No retreat and IC

[Algesan]

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. :lol:

 

 

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.

 

Oh, LOTS of flaws in that, has to be with as many assumptions as I made. I tried to balance them out some, but while math is useful, math is only the map, not the reality. I've seen enough dice roll both ways for both sides in way too many games to count on math(hammer) to predict the outcome. I can give examples, but then so can you and we can leave it at that. I didn't want to get in a rather stupid debate that SoB can outdo BT in CC, but I'm trying to point out that even with SoB, if you get the setup, you can abuse this ruling all day long.

 

Who charged whom? Big benefit both ways. FWIW, I think that the best way to pull this off will be in a countercharge situation.

 

I used a set piece example using 5 Initiate Crusader squads. It actually turned out a lot better statistically than I thought it would, but I'll admit that would be fairly tricky to set up. I'll admit that if you catch me even slightly out of position, this will not come off so nicely.

 

I will point out that assuming several small Crusader squads it wouldn't be putting one unit out to be charged by multiple squads, I'd be charging multiple squads with multiple squads. The big point to the 3 vs 1 wasn't so much as thinking I'd get a shot like that on 1 unit, it is the ability to "tag" units during assaults to make them part of the multiple combat. If I did charge 3 of your squads, it would probably be one of my squads vs one of yours, except there would be the "tag" of a model in another squad. So, the Sister squad would hit one and put at least one model on another and as long as I can do that at least one more time with one of the other two squads, I get my time to pound more than one of your squads. That bit isn't really that hard, I've used it to tarpit multiple squads to buy a turn (shoot them, charge them, they finish me off in their assault and I have another move and fire on them).

 

Oh, why do I want to tag as many units as I think I can and still win the assault? Because if their all fearless, then every unit I have tagged will take 1 extra freebie wound for every wound I win the assault by. It's one reason (another being simpler math) that I chose several small squads rather than one huge 20 man squad. It would still work, but I'm focusing on how this interpretation can be abused.

 

Yep, screwed up the Canoness' attack, she would only get 1 reroll for a miss and you would get first strike in against the Sister squad (unless they popped Passion also, which I might try if they had casualties, but then they would hit first, or I could use Hand since I'm losing the initiative battle anyway so I can get +2 S).

 

I'll note that if you had more powerful squads (bigger or with IC), then I'd need to throw in extra troops or try other tactics to line your guys up like I wanted them to be.

[Legatus]

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)."

I was trying to reduce it to it's core meaning. Perhaps elaborating helps:

 

"Instead of taking a morale test, 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.

Sometimes, looking elsewhere helps in understanding what a sentence structure is really meant to convey.

 

If "Units that lose a combat must pass a Morale check" means that each of those units has to make a test, then obviously "Units that are fearless that lose a combat take a number of wounds" also means that each of these units takes those wounds.

 

You have to get rid of that "singular/plural" notion. You are misunderstanding the meaning of such phrases. The plural is used to generally adress a group of units, each of which might be subject to a singular effect. "units that want to do X have to take a test", "units that are X suffer a number of wounds", "units within X get one additional attack".

 

A rule wouldn't adress the plural of such units with a plural of effects. You wouldn't read: "units that wish to enter difficult terrain have to take difficult terrain tests". No, you would read "units that wish to enter difficult terrain have to take a difficult terrain test". That does not mean that if you want three of your units to enter difficult terrain during the same turn you make one single collective test for all of them together. It means every single case where such a unit wants to enter difficult terrain it has to make it's own test. That is the normal way how rules are phrased. A group is adressed, which is subject to an effect.

 

"units that are assaulted while falling back must attempt to regroup"

 

"units make a fall back move upon failing a morale test"

 

"units that lose a close combat must take a Morale check".

 

 

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.

The statements "units that lose combat have to take a morale test" or "all units that lose combat have to take a morale test" pretty much amount to the same. The former is more generalising, the latter is a bit more specific.

[Algesan]

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.

 

That is a real nice sequence, but I don't read it written anywhere.

