was a thing too (which involved Initiative, another now extinct stat).

 

No matter what edition you may of played, each edition you could actually not read the leadership rules and likely not even encounter them in so many games. At this point I would actually advocate for removing Ld as a stat entirely and not bothering with morale as a CORE gimmick, instead giving it over to armies that are known for it instead. Night Lords gaining means of dealing mortal wounds due to enemies breaking down from the sheer fear instilled in them, Raven Guard causing losses as units panic fire at shadows that were team-mates. It really is a mechanic that when it happens 9/10 times the outcome is "and due to having lost 9 out of 10 gaurdsman, there is no hope for bob here to pass the check unless I burn 2CP which I won't do unless he is holding an objective" or "well I lost 3 dudes but since I am leadership 8 and my bonus is I lose 1 less model to leadership checks, I can't really fail the check and thus I will only roll if you have a secondary that checks for failed leadership".

 

Another issue is armies that are MEANT to do it are doing it at expense of things that would do what morale does but more directly and reliably. Seriously, you are banking on your enemy failing a check so you can AT BEST cause 1/3 of the unit to run. Know what else wipes out 1/3 of a unit? In fact it does more than 1/3: actual rules that do damage! It is a case of elbows and rears here. Sure you can theory up (which I have...because I really WANTED to try it) but ultimately it isn't worth the effort. Sure, its funny in theory to have a reiver lieutenant run around causing enemy units to lose something like 4 leadership but why burn relics, traits and unit choice on that when you could have a Smash Captain?

 

Redundant mechanic that needs to be moved out of core rules and instead turned into something that represents a factions abilities at it. I would LOVE to see more abilities that disrupt Stratagems, CPs and reserves, representing a factions terror tactics causing even the more stout to falter. Imagine the ability to DENY the Insane Bravery...not sure brave when you just watched that 8 foot power armoured monster carve up your sergeant from foot to head slowly, making sure to record his screams before replaying them from his vox grill mixed with his laughter.

 

Look, I really want some proper terror mechanics in 40k ok...I really WANT something that makes Khorne Worshippers and Slannesh devouts have a "stops heretical doings" moment and call time out, even by their standards. And Night Lords get done dirty...not even a heretic proper myself, starting up some world eaters and I think Night Lords got done dirty.

-kicks over table while grumbling- and Kurze was a good guy...he didn't do anything wrong...just misunderstood...-slams door-...but noooo...all about magnus...freak of nature cyclops!

At this point I think the morale phase should just go. It doesn’t serve any clear purpose. It’s not immersive, it doesn’t make the game more fun, it doesn’t improve balance and the effect is very abstract.

 

I don’t think even GW have a clear idea what they want morale to be used for. Plus so many things in 40K are literally immune to fear that you’re never going to get a system that fits everyone from guard to Custodes.

Morale seems to follow a pretty standard cycle in 40K:

 

- “The new morale system will have consequences for all units and be a huge part of the game!”

 

- “This unit is so dedicated to its cause, it  is immune to the effects of morale!”

 

- “This army is so bloodthirsty, it’s immune to the effects of morale!”

 

- “The new morale system will have consequences for all units and be a huge part of the game!”

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i'm tired of leadership and morale resulting in losing me bodies. it's stupid, especially with marines who 'shall know no fear' and orks who just simply like to fight.

 

Leadership/Morale has always had the potential to cost you models though; in various editions (and WFB) units could rout and then just keep fleeing towards the table edge which if they reached, you just lost the whole unit (equally they could be run down by pursing attackers and wiped out). Equally ATSKNF didn't make Marines immune to failing leadership tests, it just allowed them to auto-pass their regroup check.

 

Losing models to a failed morale check in general isn't an issue, it's that the system we have now is overly simplistic and has this as the only possible outcome. I would like to see things like fleeing and Fear/Terror again, but no doubt someone will pop up to tell me that's just pointless bloat.

As others have pointed out, morale in 40k suffers from "morale is a thing" and yet "everyone is awesome and morale isn't really a thing...unless maybe you are guard...maybe". 


