Jump to content

Inspiring Presence - Bad for the game?


PJetski

Recommended Posts

I think one of the most confusing things about IP and its implementation is in Gloomspite Gitz; they generate tonnes of CP but don't have much to spend it on. I think this was designed for IP, but then they got their shrine which grants immunity. 

I would love to see 90% of free battleshock immune abilities  (not IP) removed or reworked. They take away from a phase and are given so easily and so commonly that it restricts creative rules that would focus on battleshock (like Nighthaunt). Especially as these immunities tend to be on hordes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Most people I talk with feel battleshock should be eliminated entirely because its a negative play experience when your models run away, and there are just so many ways to ignore it anyway that its kind of useless.

I believe battleshock is a bit broken in its current form, but it definitely has a place in the game.  Otherwise massive hordes would need to be killed to the man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IP is mostly ok, as it requires the use of a (scarce) resource. However, when combined with all the other battleshock immunity it's just too much. Pretty much every horde army is immune to battleshock, which renders it moot as a balancing mechanic and leads to the current meta where horde armies are much to powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

I believe battleshock is a bit broken in its current form, but it definitely has a place in the game.  Otherwise massive hordes would need to be killed to the man.  

A lot of times that is actually the case because GW baked in a lot of ways to circumvent the negative play experience that is running away.  It should just be removed altogether IMO if they are going to let it be used how it is used and easily bypassed.  There's little need for it in its current state.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand a bit on what I said earlier as well.  While I don't mind Inspiring Presence (because I'm still making my opponent lose something), I do think that sometimes battleshock immunity has too little counter play.  For example, I don't really mind the Loonshrines immunity bubble because it's a fixed location that I can play around (on most battleplans anyway).  I also don't really mind BoC's Herdstone because it's a fixed point; it does become more powerful over time, but that means you just have to hit them early.

What does bother me is stuff like the screaming bell for skaven.  It's a strong, mobile aura that you can't bring down without a lot of investment since it has protection from the horned rat.  I think mobile battleshock auras are fine, but they should have more counter-play options.  In the end that's what really matters to me, that there always be counter-play options.  I think battleshock would be too punishing and offer too little counterplay if Inspiring Presence didn't exist, but I also agree that some of the other methods for obtaining battleshock immunity can offer too little counterplay as well.  So, I wouldn't scrap the mechanic, just make sure that each army has to play around it to a reasonable extent.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also imo, models running away is hardly a negative play experience.  In my mind, that's like saying your models getting killed by your opponent is a negative play experience, or getting hit with a spell is a negative play experience.  If you can't do anything about your models running away, then you've played poorly.  That's just how wargaming works in my view.  

But, I love morale mechanics in wargames, so I am definitely biased.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, willange said:

To expand a bit on what I said earlier as well.  While I don't mind Inspiring Presence (because I'm still making my opponent lose something), I do think that sometimes battleshock immunity has too little counter play.  For example, I don't really mind the Loonshrines immunity bubble because it's a fixed location that I can play around (on most battleplans anyway).  I also don't really mind BoC's Herdstone because it's a fixed point; it does become more powerful over time, but that means you just have to hit them early.

What does bother me is stuff like the screaming bell for skaven.  It's a strong, mobile aura that you can't bring down without a lot of investment since it has protection from the horned rat.  I think mobile battleshock auras are fine, but they should have more counter-play options.  In the end that's what really matters to me, that there always be counter-play options.  I think battleshock would be too punishing and offer too little counterplay if Inspiring Presence didn't exist, but I also agree that some of the other methods for obtaining battleshock immunity can offer too little counterplay as well.  So, I wouldn't scrap the mechanic, just make sure that each army has to play around it to a reasonable extent.

So Inspiring Presence is just right, it's just the immunity that's bothersome if it's too hard to play around?

That's about what I think as well.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

A lot of times that is actually the case because GW baked in a lot of ways to circumvent the negative play experience that is running away.  It should just be removed altogether IMO if they are going to let it be used how it is used and easily bypassed.  There's little need for it in its current state.

I would rather they fix it rather than remove it altogether. 

 I do agree that having models run away creates a negative play experience to some extent. However, consider that having to kill 60 wound hordes off an objective is a much MUCH worse experience. Morale losses multiply the impact of good/bad decisions.

Morale in wargames is there for several reasons IMHO.