 

If it is there, I'll apologize, but if it isn't there, then this suggested sequence implies that "each" is somewhere in that sentence I quoted from the rules as well as mixes two different rules sections to draw the conclusion.

 

I don't know how to parse it any clearer.

 

This "number" (from "number of wounds") is singular and can be pointed to, say X. So what is this fixed number? X? Nope, it is actually F*X where F = the number of units affected by No Retreat. So it isn't "units suffer a number equal to X" (Yes, I discarded the prepositional phrase to get the real meaning of the sentence), it is "units *each* suffer a number equal to X".

 

So, let's be really stupid. If Acebaur charges in with his entire BT army of 10 units against two widdle Sister squads strung out in a firing line and manages roll all 1s to hit, while I somehow manage to roll hot enough to get 5 wounds, which he fails (remember, he has the curse of "1" on him for this brief shining moment), then his army just took 50 wounds to save against! With 5 already dead! From a pair of units that at best could 22 wounds total! You got there from here, so how do you justify that? A trade-off?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

So, let's be really stupid. If Acebaur charges in with his entire BT army of 10 units against two widdle Sister squads strung out in a firing line and manages roll all 1s to hit, while I somehow manage to roll hot enough to get 5 wounds, which he fails (remember, he has the curse of "1" on him for this brief shining moment), then his army just took 50 wounds to save against! With 5 already dead! From a pair of units that at best could 22 wounds total! You got there from here, so how do you justify that? A trade-off?

 

No Retreat!

Instead these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by [allocated as normal]

 

Say they lose the combat by 3 and therefore take three wounds.

 

Multiple combat results

Every unit on the losing side has to check their Morale [they all use the same penalty]

 

+++

 

A normal unit loses by 4 and takes a -4 Ld test.

Two normal units lose by 4 and both take a -4 Ld test .

 

A Fearless unit loses by 4 and takes 4 wounds

Two Fearless units lose by 4 and both take 4 wounds.

 

You don't divvy the -Ld test between the units, and you also do not divvy the wounds between the units either.

 

You can't apply it one way for Ld modifiers and then another way for wounds

 

**Remember, the No Retreat! rule is written NOT as a subheading of Multiple combat results, but as a parallel to the normal way of resolving a one on one combat.

 

It is not "Instead [all of these] these units [added together] suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost combat by"

but "Instead these [kinds of] units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost combat by" and is talking about one on one unit mêlée.

[Legatus]

If it is there, I'll apologize, but if it isn't there, then this suggested sequence implies that "each" is somewhere in that sentence I quoted from the rules as well as mixes two different rules sections to draw the conclusion.

You don't need an "each", and you do not need to mix rules. You only need to understand how rule statements are phrased and how groups of units are adressed.

 

"Units that lose a close combat must take a Morale check"

 

"A unit that loses a close combat must take a Morale check"

 

You have to understand that the two statements above have exactly the same consequence. The difference is that the first statement adresses the possible group of units it may concern more generally, while the second statement specifically refers to a case by case basis. Still, in both cases every unit concerned would individually have to take a test. The first statement does not mean that all of the units that are currently included are collectively taking a single test. That's not what the use of plural and singular means. It merely means that several units might be affected in this way. But they all will be subject to the effect described individually.

[BearersOfSalvation]

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.

 

That's a common misconception - you don't have to move towards that model if you can't get in BtB with it or within 2" of a model within BtB. Some of the near guys have to pile in to him, but as long as the rest of the unit maintains coherency it can move however it wants.

[Algesan]

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.

 

That's a common misconception - you don't have to move towards that model if you can't get in BtB with it or within 2" of a model within BtB. Some of the near guys have to pile in to him, but as long as the rest of the unit maintains coherency it can move however it wants.

 

Sorry, I did mingle "pile-in" and "consolidation" in my post, they are two different types of post assault movement.