I'd rather it go away completely or keep it's basic function but each army has different consequences for failing it as apposed to the generic "model flees" for everyone. In which case, this can only be pulled off if GW actually sticks to something reasonable. A custode may never flee, but at least the mechanic makes the opponent feel like it actually means something if it at least does SOMETHING, be it a temporary stat modifier or whatnot. 

 

7 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

Any unit that failed would immediately begin moving 2D6" towards your table edge. Start of your turn, you could attempt to rally IF the unit was above 50% strength and didn't have an enemy unit within 6" of it, rallying was just another check (which by the way, I forgot to mention is 2D6, roll equal to or lower than your LD to pass) however if you failed or couldn't rally because of the above then you continued moving 2D6" towards table edge which if the unit touched said table edge it was immediately removed from the game.

 

 

Which was hilarious in concept but in reality any unit that could never pass would just get removed.

 

Either way it was more engaging than just pick up an extra model as casualty.

Leadership suffers from being hard to make fun. It might be fun to force your foe to run screaming but it's not fun to loose control of your models or roll a bunch of dice trying to recall who got punched when and calculating fractions for the off chance of getting to play with less models. Over all handing an entire game phase and stat to the present 40k psych system feels like a hangover from previous editions, not an integral part of what makes the game fun. 

 

I say cut it. Not worth the headache. Give scary units a special rule that interacts with a different pase and let leadership as a stat and phase fall away. Rules should make the game better not worse

i don't think leadership should be completely scrapped, i think it can be used to create an engaging mechanic that adds something to the game.
but if it's the current mechanic or nothing, i would choose nothing.

16 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

At this point I would actually advocate for removing Ld as a stat entirely and not bothering with morale as a CORE gimmick, instead giving it over to armies that are known for it instead. Night Lords gaining means of dealing mortal wounds due to enemies breaking down from the sheer fear instilled in them, Raven Guard causing losses as units panic fire at shadows that were team-mates.

 

I mean no personal attack in this, but God-Emperor I hate this idea. Removing stats and turning mechanics into just yet another source of mortal wounds is the antithesis of where I want the game to go.

Ld, as well as in former Eds other psychological rules transposed from WFB mechanics, is not working quite well.

It is a kind of  pity as it really gives another dmension to the game: it can be used to design specific typologies of armies using it as a backbone for designing their rules and strategies. It is a way to give more granulometry to the game and works on another rule axis that is both characterful and specific. As such it opens opportunities for new armies archetypes if properly used. The issue is that is has never been well balanced or correctly integrated in the game mechanics IMHO

 

I frankly do not know if it should be better reworked or axed down. My hearth say rework it and give some depth but my mind say "kill it!". In the ed, we have enough armies archetypes that currently DO NOT work with the rules established, so why add another dimension that will make the things even worse for structural rule designing and revision processes issues?

 

Well I realize that I am in favour of axing it down finally...

If you want morale to be a full part of the game, it has to be a core part of the game and not something tacked on afterwards.

 

A good example is Bolt Action - in that Leadership is generally high, but units that take fire get pinning tokens and then when they come to act they have to pass a morale check to act or are instead suppressed. 

 

In a 40k context, I'd see that as increasing LD across the board (so Marines are Ld9 while the sgt is alive) but then any time a unit is hit by shooting it takes a Ld test, if passes nothing happens, if failed it takes a pin token, in your own turn you take a Ld test for every unit with pin tokens (at Ld if you have one token, then decreasing by modifiers as you add up tokens), if you fail the Ld test the unit then is 'suppressed', I'd probably say half it's move, it can't charge and it can only shoot at the nearest visible target, maybe at a -1 mod) OR it can 'go down' and do nothing but remove d6 tokens - if you pass then you remove d6 tokens for free and act normally. 

 

It's a lot of book keeping, it works better in smaller games with fewer untis and I wouldn't want to play 40k bigger than 1500 points with it - but that's what an interesting Ld mechanic looks like to me.

