Fearles, combat resolution and IC.

[Niiai]

If a fearless IC joins a fearles unit and combat resolution happends: Does the IC and the unit have to take saves if I loose the combat, or just the unit?

 

I think just the unit but it became a topic this weekends. Do anybody also know where it is worderd in the rulebook?

 

-Thanks Vidar

[greatcrusade08]

if an Ic is joined to a fearless unit before combat happens, then its only one unit as per the rules.. if fearless means they take a few more saves then you can allocate to anyone in that unit including the Ic, but no he doesnt tke extra wouns as though he were a seperate unit.

 

note a non fearless Ic joining a fearless unit gains fearless, but not the other way around

[thade]

note a non fearless Ic joining a fearless unit gains fearless, but not the other way around

This is correct and is often confused by novice marine players. Your Chaplain is Fearless, but this is not why units he attaches to are Fearless; he has another rule ("Litanies") that confers Fearless onto units he is joined with.

 

Another over-arching bit here that can be confusing is when units are and are not joined with their ICs during assaults. They allocate attacks out and have to mitigate wounds directed at them all on their own during the combat itself, but when combat resolution is figured out, they are together again. SO, as GC08 says...should they take No Retreat! wounds, you can allocate them throughout the unit.

[Leonaides]

tho if an individual ic on his own, and a separate unit, both charge 1 enemy unit, they would still be 2 separate units at the end of the combat and thus both liable to take as many wounds as the combat was lost by. So a chaplain and a dc, that lost a combat by 6, would both have to take 6 saves, not 6 saves split between both units.

[thade]

tho if an individual ic on his own, and a separate unit, both charge 1 enemy unit, they would still be 2 separate units at the end of the combat and thus both liable to take as many wounds as the combat was lost by. So a chaplain and a dc, that lost a combat by 6, would both have to take 6 saves, not 6 saves split between both units.

 

This is something I admit to having omitted in my previous post...because I can't remember how it works in all cases. In the simple case, you are absolutely right: if they charge in separately, clean up the assault, then consolidate, for the opponent's turn the IC and the unit are in fact separate units: they can only Join at the end of the Movement phase of the controlling player's turn.

 

I'm less sure about what happens if the IC and unit are mired in that assault for multiple turns. So, they charge in on Player 1's turn; fight through Player 2's turn and the combat still endures; back to Player 1's turn they are locked in an assault so they cannot move, of course, but - if at the end of the Movement phase for that player - the IC and unit are within coherency - are they then involuntarily joined?

 

I'm pretty sure that they are not, but without my rulebook at hand I can't confirm it.

[ShinyRhino]

They're not automatically joined. You can only move in or out of a unit during the Movement phase. Models in close combat are prohibited from moving, so no joining or departing. Melee is the exception to the 2" rule.

[thade]

They're not automatically joined. You can only move in or out of a unit during the Movement phase. Models in close combat are prohibited from moving, so no joining or departing. Melee is the exception to the 2" rule.

Thank you, sir.

[Something Wycked]

tho if an individual ic on his own, and a separate unit, both charge 1 enemy unit, they would still be 2 separate units at the end of the combat and thus both liable to take as many wounds as the combat was lost by. So a chaplain and a dc, that lost a combat by 6, would both have to take 6 saves, not 6 saves split between both units.

Is this correct? Wouldn't the IC and the unit both have to make however many saves they lost the combat by?

 

IE, the IC doesn't inflict any wounds and fails 1 save. Loses the combat by 1. The unit he is not attached to loses the combat by 5. They fail the Morale check, get caught by Sweeping Advance, and then take No Retreat! wounds: 1 for the IC, 5 for the unit.

 

Or do the wounds really get added together and doubled when they're applied to both units, making the IC and the unit take 6 each?

[timmytool]

when their is more then 2 units in a combat it always counts as a multiple combat and combined the results.

EVEN if their not directly all locked in combat to each other, think 1 unit 3sides: side A is locked with B&C but B&C don"t need to be locked with each to be multiple combat(and will consolidate/defender react into each other even if A is wiped out)

BRB p 41

[Frosty the Pyro]

Or do the wounds really get added together and doubled when they're applied to both units, making the IC and the unit take 6 each?

 

yes. combat is won or lost by sides, and all units on that side must make a moral check, if they automaticly pass said moral check (via fearlessness or calgar telling them to, or whatever) then each unit takes wounds based on how much the side lost by, so yes the wounds off all units gets added together to be the amount that each unit takes, resulting in the total wounds taken being multiplied by the number of fearless (or otherwise no retreating) units.

