This rule is for those that want to spice up their games a bit by manipulating the existing (useless) unit traits.

Leaders and commanders in my opinions shouldn't be treated like any other regular infantry with useful abilities and high command icon access, but the leader and commander traits serve no function other than as a job label. The morale rule below instills the special nature of a leader or a commander in a warzone. The troop penalties reflect the confusion resulting from a superior officer's death...even the near mindless monsters need the firm guidance of a commander or a leader in order to function as an effective battle unit rather than loose cannons.

Leader : When a human LEADER dies all friendly INFANTRY units belonging to his faction reduce their move speed by 1 for the remainder of the round. When a Dark Legion LEADER dies all friendly MONSTER units belonging to his faction reduce their attack accuracy by 1 for the remainder of the round. The above does not stack with the death of a faction Commander (see below). Note that reducing accuracy for monster units effectively gives your monster's targets Dodge +1.

Commander : When a human COMMANDER dies all friendly INFANTRY & LEADER units belonging to his faction reduce their move speed and faction command icon by 1 for the remainder of the round. When a Dark Legion COMMANDER dies all friendly MONSTER & LEADER units belonging to his faction reduce their attack accuracy and faction command icon by 1 for the remainder of the round. Note that Karak is considered to be a Dark Legion commander for purposes of this effect.

Hmm... Its good rules but i think it is for those who want something more from MC. Also like sight range (front and back of a unit) and other optional rules. If anyone want - go ahead. But i wont use it. Why? Because its not WarZone. In WZ were Teams of soldiers with command unit. In MC this structure doesnt wor so morale abilities are - IMO - usless. Of course if You want You can use it and if anybody wants they can make a teams with command unit and command range (f.e. team of Blood Berets with Sergant and command range is 5 hex). But i wont use it because im looking for something else in MC than another WarZone

Regards.

Never tried WarZone and after a brief glance through the some of UWZ rules I am not interested in doing so. Guess I'm not much of a miniature gamer <shrugs> I find MC CMG is more a boardgame than a true blue mini and that's why I dig it.

Don't know what aspect of the morale rule gave you that knee-jerk reaction of matching it to WZ team stuff, but as someone who has never tried WZ, I think MC is robust enough system to have a few minor rules tacked on and still thrive in its simplistic brilliance. I saw quite of few of my fellow MCers contributing to the dying MC CMG by way of increasing its breadth. I hoped to increase some of its depth with my little contribution. Of course those who prefer to keeping it simple can skip it without missing any of the MC CMG fun. I prefer to play without proxies so I feel the need to increase the depth of the game in order to keep it fresh for years to come.

MC CMG can be likened to chess with gunz as someone aptly pointed in another thread...it's the chess part which intrigues me most of all without turning it into a full blown miniature game and I think we can agree in this area at least. I hope to do so with a few houserules here and there.

The rules are smart, but I fear that the game effect would end up in you having to protect the leaders instead of being able to use them to their full potential, since the enemy will start out hunting and killing off the leaders one by one. It might become a witch hunt that in the end could result in no commanders sett in play. But I might be wrong.

Hmm... OK first of all i will describe You how i like play in MC. Im not building an army. Im buing models for that to have one model to a card unit. Then we construct two or more armies (Legion vs Corporations - if someone wants mix Capitol forces with Bauhaus - he can) and play. This way is more like for boardgames not miniature game.

In this way some fan rules are to sophisticated and too complicate the normal rules. Im not saying that those rules are stupid - but it has to be some balance. Tou dont put an matchbox on TIR truck when bike is enought. The same rule in MC - easy rules are for easy play. If You get a heroic battle fo about 40/40/40 then those rules are very applied, but for little ones like 4/4/4 ist to much.

Of course it is all my opinion.

About MC itself i wrote a post in other topic.

Regards.

If you mean by "their full potential" as a regular grunt (albeit with more power than a blueback grunt), then...no, you can't with this variant rule. But then again only in novels and movies do you see leaders and commanders exposing themselves to risk needlessly. IMO you should be more careful in hiring leaders and commanders and fielding them, which I would say make thematic sense. This may enforce a sort of a rarity factor amongst leaders & commanders, but I think they were way more powerful than other infantry type units of same rank anyways. Which brings me to the point that L&C should be special folks, not a dime-a-dozen heroes for hire. Again I would like to point out here that if you feel any additional rule would get in the way of MC CMG's simple beauty of a system, then by all means....however, don't let a gut reaction get in the way of trying this out if you want this kind of detail in your game.

Initially I had also thought there might be a witch hunt...after a few plays, I found that most players rarely expose their leaders & commanders to blatant assault that may kill them off easily. This means the any opposition that want to overcommit to get at the L&C may be in for quite a fight. A bait and switch tactic is one I like to employ when I face such a witch hunt. Of course, assassination (and specifically its timing) has better value as a tactic and bringeth a greater sense of satisfaction with this rule in force.