Edited by Cleon
5 hours ago, Cleon said:

If you want morale to be a full part of the game, it has to be a core part of the game and not something tacked on afterwards.

 

A good example is Bolt Action - in that Leadership is generally high, but units that take fire get pinning tokens and then when they come to act they have to pass a morale check to act or are instead suppressed. 

 

In a 40k context, I'd see that as increasing LD across the board (so Marines are Ld9 while the sgt is alive) but then any time a unit is hit by shooting it takes a Ld test, if passes nothing happens, if failed it takes a pin token, in your own turn you take a Ld test for every unit with pin tokens (at Ld if you have one token, then decreasing by modifiers as you add up tokens), if you fail the Ld test the unit then is 'suppressed', I'd probably say half it's move, it can't charge and it can only shoot at the nearest visible target, maybe at a -1 mod) OR it can 'go down' and do nothing but remove d6 tokens - if you pass then you remove d6 tokens for free and act normally. 

 

It's a lot of book keeping, it works better in smaller games with fewer untis and I wouldn't want to play 40k bigger than 1500 points with it - but that's what an interesting Ld mechanic looks like to me.

I definitely think some sort of pinning/suppression mechanic based on leadership.

like full pin-can’t do anything if in cover, if not in cover must move to the nearest cover.

half pin-can move with a -1” to movement

partial pin- -1 to hit in shooting

 

rename those things as necessary but I think that could make games a lot more interesting.

5 hours ago, Cleon said:

any time a unit is hit by shooting it takes a Ld test, if passes nothing happens, if failed it takes a pin token, in your own turn you take a Ld test for every unit with pin tokens (at Ld if you have one token, then decreasing by modifiers as you add up tokens), if you fail the Ld test the unit then is 'suppressed', I'd probably say half it's move, it can't charge and it can only shoot at the nearest visible target, maybe at a -1 mod) OR it can 'go down' and do nothing but remove d6 tokens - if you pass then you remove d6 tokens for free and act normally. 

 

Decent!

 

I think part of the current issue is that it presents 'members routing off' as the only thing that really happens to impact a unit. It's like 'when things get bad, they get really bad' instead of having suppression/neutralization effects that may happen even if no-one in the unit actually dies.

 

Personally I'd keep the current Ld mechanic pretty much as-is, because for all the folks saying it's not a big deal, I think it's just inconsistently used. If your squad loses 3/4 people, you kind of are 'combat ineffective' and escorting a wounded pal to the rear is perfectly reasonable.

 

But I would add a suppression mechanic based on 'number of units that shot at your unit' and make it impact ALL units, including vehicles/monsters. I don't think we need to add a separate pinning check for each incoming unit's shooting, it should be 'every unit gains 1 suppression point per unit that targeted it with all weapons in each phase'. This means we haven't added any dice rolls yet, just a marker system. It also makes people have to choose to use the suppression effect OR split fire / attacks; no splitting fire on 10 lasguns to drop suppression on 10 different units.

 

After that, I think you just roll equal to or under than your Ld minus number of markers in the Morale phase, and if you fail become 'suppressed' for -1 to hit in shooting and melee for both players' next turns, and may not fall back, advance, charge, or use any universal stratagems. Double 1s always succeeds, unless the number of markers equals or exceeds your Ld value, where you'd automatically fail.

 

Note that I'd probably call it a '-1 to hit' instead of stat de-buff so it doesn't stack with other -1 modifiers, but it potentially gives every army some 'no Overwatch', 'no Fall back' and general effectiveness de-buffs that could take the edge off the game's current... substantial lethality.

 

Final step may be to add '+1 Suppressing' to Blast? And add some Unit Type-specific suppression... So any unit with Sniper also gets '+1 Suppression marker vs. Infantry', any with Arc/Haywire gets +1 vs. vehicles, Grav vs. 3+ Sv or better, even Poison could get +1 vs anything but vehicles.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

The various suggestions for making morale meaningful all seem to be adding a lot of bookkeeping and/or rules bloat just to make it work and for a pretty marginal change. I’m not sure how any of this makes the game better or more fun? 
 