1- Realism -   Combatants in the middle ages rarely fought to the last man. Units on the losing end would almost always flee rather than fight to the death. 

2- Unit/Army Differentiation - In a game with this many units, it becomes hard to make them distinct. (see KOW). With a moral mechanic, veteran units can be made more brave than militia, and Demons and Ghosts can be terrifying to behold. 

3- Game Brevity - Morale losses help to end encounters, rather than have them drag out the entire game.  Individual combats should come to an end so the game can progress and end with a decisive outcome. (and in a reasonable amount of time).

 

 

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1- Realism -   Combatants in the middle ages rarely fought to the last man. Units on the losing end would almost always flee rather than fight to the death. 

I understand that, but games today aren't trying to simulate what combatants in the middle ages did.  Its a game and in the name of fun people prefer their guys not run away even if in real life they would.  Just like people don't care that hiding behind a tree but being able to see your forearm means you can be shot without penalty.

I think they need to fix the battleshock system in general.  I know in 40k morale doesn't mean anything there either, and I think thats just GW being GW.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game already has models with abilities and rules that can render HUGE hordes immune to battleshock tests. Buying in on the same ability at a cost does not seem unreasonable.

Kill the Heroes, negate IP.

-T10

Edited by T10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Most people I talk with feel battleshock should be eliminated entirely because its a negative play experience when your models run away, and there are just so many ways to ignore it anyway that its kind of useless.

 

23 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Deletion due to battleshock simply feels awful. Now a unit running off and needing a hero to chase after them sounds a lot better.

The list I build is largely immune to battleshock, because the mechanic as ruled in AoS is awful.

So does loosing any unit in combat in the first place; thats just part of the game.  What feels worse is having half the rules in your book, and an entire allegiance dedicated to that mechanic. I wouldn't be opposed to a rework of morale, but when quite a few abilities for factions are based around that mechanic, it would becomes even worse feeling when almost every army you encounter just shrugs them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radical rules, whatever the game, are always a problem. Auto hit, auto wound... auto charge... imagine if a Cp could fix any of these for any unit. Autopass is ridiculous in term of gameplay as in fluff. We see skavens and grot beeing as (more) resilient and brave as deamon and demigod. 

Horde rules are already a issue without bravery. But change an autopass for a +3 or +d6 or +general bravery for a CP or per Cp or whatever, would totally keep some aspect of IP viable without seeing a 60 grot just assuming everything is fine with losing 35 of them because some random 80pts dude saying so. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Its a game and in the name of fun people prefer their guys not run away even if in real life they would.

You don't like guys running away. This is literally a thread about how many people think Inspiring Presence (and other abilities) result in too few models are running away, so that's obviously not a universal opinion.

I definitely think psychology/moral should be part of the game, and the ease with which it can be ignored by many factions is a little lame. However, the battle shock mechanic itself is flawed, and there are some hammer units that can throw out insane damage that need Inspiring Presence as a bit of a counterbalance. Dropping Inspiring Presence would break the game. 

Edited by 18121812
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Undeadly said:

So does losing any unit in combat in the first place; thats just part of the game.  What feels worse is having half the rules in your book, and an entire allegiance dedicated to that mechanic. I wouldn't be opposed to a rework of morale, but when quite a few abilities for factions are based around that mechanic, it would becomes even worse feeling when almost every army you encounter just shrugs them off.

Losing a unit because it is dead is not as bad as losing one because it got scared, there are wounds, saves, rerolls and other ways it can be mitigated.

So why don't you target the ways immunity to battleshock can be gained without CP cost?

I would say that's a worse bit than effectively losing +1 to hit and wound for three units (for example) each turn to keep your units in the fight.

I'm not saying morale is fine as-is, quite the opposite. I'm just saying removing Inspiring Presence is not the answer, that would make armies that easily give immunity without point cost a massive buff (armies like Skaven and Gitz, you know, these classically brave ones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspiring presence is OK i think, 
It costs a CP and only does 1 unit and you have to be near a hero.  
I'm not against nerfing it a little bit .... perhaps make it +5 bravery instead of immune or have it only with X range of the general not any hero. But I don't think that's overly necessary. 

What I don't like is the multitude of ways most army can ignore battleshock. Either by having base 10 bravery across the board, or by having tons of immunity buffs. You can have inspiring presence.... 1 CP to ignore one BS test.... or you can have a screaming bell or verminlord warpseer who gives you 13" immune bubble for free or a 26" immune bubble for the same cost.  