[ShinyRhino]

yes. combat is won or lost by sides, and all units on that side must make a moral check, if they automaticly pass said moral check (via fearlessness or calgar telling them to, or whatever) then each unit takes wounds based on how much the side lost by, so yes the wounds off all units gets added together to be the amount that each unit takes, resulting in the total wounds taken being multiplied by the number of fearless (or otherwise no retreating) units.

 

Calgar's auto-pass for units in his army does NOT cause No Retreat wounds. You simply pass.

[thade]

Calgar's auto-pass for units in his army does NOT cause No Retreat wounds. You simply pass.

gah! Don't open this can of worms! This already got grey-area'd:

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...t&p=1974674

[Seahawk]

Ah, but it was (not) answered by the FAQ:

 

Q. If Marneus Calgar chooses to pass a Morale Check

using his God of War special rule does he, and any unit he

has joined, count as Fearless? (p84)

A. No.

[thade]

Ah, but it was (not) answered by the FAQ:

 

Q. If Marneus Calgar chooses to pass a Morale Check

using his God of War special rule does he, and any unit he

has joined, count as Fearless? (p84)

A. No.

 

Oh, crap.

 

...

 

Okay, here we go.

 

This is the worst FAQ entry I've ever seen. (Subjective.) The No Retreat! doesn't exclusively refer to Fearless. It refers to "automatically passing a morale check". (Literal.) Thus, we're still in the same boat and I stand with my former statement: this is already listed as grey-area. (Conviction.) How sad that they would try to help us and fail. (They are dumb.)

 

Not sure where the parenthetical commentary came in, but just go with it.

[Seahawk]

It was "answered" in the FAQ, but not really answered at all. Not only does the entry fail in the ways you highlight, but it also only refers to him or his squad; this answer does not even affect any other SM unit on the table.

 

We know the intent now: such squads don't take wounds. But the wording is so incredibly terrible that the answer truly means nothing at all.

[thade]

It was "answered" in the FAQ, but not really answered at all. Not only does the entry fail in the ways you highlight, but it also only refers to him or his squad; this answer does not even affect any other SM unit on the table.

 

We know the intent now: such squads don't take wounds. But the wording is so incredibly terrible that the answer truly means nothing at all.

I agree on all counts. :)

[Niiai]

Can we get back on topic?

 

So a gargoyle swarm that looses a combat with 10. The same swarm has the parasite in it. Now the player divides the armour saves among the unit + parasite or is there 10 saves on the unit and 10 on the parasite?

[thade]

Can we get back on topic?

I don't see why not.

 

So a gargoyle swarm that looses a combat with 10. The same swarm has the parasite in it. Now the player divides the armour saves among the unit + parasite or is there 10 saves on the unit and 10 on the parasite?

You can answer this one for yourself, given the above posts, the BRB, and the codex in question:

 

Does the parasite have the IC rule? Was the parasite attached to the swarm before it charged? If you answered yes to both questions, then the answer to your question is yes: 10 wounds over the entire unit, period. (Not 10 each.)

 

If the parasite is an upgrade character to the unit and cannot ever leave the unit, then the answer to the question is yes: 10 wounds over the entire unit. (Not 10 each.)

 

Make sense?

 

EDIT: Clarity.

[DarkGuard]

Can we get back on topic?

 

So a gargoyle swarm that looses a combat with 10. The same swarm has the parasite in it. Now the player divides the armour saves among the unit + parasite or is there 10 saves on the unit and 10 on the parasite?

 

The parasite seems to have been in the squad when the assault phase started. During combat he counts as separate, but at the end of combat he rejoins the squad, and so it is 10 wounds for the gargoyles, including the parasite, and must be allocated across the entire squad. Had the parasite charged separately, and therefore been a different squad to the gargoyles then it would be 10 wounds each.

[Something Wycked]

..... Wow. I need to invest in assault troops that can overcome my dice so I can multi-charge, win the combat, and multiply the fearless wounds across multiple squads. (Nearly every opponent I face is fearless in some way ;) )

[timmytool]

this is why it can be beneficial to put all your attacks on a small nid sq when locked in combat with a monsterous creature :) you hit/wound easier and even if you wipe that 20+ small nid sq of the planet you can cause more wounds during moral to the monstrous creature and make it take 10+ armour saves and fail as many/more then you could have with all your atacks at it from the start.

 

The rules dont differentiate which non-engaged base you make contact with after the first and nid players are kind enough to keep their big boys close to the small ones :P