No Retreat! rules question

[lotsa_terminators]

Dear Mods: please dont hurt me...I just need to ask a rules question

 

Ok, so one of the guys that plays in our local group insists that the No Retreat! rule happens after the entire assault phase, and that EVERY unit suffers wounds equal to the number your ENTIRE side lost by, not just the individual unit that lost the combat (and is fearless).

 

We looked at the rules, and by RAW he seems to be right...but I can't believe that.

 

Can someone help me on the rules here? Sorry again to the mods, to justify it....Black Templar are fearless in close combat?

[Dark Bjoern]

That´s right. BT are fearless in CC.

 

But no, only the individual units that had lost the CC will suffer wounds (see BRB p.44)

[Legatus]

Yes, "side" refers to all units that were involved in one particular combat. See the description of "Determine Assault Results" on page 39 or on page 41.

 

"Assaults are usually decisive, one side or the other quickly gaining the upper hand and forcing back their foe. Good Leadership can keep a side in the fight, but the casualties that each side inflicts are usually the most telling factor. To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner. The losing side must take a Morale check and will fall back if they fails.

 

If Both sides suffer the same number of wounds, the combat is drawn and continues next turn.

 

Of course, if one side destroys the enemy it wins automatically, even if it sustained more casualties."

[Warmongrel]

I feel an ADMOVEO coming on. Remember, it's not that the mods will hurt you, they just need to impose some order on this place so folks can find the answers they are looking for.

 

It seems wrong that fearless units should take wounds due to another unit on their side failing a morale check. My question is: does each unit on the losing side take a morale check to see if they fall back, or do they make one roll as a group?

[Pacific81]

Yes, although its only the unit that is immune to morale checks that will take the additional wounds.

 

..These units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).

 

I guess this represents the fact that so many of their number are being hacked down that they could be overrun by momentum.

[Brother Nihm]

Dear Mods: please dont hurt me...I just need to ask a rules question

Don't worry, this wont hurt - much.

Rules questions are fine, in the Official Rules section.

Topic moved. :huh:

[Scott-S6]

Classic rules-lawyering. Inconsistent interpretation of terms (in this case "side") for advantage.

 

OP- Does he claim that "side" means all of your army in the section that Legatus quoted?

[eyescrossed]

Dear Mods: please dont hurt me...I just need to ask a rules question

Don't worry, this wont hurt - much.

Rules questions are fine, in the Official Rules section.

Topic moved. ^_^

Can I pweeeeeez use this?

[yergerjo]

Are we talking about ATSKNF or just fearless units?

 

In the case of marines, say I have an assault squad with chaplain (fearless) and a tactical squad charge a squad of 30 orc boyz. Between the marine units we score 15 unsaved wounds and the orcs score 18. Marines lose by 3. Morale Check for the tactical squad at a -3, and 3 fearless saves for the assault squad. Tactical squad fails their leadership and automatically get away because the orcs are held in combat by the other unit so they cannot be run down.

 

Case 2,

 

I have 2 tactical squads assault a squad of boyz, inflicting 8 unsaved wounds and the orcs inflict 11. Marines lose combat, both squads roll leadership checks at -3, both fail (wow my rolling sux) then marines roll initiative 1,2 on the die for a 5/6 and the orcs roll a 6. The orcs run the marines down, causing ATSKNF to kick in, not killing the Marines but forcing No Retreat. Both tactical squads then make 3 armor saves each.

[lotsa_terminators]

ok, say you have 2 units that are Fearless, and in close combat.

 

Squad A wins their assault by 2, Squad B loses by 5.

 

Do BOTH squads take 3 wounds, or just the squad that actually lost it's close combat? The wording in the rules uses "Side", and we can't figure out if they mean your side in the individual close combat, or your side as a whole...that's the real issue

[HiveFleetEzekial]

You don't figure up win/loss by units, you do it by the whole side. If the whole side loses by X number, then the each unit on the losing side takes LD mods/saves dependant on their special rules.

[Legatus]

The wording in the rules uses "Side", and we can't figure out if they mean your side in the individual close combat, or your side as a whole...that's the real issue

 

So, this is too ambiguous?

