No retreat and IC

[ChessMaster]

Lets say that a Black Templar unit loses an assault by 3 wounds. The models involved were 1 Emperor's Champion, 1 Chaplain and 5 Initiates.

Since all BT units are fearless in CC, how many saves do I roll? 3 for all 3 units? Or 3 for the EC, 3 for the Chaplain and 3 for the tactical squad? (9 total)

[bystrom]

You take a number of wounds for each squad. If both the EC and the Chaplain had joined the initiates these would all count as one squad, they would take 3 wounds in your example. Under the IC section, it talks about how you treat each IC as an individual unit when rolling attacks, but treat it as part of the squad the IC had joined when it comes to combat resolution.

[Legatus]

Every unit that would otherwise have been forced to make a Morale Test but is 'fearless' (or similar) will suffer the extra wounds instead. So it it has been three independent units, each of the units will suffer the full amount of additional wounds. If it had been a unit with a joinded Independent Character, the unit plus character would only suffer the extra wounds once, as you would usually only have made a single Morale Test for them.

 

Example: A unit of Chaos Marines (not fearless), a unit of Plague Marines (fearless) and a Chaos Lord (fearless) who is not attached to any of the units lose a combat by 3 points. The Chaos Marines now have to pass a Morale Test. The Plague Marines would have to pass a test but are fearless, so they suffer 3 wounds instead. The Lord is also fearless, and as he is by himself he would have had to test for Morale individually, so he also suffers 3 wounds.

 

Same units, but this time the Lord is attached to the Plague Marine unit. The unit loses by 3 points. The Chaos Marines have to pass a Morale Test as normal. The Plague Marines unit suffers 3 wounds due to being fearless. As the Lord is part of the unit, he is subject to the unit's result, so he does not suffer any further wounds on his own. He can get one of the wounds the unit suffered allocated to him if the player wishes, as he is part of the unit.

 

Same units, this time the Lord is part of the Chaos Marine unit. The Chaos Marines have to pass a Morale Test again, and since the Lord is part of the unit and the unit is not fearless, he is bound by their Morale Test result and may have to fall back with them (see rules for 'Fearless'). The Plague Marines suffer the 3 wounds again for being fearless.

[ChessMaster]

That was fast. Ty very much, you helped a lot :lol:

[Arikel]

Possible poser: If the chaos lord is now within 2 inches of one or the other squads, wouldn't he now be considered as attached to them? (if not in the first assault phase, then at least when the 2nd one rolls around, as during the movement phase he would be within 2 inches of the squad(s) and therefore have joined (one of) them)

[Legatus]

A character cannot join or leave a unit while he or the unit is locked in combat.

[SeattleDV8]

Possible poser: If the chaos lord is now within 2 inches of one or the other squads, wouldn't he now be considered as attached to them? (if not in the first assault phase, then at least when the 2nd one rolls around, as during the movement phase he would be within 2 inches of the squad(s) and therefore have joined (one of) them)

No, as he can only join a unit in the movement phase.

Also no, BRB 48 seventh bullet point. An IC cannot join units locked in combat.

[Arikel]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[vonny]

continuing this train of thought, can an independant character get detached from a unit while in close combat due to casualty removal and getting outside of the 2"?

[Tanhausen]

No.

 

Both attaching and leaving a unit can only happen in your movement phase (its a voluntary decision).

[vonny]

Thanks, I inadvertedly cheated myself out of a live sanguinary priest then :)

[Frosty the Pyro]

Thanks, I inadvertedly cheated myself out of a live sanguinary priest then

 

I dont see how, independent characters can be individualy targeted in close combat anyway

[Tanhausen]

Probably removed marines until the unit and the priest were +2 inches away, hence he thought they became detached.

[vonny]

and in hindsight I did it even worse - still had a reclusiarch within 2" of the unit, so they were fearless and took no retreat wounds - and instead of making a ld test as I shoudl have if the priest was a seperate unit, I took no retreat wounds on it too.

 

Must've been tired or something...

[Algesan]

Hmmm, wait a minute. In page 44 under the No Retreat section is says: "Instead these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal)."

 

Note, that it is "units" in the plural and "number" in the singular, but the ruling is that each and every fearless unit in the entire combat takes the full amount of excess wounds?

