leadership should be reworked

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

18 minutes ago, SirTainly said:

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.

 

 

That just makes the effected armies more swingy, and handicaps those armies against those that aren’t effected.

3 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

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.

What does the morale phase add to the game? It’s just another random pointless opportunity to pack up more of your models.

[Halandaar]

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What does the morale phase add to the game? It’s just another random pointless opportunity to pack up more of your models.

 

Same could be said of the shooting phase, assault phase, psychic phase. My point is that just because something doesn't work well in it's current iteration, doesn't mean it should be scrapped altogether. Seems like the least imaginative solution possible.

[Valkyrion]

Depending on how objective focused 10th edition is going to be, and the potential Arks FOC/detachment system, you could remove ObSec as a rule and make whoever is contesting an objective take a Leadership test - if they fail they no longer contest that objective. 

+2 to a units Leadership if it is at full strength, +1 to a units Leadership if it is above half strength, -1 to a units Leadership if it is half strength or under, -2 if it is last man standing.  This way horde units still matter and have an advantage over the lone space marine or whatever. 

 

You could then make certain things that are supposed to be scary have a rule that enemy models are always considered under half strength, or something that resembles Fearless etc. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

Depending on how objective focused 10th edition is going to be, and the potential Arks FOC/detachment system, you could remove ObSec as a rule and make whoever is contesting an objective take a Leadership test - if they fail they no longer contest that objective. 

+2 to a units Leadership if it is at full strength, +1 to a units Leadership if it is above half strength, -1 to a units Leadership if it is half strength or under, -2 if it is last man standing.  This way horde units still matter and have an advantage over the lone space marine or whatever. 

 

You could then make certain things that are supposed to be scary have a rule that enemy models are always considered under half strength, or something that resembles Fearless etc. 

but would horde armies still be competitive? Likely lower LD, and one intercessor sgt can easily account for 2 marines in combat. The other 4 intercessors should be able to account for 2-3 more, not to mention assault intercessors getting more attacks.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Same could be said of the shooting phase, assault phase, psychic phase. My point is that just because something doesn't work well in it's current iteration, doesn't mean it should be scrapped altogether. Seems like the least imaginative solution possible.

No the same can’t be said.

the fighting portion of the game adds something to the game.

 

randomly losing models because you already lost models adds absolutely nothing to the game, and making the game reflect lord makes it completely unfair for many armies.

 

i notice you didn’t defend maintaining a morale phase and did the juvenile “no you!” Response.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jaxom]

54 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What does the morale phase add to the game?

I think a different way to phrase it may be more useful, "What systems within the game does Morale interact with?" 8/9ed it interacts with the Casualty mechanics. Prior editions it interacted with Movement and Shooting mechanics. The former is straightforward, easy to handle on the tabletop, but it seems like many here think it is too "stupid" or abstract. The latter was not always straightforward, took more time to resolve, and more simulationist. In both cases, many armies had work-arounds which minimize their impact. A Morale mechanic would then need to work within the context of all factions, even those that are fearless/hive-minded/mob'ed up, etc.

 

At that point we're back to the big question,  "What systems within the game does Morale interact with?" A penalty to hit rolls? Not being able to use strats and/or benefit from auras and other buffing rules? Etc.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

21 minutes ago, jaxom said:

I think a different way to phrase it may be more useful, "What systems within the game does Morale interact with?" 8/9ed it interacts with the Casualty mechanics. Prior editions it interacted with Movement and Shooting mechanics. The former is straightforward, easy to handle on the tabletop, but it seems like many here think it is too "stupid" or abstract. The latter was not always straightforward, took more time to resolve, and more simulationist. In both cases, many armies had work-arounds which minimize their impact. A Morale mechanic would then need to work within the context of all factions, even those that are fearless/hive-minded/mob'ed up, etc.

 

At that point we're back to the big question,  "What systems within the game does Morale interact with?" A penalty to hit rolls? Not being able to use strats and/or benefit from auras and other buffing rules? Etc.

