Psychic Awakening: Phoenix Rising

withershadow wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

withershadow wrote:

As it should be, no? The opponent gets to allocate wounds after you've finished shooting your unit. Are you suggesting you would force painstaking single dice rolling to game your way around that convention so you can force them to take the wounds you want? Kinda shady.

Wait, so you think following the rules is "shady"?

Just roll the dice and pick out the 6s. The opponent gets to pick per the rules. These endless histrionics of yours can’t be good for your health.

What.

Well, I went into this with low expectations, was momentarily pleasantly surprised, but ultimately ended up disappointed anyway.

I'll likely pick up Drazhar and the new Incubi when they're released individually, but with the Kabal traits being as fundamentally confounding as they are, I'm not going to dip into my ramen budget to buy the book.

amishprn86 wrote:

Oh i didnt know slashing didnt work on vehicles, i didnt see the "full" rule for it.

And yet, both rules effect Monsters with 10 or more wounds. 3+ wounding Agonizers is a fun thought, too. We are downright mean to Monsters.

I'm still a bit puzzled over the seemingly arbitrary separation of Berserk Fugue and Precision Killers. The model for these traits is the SM chapter traits. If that is taken for granted, Duelists (6 to hit auto wounds) and Whirwind of Rage (6 to hit causes 2 hits) can't be taken because they both have the same trigger with different effects. BUT, you can take either one and stack the Chaplain litany Exhortation of Rage, where a roll of 6 generates an additional attack. Now, compare that to how Precision Killers can be combined with the Precision Blows warlord trait so that a 6 to wound would add -1 to the AP, and generate a Mortal Wound. There's just no consistency.

I really, really want the Ld warfare traits to be viable. Trophy Takers in particular is crazy good when combined with PGLs. But, GW continues their weird tradition of disregarding a core rule that supposedly effects everyone. Between ATSKNF, Synapse, Stratagems and other tricks, Morale checks are a joke.

ATSKNF isn't even really that bad, if you ran a real moral shenanigans list a reroll won't save you from -5 moral. The real issue is if you're facing a marine player who's running loads of 5 mans, they won't care about moral, and on the other end of the spectrum a lot of armies with hordes like orks, nids etc. have really solid ways to pretty much ignore moral. The only real sweet spot for moral is going up against an army running some 10 mans which probably won't have the only lose one model to moral trait, but that's not just not a common enough matchup.

It's a little odd those 2 traits can't be combined, but wych cults do still have some other decent combinations.

The one army suffering from moral is necrons, unless they pick the only viable build with the fearless bubble warlord trait
and guard is weak against morale, esp if they field conscripts (which they dont)

Right I never see conscripts, and if you have a 10 man guardsmen squad down to 2-3 models and the last 2-3 flee, big whoop. Necron warrior blobs, yes it's an issue for them but then your opponent is probably running the fearless trait.

There is no reason to use conscripts after the 4 nerfs (sure 1 got un-nerf) Guardsmen with traits are just way to good for how cheap they are.

Regarding leadership, I think what we're really missing is weapons that target Ld instead of toughness.

Something like the Obsidian Orbs in 5th edition (if anyone remembers those), which were S9 or 10 but wounded against Ld.

Other ideas would be weapons that get extra damage and/or rerolls to wound against targets with Ld below a certain value.

Basically, weapons or abilities that would synergise with our various ways to inflict Ld penalties. That way, we can make use of them without having to force a morale check.

(I imagine Harlequins might like this sort of thing as well.)

I toyed with the idea that LD tests should be taken with ALL the models that have fled counted in, but that would punish elite armies more then the others
orks have Ld 20 most of the time, nids are fearless and so on

Leadership and morale in general is just an unnecessary mechanic. How many morale losses do you take in a game, generally? Maybe four, five models total? It's just such a negligible effect due to how it works in relation to unit size and the endless multitude of exceptions and special rules that renders it entirely impotent.

If leadership and morale were just done away with entirely, some factions would need some different special rules, some niche psychic tricks would vanish, and the game would be otherwise unaffected.

