Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

The Fearless Factor
Reply
Old 11 Sep 2008, 07:14   #1 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bradford, W.Yorks
Posts: 759
Default The Fearless Factor

Last night I was playing my mate who uses Blood Angels and he made an interesting point about the new combat resolution rules that have been bugging us lately.

The Background
A lot of us have been really boned by the fact that in multiple combats involving elite troops along with littluns, it's easy for our opponents to kill the littluns in order to win combat, thereby forcing us to make lots of saves on each unit involved in the melee. Sucks, right?

However, the Synapse rules state (in diferent words that I will use perhaps) that creatures in synapse range automatically pass any leadership tests they are required to make. When you pass your leadership test you don't have to take extra saves... So what are we doing?

I'm not sure how this translates for troops that are genuinely fearless, although my friend seemed to think that as long as they were in Synapse range this rule would take precedence (I'm not sure).

Thoughts?
__________________
Plunder of Penn IX sample rules here: http://forums.tauonline.org/index.ph...c,88254.0.html

Extartius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Sep 2008, 08:28   #2 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,933
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

There should be some resolution for fearless units in the rulebook, like last edition. Perhaps not as brutal, but there is something in there, otherwise fearless units would go scot free.

(rule book ordered ;D)
pepsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Sep 2008, 09:59   #3 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,750
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

I think the question was "Can fearless tyranids use synapse rules instead of suffer those punishments"

I would say they can, if only to avoid the horrible ness of them killing weaker guys to force wounds on big ones.
Korill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Sep 2008, 14:24   #4 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 266
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

The No Retreat! rule in the book says that it applies to units that are

Quote:
immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the "fearless" special rule...)
This means it applies to the Synapse special ability.

As to the elites taking wounds by losing a multiple combat when side-by-side with, say, gaunts, I would refer you to Cadaver's post on the Combat Resolution: Broken? thread. While his quote is actually wrong, it doesn't use the word "side" in the No Retreat! rule for who takes the wounds, it uses the word "the units" and "these units" for dealing wounds, however the book does say

Quote:
these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).
You could take this two ways. One, "each unit" takes a number of wounds equal to the number the "side" lost by. That is, if your Lictors and Gaunts lost by 3 wounds, the Lictor takes 3 wounds and the Gaunts take 3 wounds. Or you could take it to mean that "the units" take wounds equal to the number "the side" lost by. Meaning, the units as a whole, so losing by 3 wounds means you can 'allocate as normal' the 3 wounds to either the Lictor or the gaunts (as if "the units" were taken as a collective from which to have the wounds "allocated as normal.")

It would make the most logical sense to do it the second way, though the book reads most clearly the first way, even though it can technically be read either way. There's been no official response yet, but the people I play with have been doing it the second way, though I originally read it the first way (I was tainted by the thread before actually reading it myself so I was a bit biased.)
Xanzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Sep 2008, 23:18   #5 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,045
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanzar
The No Retreat! rule in the book says that it applies to units that are

Quote:
immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the "fearless" special rule...)
This means it applies to the Synapse special ability.

As to the elites taking wounds by losing a multiple combat when side-by-side with, say, gaunts, I would refer you to Cadaver's post on the Combat Resolution: Broken? thread. While his quote is actually wrong, it doesn't use the word "side" in the No Retreat! rule for who takes the wounds, it uses the word "the units" and "these units" for dealing wounds, however the book does say

Quote:
these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).
You could take this two ways. One, "each unit" takes a number of wounds equal to the number the "side" lost by. That is, if your Lictors and Gaunts lost by 3 wounds, the Lictor takes 3 wounds and the Gaunts take 3 wounds. Or you could take it to mean that "the units" take wounds equal to the number "the side" lost by. Meaning, the units as a whole, so losing by 3 wounds means you can 'allocate as normal' the 3 wounds to either the Lictor or the gaunts (as if "the units" were taken as a collective from which to have the wounds "allocated as normal.")