 

Only applies if it is impossible for both sides to maintain contact. In single unit vs. single unit, the closest surviving models from both sides must be over 12" apart (per pg 40 in Pile-In). On page 41 for multiple unit combat, same thing applies, because if it is "impossible" then both sides must consolidate. Obviously if there is at least one unit still with within 12" of any of the enemy units, then they cannot consolidate. If one side cannot consolidate, then the other cannot. Therefore, the units must attempt to pile-in still. Of course, as soon as their next movement comes up, they are no longer considered locked since they are too far away and may move and shoot normally. However, they still must make that pile-in move according to the rules.

[Grey Mage]

I believe Marshal Wilhelm and Legatus covered what I was refering to Algesan, do you understand now?

[Algesan]

So, let's be really stupid. If Acebaur charges in with his entire BT army of 10 units against two widdle Sister squads strung out in a firing line and manages roll all 1s to hit, while I somehow manage to roll hot enough to get 5 wounds, which he fails (remember, he has the curse of "1" on him for this brief shining moment), then his army just took 50 wounds to save against! With 5 already dead! From a pair of units that at best could 22 wounds total! You got there from here, so how do you justify that? A trade-off?

 

You mixed two sets of rules for two different situations.

 

No Retreat!

Instead these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by [allocated as normal]

 

Say they lose the combat by 3 and therefore take three wounds.

 

Correct, these units {fearless ones, in plural} suffer a number of wounds {singular number determined previously}.

 

Multiple combat results

Every unit on the losing side has to check their Morale [they all use the same penalty]

 

+++

 

Yep, except fearless units don't have to check morale, do they? So you are interpreting the rules in the Morale section for fearless units with the rules in the Assault section for non-fearless units, right?

 

Fearless units don't care what the Ld penalty is. Really, they don't.

 

A normal unit loses by 4 and takes a -4 Ld test.

Two normal units lose by 4 and both take a -4 Ld test .

 

Yes, clearly stated under the rules and applied to non-fearless units.

 

A Fearless unit loses by 4 and takes 4 wounds

Two Fearless units lose by 4 and both take 4 wounds.

 

Heh, look at your phrasing, "... both take 4 wounds." Without that missing little word "each", you just replicated the plural subject with singular object used in the rules. As in between the two of them they take four wounds total.

 

One fearless unit would take 4 wounds

Two fearless units would take 4 wounds

Three fearless units would take 4 wounds

 

But not each without that something that indicates "each" besides rules that apply to non-fearless units.

 

You don't divvy the -Ld test between the units,

 

Correct, the rules state that and it applies to non-fearless units.

 

and you also do not divvy the wounds between the units either.

 

Well, I could go with that interpretation for multiple fearless units, which means you start with one fearless unit, apply one wound per model until they run out and if you have more wounds than models, you go on to the next fearless unit. Personally, I'd say you hand out a wound to each unit in rotation.

 

That is not stated.

 

You can't apply it one way for Ld modifiers and then another way for wounds

 

Sure you can, as long as the Ld modifiers apply to non-fearless units and the wounds apply to fearless units. The Ld modifier is derived from the number of wounds the combat was lost by. The Ld modifier is totally irrelevant to fearless units.

 

**Remember, the No Retreat! rule is written NOT as a subheading of Multiple combat results, but as a parallel to the normal way of resolving a one on one combat.

 

Correct. It is a subheading under the Morale rules (which is a big part of my point) and not part of the Multiple Combats rules. In fact, situation C) Losing An Assault states that units take a -1 Ld for each wound their side lost the assault by. Notice the "each". Of course, this applies again only to non-fearless units and is referenced to by the Multiple Combats rule: "...(they all use the same penalty as described in the Morale section)."

 

It is not "Instead [all of these] these units [added together] suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost combat by"

but "Instead these [kinds of] units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost combat by" and is talking about one on one unit mêlée.

 

You are reading into the text and adding words to support your view. I'm simply noting that there is no word "each" included in the sentence, which is what you would really have to add to your second sentence to make it read clearly as all fearless units each take X wounds.

 

I don't have to add anything to the text or redefine any words in the rules in reading them as written.

 

I don't have to go read any rules in other sections that apply to non-fearless units.