Nope I’m fine with the phrasing I used.

people don’t like morale interacting with movement or shooting phases, people don’t like it interacting with casualties, and in both scenarios there’s plenty of armies that should be immune to it.

it also is that only stat that is there to harm you, with no benefit provided. Where’s the flip side? Like where is the representation of acts like those of micheal Murphy’s during operation red wings? Sure he died but he died taking a heroic risk that benefitted his unit tactically.

[Halandaar]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

randomly losing models because you already lost models adds absolutely nothing to the game, and making the game reflect lord makes it completely unfair for many armies.

 

It's not random though; losing models in the morale phase is an abstraction of individual troops fleeing the battle when their comrades die; that's as much a real part of war as losing troops to injury or death. Actions designed specifically to affect the morale of enemy combatants is a branch of warfare in it's own right, there's no reason it can't have a place in the game. After all, how can a Commissar enact the iconic execution of deserters if nobody is running?

 

As it stands I think the way that 40k treats morale isn't particularly fun or interactive, but that doesn't mean I think removing the morale phase outright is necessarily the solution. To be honest I think the idea of being able to remove enemy models in the morale phase without having actually damaged them at all via shooting or melee (hello Night Lords) would be extremely cool if executed right.

 

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

 

It's not random though; losing models in the morale phase is an abstraction of individual troops fleeing the battle when their comrades die; that's as much a real part of war as losing troops to injury or death. Actions designed specifically to affect the morale of enemy combatants is a branch of warfare in it's own right, there's no reason it can't have a place in the game. After all, how can a Commissar enact the iconic execution of deserters if nobody is running?

 

As it stands I think the way that 40k treats morale isn't particularly fun or interactive, but that doesn't mean I think removing the morale phase outright is necessarily the solution. To be honest I think the idea of being able to remove enemy models in the morale phase without having actually damaged them at all via shooting or melee (hello Night Lords) would be extremely cool if executed right.

 

 

 

 

Sure it’s an abstraction of that, yet that’s not supposed to happen at all/makes no sense with several factions. 
These abstractions either don’t make sense for many factions, by removing it for those so it makes sense, it becomes extremely unfair to the other factions.

 

the question isn’t what does it represent, the question is what does it add to the game by being here? What is lost by removing it? What is gained by removing it?

 

i don’t see what it adds to the game aside from feel bad moments.

by removing the phase/mechanic it saves time, shortening the game, players get to keep more models on the table.

 

so let’s compare scores

keep:0

remove:1

remove wins.

 

edit

if morale checks are an abstraction of people running away, why no abstraction of good morale resulting in positive benefits? Why no abstraction of acts of insane bravery that result in a buff? Why no way for those who ran away to rally and return to the battlefield?

Edited March 16, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

it also is that only stat that is there to harm you, with no benefit provided. Where’s the flip side? Like where is the representation of acts like those of micheal Murphy’s during operation red wings?

Something along the lines of auras (and anything like them or representative of things like) requiring a Leadership check to activate or benefit from?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

30 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Something along the lines of auras (and anything like them or representative of things like) requiring a Leadership check to activate or benefit from?

That’s some thing that I suggested earlier, but I’m talking about the morale phase and the concept of morale.

[chapter master 454]

Morale only works if it adds decision making. Possibly having the older style of morale where instead of losing models you lose position (the unit runs their movement +D6" towards their own table edge), however we would need to make sure not every army can abuse this for bonus movement or at the very least make this mechanic something that means that units you were expecting to take an objective can't because of breaking. This would at least mean morale matters as now that one grot you wanted to hold an objective is now running for the hills. 

 

This would could be added to for melee where a unit panicking may attempt to fall back in their movement phase (or must attempt to) but due to confusion, the opponent would get the option to try and prevent it (if they want to, they opt to allow it fully). This would now mean breaking a unit would give charging units a bit more staying power than that one turtle meme from Kung-Fu panda (-enemy unit falls back to allow gunline to fire on my melee unit- "my time has come"). Breaking a unit with gunfire forcing them to abandon their position or maybe even refuse to leave it could be interesting.

