And the Shall Know No Fear

[Hackbar]

OK, I read through the C:SM special rules again today because I was curious as to just how and when Combat Tactics might be useful. I found a few ideas for hwo to use the rules here:

http://nk-ds.org/2008/10/warhammer-40kspac...-and-army-list/

 

but when I read the actual rules and the relevant sections in the man rulebook, I found it doesn't specifically say anywhere that Space Marines still get to Fall Back when caught by a Sweeping Advance. ATSKNF says that they take No Retreat! wounds instead of being wiped out, but it doesn't say they get to Fall Back after that. Am I missing something?

[Koremu]

You have to win the Initiative Roll-off in order to fall back. If you fail it, you have to take the No Retreat! saves instead of being wiped out.

 

ATSKNF is really badly formatted in the codex. There should really be a paragraph break where the text starts a new sentence with "If Space Marines are caught by a sweeping advance...", because everything before that deals with regrouping, and everything after that with what happens if you lose the roll-off after breaking from combat.

[Hackbar]

OK, so RAW, the article I linked is actually wrong in their example where the marines fall back from the Gaunt horde, save the No Retreat! rounds, and then rapid-fire on the next turn.

[Koremu]

OK, so RAW, the article I linked is actually wrong in their example where the marines fall back from the Gaunt horde, save the No Retreat! rounds, and then rapid-fire on the next turn.

Yeah, either you pass the Init test and fall back 2D6, or fail it and take however many No Retreat! saves.

 

The operative term in the ATSKNF rule is "will instead continue to fight normally"

[Hackbar]

The operative term in the ATSKNF rule is "will instead continue to fight normally"

 

That's what I was thinking. I was rather confused by the example and wondered if there was some unspoken rule I had missed. I imagined something along the lines of "Sweeping advance doesn't stop you from falling back, except for the fact that it kills you, therefore special rules that let you survive sweeping advance also let you fall back."

 

It's good to know that I seem to have correctly interpreted the rules, but this does make Combat Tactics more risky to use in melee than I realized. I imagine it's still fine for backing off from nasty melee troops if their shooting kills enough of your guys, or retreating into cover/out of LOS from heavy ranged fire.

[Koremu]

The operative term in the ATSKNF rule is "will instead continue to fight normally"

 

That's what I was thinking. I was rather confused by the example and wondered if there was some unspoken rule I had missed. I imagined something along the lines of "Sweeping advance doesn't stop you from falling back, except for the fact that it kills you, therefore special rules that let you survive sweeping advance also let you fall back."

 

It's good to know that I seem to have correctly interpreted the rules, but this does make Combat Tactics more risky to use in melee than I realized. I imagine it's still fine for backing off from nasty melee troops if their shooting kills enough of your guys, or retreating into cover/out of LOS from heavy ranged fire.

It's great for breaking pinning. The ability to go to ground for a 3+ cover save vs. the Vindicator, knowing that you will likely take 3 casualties and be able to bow out of the Pinning and then retake your position with guns blazing.

 

Getting away from stuff like Genestealers in combat is still a tough proposition. It's not so hard vs. low init creatures like Orks. And remember that Furious Assault doesn't benefit them in the sweeping advance roll-off.

[Vel'Cona]

The Vindicator is a Pinning test? I thought only Ordnance Barrage caused pinning tests. I'm still a little quirky confusing 3rd/4th rules with 5th, they changed so many subtle things.

 

That aside, the reasoning behind the No Retreat! write-in on ATSKNF is essentially a way of equally penallizing C:SM for getting the benefits of both Fearless and Chapter Tactics. If they didn't force the No Retreat! check then Fearless troops would be unfairly mauled by a rule that C:SM would for some reason get away with (as they technically are better than Fearless, as written). It's interesting that GW seems so intent to keep the Spehss Mahrinez in a balance check, but they have no problem in putting things like CSM and Orks way out of whack. Oh and now IG.

[Koremu]

s/Pinning/Going to Ground/

 

You go to ground volountarily (to get the +1 Cover Save vs. the vindis AP2 shot, allowing you a 3+ save) probably lose 3 guys, elect to break, auto reform and move again.

[Vel'Cona]

That's a really awesome tactic Koremu. It sounds a bit suspect though, and correct me here if I'm completely off base in my assessment.

 

Ok so if you elect to "Go to Ground" you count as Pinned for that round (the whole turn) and the next. Pinned units still take morale checks to fall back? My understanding was that being Pinned overrides the morale check to fall back, ie. if you were to need to take a morale check to fall back when you're already Pinned, the fall back check would be ignored as while you're Pinned you can't move. This is once again harkening back to my confusion between 3rd/4th rules and 5th, and the fact that my rulebook is geographically separated from me.

 

Now, provided you indeed can choose to fall back after going to ground and taking a morale check, this tactic could come into play in a multitude of situations. It certainly intrigues me.

[Koremu]

That's a really awesome tactic Koremu. It sounds a bit suspect though, and correct me here if I'm completely off base in my assessment.

 

Ok so if you elect to "Go to Ground" you count as Pinned for that round (the whole turn) and the next. Pinned units still take morale checks to fall back? My understanding was that being Pinned overrides the morale check to fall back, ie. if you were to need to take a morale check to fall back when you're already Pinned, the fall back check would be ignored as while you're Pinned you can't move. This is once again harkening back to my confusion between 3rd/4th rules and 5th, and the fact that my rulebook is geographically separated from me.

 

Now, provided you indeed can choose to fall back after going to ground and taking a morale check, this tactic could come into play in a multitude of situations. It certainly intrigues me.

 

p24 (sidebar), "Gone to Ground", paragraph 4;

 

"Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions (for example, it will take Morale tests as normal). If the unit has to fall back, it will return to normal immediately."

 

So you can do that under enemy fire any time you take 25% casualties in a single phase. Which is most irritating if people try to shoot at you to soften you up before the assault, because you can just pull back and string them along.

 

A note on Terminology; "Gone to Ground" is a persistent status effect on the unit. "Pinning" is a weapon qulity that forces a unit to Go to Ground.

[Vel'Cona]

Haha I'm humbled by your Rules-fu Koremu! That's awesome advice, I'm definitely gonna take advantage of that when I'm not Vulkan'd up. It almost seems that, in light of Combat Tactics, going for one of the special characters with Chapter Tactics is not necessarily the best move. Luckily I don't believe in attaching myself wholeheartedly to one design, regardless of the chapter I play. (Unless of course I'm doing something fluffy/themed, then it's by the book)

[Koremu]

I'm a big fan of Combat Tactics. It's an excellent in-fighting tool.

 

Combat Tactics/ATSKNF is essentially a technique that is all about flexible responsive movement. Backing off in the face of an advance to trap the enemy assault troops out of position where they can be destroyed safely is the core technique - all else is variations on the principle.

 

Use Difficult Terrain to your advantage - Fall Back moves are unaffected by Terrain, but random, so it is worth forcing your opponent to deal with a similar random movement limitation.