 

Clinching it for me is the fact that unless the rule is intended to allow for massive free wound potentials in multiple combats with multiple fearless units as a penalty for being fearless, it just doesn't make any sense. The No Retreat rule can still be used to jack up the wounds a MC would have to save for in a multiple combat without having to attack it, but it cannot be used to turn a 5 model unit into a potential 15" line of doom that multiplies the effect of a combat on one squad into a mass casualty exercise across multiple units.

[Algesan]

If it is there, I'll apologize, but if it isn't there, then this suggested sequence implies that "each" is somewhere in that sentence I quoted from the rules as well as mixes two different rules sections to draw the conclusion.

You don't need an "each", and you do not need to mix rules. You only need to understand how rule statements are phrased and how groups of units are adressed.

 

"Units that lose a close combat must take a Morale check"

 

"A unit that loses a close combat must take a Morale check"

 

You have to understand that the two statements above have exactly the same consequence. The difference is that the first statement adresses the possible group of units it may concern more generally, while the second statement specifically refers to a case by case basis. Still, in both cases every unit concerned would individually have to take a test. The first statement does not mean that all of the units that are currently included are collectively taking a single test. That's not what the use of plural and singular means. It merely means that several units might be affected in this way. But they all will be subject to the effect described individually.

 

Well, if rules mixing isn't needed, why does every justification here call on the rules for non-fearless units Ld modifier to be applied to fearless units?

 

Yes, I can parse English. BTW, where did you get the second sentence? In the single combat section of the Assault rules and the Morale rules on this, both times they use the first sentence structure (FYI, for a reason). Amusingly, in the Multiple Combat section of the Assault rules, it clearly states that "Every unit on the losing side..."

 

Note that your second sentence implies "each" by saying "A unit...".

[Algesan]

I believe Marshal Wilhelm and Legatus covered what I was refering to Algesan, do you understand now?

 

I understand the reasoning, believe me I do. I thought it was a bit of stretch at first glance, but almost agreed with it until I saw the exploitation potential.

 

What is happening is an interpretation of a rule for fearless units taking wounds by using rules about non-fearless units taking Morale checks.

 

Appears to be apples and oranges. Oh yes, the number of wounds an assault is lost by is relevant in both cases, but then apples and oranges are both fruits. A surface similarity isn't enough.

[Acebaur]

Algesan,

First it isn't an explotation, as you have to win combat first, something that is wholly dependant on dice.

 

Also you say that we are mixing rules by using those for "non-fearless" units and "fearless" units. There is no such thing. All units, fearless or not follow the same rules during the morale check phase. The thing I think you are forgeting is that Fearless units take morale just like every other unit, except that they automatically pass it. And are then subject to "No Retreat"

 

For example.

 

Unit A and B lose combat by 3 wounds.

 

Unit A must test for Ld at -3, at Ld 9 they roll a 7 and fail(needing a 6). They then will move on to the RUN AWAY!!! section

 

Unit B must test for Ld at -3, They are Fearless, and so automatically pass the test, and then take 3 additional wounds.

 

So unit B still "took" the test they just always auto-pass it. Does that help?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

 

I play Templars. Any 'exploitation' is usable against me. Why would I be arguing for a ruling to be against me? Should I not be looking for ways to support what you are saying?

 

You don't have to believe me. Or trust me. Once threads get to this point, the sides are entrenched and basically the arguing goes round and round in circles. See the "what are combi-weapons once fired?" thread as an outrageous example.

 

A few of us have taken the time to convince you. For whatever reason, you don't agree with us. It does seem conspicuous to me that all of us agree with one another, yet no-one is getting on board your side. That is not supposed to be an attack on you.

I know that many does not mean right. However, the guys arguing here are all solid. Often enough you get Chapter Q guys trying to rort [maliciously or not] something into Chapter Q's favour. We are mostly from different Chapters [Acebauer and I being the only double-ups as far as I can see]

You will often see in a rules debate, people want/believe/feel something to be X. Then someone says it is Y. Usually a few other guys get on board with the Y counter-argument, even if they are from Chapter Q themselves. I can't see anyone backing up what you are saying.