At the end of the day, I do not gain anything whether you guys give this a shot or not. It's all the same to me. I just wanted to contribute to the community in the only way I know how (you can tell I'm no PDF wiz, can't you?). My way of saying thank you to FFG and and its community sweatin' to make a better game.

I will for sure test this rules, I think they are great and possible the best home-brew next to the Imperial faction stuff also posted here somewhere. As soon as my brain is able to add even more rules, I will. Noob I am, at his point.

As you more or less say, noone uses their leaders and commanders as cannon fodder anyways - that is what the bronze guys are for. But i think a witch hunt diskussion is in place, and now I know your solid opinion. I agree.

Thanks for sharing.

I am only happy to be of service. I am still playtesting these rules, so please give me feedback on 'em when you can.

OK i agree with that - Command Units in real battle are protected and they rarely go to front line. BUT in real battle bronze units are many, ergo commanders dont have to go on the battlefield. Even in small conflicts leaders dont go on the battlefield and even if they have to it on a command cenetr or low ranks (like sergant or max captain). Real battlefield is different than MC battlefield. In real bronze units are about 90% all army - in MC bronze units are max 40% because if You get all bronze and gold Order tokens You bronze units will not win with gold and silver enemy models. EVEN if You get gold command card there will be NO model witch one may use it. So i MC command units got different role to play than leadres in real battlefield.

It could make sense ONLY in big battles - like i wrote before - for example 40/40/40. This way You can get many bronze units and several silver and few gold. But if enemy will get many silver and several bronze - im afarid Your ramy will fall. In small battles - like 4/4/4 - morale rules has no sense because Bronze unit will be one max two - no more! Morale rules will have sense when You and oponent agree to construct army in way 10% are Gold units, 20% silver rest - bronze. THE command units are really valuable and protecting them is key to winner. BUT if on battlefield is more Silver and gold units (command units) the rules make no sense because regular army is to few.

If you wanted ultra reality, you wouldn't play a miniature game would you? There is no game, miniature or otherwise (and I doubt WarZone does this as well), that can simulate reality to that degree, because most abide by the rule of the abstract for sake of expediency. Following your logic, I may be persuaded that you may not find that many silver and gold units in a "real" battlefield; again, I do not think even WarZone does this, but let's say that it does. However, I find it that it works for MC CMG, precisely because it's no WarZone: This is a skirmish level conflict. And I happen to believe that if a WarZone scale mini game can have morale rules (and I do not know or care if it does or not), so can a skirmish game such as MC CMG. On the same token, I also wanted to emphasize the importance of leadership in skirmish level conflict that is MC CMG. Because even on a squadron level there are leaders and repercussion in losing a leader (and the morale consequences here IMO ain't game defining huge).

Again, there is no gaming police breaking down your door to enforce that you to use this variant. If it breaks your sense of verisimilitude and/or fun then write this one off and go on your way and there will be nothing lost between us. However, if you're not even willing to try this variant, why spend the time and energy arguing about it?? All that for a easily dismissible fan creation rather than official ruling nonetheless. This I do not understand, because this here place is free forum space, not a debate club. However having said all that, constructive criticisms are welcome after having tried this variant a few times under varying circumstances.

First of all a did try those rules - and with my oponent we agreed that it doesn make sense in fight 7/7/7 (most recent our games). Most optimal army is fev Gold Orders (in 7/7/7 max 2 - no need more, rest is models somethimes on or two command cards). Silver orders is about 4 or 5 silver rest are models or command cards, and bronze is most the orders or model smoetimes command cards. In this sor of army the core are strong gold models - rest is just a meat. And morale in this kind of an army is weak because command model are THE CORE and they are many.

About arguing - IMO i think it is important to discuss all rules that you want to use in play. You see if i try every rule that anyone think without analyzing it it would be a mess. Worse than in Africa. This part is important - it not just "o i got an idea lets play!!" and "If You want to get it if dont - dont". Topic is existing, forum is place to argue and so i do. I dont take everything because someone wants that - i analyze it, i think about it and THEN if make sense i use it.

About WarZone - You didnt play OK. But let me introduce You the structure WZ army. Teams are basic. They structure is 3 to 5 model plus Sergant. One team member can chacge his basic weapon on HMG. For every one TEAM You can buy a Single Model - fe Heroes. Captains, Vehicles or Beasts (in Legion). So as You can see the Core of the army are teams regular infantry man. The specialists and Captains/Heroes/other power models are only support for the teams. SO morale rules HAVE SENSE in this kind of an army. MC is different and it noo need for complicating the game.

Regards.