 

To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner. The losing side must take a Morale check and will fall back if they fail.

If Both sides suffer the same number of wounds, the combat is drawn and continues next turn.

Of course, if one side destroys the enemy it wins automatically, even if it sustained more casualties.

(Page 39, "Determining Assault Results".)

 

Or this?

 

MULTIPLE COMBATS

Combats that involve more than two units are called 'multiple combats'. Because of the extra complexity, they need some additional rules, which are provided on this page.

(...)

Assault Results

When determining assault results in a multiple combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side to see which side is the winner.

(Page 41.)

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

For each individual combat, a fearless loser takes a number of wounds equal to that it lost its own combat by.

 

Example:

 

I have 3 squads of Khorne Berzerkers (fearless).

All become involved in different assaults.

 

Squad A kills 5 enemy models and loses 2 Berzerkers. Squad A has won its combat by three. The enemy unit, if not fearless, attempts a morale check at -3, and may run. The enemy unit, if fearless, takes 3 wounds and must allocate and save them as normal.

Squad B kills 0 enemy models and loses 1 Berzerker. Squad B has lost its combat by 1. The squad, since it is fearless, takes another wound, which it must allocate and save for as normal.

Squad C kills 0 enemy models and loses 4 Berzerkers. Squad C has lost its combat by 4. The squad, since it is fearless, takes 4 more wounds, which it must allocate and save for as normal.

 

If the combats are indepenent, then winning/losing/No Retreat! are independent.

 

 

If multiple units are involved in a combat, a fearless loser takes a number of wounds equal to the amount that its "side" of that combat lost by on all units in that combat as if they had each lost by that amount.

 

Example:

 

I have 3 squads of Khorne Berzerkers (fearless).

All become involved in the same assault.

 

Squad A kills 5 enemy models and loses 2 Berzerkers.

Squad B kills 0 enemy models and loses 1 Berzerker.

Squad C kills 0 enemy models and loses 4 Berzerkers.

 

Add kill totals together (Zerks 5, Enemy 7). The Berzerkers have lost combat by 2. Since they are fearless and involved in the same combat, each squad takes 2 No Retreat! wounds, which must be allocated and saved for as normal.

[Lord Humongous]

So, let me get this right.

 

Say I have 5 fearless units (I like my lesser demons) each separately fighting against 5 enemy units scattered around the table. They all loose combat, each inflicting 1 less unsaved wound than the opposition. So each unit has to make 1 save, right?

Now, say somehow the the same 5 fearless units are fighting the same 5 enemy units, but its all in a big cluster in the middle of the table, so that each unit can attack multiple other units, such that each "side" now has all of its 5 units on it. Getting the EXACT SAME ROLLS, with both side inflicting the EXACT SAME WOUNDS, my "side" has now lost by 5 wounds, and every single one of those 5 units now has to make 5 saves?

 

In other words, would they suddenly take 5 times as many wounds from "no retreat", just because they are fighting in a big line-vs-line formation, rather than in separate scattered scirmishes? If that is so, this is the second most ridiculous rule result I've come across- the first being wound allocation's bizarre "more shots kill less guys" effect.

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

Correct, Lord Humongous.

[Lord Humongous]

Hmm, sounds like the best way to kill a unit of orcs might to make sure you ALSO charge a unit of grots, and to allocate your attacks all against the grots! By only fighting the grots only, you can be more sure to win the fight, and thus wound the orcs!

 

This makes no sense at all, and I'm pretty sure that (if its not intended as such) most people go by a "house rule" that you only compare the wounds a unit alone dished out to the wounds it alone took to determine its leadership modifiers / no retreat saves required. By this method, if your side lost but the unit in question actually inflicted more unsaved wounds than it took, it either would test morale with no modifier, or would not be required to take any saves via "no retreat". That's how I've been playing it, and nobody ever questioned it.

[Legatus]

This makes no sense at all

Yes it does. Instead of losing by 1, the side now lost by 5. You could say that they lost by the same percentage, but instead of only suffering one more casualty than the enemy side in combat they now suffered 5 more casualties than they did.