It would make the most logical sense to do it the second way, though the book reads most clearly the first way, even though it can technically be read either way. There's been no official response yet, but the people I play with have been doing it the second way, though I originally read it the first way (I was tainted by the thread before actually reading it myself so I was a bit biased.)
I've been playing it the first way, and I've disliked it immensely. That said - and I don't have the book in front of me, so I'd need to recheck the wording later - the second way makes far more sense to me. It doesn't make much sense to have the No Retreat wounds multiply out by the number of units in the combat, it makes more sense for it to be the same number you lost combat by. (Here's where I either need someone to check the wording for me, or to check it later myself) I would say that because in the Multiple Combat section if I remember right, it says you resolve things as though they are one giant combat essentially with it being one side vs the other rather than individual units inside it, then it would make sense for the No Retreat wounds to the side, rather than each individual unit inside it.

The rules as written are fuzzy though, and either interpretation could work. What is clear is that as Xanzar stated, if you units are in Synapse, they don't avoid No Retreat wounds, you will take them if you lose combat - the question is just "how many?". I'm still waiting to see what GW says in a FAQ.
Nezalhualixtlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 Sep 2008, 07:22   #6 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bradford, W.Yorks
Posts: 759
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

If that's what it says under No Retreat then I guess my friend was wrong. I stand duly corrected!

Cheers!
__________________
Plunder of Penn IX sample rules here: http://forums.tauonline.org/index.ph...c,88254.0.html

Extartius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 Sep 2008, 05:33   #7 (permalink)
Shas'Saal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 161
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

I agree with assigning the "No Retreat" wounds to the side as a whole, but would you allow the losing side to allocate them wherever they wanted?
Lets just say as an example, a Carnifex is fighting along side some gaunts, there is some bad dice rolling from the nids and the gaunts lose 1 wound and the Carnifex 2, and they only cause 1 wound to the enemy in return.
So Nids lose by 2 and suffer 2 additional wounds due to "No Retreat".
Since it was the Carnifex that was the biggest loser from the nids side it just doesn't make a lot sense to say that all the extra wounds will go to the gaunts, for instance, just seems like there would have to be some sanity checks involved somewhere....
Sargaule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 Sep 2008, 00:29   #8 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Los Angeles
Posts: 481
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargaule
Since it was the Carnifex that was the biggest loser from the nids side it just doesn't make a lot sense to say that all the extra wounds will go to the gaunts, for instance, just seems like there would have to be some sanity checks involved somewhere....
Why doesn't it? The gaunts are still involved in the combat, they just didn't take the brunt of the damage. They're still swarming all over, throwing themselves at the enemy.
__________________
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator: The MUD (http://avpmud.com/)
Or play right now by pointing your MUD client or Telnet at "avpmud.com 4000"
Maine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Oct 2008, 05:52   #9 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Akaiyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Akaiyou Send a message via MSN to Akaiyou Send a message via Yahoo to Akaiyou
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

The best way is to do it the second way but with restrictions.

Restriction #1 - You count exactly which unit lost how many wounds and apply the no retreat rules to THAT specific unit for THAT specific number of models.

Restriction #2 - If a unit is WIPED out then the remaining units take the No Retreat wounds. OR better yet, all wounds most be allocated using the standard allocation allotment of 1 wound per model under every model involved in the combat has at least 1 wound allocated before they can receive another.
__________________
Back to 40k.
Akaiyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Oct 2008, 14:45   #10 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: California
Posts: 2,610
Default Re: The Fearless Factor

I think it's quite simple, actually. ALL units on the losing side of an assault must take a Morale check. You don't take a single great Morale check for all units. These checks are taken individually by each unit.

If a unit has the "Fearless" rule and doesn't have to take a Morale check, then the no retreat rule kicks in. In that case, each unit now receives the number of wounds that they lost combat by. If it's a big multi unit combat, this number can get quite steep.

This rule is going to revitalize Elite Assault units. You will want to place these Elite Assault units together and away from any "weak" assault units. This way they maximize your own hitting power without the dilution of weaker units causing you to lose combat.
__________________
Brunettes and Beer
IVEATCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Being fearless fattyboy5 General 40K 3 16 Jul 2008 21:24
Should Cost Be The Deciding Factor In Healthcare?(UK) Yodhrin Serious Debate and Discussion 0 28 Apr 2006 18:47
fearless... Grunt90 General 40K 11 13 Apr 2006 04:04
The Necron Fun Factor SaturN Necrons 74 22 Dec 2005 15:46
X-Factor Wargamer Enclave Talk 6 03 Sep 2005 20:13