I mean I wouldn't be opposed to moral returning to how it use to work in previous editions, I thought that was fine. Plus for a game modeled on war, would feel odd to completely take out moral as a concept, despite its limited effect right now.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Regarding leadership, I think what we're really missing is weapons that target Ld instead of toughness.

Something like the Obsidian Orbs in 5th edition (if anyone remembers those), which were S9 or 10 but wounded against Ld.

Other ideas would be weapons that get extra damage and/or rerolls to wound against targets with Ld below a certain value.

Basically, weapons or abilities that would synergise with our various ways to inflict Ld penalties. That way, we can make use of them without having to force a morale check.

(I imagine Harlequins might like this sort of thing as well.)

Completely agree. The only thing right now that makes LD shenigan list work is the damage effects that tie into ld. Unfortunately for us it's craftworlds and harlequinns that have that, we've left out in the cold. Obsidian orbs returning or some other sort of weapon would be cool, and thematic for Drukhari.

TheBaconPope wrote:

Leadership and morale in general is just an unnecessary mechanic.

I don't know about it being unnecessary but it seems like a very difficult mechanic to get right.

In my experience, most morale systems tend to fall within one of two categories (possibly with some overlap):

1) Morale either does little to nothing. Basically, near enough everything has good leadership and/or other abilities (e.g. Fearless, ATSKNF etc.) that mean you could forget Morale is even a thing and probably not notice the difference. You've also got systems where Morale is just a win-more mechanic, as in it only works on units that are basically dead/screwed regardless.

2) Morale is ridiculously swingy and can see entire units deleted due to a single poor dice roll.

Amusingly, 8th edition fantasy managed to flit between the two categories. On the one hand, it had Steadfast, which basically made Morale completely irrelevant so long as you had a big enough unit. On the other hand, if something went wrong a fleeing unit could cause other nearby units to flee, potentially resulting in a chain reaction culminating in the rout of an entire army. I even saw this happen.


Anyway, my point is that (at least in my experience) Morale tends to be either weak to the point of serving no real purpose or else so swingy as to put the fate of a game on a single Ld roll. And I don't think either of these make for a fun game. The latter is not fun because no one wants to lose units (or a game) because of a dice roll they had no control over. Hell, outside of tournaments I doubt many people would want to win that way either. Having a useless morale system is probably the better of the two, but even that is hardly fun - especially when GW fills your army with crap that supposedly takes advantage of Morale but just ends up doing nothing 90% of the time.

I can certainly see why the 3rd edition of Warmachine/Hordes just removed Morale entirely.

I've apparently struck a nerve with the Ld warfare observation. Glad to see other people share my thoughts on this intentionally undermined mechanic. I'm as guilty as anyone undermining it. As mentioned, i'm frequently Cursed Blade, but also Obsidian Rose. Failure is not an Option is almost broken. The Darklight models are always the last to die, anyway. Select them as your models to potentially fall back, fire and kill something, avoid morale losses. A functional additional turn of shooting for the cost of 1 CP.

The other thing that frustrates me about Trophy Takers is that it is one of the few abilities that goes well with Beastmasters, a unit I struggle to not loath.

The current LD rules are helpful.. when clearing out certain horde units. For example, failed LD checks have allowed me to clear out max-size blobs of Pox-Walkers a lot quicker than I otherwise would be able to. However, most of the time, LD doesn't matter. It is sort of nice to be able to knock off those last couple of objective-sitting models that have objective-secured, though. Having even one of them sitting on an objective can sometimes cost the game.

Ld: as it stands it just slows down the game with mostly irrelevant math. Casually, my opponents and I often catch ourselves forgetting about it as we just roll on with the game. I don't even pester them when I catch a forgotten phase. Usually, when I'm focusing fire on a unit with the intent of forcing that morale check (because I cannot kill them outright) might I push the issue.

I'd vote that it get reworked entirely and would not bat an eye if it were removed completely.