[lotsa_terminators]

ok...so in an effort to get this right in my head:

 

2 different Black Templar squads are fighting in different areas, one loses by 2, one wins by 2. ONLY the squad that actually lost their combat has to take saves again. The squad that won their combat is fine.

 

If the same squads are fighting only ONE other squad, one of my squads wins by 2, the other loses by 2 again. Now they BOTH have to take 2 saves? Argh....if that's the case, I'm going to ask the other players in my local group about making a house rule, as that is krootoxsh*t.

 

Seems like the No Retreat rule makes multi-assaults broken, somehow.

[JamesI]

Well, if its all one fight, and one of your units wins by 2 the other loses by 2, you have a drawn combat. No one takes saves.

[Lord Humongous]

This makes no sense at all

Yes it does. Instead of losing by 1, the side now lost by 5. You could say that they lost by the same percentage, but instead of only suffering one more casualty than the enemy side in combat they now suffered 5 more casualties than they did.

 

Suffering 5 times as many casulties when you started with 5 times as many men has pretty much the exact same effect on morale and position. Read any book on ancient hand to hand battles, and you will see that, by and large, fights scale up in a normal ratio.

 

Situation 1- 10 small groups of men (side a) fight 10 small grouop of men (side b) in 10 widely sepeareted fights, and side a looses 2 men from each group, for a total of 20 men lost.

Situation 2- 100 men (side a) fight 100 men (side b) in one bigh HtH fight, and side a looses 20 men total. Each side happens to have 10 groups of 10 men- just like situation1, except they are all in one large battle.

 

I think its pretty obvious that in both cases, the same number of casualties have been suffered, yes? Given the identical losses, morale effects should be the same in both cases, right? But they are not- they are wildly, hugley, massively different. In situation 1, each unit rolls for morale at -2, or needs to make 2 saves, for a possible 20 wounds total. In situation 2, each unti rolls for morale at -20 (needing a 12, even if LD 10) or needs to make 20 saves (for a possible 200 wounds total).

That is totally stupid. If 10 guys from side a beat 10 other guys from side b with a certain margin, then 100 of those guys from side a beat 100 of the guys from side b with roughly the same margin. That's how real life battles worked, acording to people like, oh, Sun Tzu, Miamoto Musashi, and Richard the Lionhearted. But acording to GW, they work entirely differently, and the margins shift hugely depending on the scale of the battle.

[nighthawks]

I can see the morale modifier adding when multiple units are engaged - as if the loosing side is shocked that they could have suffered x number of losses when they had so many members... seems rational enough.

 

I would have to agree that A: the rule for each unit must save the number of wounds by which they lost combat (as a side) is ridiculous, but B: it is the rule.

[Legatus]

If the same squads are fighting only ONE other squad, one of my squads wins by 2, the other loses by 2 again. Now they BOTH have to take 2 saves? Argh....if that's the case, I'm going to ask the other players in my local group about making a house rule, as that is krootoxsh*t.

If multiple units are involved in a single combat, then you count the number of wounds inflicted by each side. You don't determine for each unit separately whether it has won or lost. Your whole side taking part in that combat has either won or lost. As mentioned above, if one of your two units has inflicted 2 surplus wounds while the other unit has suffered 2 more wounds than it caused that means that overall your side has inflicted exactly the number of wounds as the enemy has. Both sides inflicted the same number of wounds, so it is a draw.

 

Suffering 5 times as many casulties when you started with 5 times as many men has pretty much the exact same effect on morale and position. Read any book on ancient hand to hand battles, and you will see that, by and large, fights scale up in a normal ratio.

Yeah? I dunno. I don't think a soldier will keep track of the ratio of lost soldiers and base his amount of discomfort on that. If it was a single separate fight of 5, and the unit suffered one more wound, then an individual soldier will notice that their side has taken a bit more of a beating than the opposing side. If all 5 units would be fighting in one big combat, then the same soldier would notice in the same amount of time that his side suffered 5 more casualties than the enemy.