I could have missed it but guys who play with and guys who play against FEARLESS are arguing the same way.

 

I am adding words or saying things that are not there to help you get it. The words are there in the structure and meaning, though they are not written

 

Hopefully this post has not come across as mean.

 

I just don't have the inclination to argue around and around with you. :)

 

Do as we play it or not. It doesn't matter. The only thing I would now advise is to clarify it with the dudes you play with, just to make sure everyone is on the same page before it commences, as I believe that people will be playing it 'our' way.

But sometimes people we play against don't even read the rules and would learn something new either way :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Happy gaming :tu:

[Grey Mage]

I believe Marshal Wilhelm and Legatus covered what I was refering to Algesan, do you understand now?

 

I understand the reasoning, believe me I do. I thought it was a bit of stretch at first glance, but almost agreed with it until I saw the exploitation potential.

 

What is happening is an interpretation of a rule for fearless units taking wounds by using rules about non-fearless units taking Morale checks.

 

Appears to be apples and oranges. Oh yes, the number of wounds an assault is lost by is relevant in both cases, but then apples and oranges are both fruits. A surface similarity isn't enough.

Good thing it isnt a surface similarity.

 

Combat result is always the same. Always. There is no seperate way of determining a combat result.

 

Both Morale Checks and No Retreat use that combat result to determine their effect for the units involved in that combat.

 

I dont see where your skipping a beat.

[Legatus]

BTW, where did you get the second sentence?

It was an example of how a differently phrased statement would amount to the same. But you must have it in teh BRB to accept it, look no further than the Morale section, where a singular subject is adressed.

 

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase."

 

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

 

 

A statement might adress a singular example subject or a plural general group. In both cases it will amount to the same. You can have several units lose 25% per turn, and each one of them has to take a test. You can also have several units lose a combat. and each of them has to take a test. That is already clear from the above statement, and you do not really need a clarification from the close combat section.

 

"Passengers that wish to take the plane have to buy a ticket."

 

"A passenger that wishes to take the plane has to buy a ticket."

 

Note how the use of a general group does not mean that the entire group only needs to buy one single ticket, or that all the units losing a combat only have to take one single test. It is merely a way of generally expressing a requirement for members of a group. That is how such statements are phrased.

 

You would't say "Passengers that wish to take the plane have to buy plane tickets." That would be incorrect, and people would assume that each passenger would need multiple tickets. It is known that the general (and plural) "passengers that want to..." or "people who want to..." is used to instruct individuals of such a group, not explain what the entirety of that group has to do.

 

"Customers who wish to register a complaint have to fill out a form."

 

etc.

 

Now go to the no retreat rules:

 

"[Fearless] units suffer the a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by."

 

It is the same thing. This means each individual fearless unit that has lost a combat will suffer a number of wounds equal to the number it's side has lost by. The rule does not have to say "each individually". That's what the phrase means. That is how units are generally adressed, even if the results are meant to be applied on an individual basis.

[thade]

Grey Mage is on the money here.

[Acebaur]

Legatus: nice airplane example, one of my own just popped into my head

 

Fearless Passengers may not rip their ticket in half and share it with friends. Thank you for flying Warhammer Air. Warhammer Air is not responsible to lost or damaged luggage or if you or your family suddenly turn into warp spawn. Thank you and have a safe flight

[Algesan]

1. Parsing the sentence, it can be read either way, but the most natural reading is the one I've given. If you want to use the example of the Ld modifier, it is interesting to note that the Multiple Combat rules not once, but twice, in the same sentence, specifies that it applies to every unit rolling a Morale check. Fearless units don't roll Morale checks. Is there a reason for such precision in one place (against dividing the number of wounds that the Ld modifier is derived from) and not such precision in another place?

 

2. I might be a 40k n00b, but I've been a gamer for most of my life and I've seen a lot of the use and abuse of rules, especially from vague wording that can be interpreted either way. I'll bet none of you ever thought about purposely entangling multiple fearless units in one mass CC just for this reason, have you?