The notion that "but it's a war game" doesn't really mean a lot to me. I've played a lot of games. I don't need this cumbersome element to convey the "realism" of space war 38,000 years into the future with alien bugs and ancient pseudo-living robots and violent fungal orks that make technology work with Peter Pan magic.

AzraeI wrote:

The one army suffering from moral is necrons, unless they pick the only viable build with the fearless bubble warlord trait
and guard is weak against morale, esp if they field conscripts (which they dont)

Not even, my other frequently played army is necrons, LD10 on literally everything means you care feth all about moral. That Necron warlord trait isn't even widely taken since warriors suck. You will see hyper-logical strategist and imotehk far more often.

LD as a mechanic in a small scale skirmish that is supposed to be occuring over a couple minutes shouldn't have moral. On the tabletop the game may last hours but if it were a real fire fight it would be a couple minutes. Moral is a better mechanic as an abstraction for massively scaled games across a larger map like Risk. Ironically Risk doesn't even have moral rules.

Red Corsair wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

The one army suffering from moral is necrons, unless they pick the only viable build with the fearless bubble warlord trait
and guard is weak against morale, esp if they field conscripts (which they dont)

Not even, my other frequently played army is necrons, LD10 on literally everything means you care feth all about moral. That Necron warlord trait isn't even widely taken since warriors suck. You will see hyper-logical strategist and imotehk far more often.

LD as a mechanic in a small scale skirmish that is supposed to be occuring over a couple minutes shouldn't have moral. On the tabletop the game may last hours but if it were a real fire fight it would be a couple minutes. Moral is a better mechanic as an abstraction for massively scaled games across a larger map like Risk. Ironically Risk doesn't even have moral rules.

and what happens if you lose 10 warriors in a blob of 20?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

2) Morale is ridiculously swingy and can see entire units deleted due to a single poor dice roll.

Amusingly, 8th edition fantasy managed to flit between the two categories. On the one hand, it had Steadfast, which basically made Morale completely irrelevant so long as you had a big enough unit. On the other hand, if something went wrong a fleeing unit could cause other nearby units to flee, potentially resulting in a chain reaction culminating in the rout of an entire army. I even saw this happen.

I can certainly see why the 3rd edition of Warmachine/Hordes just removed Morale entirely.

Yes, I witnessed a number of fantasy games end with a wave of routs. Also Undead disintegrating when the Necromancer gets pulped by a lucky first turn catapult. Good times.

I echo the Warmachine observations, as well. I played from release to 3rd, and with terror you could lose an entire unit's activation to a single leadership check, which could spell the end of the game.

False Son wrote:

I've apparently struck a nerve with the Ld warfare observation.  Glad to see other people share my thoughts on this intentionally undermined mechanic.  I'm as guilty as anyone undermining it.  As mentioned, i'm frequently Cursed Blade, but also Obsidian Rose.  Failure is not an Option is almost broken.  The Darklight models are always the last to die, anyway.  Select them as your models to potentially fall back, fire and kill something, avoid morale losses.  A functional additional turn of shooting for the cost of 1 CP.

The other thing that frustrates me about Trophy Takers is that it is one of the few abilities that goes well with Beastmasters, a unit I struggle to not loath.

Did you ever run into a situation where you went for Failure is not an Option, and failed to kill something thus losing special weapon dudes instead of grunts? As always blasters suffer from one missises, one fails to wound, the last rolls a 1 for damage disease, at least for me.

Shredders seemed to do better just due to potential volume of fire.

Also, Beastmasters and beasts only belong in Ynnari anyway.

I've run leadership shenanigans a few times, and I'll qualify my statement that I play a limited opponent pool and not very competitive (eg restricted to pure slaanesh but as strong as possible), but it's a fun way to play albeit challenging.

It plays psyker heavy, and you really just have to kill a few models a unit, and for several units, and it'll add up. You can also go heavy on two units, forcing the 2cp to be dropped on one.

I was kinda hoping for some more stuff in the new rules. The custom traits add to it but aren't particularly viable since a decent LD shenanigans list needs a CW detachment and a dark creed detachment.