 

I can see how you read that since you are equating the leadership penalty for number of wounds lost (which applies to all units in a multiple combat) and converting straight over into number of wounds taken per fearless unit. A bit of a stretch, but doable. Definitely exploitable this way and I'll use it that way in my next game. Great way to deal with those two MCs I see a lot of that like to join in assaults.

 

Screwy way to penalize MCs and ICs though. LOL, I can really see some ways to exploit this interpretation.

[Legatus]

Note, that it is "units" in the plural and "number" in the singular, but the ruling is that each and every fearless unit in the entire combat takes the full amount of excess wounds?

Yes, because each and every unit on the losing side of a combat would have to take a morale test. Units that do not take Morale tests suffer 'No Retreat!' wounds instead. "Number" is singular because it is only one number. If the side loses the combat by three, the number is three. A side will never lose combat by multiple numbers. You might also compare the wording to Morale Test situation C) Losing an Assault:

 

"Units that lose a close combat (...) must pass a Morale check to hold their ground."

 

"These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (...)"

 

--> Units that lose combat have to take a Morale Check.

 

--> Fearless units that lose combat suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost by.

 

Just like losing units do not collectively take one Morale test, fearless unist are not collectively suffering a number of wounds. The statement "all fearless units suffer 3 wounds" would mean that each of the fearless units suffers 3 wounds, not that you distribute 3 wounds between all of the fearless units.

 

 

In the 4th Edition rulebook the wording was:

 

"The unit in question will not have to fall back but suffers one additional wound if outnumbered by 2:1, two wounds if outnumbered 3:1 (etc...)" (4th Ed. BBB, p. 48)

 

It is not a stretch or an exploit, it is the straight reading of the rule.

[Algesan]

Note, that it is "units" in the plural and "number" in the singular, but the ruling is that each and every fearless unit in the entire combat takes the full amount of excess wounds?

Yes, because each and every unit on the losing side of a combat would have to take a morale test. Units that do not take Morale tests suffer 'No Retreat!' wounds instead. "Number" is singular because it is only one number. If the side loses the combat by three, the number is three. A side will never lose combat by multiple numbers. You might also compare the wording to Morale Test situation C) Losing an Assault:

 

"Units that lose a close combat (...) must pass a Morale check to hold their ground."

 

"These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (...)"

 

--> Units that lose combat have to take a Morale Check.

 

--> Fearless units that lose combat suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost by.

 

Just like losing units do not collectively take one Morale test, fearless unist are not collectively suffering a number of wounds. The statement "all fearless units suffer 3 wounds" would mean that each of the fearless units suffers 3 wounds, not that you distribute 3 wounds between all of the fearless units.

 

 

In the 4th Edition rulebook the wording was:

 

"The unit in question will not have to fall back but suffers one additional wound if outnumbered by 2:1, two wounds if outnumbered 3:1 (etc...)" (4th Ed. BBB, p. 48)

 

It is not a stretch or an exploit, it is the straight reading of the rule.

 

I see how it got read to get this interpretation, it is just the concept that it is possible to deal more wounds than happened in the close combat by handing out multiple free wounds to multiple fearless units. Makes it real interesting if you are facing a largely fearless in CC army with an army that can hand out Ld 9/10 vs morale checks.

 

Oh yes, it is technically not an exploit, just as it is technically impossible to build a "cheese" army by the rules. It is exploitable in a semi-tight battlefield situation when you can "tag" MCs or small squads in CC with a few models, then stretch the rest of the assaulting squad into a gang bang on a squad with easy kills. The target squad for butchery can be shot up if needed then mass assaulted and as long as you have a unit with one figure in BTB on both, it becomes a multiple combat. The entire objective it to mass wound the target to "win" the fight, don't bother attacking the MC, uber CC IC or any other fearless units, that way you avoid dealing with their higher WS and T. Pile up the damage on the target unit and get as many freebie wounds as possible.

 

Look at it this way, if the attackers are WS:4, S:4, then to get wounds on WS:5, T:6 (SM vs Hive Tyrant) you need 12 attacks. 4+ to hit means 6 hits, then 6+ to wound means 1 wound. Against Genestealers that would be 3 wounds. Against Gaunts, it would be 5-6 wounds. It would be a whole lot better to pile up those wounds on the easier targets and then simply laugh and tell the Hive Tyrant you never took a swing at to start rolling his AS.