There's a few faction terrain pieces that do the same thing. 

High wound low model count units also never care about battleshock, neither do heroes. I'm not too sure how I feel about that, but I think they should still have some very small risk of losing 1 more model or suffering a few extra wounds. 
I liked the old system where you compared combat resolution.... wounds + bonuses + ranks + whatever vs your opponents score. 
That way some tiny screening unit doesn't get to hold up a death star unit  because there's 1 guy left and they use a command point.    

Currently it also feels like high bravery is either significantly undervalued in certain units (especially screening units) or very overcosted.  

Ultimately there's tons of units where the bravery statistic doesn't even matter outside of a few special attacks like banshee and terrogheist screams. 
Either make it meaningful, or get rid of it.  

I also wouldn't be against reworks of the CP system.... some armies desperately need them, some don't... some generate stupid amounts other's don't. It makes abilities difficult to balance. 
I like the new generic command abilities from the GHB2019... reroll 1s for hits or saves. Still good buffs but they don't make anything automatic. 
 

Edited by Inquisitorsz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think wargames have evolved beyond what they used to be into something that they are right now.   Traditional wargame tropes seem to have died for the most part.

I wouldn't say that. For example Warlord games are doing well with very traditional wargames (over 26 000 likes on their facebook page). The field is very varied at the moment. Warhammer of both varieties is of course the Giant, but in it's feet there are more mice than ever. It might just be hard to see as the scenes are different.

I was recently organizing the largest gaming convention in Finland and when it used to be so back in the day, that there were 150 or so players playing in the Warhammer tournament (with FB and 40k alternating each year). We now have the same amount of players in tournaments, but there are 12+ different games.

Edited by Jamopower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Losing a unit because it is dead is not as bad as losing one because it got scared, there are wounds, saves, rerolls and other ways it can be mitigated.

So why don't you target the ways immunity to battleshock can be gained without CP cost?

I would say that's a worse bit than effectively losing +1 to hit and wound for three units (for example) each turn to keep your units in the fight.

I'm not saying morale is fine as-is, quite the opposite. I'm just saying removing Inspiring Presence is not the answer, that would make armies that easily give immunity without point cost a massive buff (armies like Skaven and Gitz, you know, these classically brave ones).

I'm not sure that "removing" is the word that people are looking for.

I mean, being "inmune to battleshock" is one thing, but imho, there are a lot of Bravery Mechanics that can be used too: +X to bravery, re-roll battleshock, use Hero/General Bravery, 2D6/3D6 and use the lower one, kill one model to pass the battleshock, etc...
There are some uits that already have some type of defense (banners, being close to a hero/skyvessel/whatever, etc...), but using 1 CP to become inmune is better, can't be countered and eazy to use.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I'm not sure that "removing" is the word that people are looking for.

I mean, being "immune to battleshock" is one thing, but imho, there are a lot of Bravery Mechanics that can be used too: +X to bravery, re-roll battleshock, use Hero/General Bravery, 2D6/3D6 and use the lower one, kill one model to pass the battleshock, etc...
There are some uits that already have some type of defense (banners, being close to a hero/skyvessel/whatever, etc...), but using 1 CP to become immune is better, can't be countered and easy to use.

Inspiring presence also costs a CP per affected unit, which, at least for Freeguild, is quite an expensive resource. It can only be activated while close to a hero (6") or the general (12"). Take out the heroes, and it becomes impossible to use (thus countered).

Yes, your specific army does not like counters to one of their mechanics, but I would say leeching CP's this way is quite the tradeoff, and if you start costing the enemy more than one CP per round, most armies are going to run out of them very quickly.

I would not mind spending a CP to give every unit in 6", or 12" for the general an extra die to roll for battleshock, but anything less would not feel right to me as a tradeoff for the current Inspiring Presence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To reiterate others’ points,my main concern is Skaven and Gitz’  abilities to ignore battleshock (primarily Skaven’s ability to do so).    These are not just horde armies but horde armies that are characterised in lore (and always have been) as quick-to-flee  factions.  We are now in a place where Skaven players can easily make a significant proportion completely immune to this, going against the lore and completely removing the main drawback of hordes.   This needs to be fixed.   Battleshock auras are worse offenders than IP so the primary fix should be removing them (screaming bell shouldn’t let rats ignore battleshock)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...