Sent from Topic'it App

withershadow wrote:

Did you ever run into a situation where you went for Failure is not an Option, and failed to kill something thus losing special weapon dudes instead of grunts? As always blasters suffer from one missises, one fails to wound, the last rolls a 1 for damage disease, at least for me.

Shredders seemed to do better just due to potential volume of fire.

I want to love Shredders, especially Obsidian Rose Shredders.  They just fulfill a role I don't need.  I tend to take the much malighened Dark Lance with my two Blasters, so I can reliably kills at least one marine between the 3 shots and save myself.

Quote :

Also, Beastmasters and beasts only belong in Ynnari anyway.

Not terribly familiar with Ynnari.  Howe do they fit in there?

I have nothing against beasts.  I'm a big fan of Clawed Fiends bullying Primaris.  The Beastmaster is the worst unit in the Drukhari codex, IMO.  You have to buy it, the Beasts are dependent on it, the point cost is too high, there aren't enough equipment options, and it is super frail.

False Son wrote:

Not terribly familiar with Ynnari.  Howe do they fit in there?

I think it's just that Ynnari can actually buff them.

You've got stuff like Shield of Ynnead (which can give all nearby beasts a 5++), The Yncarne (who gives them a 6+++ and Fearless), Unbind Souls and/or Inevitable Fate (which give rerolls to wound in melee).

It's basically the same issue as before the Doom nerf - wherein Eldar Farseers were better at buffing our units than anything in our own codex. We have almost nothing that works on Beasts but Ynnari have psychic powers that work just fine.

AzraeI wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

The one army suffering from moral is necrons, unless they pick the only viable build with the fearless bubble warlord trait
and guard is weak against morale, esp if they field conscripts (which they dont)

Not even, my other frequently played army is necrons, LD10 on literally everything means you care feth all about moral. That Necron warlord trait isn't even widely taken since warriors suck. You will see hyper-logical strategist and imotehk far more often.

LD as a mechanic in a small scale skirmish that is supposed to be occuring over a couple minutes shouldn't have moral. On the tabletop the game may last hours but if it were a real fire fight it would be a couple minutes. Moral is a better mechanic as an abstraction for massively scaled games across a larger map like Risk. Ironically Risk doesn't even have moral rules.

and what happens if you lose 10 warriors in a blob of 20?

So you cherry picked the one unit, at it's max model count out of the entire book where moral could come up? Warriors suck. Nobody runs necron warriors over immortals unless they are playing a SUPER casual game. We are talking about serious applications for moral here, so I thinks it's a bit silly to start citing examples of things moral could apply to in a serious format. Necron warriors isn't that.

I have never seen a 20man warrior unit in 8th yet.

Red Corsair wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

The one army suffering from moral is necrons, unless they pick the only viable build with the fearless bubble warlord trait
and guard is weak against morale, esp if they field conscripts (which they dont)

Not even, my other frequently played army is necrons, LD10 on literally everything means you care feth all about moral. That Necron warlord trait isn't even widely taken since warriors suck. You will see hyper-logical strategist and imotehk far more often.

LD as a mechanic in a small scale skirmish that is supposed to be occuring over a couple minutes shouldn't have moral. On the tabletop the game may last hours but if it were a real fire fight it would be a couple minutes. Moral is a better mechanic as an abstraction for massively scaled games across a larger map like Risk. Ironically Risk doesn't even have moral rules.

and what happens if you lose 10 warriors in a blob of 20?

So you cherry picked the one unit, at it's max model count out of the entire book where moral could come up? Warriors suck. Nobody runs necron warriors over immortals unless they are playing a SUPER casual game. We are talking about serious applications for moral here, so I thinks it's a bit silly to start citing examples of things moral could apply to in a serious format. Necron warriors isn't that.

I "cherry picked" THE unit that defines the necron army, and we were comparing massive blobs of infantry, of which most of them ignore moral, but necrons, the one army that should be flat out fearless, doesnt.