Concepts of Sniper weapons pinning could be used to cause units to dart for pieces of terrain for cover (units who fail a pinning check move towards the nearest piece of terrain visible to them) or weapons like Flamers and Grenades having a "disperse" check where units that fail such checks will fall back out of the terrain piece towards their own table edge. Units that move because of these effects would count as having moved during their own movement phase already and depending on the effects of the weapon you used, may or may not want to fire back. Could add another layer to why having flamers as a charge deterrent could be useful (Units with Disperse check rules may invoke a penalty to charging or even call for a charge check in the first place: do YOU want to charge into a flamer?)

 

However I suppose the question becomes how many mechanics do you want in the game? And where do we draw the line at "that's good enough representing the concept" and "this does the square root of nothing".

One side likes their game to be simpler, some prefer it with more rules (like me, so we are clear on where I sit on the fence, not going to hide any bias here. I want rules).

[Schlitzaf]

its important to remember, certain armies that horde up, have immunity to leadership because of how strong the mechanic is. And its part of their gameplay and by extension counterplay is removing the immunity enables to break the army. 

[Orange Knight]

Leadership and morale play such an important part of combat in real life - I really do hope they do more with it in the next edition.

 

It needs to be a mechanic that has impact in every turn. It can even reduce the lethality of the game if handled correctly. 

 

People are worried about their units reaching a shameful end by running off the board or refusing to engage due to being pinned, but we shouldn't think this way if all armies are affected.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Orange Knight

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Leadership and morale play such an important part of combat in real life - I really do hope they do more with it in the next edition.

 

It needs to be a mechanic that has impact in every turn. It can even reduce the lethality of the game if handled correctly. 

 

People are worried about their units reaching a shameful end by running off the board or refusing to engage due to being pinned, but we shouldn't think this way if all armies are affected.

but if they're 'running away' that makes the game more lethal

[MARK0SIAN]

13 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

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.

No, we want 10th DIFFERENT to 9th 

[Halandaar]

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

players get to keep more models on the table.

 

7 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

but if they're 'running away' that makes the game more lethal

 

You seem to think removing the morale phase would make it less lethal, but that only holds if you don't distribute the mechanics elsewhere. As has been stated before, older iterations of various Warhammer rulesets had units being destroyed if they were run down after breaking, or fleeing the table altogether, and neither of those things happened in a distinct morale phase, they were part of other phases. So you'd have to strip the entire concept of morale out of the game altogether. 

 

Even then, there are some units and/or armies that rely on interactions with morale for part of their power. If you remove that you have to make them more powerful somewhere else. That probably results in them having more damage output, and we're back where we started.

 

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Sure it’s an abstraction of that, yet that’s not supposed to happen at all/makes no sense with several factions. 
These abstractions either don’t make sense for many factions, by removing it for those so it makes sense, it becomes extremely unfair to the other factions.

 

I can't get on with this idea that mechanics that affect some factions more than others is "unfair", it feels like we're having the initiative discussion again. Why is it unfair that morale affects Guardsmen more than Astartes, but not unfair that the Marines are also stronger, tougher, hit more often, have more wounds and a better save? These attributes are priced in, when you pay for Guardsmen you're buying a unit that can and will lose models to morale failures. Similarly with Orks, you're buying a unit with a built-in means of mitigating those failures. (Whether or not they're priced appropriately is a different discussion.)

 

I mean, Is it also unfair that Tau, World Eaters and Black Templars can't properly participate in the Psychic phase? Just like weak morale and/or fearlessness, these things are part of  faction identity, not some arbitrary handicap that exists just to irritate you.

 

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i don’t see what it adds to the game aside from feel bad moments.

by removing the phase/mechanic it saves time, shortening the game, players get to keep more models on the table.

 

so let’s compare scores

keep:0

remove:1

remove wins.

 

edit

if morale checks are an abstraction of people running away, why no abstraction of good morale resulting in positive benefits? Why no abstraction of acts of insane bravery that result in a buff? Why no way for those who ran away to rally and return to the battlefield?