So your playtest had more leader type units? My own force composition usually include a lot of leaders rather than infantry, because they tend to be more usueful on the whole...so where's the problem then?? More importantly, what did you really think of the addition? My own conclusion is that I will only use this rule in Tournament level play (ie: 10/10/10 component) and greater. Your own 7/7/7 play seem to partially support this opinion.

Constructive arguments are good and exactly what this forum needs, I agree. A detailed report on the state of your gut feelings, however, I do not think is very useful, because they do not amount to much of a discussion...because it's a blaring ultimatum. Most people I know simply dismiss out of hand any additions they will not include into their game, instead of making loud announcements comparing apples and oranges (as I'm sure you would agree that WarZone and MC CMG are totally different games). I feel that we are drawing close to a circle. Let's just drop the issue and agree to disagree.

I'd be happy to "argue" with you on other "more pertinent" issues, however.

OK i agree that we disagree

PS. From the beginning i wrote - "Those rules are good for large battles not for small one"...

Other than your WarZone tangent, I am happy to be on the same page with you regarding the sizeable army requirement for morale rules. I just happen to believe that a morale rule as simple as this (with much lighter consequences) can work for a skirmish level game like MC CMG.

Morale rule inclusion for army size as small as 3/3/3 would be like setting sail for epic phail. I still have reservation about 7/7/7, but I think 10/10/10 is certainly doable with this addition. Considering that Victory Zones (a considerable part of game) should not used for non-Tourney level games, I don't think it's a minus that morale rules shouldn't be used for non-Tourney level game either.

About Victory Zones - they are different. Each VZ gave some optional rule and its always have some fun for even really small battles. Ignore then Victory Points and olny use a rule - its really working

That is still houserules territory you are threading...so they are not that different. I also use that houserule for my games, but I am sure there are some purists out there that would scoff at such additions for their game. FFG design team thought VZ were meant for Tourney level play...just as I am thinking the morale rule is befitting Tourney sized armies.

I agree with de99ial - this rule is nice but it is very complicate... MC CMG is fast game ( 1hour 5/5/5 army, maybe less) so I think this is rule to a hudge battle where you have a hudge battlefield( 2x basic map) and many figures ( 10+) where you can defense your commanders, but in the normal playing ( 5/5/51 10/10/10 ) is important that commander is dangerous figure, which is used to go foward and make mess, not stand behind and be cavering by others little BRONZE units. I think this optional rule is good -

1. in hudge battle

2. if you like more tactic than fight

3. iy you are boring by easy but very functional rules of original MC CMG.

And in my opinion many people like MC CMG because they get a lot of fun in little time and easy rules are understandable to everybody - You know that trend of this time is making thing more easy for more people, not more difficult. And FFG was thinking on this fact, when they were making this game.

But Idea - maybe this rule can be good as command cards - TACTIC command cards with this text can be very useful

I believe this could be a good variant. I am not certain what this might do to game balance since I have not play-tested it. But the negative effects of leaders being eliminated last only one round and are not devistating or too complex.

Most interesting to me are the possibilites for new objectives and game set-ups. The most obvious,additional V.P.'s for killing opponent's leader, establishing the most kills with your leader (thus putting him/her in harm's way) or a squaring-off of leader v.s. leader while your other units may fight each other but may not intervene for your leader,etc... (many of these scenarios are from Confrontation.)

Good Job!

One quetion... I assume you must select only one unit as "Commander" and when he/she/it dies the morale effects occur (regardless of other Commander units that may be present in your army?)

I agree with some of you regarding how extraneous rules might conflict with the fast and furious nature of MC CMG...as I get older I find myself looking for simpler rules with furious action (thus my current love for MC CMG). That is why I appreciate all your inputs. I took special care to make the morale rule simple with as light a repercussion as possible...and play balance wise it seem to work with 10/10/10 Tourney armies of set 1 figures. I do not think you need huge armies here...simply because the temporary penalties of losing your leader/commander is not that harsh. I agree Anotol that this rule is, however, more geared toward the tactical minded folks out there...of which I am one.

You bring up a very interesting possibility there Bobby-Winky. I think adding a small amount (+1 or +2) of VPs for such a kill to be an interesting mod for this game. Since I am not a mini gamer I did not have the chance to try Confrontation, but they sound really good...provided that you can come up with some easy and fast rules that do not bog down the wonderful MC CMG system. Get to it soldier!

To answer your question Bobby-Winky: As you know commander units are uniques (ie: has bullet symbol before their name) and aside from Algeroth we only have one unique per faction, so unless you are of the Algeroth faction you can only field one at any one time. Meaning it's not a common occurrence. However, if you are playing Algeroth or like to mix and match play with multiple Mitches and Maxes, then yeah: one commander dying would trigger the morale effect regardless of the number of commanders still up.