Other games like bolt action also use it for an immersion factor because the armies they’re dealing with are human. In 40K it’s actually immersion breaking that a unit of Nids wouldn’t charge if they were compelled by a synapse creature or would flee the battle. Likewise, a unit of berserkers would never care about being pinned.
 

The very notion of morale is so at odds with the lore of many of the 40K factions that I don’t think it can really work as a mechanic. I know the armies can’t be 100% true to the background or we’d have a single tactical marine effortlessly slaughtering dozens of GEQ, but some effort does need to be made to ensure the army on the table feels like it should according to the background and the idea of running away, being pinned, ignoring the mission to escort a wounded comrade off the field etc definitely doesn’t align with that for several factions.

Yeah the more we talk about it, the more it just seems morale should be cut from the game completely.

 

id keep the LD stat and repurpose it towards litanies and psychic powers, etc.

 

so instead of a chaplain’s datasheet saying litanies work on a 3+ in a special blurb at the bottom of the page, just make the LD stat read 3+
 

or the litany/power requires X result to be successful you roll 1D6 add the result to the LD and that decides if it’s successful.

 

so you could have powerful psykers with a 6LD meaning any power 6 or under is automatically successful barring any opponent debuffs in effect.

and it allows a wide variety of power levels for litanies/powers/orders/etc.

 

up to 12 or 13, with relics or strats that can buff or debuff LD some very powerful options could have a -1 built in.

like an absolute nuke of a power could require 12 with a built in -1, meaning you’d need a LD6 psyker with a relic or a strat to even have a hope of being successful.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven

Morale stat ranges from 3-6

Upon check:

roll 2d6, roll equal to or under the number.

Pass 2d6, unit holds.

Pass 1d6, unit is pinned.

Pass 0d6, unit runs towards deployment edge of board. 

Edited by Arkangilos

I'm of the opinion Leadership/morale needs to stay somehow, and if that means severely redesigning the game and walking back some of the decisions made over 8th and 9th then so be it. The game has become far too lethal and far too simplistic in all the wrong ways, having devolved into a "roll to delete units" exercise, and making morale actually matter again would certainly be a good step in the right direction as far as making the game a bit more strategic.

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

I'm of the opinion Leadership/morale needs to stay somehow, and if that means severely redesigning the game and walking back some of the decisions made over 8th and 9th then so be it. The game has become far too lethal and far too simplistic in all the wrong ways, having devolved into a "roll to delete units" exercise, and making morale actually matter again would certainly be a good step in the right direction as far as making the game a bit more strategic.

However as noted previously a lot of morale effects just don’t make much sense for a lot of armies.

i understand game will never remotely reflect lore accurately but there should be some attempt to reflect lore at least a little bit, and a marine who shall know no fear should never run away, while a guardsmen or grot should be fairly easy to make run away. Simply put morale should only effect a few factions, but that’s just not fair, so morale should go away. 
my proposal however makes the LD stat actually represent the amount of leadership a unit actually has.

Decloaking to post:

 

What about turning morale on it's head - it's not something that's in the core phases of a game, and is for everyone but something certain armies need to use to do certain things. 

 

So need your guardsmen to charge a unit, you need to pass a morale test, bonus if the commissar is near by etc. Maybe if it fails the unit still activates but suffers -1 to hit or similar. That stops the army being to swingy as to whether it actually does what it's told. Scary enemy nearby, Greater daemon etc - take a leadership penalty.

 

Apply that to Grots - is the Runtherd about?

 

Marines, Custodes etc, they don't care and it's not something they use.

 

 

On 3/15/2023 at 5:15 PM, Emperor Ming said:

Or just drop morale completely.

 

It would speed up the game slightly as well:yes:

 

Removing movement and shooting would speed up the game too. Maybe 10th edition is just "set up your collection of minis then do rock paper scissors - the loser must pack up their collection first". Saves loads of time and we can just go to the pub.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.