 

Just 1 of these freebie wounds would be the equivalent of an extra 6 bolter Marines charging or an extra 4 BP/CCW Marines charging in a straight fight. Add in additional equivalent "free" Marines for each additional wound you win the assault by.

 

Don't worry about me, I'm just enjoying the thought of what happens when my opponents skillfully bring all resources to bear on what they think is a back breaking assault and I force a bunch of armor saves they didn't plan on.

[Legatus]

I see how it got read to get this interpretation, it is just the concept that it is possible to deal more wounds than happened in the close combat by handing out multiple free wounds to multiple fearless units. Makes it real interesting if you are facing a largely fearless in CC army with an army that can hand out Ld 9/10 vs morale checks.

Are you aware that a non-fearless unit will possibly fall back from combat and might be completely wiped out by the pursuing opponent? Regular units losing a combat can flee off the board or be caught by the pursuing enemy. Fearless units are never in the danger of being destroyed that way, and instead suffer a few additional wounds.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Oh yes, it is technically not an exploit, just as it is technically impossible to build a "cheese" army by the rules. It is exploitable in a semi-tight battlefield situation when you can "tag" MCs or small squads in CC with a few models, then stretch the rest of the assaulting squad into a gang bang on a squad with easy kills. The target squad for butchery can be shot up if needed then mass assaulted and as long as you have a unit with one figure in BTB on both, it becomes a multiple combat. The entire objective it to mass wound the target to "win" the fight, don't bother attacking the MC, uber CC IC or any other fearless units, that way you avoid dealing with their higher WS and T. Pile up the damage on the target unit and get as many freebie wounds as possible.

 

Look at it this way, if the attackers are WS:4, S:4, then to get wounds on WS:5, T:6 (SM vs Hive Tyrant) you need 12 attacks. 4+ to hit means 6 hits, then 6+ to wound means 1 wound. Against Genestealers that would be 3 wounds. Against Gaunts, it would be 5-6 wounds. It would be a whole lot better to pile up those wounds on the easier targets and then simply laugh and tell the Hive Tyrant you never took a swing at to start rolling his AS.

 

Just 1 of these freebie wounds would be the equivalent of an extra 6 bolter Marines charging or an extra 4 BP/CCW Marines charging in a straight fight. Add in additional equivalent "free" Marines for each additional wound you win the assault by.

 

Don't worry about me, I'm just enjoying the thought of what happens when my opponents skillfully bring all resources to bear on what they think is a back breaking assault and I force a bunch of armor saves they didn't plan on.

 

Yes you should load up the easy kills. Providing you are not letting, say, a Warboss survive with his PK....

 

Its just a trade-off, as Legatus said. 30 Orks can get pummelled by shooting and keep walking forwards. 30 Guardsmen roll at 25% Then the tables get turned if the Orks get hit in mêlée, as FEARLESS wounds are brutal on weak save things [but this gets balanced by points] whereas the Guardsmen might suffer nothing at all ~ if they didn't rout and get scythed down in the pursuit.

 

If you are facing a BIG mob of Orks, and you are in an assault or be assaulted situation, charge the Orks with everything you've got :)

[Algesan]

I see how it got read to get this interpretation, it is just the concept that it is possible to deal more wounds than happened in the close combat by handing out multiple free wounds to multiple fearless units. Makes it real interesting if you are facing a largely fearless in CC army with an army that can hand out Ld 9/10 vs morale checks.

Are you aware that a non-fearless unit will possibly fall back from combat and might be completely wiped out by the pursuing opponent? Regular units losing a combat can flee off the board or be caught by the pursuing enemy. Fearless units are never in the danger of being destroyed that way, and instead suffer a few additional wounds.

 

Yep, but I'll take a 1/12 chance of that happening if I'm playing my SoB for the chance to get freebie wounds on multiple fearless units. Yes, with my BoSL, the test is vs unmodified Ld, which makes them effectively Stubborn. Also, in the multiple combat situation we're talking about here, all it takes is one (1) of my units to stand and I get to thumb my nose at you over any sweeping advances. Oh, I'll give you only a Ld 9, so a 1/6 chance. With 2 units in the battle, that becomes 1/36, with 3 units it is 1/108.