 

Example, a unit of guardsmen are fighting Chaos Marines. They inflict no casualty on the Marines but suffer 1 in return. Overall they lost more, but it does not look so bad, they are appearently not that much in danger of being overpowered. Now 5 units of guardsmen are fighting 3 units of Chaos Marines. The guardsmen inflict 3 wounds on them, but suffer 8 in return. This happens over the same time that previously only 1 casualty had been suffered. The guardsmen are seeing a lot more of their own killed now. They were more to begin with, as were the enemies, so logically that would be what you would expect. It is still different to see 1 of your comrades hacked to pieces or 5 during the same amount of time.

[Lord Humongous]

Example, a unit of guardsmen are fighting Chaos Marines. They inflict no casualty on the Marines but suffer 1 in return. Overall they lost more, but it does not look so bad, they are appearently not that much in danger of being overpowered. Now 5 units of guardsmen are fighting 3 units of Chaos Marines. The guardsmen inflict 3 wounds on them, but suffer 8 in return. This happens over the same time that previously only 1 casualty had been suffered. The guardsmen are seeing a lot more of their own killed now. They were more to begin with, as were the enemies, so logically that would be what you would expect. It is still different to see 1 of your comrades hacked to pieces or 5 during the same amount of time.

 

Or you could argue that, because there are now 5 times as many friends (and ~3 times as many enemies), each individual unit probably can't even see exactly how many bodies are falling, and only knows what happened to thier own.

In a large HtH battle, you often can't see any farther than 10 feet or so (your own immediate surroundings). This is why armies that used HtH (even Napolionic ones) used to have big flags (easier to see at distance) and loud signaling devices (horns, etc). Probably 40K armies have HUDs and radios to repair that. Still, you can only take in so much info, especially while fighting in HtH; any battle-info system is likely to focus on your own units stats and orders.

In reality, its hard enough just telling who is in the fight, let alone exactly how well other units on your side are doing.

 

In any case, my objection is not to the fact that a single "side" would be loosing despite individual unit performance; its more to the results of loosing being applied on a per unit basis. In your above example, what if those gaurdsmen are fearless? In the first case, they take one save (one possible wound); five units fighting that way would take 5 saves total. But in your second case, each of the 5 units would take 5 saves, for a potential 25 wounds. Why is the second situation 500% more dangerous than the first?

 

Another way to look at this is, say I have a unit of 20 berserkers fighting 4 units of 5 berserkers. If the 20 berserkers loose, they (as a side) take saves equal to the amount they lost by. If the 4 units of 5 loose, they (as a side) take saves equal to the amount they lost by TIMES FOUR. So for some reason, essentially identical forces suffer very differently for loosing combat. That makes no sense.

[Legatus]

Fearless units suffering wounds is a substitute for the danger of being cought while trying to retreat and being cut down completely. If a normal unit would lose, the higher it lost the higher the chances for it to run away, in which case the enemy could pursue and destroy the whole unit, or if the unit is below half strength it will not be able to regroup and be pretty much out of play too. Fearless units cannot be cought in a pursuit or keep falling back if under 50%, so instead they will now suffer additional wounds to balance that, representing how they are overwhelmed by the opposition, even though they refuse to fall back. It is a half hearted fluff explanation for why such an effect is put in place.

Since the additional wound are applied on a unit basis (as would be a morale test required by each unit separately) you could perhaps say that a unit as a whole will fight coordinated and is suffering the designated number of wounds because they are being overwhelmed, and one single bigger unit would handle the situation better and with more coordination than four separate units would. You would only test once for morale for the bigger unit, while you would test separately for each smaller unit. Each unit has to see how they are holding up for themselves. Again not a perfect fluff explanation for a balancing game mechanic that was put in place. GW does not wanted to have massive drawn out combats, but rather to end them quicker in this edition. That is why they established the new and higher leadership penalties and the additional wounds. In the last edition that was based entirely on the amount of enemy models on the winning side. Now it is based in the amount of suffered casualties in one round instead.

[Apogee]

I really, really hate this rule. It really limits the effectiveness of units like Death Cult Assassins, or ICs in general. Charge in with 3 DCAs to help some Sisters, who lost say 6. I kill 4 in total, so... each assassin takes 2 wounds, with a 5+ save ;). Absolutely terrible.