Topic: Idea to split leadership into 2 stats?

[Warlord]

Hi all,
Background - so I hate Steadfast. I also don’t like Insane Courage. I would propose getting rid of those rules, and introducing the idea of splitting leadership into 2 categories - Morale and Nerve, but still using them as a combined value for tests.

Idea being that Morale and increases or decreases while playing the game, but nerve is an unmodifiable racial value and cannot be increased or decreased.

For example, a human may have Morale 3 and Nerve 4. Meaning that over the course of battle, their morale may decrease, but break tests can only be lost on a role of 5 or more - Nerve will allow them to hold.

What do you all think? Any hazards to this type of design?

[Zygmund]

Tried 3rd ed Warhammer? It would give you an immediate fix on all your points. 

-Z

[Warlord]

I have not... and I don’t think I was ever able to get my hands on a copy of the rules...

I am curious though, if it relates to 3rd ed, then it doesn’t sound like an especially modern battle game concept?

[Michael Stockin]

.

[Warlord]

Ok... thats not quite the same then...

Thanks for the clarification though Michael!

[GamesPoet]

Ha!  A stat called Cool ... very cool.

Anyway ...

I'm ok with Morale and Nerve, although seems like a common item in many game systems usually based off a single leadership value of some kind.  It makes it easy to have a leader value that is one number, and used for both purposes though.  I'm not sure if a leader's ability to get troops to hold versus rallying them back to the field would be much different.  The average guy in the field is either going to be convinced or persuaded by his leader or not, and perhaps regardless of what the circumstances might be?  And having one leadership value seems to be effective in many games.

[S.O.F]

I think Steadfast as done in the 8th was quite problematic but more readily fixed by making disruption again more robust and tweaking the horde rule to be defined by file vs enemy much like steadfast is done by rank. So in a system in which disruption rules are properly restored columns have a huge flank liability further if you make it that if you have 3 or more files greater than a foe you get the third rank to engage the staying power of steadfast columns is more a tactical choice depending on the foe without getting into complicating the LD type rolls you need to do.

[Warlord]

Sorry, to be clear, My intent is that leadership tests are taken on a combined value of morale and nerve put together.

So in a lot of cases, the old ‘leadership’ value from WHFB would stay the same. Lose a round of combat, morale goes down permanently unless you can win a round of combat and recover a morale point.
Nerve cannot change. So some races, like Dwarves may have Nerve 5. Which makes them generally harder to break.
Goblins on the other hand may have Nerve 2, but high morale. So whittle down their morale and much easier to break and scare.

Morale could also be boosted by ranks, or if you charge for example. Reduces some of the Combat Res arithmetic.

[Brad]

Intelligence - spotting illusions and stuff?  Don't recall ever using it TBH.

It had more use in Rogue Trader.  Every item had a base tech level, and you had to have an Int high enough to use it.  So for example Grots couldn't use bolters (from memory).

[Michael W]

Warlord, I really like your idea.  I don't think it would be an easy implementation, but it definitely sounds like a fun mechanic.  I'm not sure about Morale being a fluctuating value during the game - that would be an annoying thing to track and I'm not a huge fan of more tokens than absolutely necessary cluttering up my board.  =P  But maybe you could make Morale an overall effect - +1 for a Banner, +1 per rank to a max of +3, etc.?

I dunno, haven't done the math.  But I like the idea. 

[Warlord]

Good point. Tracking with tokens can be painful. Hmmm. Might have to think it through a little more because I don’t want it too complicated to use.

[WarhammerWodner]

Sorry, to be clear, My intent is that leadership tests are taken on a combined value of morale and nerve put together.

So in a lot of cases, the old ‘leadership’ value from WHFB would stay the same. Lose a round of combat, morale goes down permanently unless you can win a round of combat and recover a morale point.
Nerve cannot change. So some races, like Dwarves may have Nerve 5. Which makes them generally harder to break.
Goblins on the other hand may have Nerve 2, but high morale. So whittle down their morale and much easier to break and scare.

Morale could also be boosted by ranks, or if you charge for example. Reduces some of the Combat Res arithmetic.

Hey Warlord,

Your idea seems very interesting and I can see that you thought it through already.
But don't you think you would overpower some units over others that way?

Cheers, Wodner

[commandant]

Generally I would like to have something like organisation represented better.   If we are to really believe that warhammer is a battle game (and I am open to the idea that this is a big if and completely dependent on personal preference) then individual nerve is much less important than group organisation.

That said the failure of one can lead to the failure of the other.

[Old Stonebeard]

Hi all,
Background - so I hate Steadfast. I also don’t like Insane Courage. I would propose getting rid of those rules, and introducing the idea of splitting leadership into 2 categories - Morale and Nerve, but still using them as a combined value for tests.

Idea being that Morale and increases or decreases while playing the game, but nerve is an unmodifiable racial value and cannot be increased or decreased.

For example, a human may have Morale 3 and Nerve 4. Meaning that over the course of battle, their morale may decrease, but break tests can only be lost on a role of 5 or more - Nerve will allow them to hold.

What do you all think? Any hazards to this type of design?

I... really quite like this idea, actually. Gonna add it to my wistful wish list next to "armor saves are taken before resolving strength v toughness".

Alex

[Michael W]

Good point. Tracking with tokens can be painful. Hmmm. Might have to think it through a little more because I don’t want it too complicated to use.

What if Morale were an army-wide stat?  That would make tracking losses much easier.  Lose a Hero?  -1 Morale.  Lose your General?  -2 Morale.  Lose a regiment of at least Unit Strength 10?  -1 Morale.  Slay the enemy general?  +1 Morale.  Capture an enemy Banner?  +1 Morale.  Or whatever you wanted to use.  So Leadership tests would be Unit Nerve + Army Morale.

Random idea.  It's also late and I'm tired, so I might look at this tomorrow and wonder what I was drinking.  Or thinking.  Whatever.
I still like the concept and want to see it work.