 

It doesn't matter if all of my intact squads ran away and all that is left is one model waaaay over to the flank, everything that was locked in that you have stretched across the middle of the board has to do a pile in consolidation move towards that model instead of pursuing the fleeing units. The only way to break the locked in combat is to have all of your opponents retreat or die...

 

Yes you should load up the easy kills. Providing you are not letting, say, a Warboss survive with his PK....

 

Its just a trade-off, as Legatus said. 30 Orks can get pummelled by shooting and keep walking forwards. 30 Guardsmen roll at 25% Then the tables get turned if the Orks get hit in mêlée, as FEARLESS wounds are brutal on weak save things [but this gets balanced by points] whereas the Guardsmen might suffer nothing at all ~ if they didn't rout and get scythed down in the pursuit.

 

If you are facing a BIG mob of Orks, and you are in an assault or be assaulted situation, charge the Orks with everything you've got :lol:

 

Well, I always figured it was a trade-off, but that was back when I was reading that the "units" (plural as in all of the fearless units collectively involved in the battle) took "a number of wounds" (singular as in the total number of wounds the combat was lost by) that were "allocated normally" (which means each fearless unit takes a hit until every model has a hit to save against, then start over). The meaning is clear in the context, so I don't need to go looking in other sections of the book to get "further meaning" into the text.

 

The all fearless in the fight take multiple freebie wounds without needing to roll to hit or wound based on the fact that the non-fearless units all have to make morale checks with a negative DRM in another section of the rules, (despite the fact that the sentence in the relevant rules section reads that a plurality is taking a single number of wounds) is an exploitable game mechanic.

[Legatus]

Yep, but I'll take a 1/12 chance of that happening if I'm playing my SoB for the chance to get freebie wounds on multiple fearless units.

How good for you for playing an all "stubborn" army.

 

 

The meaning is clear in the context

Or so I thought. But apparently it isn't.

 

"[fearless] units suffer [number lost by] wounds"

 

I.e. "all fearless units suffer 3 wounds" (in case combat was lost by 3). As I said, that means every fearless unit now suffers 3 wounds. Compare for example to "All friendly units within 12" of Pedro Kantor receive 1 Attack". You do not nominate one of those units that then receives a single +1 attack roll.

 

 

I always figured it was a trade-off, but that was back when I was reading that the "units" (plural as in all of the fearless units collectively involved in the battle) took "a number of wounds" (singular as in the total number of wounds the combat was lost by)

It is "singular" because it is only one single number. In the example above it is 3. Three is only one single number. You do not lose a combat by 3, 2, 2, and 4. You do not lose combat by multiple numbers. You only lose it by a single number. Fearless units will suffer than number in wounds. You fight a combat with two units of CSM and two units of Plague Marines. You lose the combat by 3. The normal units now have to take a morale test. The fearless units instead suffer 3 wounds.

[Acebaur]

Yep, but I'll take a 1/12 chance of that happening if I'm playing my SoB for the chance to get freebie wounds on multiple fearless units.

 

As an aside, I play BT(obviously) who are fearless in CC. I guarantee you won't be getting many freebie wounds against me with your SoB Sisters don't really have devastating CC units, so you'll likely lose combat most of the time.

[Algesan]

Yep, but I'll take a 1/12 chance of that happening if I'm playing my SoB for the chance to get freebie wounds on multiple fearless units.

How good for you for playing an all "stubborn" army.

 

Thank you.

 

Or so I thought. But apparently it isn't.

 

It is, all you have to do is read it straight and not go around trying to reinterpret it according to other rules for other situations. The good Lord knows that it has to be done often enough in 40k, but do we have to make a habit out of it?

 

"[fearless] units suffer [number lost by] wounds"

 

I.e. "all fearless units suffer 3 wounds" (in case combat was lost by 3). As I said, that means every fearless unit now suffers 3 wounds. Compare for example to "All friendly units within 12" of Pedro Kantor receive 1 Attack". You do not nominate one of those units that then receives a single +1 attack roll.

 

 

I always figured it was a trade-off, but that was back when I was reading that the "units" (plural as in all of the fearless units collectively involved in the battle) took "a number of wounds" (singular as in the total number of wounds the combat was lost by)

It is "singular" because it is only one single number. In the example above it is 3. Three is only one single number. You do not lose a combat by 3, 2, 2, and 4. You do not lose combat by multiple numbers. You only lose it by a single number. Fearless units will suffer than number in wounds. You fight a combat with two units of CSM and two units of Plague Marines. You lose the combat by 3. The normal units now have to take a morale test. The fearless units instead suffer 3 wounds.

 

Let me rephrase it for you.

 

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

 

Assuming two units and three wounds, that means that these two units take a total of three wounds. It is real clear and I don't have to go anywhere else looking for any other clarification. To actually get the multiple units take the number of wounds the combat was lost by *each*, that nice little word "each" should be in that sentence somewhere.

 

This is what I meant by the plural-singular issue. It implies all of the units take a number of wounds total that are equal to the number the combat was lost by.

 

Notice in your counter example, the word "All" qualifies the sentence so that it is *all* of the units, so I don't need to go elsewhere for clarification and I wouldn't draw the conclusion you tried to rebut my point.

 

Your final paragraph is correct, you lose the combat by a single number, a set number of wounds for the various fearless units to take. Not (number of fearless units) X (number combat was lost by) = amount of wounds to be saved for. Because then the number of wounds taken would vary depending on the number of fearless units.

 

Yep, but I'll take a 1/12 chance of that happening if I'm playing my SoB for the chance to get freebie wounds on multiple fearless units.

 

As an aside, I play BT(obviously) who are fearless in CC. I guarantee you won't be getting many freebie wounds against me with your SoB Sisters don't really have devastating CC units, so you'll likely lose combat most of the time.

 

Yep, you would be a tougher situation, especially since I'm looking at taking up BT until they get some plastic Sisters for us. You would also be a different situation since the BTs don't have the pair of MCs I've been having to deal with in the games I've been playing, it would take a different setup and the motivation isn't there (with 2x MCs to tag into the big assault, each wound a Marine player wins by counts about like having another combat squad of Marines _charging_ into the fight).

 

In a straight fight, I'd get my arse handed to me. I'd have to strive to flamer you down to a size I could handle. I'd much prefer to do some drive-by stuff. However, don't overlook Acts of Faith.

 

For fun: the main effort I'd be trying would be to swarm you under with bodies. Yes, this is a setup type of situation and if you get the charge in first, it makes it a lot harder to do.

 

So I'd be hitting with at least three squads, one of them Seraphim and probably the Canoness with her Celestian retinue. If your squad doesn't include a leader type then it is going to have the exact same initiative as mine (4), except with a short Celestian retinue, I'll need a 6+ to pop the Passion and the Seraphim will be 7+ (but I get to roll 3 dice and pick two). Which means 22 attacks (Seraphim) + 13 attacks (Celestians) and 4 attacks (Cannoness) before you got to swing. 22 attacks at 4+ = 11 hits, with 5+ to wound meaning 3.75 wounds. 13 attacks at 3+ = 8.67 hits at 5+ to wound means another 2.89 wounds. 4 master crafted hits at 4+ will give 3 hits, with 3+ to wound would be 2 kills (power weapon, so no AS). Rounding it, you'd roll 6 AS, miss 2 of them then +2 for the PW hits and you just lost 4 marines, then you can trade swings simultaneously with the BS squad who would add in another 22 hits (blah, blah) which would probably lose you at least 1 more Initiate. Of course, if the Seraphim or BS actually got hot on hits, I could pop Divine Guidance to make the wound rolls rending (Celestian squad is too small to chance that roll). So, I could take down an average of 5 initiates in an assault.

 

Working backwards, it takes 3 wounds to score a kill, with a 3+ to wound it would mean 4.5 hits, with a 3+ to hit (vs BS Squad, 4+ against all the others) it would mean 6.75 attacks. To make a tie, you need 5 kills, so that would be 15 wounds, 22.5 hits and 33.75 attacks (with AAC a hair over 25 attacks). In other words, 17 (13 w/ AAC) Initiates that survived my higher initiative attacks (assuming all are BP/CCW).

 

This makes my initial guess wrong. Before I started figuring, I might could pull it off on a short squad that was left after I'd hammered a big squad with heavy flamers, flamers and RF bolters. Charging a 20 model Crusader squad would be stupid, not for the first round, but for the ongoing fight. I'd be tarpitted and butchered without being able to use my firing advantages (well, the Seraphim could run).

 

Now if we are looking at a mass combat with a BT army made up of MSUs of 5x Initiates, it actually might be doable since by the "each" of the units takes the number of wounds the combat was lost by ruling, I could pull this assault off if I could hit 3x Crusader MSU squads, hammer one into the ground and then make the other two each make the rolls. Smarter in this case (since they are all the same), would be to spread the hits out, because whatever I win by (at least according to mathhammer since I'd reduce you to below the level where you could tie), I'd have 3x units having to take the AS for the loss. Ouch, there went another Initiate for every wound you lost the fight by!

 

Ok, good lesson, if you are playing BT, make sure you get the charge in and there aren't any stray units floating around. Thanks, I'm glad I worked that out, I think I'm going to have to watch some stuff I wasn't thinking about more carefully if the "each" fearless unit takes the hit rule is applied, because that much SoB firepower would have probably killed the equivalent of another MSU in bits and pieces. I'm far to used to trying to flame down genestealers.

 

NOTE: If you got the charge in, you might still lose an individual assault (or even all three with good/bad dice as appropriate), but what you wouldn't have to face would be the risk of taking all the losses together and then having that total applied to each squad of all three (or four) squads!

 

Really, thanks a lot, both for the thoughts I got and for a good example of how abusive using a bit from the Assault rules section to reinterpret a bit from the Morale rules section can be.

[Acebaur]

Well I see a couple flaws in your logic. For one, I generally run a character in most of my crusader squads, so you'll have to deal with around 5 attacks on average on the charge. That's 3 dead sisters on average. Also BT can take power weapons in our crusader squads.

 

Another thing, unless something goes wrong, I'm not going to charge a lone cruasder squad into a cluster of 3 squads(unless it's assault terminators) nor would I plop one there to be charged. Instead I'd hit you with at least 2 squads of my own, possibly one of which is termitors, who will wipe whatever unit they touch.

 

Just for reference, a 7x2 squad of Cruasers with a PW and a special weapon will kill 5 sisters(assuming WS4, an extra sister will die if WS3) on the charge at I4, plus the 3 that my character(PW and BP) with 5 attacks will kill as well.

 

There's a lot to consider when doing mathhammer and the results can vary wildly. Generally unless there are unusual circumstances(like the 3 on one CC you mentioned) you can bet that you are going to lose combat against an army that is designed around it. :P

 

 

Couple of questions though, you said 4 master crafted attacks? Since the Sister Superiors can't take them, I assume these are the Canoness, but you know that you only get to re-roll one attack, not all 4?

 

Also you said that I'd swing simo with the BS, but they are I3 so unless you use Passion on them too I'd hit first.

[Grey Mage]

Let me rephrase it for you.

 

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

 

Assuming two units and three wounds, that means that these two units take a total of three wounds. It is real clear and I don't have to go anywhere else looking for any other clarification. To actually get the multiple units take the number of wounds the combat was lost by *each*, that nice little word "each" should be in that sentence somewhere.

 

This is what I meant by the plural-singular issue. It implies all of the units take a number of wounds total that are equal to the number the combat was lost by.

 

Notice in your counter example, the word "All" qualifies the sentence so that it is *all* of the units, so I don't need to go elsewhere for clarification and I wouldn't draw the conclusion you tried to rebut my point.

 

Your final paragraph is correct, you lose the combat by a single number, a set number of wounds for the various fearless units to take. Not (number of fearless units) X (number combat was lost by) = amount of wounds to be saved for. Because then the number of wounds taken would vary depending on the number of fearless units.

Each unit applies its rules independantly of the other.

 

If you have no fearless units in the combat, each unit, individually, will take the penalty to their leadership equal to the number of wounds their entire side lost by.

 

Each of those units must be looked at to see if it would instead take no retreat wounds, most commonly from being fearless. You do not check if an entire side of the combat is fearless etc, nor is there anything stating a unit without such a rule would be exposed to no retreat wounds.

 

Thus, upon finding that a unit is ineligible for the break test because it will always pass it due to fearless or some other rule we apply the no retreat wounds to it instead.

 

Then, we see that another unit in the combat is going to have the same problem, and we apply them again. And we keep doing this- applying leadership penalties or no retreat wounds until we run out of units.

 

Because the whole side loses by an amount, but their psychology, and thus no retreat, is always done unit by unit.