 

In fact, I've followed the "natural" inclination of a player with units better at shooting than CC to try to avoid getting stuck in CC and shooting down the remnants of units. OTOH, being a n00b without any vested interest in "playing right" or leftover junk from previous editions stuck in my brain to quote, it is easier to think outside the box.

 

3. The situation is harder to achieve against squads. The real chance for abuse comes with multiple MCs, which is something I've actually faced repeatedly and I could have pulled off mass multiple unit combat in every game with them. In the last two games I played I could have pulled off the setup for exploiting the rules I've mentioned here. I simply would have had to have committed the extra squads in a counter charge.

 

The pushback would be that my opponents were being too aggressive with their CC, but I'd have done a lot better shooting them than CCing them since they couldn't shoot back much.

 

The specific MCs are a Demon Prince and Hive Tyrant, in CC I need 6 hits to wound and 3 attacks to hit, which means each wound I won the CC by would be the equivalent of 18! extra attacks or the equivalent of 9 extra Sisters charging each MC per wound. This is almost the equivalent of having a squad of Sisters shooting them. Per wound.

 

I've acknowledged I see where all of you are deriving it from, I've pointed out the issues with grammar and cross-referencing two different things and I've pointed out how be being a little "crazy", players can multiply their on board strength by using this rule in an abusive manner in certain situations. (Okay, it might not be abusive, it might be exactly what GW intended to force CC to back off some and be more cautious.)

 

FWIW, I'm going to work on doing this, although I don't play much and won't until I get my own army up and I can guarantee what the reactions will be when I pull it off.

 

I'm through with it, not because I'm outnumbered and I don't think it is personal (with my temper, I'd have a stroke trying to control it if I thought it was personal when someone disagreed with me on the Internet), but mainly because nobody seems to want to think about it.

[Grey Mage]

Its not personal, its just business- this is how the rules work. I understand where your coming from, but that doesnt change that everything I see says your wrong.

 

As for the rule, its not abusive, its balancing. You could just as easily say that the person with the fearless units would toss all the wounds onto the unit with the best saves so as to eliminate the penalty that is built into the balance of being fearless. The consistant way, and the way its done at GWs own tournaments, is that each unit takes the wounds just like each unit takes its own morale check with the perquisite penalties.

[Legatus]

If you want to use the example of the Ld modifier, it is interesting to note that the Multiple Combat rules not once, but twice, in the same sentence, specifies that it applies to every unit rolling a Morale check. Fearless units don't roll Morale checks. Is there a reason for such precision in one place (against dividing the number of wounds that the Ld modifier is derived from) and not such precision in another place?

Yes, there actually is a reason. The Morale rules on page 44, where the 'No Retreat!' rule is described, are describing the general situation. The 'Multiple Combats' section on page 41 specifically describes the case where not one, but multiple units are participating. That page does not mention fearless units, though.

 

 

I'll bet none of you ever thought about purposely entangling multiple fearless units in one mass CC just for this reason, have you?

The thing is that fearless units usually tend to be good in HtH. On the other hand I have thought about it quite a bit to contact multiple non-fearless units to make them all flee and kill them all in one turn. Berserkers or genestealers can do that to certain armies. Fearless units are not run down. Fearless units suffer extra wounds instead.

 

 

The specific MCs are a Demon Prince and Hive Tyrant, in CC I need 6 hits to wound and 3 attacks to hit, which means each wound I won the CC by would be the equivalent of 18! extra attacks or the equivalent of 9 extra Sisters charging each MC per wound. This is almost the equivalent of having a squad of Sisters shooting them. Per wound.

Now imagine running down a leftover squad of 5 Chaos Marines with your Sisters of battle. To kill 5 Chaos Marines you would have needed 90 (!) regular attacks.

[vonny]

If you wanna know how abusive this is, go to the fora about Tyranids (like Warpshadow, where I originally come from). You'll see the first advice given to newbies is to not charge in your monstrous creatures along with your gaunts, because your MC's will die of no retreat wounds. Not one tyranid player likes the change to 5th edition in that respect, but it's the rules and they've/we've learned to adapt... and pick the fights where we place monstrous creatures along with little ones.