Hi!
I dont think we should change the rules regarding moral because
1) It would severly weaken armies with poor morale. Orks & IG would
be worst off, but lets take another example; Eldar vs Squats.
Squats are really hard to break with their large formations and 75%
breakpoint, and when they do break they have a good morale score of 1
or 2. Eldar units are small, has 50% breakpoint and poorer moral.
With this rule, the eldar forces would most likely have fled the
battleground even before the squats where near their breaking point.
2) It would change "the feel of the game." I rather like the idea of
units taking heavy casualities but keep on fighting nonetheless. And
if they do flee, you get a fighting chance of rally them to claim
that last objective you need. Quite heroic and not so realistic, but
if want realism, I watch the news.
Please, lets not change this!
Eivind
--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, "Weasel Fierce" <septimus__at_h...> wrote:
>
> >suffers additional casualties beyond the turn it actually breaks. A
> >penalty is taken to the morale roll equal to the AMOUNT OF MODELS
LOST
> >THAT TURN.
>
> This would make low morale armies (like orks and IG) much too poor.
>
> Especially orks (when the bastards finally break) would be blasted
too badly
> since they have clan breakpoints
>
> "oh, 8 casualties beyond break point, and morale 4....too bad, now
you need
> to roll 12+ on 1d6"
>
> But I like the idea of a morale test in each turn a broken unit
takes
> casualties. After all, they are BROKEN, they have suffered enough
casualties
> to cease existing as an effective fighting unit
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
___
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
Received on Fri Jan 05 2001 - 14:33:40 UTC