 

You might not see what it adds, I see that it adds a representation of battlefield desertion which is a real and relevant part of warfare. So +1 to keep, and models fleeing is no more a "feel bad" moment than them just dying outright, IMO. I mentioned it earlier, but giving certain units abilities that allow them to cause models to flee without actually damaging them (like Night Lords terror tactics or big gribblies just being that terrifying) could be really cool if correctly implemented.

 

As for why there are no positive leadership effects, I completely agree there should be some. The lack of them currently is not a case for ditching the morale phase, but a case for adding some positive leadership effects to enhance the morale phase. Effects that trigger on a passed leadership test would be good (could Guard orders or Tyranid synapse effects fit this category?), And equally I think there could be some instances where "good" morale effects can become a negative, like a mob of Orks being effectively unbreakable is good until you need them to pull back from a fight because that's the smart thing to do, and their herd mentality won't let them.

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

 

You seem to think removing the morale phase would make it less lethal, but that only holds if you don't distribute the mechanics elsewhere. As has been stated before, older iterations of various Warhammer rulesets had units being destroyed if they were run down after breaking, or fleeing the table altogether, and neither of those things happened in a distinct morale phase, they were part of other phases. So you'd have to strip the entire concept of morale out of the game altogether. 

 

Even then, there are some units and/or armies that rely on interactions with morale for part of their power. If you remove that you have to make them more powerful somewhere else. That probably results in them having more damage output, and we're back where we started.

 

 

I can't get on with this idea that mechanics that affect some factions more than others is "unfair", it feels like we're having the initiative discussion again. Why is it unfair that morale affects Guardsmen more than Astartes, but not unfair that the Marines are also stronger, tougher, hit more often, have more wounds and a better save? These attributes are priced in, when you pay for Guardsmen you're buying a unit that can and will lose models to morale failures. Similarly with Orks, you're buying a unit with a built-in means of mitigating those failures. (Whether or not they're priced appropriately is a different discussion.)

 

I mean, Is it also unfair that Tau, World Eaters and Black Templars can't properly participate in the Psychic phase? Just like weak morale and/or fearlessness, these things are part of  faction identity, not some arbitrary handicap that exists just to irritate you.

 

 

You might not see what it adds, I see that it adds a representation of battlefield desertion which is a real and relevant part of warfare. So +1 to keep, and models fleeing is no more a "feel bad" moment than them just dying outright, IMO. I mentioned it earlier, but giving certain units abilities that allow them to cause models to flee without actually damaging them (like Night Lords terror tactics or big gribblies just being that terrifying) could be really cool if correctly implemented.

 

As for why there are no positive leadership effects, I completely agree there should be some. The lack of them currently is not a case for ditching the morale phase, but a case for adding some positive leadership effects to enhance the morale phase. Effects that trigger on a passed leadership test would be good (could Guard orders or Tyranid synapse effects fit this category?), And equally I think there could be some instances where "good" morale effects can become a negative, like a mob of Orks being effectively unbreakable is good until you need them to pull back from a fight because that's the smart thing to do, and their herd mentality won't let them.

 

 

 

Correct me if I’m wrong but there’s never been a positive morale/Ld effect so I don’t realistically see it coming in 10th.

 

a squad not breaking doesn’t mean they can’t fall back, so there’s no negative there. There’s never a time in warfare that a unit breaking and fleeing in panic is a better option than that unit holding its ground and continuing to fight.

 

40k isn’t a simulation of real war so any arguments about what is present in real warfare are irrelevant. The current mechanic most certainly does add to the lethality because anything that removes models from the table piles onto the lethality of the game. Morale adds nothing to the game. If you want to simulate people running away you can simulate that with the wounds and removing models by saying “he didn’t die, he just ran away” while pulling your model off the table.

the wounds mechanic is extremely abstract, is a twisted ankle on a guardsmen enough to equal a wound? Is a 5” knife blade into a marine’s body enough to constitute a wound? Maybe wounds simply represent how combat effective a model is, and once they take too many owies they retreat from the field.

 

so far morale does not add anything to the game except for lethality and feel bad moments.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven