Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was playing a buddy last night and we ran into a situation that just didnt make sense.

Here is the situation:
Assault Phase
Terminators and a Librarain pop out of their land raider and assault 3 different Eldar units, initiating a multiple combat. Librarian attacks Guardian squad, 1/2 of termies attack Wraithlord A, other 1/2 of termies attack Wraithlord B. Unit cohesion is maintained.

Combat is resolved and the marines won combat by 7 wounds. 4 wounds on the guardians, 1 on Wraithlord A, 2 on Wraithlord B.

Because I lost combat I needed to make a morale check, but my Guardians are Fearless due to the Avatar within 12" and WL's are fearless MC's. This makes the guardians and both Wraithlords unable to fallback, thus enters the NO RETREAT rule (pg.44). Under the No Retreat all the units that can't fall back must take wounds and saves equal to the number their side lost. In this case, as mentioned above, that is 7 wounds.

I was told to make 7 saves on the Guardians, 7 saves on Wraithlord A, and seven 7 saves on Wraithlord B because the rule stated each unit must take the wounds. That is a total of 28 possible wounds generated from 7. 21 for the No Retreat rule and the original 7.

How in the world does this make any sense?

Fearless is a huge liability for Eldar if this is the case. Tarpitting with guardians and bringing in a counterassualt is only going to get expensive counterassualt units wiped! Just attack the easy to kill guardians, win combat and then allocate those huge losses amongst every unit in the combat.

Really?

Kastlerok

Yep, that's how it works.

I had a situation where I attacked three different ork units. With react moves, every model in my attacking squad was based by one of the squads. I directed all my attacks into that squad, and ended up winning the combat by 14. Both other squads had to take 14 armor saves, even though I hadn't directed any attacks at them.

Yup, its one of the ways to Balance* Fearless and to discourage people mixing fearless and non fearless units.

*bal⋅ance /ˈbæləns/ [bal-uhns]
–verb (used with object)
1. to bring to or hold in equilibrium; poise: to balance a book on one's head.
2. to arrange, adjust, or proportion the parts of symmetrically.
3. to make utterly fething useless (Trademarked by Games Workshop, PLC)

Quick question. Are you saying that the Wraithlords and Guardians did no wounds back whatsoever? Remember, you lose the combat by the difference in wounds, not by the total he inflicts on you.
But yes, every unit takes No Retreat wounds equal to the combined number you lose by.

Yes, as Don_Mondo says you still count the wounds you did, so if the Marines acheive 7 wounds and you do 4 to them then you only lose combat by 3, not by 7. But yes, wounds for all.

Gwar! wrote:3. to make utterly fething useless (Trademarked by Games Workshop, PLC)

Clearly they've be better off without fearless and getting run down and totally killed... oh, wait... more likely you'd rather have 3rd edition back where not only did half the armies throw the morale section of the rulebook in the bin but the rules thanked them for doing so.

Booyah 5th edition and multiple combats!

Thats rubbish. If I was the eldar (which thankfully I'm far too sensible to be) I would have only taken the extra wounds on the one squad.

It doesn't make sense to take the highest number and distribute it across all the squads! does it?

don_mondo wrote:Quick question. Are you saying that the Wraithlords and Guardians did no wounds back whatsoever? Remember, you lose the combat by the difference in wounds, not by the total he inflicts on you.
But yes, every unit takes No Retreat wounds equal to the combined number you lose by.

Yes, unfortunately. Terminators have freaken 2up3up saves. I rolled plenty of wounds, he just saved them all.

Given how the rule works, slogging with Avatar is now crap. Youre just asking to lose units, whether you counterassault or stay and die. Heaven for bid if my Avatar got into combat. My opponent could take down the avatar in one round without ever trying to hit it.

Any suggestions on how to replace my avatar with?

Double Autarch?
Elrad?
Even a Single Autarch on Bike perhaps?

-Wants to start an eldar army now-

kastlerok wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Quick question. Are you saying that the Wraithlords and Guardians did no wounds back whatsoever? Remember, you lose the combat by the difference in wounds, not by the total he inflicts on you.
But yes, every unit takes No Retreat wounds equal to the combined number you lose by.

Yes, unfortunately. Terminators have freaken 2up3up saves. I rolled plenty of wounds, he just saved them all.

Given how the rule works, slogging with Avatar is now crap. Youre just asking to lose units, whether you counterassault or stay and die. Heaven for bid if my Avatar got into combat. My opponent could take down the avatar in one round without ever trying to hit it.

Any suggestions on how to replace my avatar with?

Ahhh, 2+/3+, Storm shield termies........ Gotcha. Yeah, you don't want to get tied up with them in hth, I don't care what you are. Well, Maybe that C'tan that ignores regular and Invul.................

Or Pariahs.

Funny Story about Fearless troops. I had my Squad of 8 Assault Termies (all Lightning Claws) assaulted by 8 Flayed ones, 6 Pariahs and 5 Necron Immortals (Guy was new at necrons evidently).

I directed all but 3 of my attacks at his Flayed ones, the other 3 at the Immortals, and wiped out the flayed ones and killed 3 immortals (yay for rerolls to wound). Even with his Uber nosave Warscyths he only got one wound on me, so lost the combat by 10. His Immortals Broke off (broken and eventually ran off the table) and his pariahs all died from no retreat wounds.

Not bad for a Bunch of termies who got charged AT :p

s.j.mccartney wrote:Thats rubbish. If I was the eldar (which thankfully I'm far too sensible to be) I would have only taken the extra wounds on the one squad.

It doesn't make sense to take the highest number and distribute it across all the squads! does it?

It only makes sense if you actually want to play by the rules.

In general, I don't have much sympathy for these situations. If 3 units lost to 1 unit... they usually deserve the results. Either they charged with 3 units and still lost, or they kept 3 units to close together...


This one is a bit different, the attacking unit is *really* expensive. It took at least 600, and probably close to 800 points of models to pull off that attack. It *should* be able to do a bunch of damage.

Of course, I wonder how a chaplain killed 4 guardians, when it only has 2 attacks.

coredump wrote:

Of course, I wonder how a chaplain killed 4 guardians, when it only has 2 attacks.

Well, first off, he said it was a Libby...but alas that is still only 2 base attacks...

Second, that is 2 base attacks, then +1 for Force Weapon and Pistol, and another +1 for charging, for a total of 4 attacks....4 dead guardians

coredump wrote:

Of course, I wonder how a chaplain killed 4 guardians, when it only has 2 attacks.

2 base+ 1 for 2 CCW + 1 for charging

coredump wrote:Of course, I wonder how a chaplain killed 4 guardians, when it only has 2 attacks.

Assuming you mean the librarian my money is on +1 attack for charging, +1 attack for 2 CC weapons, and lucky rolls, but I could be wrong.

coredump wrote:

Of course, I wonder how a chaplain killed 4 guardians, when it only has 2 attacks.

It's because his player went to Litko Aerosystems and ordered 'Space Corridors' and 'Industrial Towers'.

Wow... I sure wasn't thinking....

Makes more sense now, thanks. (But it still took some lucky rolling....)

That rule really threw me for a loop too at first. I assumed (due to not reading carefully) that it was wounds against each Fearless unit that got taken. In other words, if the 2 wraithlords were not wounded, all 7 went on the guardians.
Turns out it has muliplying effects, which is all sorts of scary.

Good way to kill some Carnifexes: Charge both Carnifex and gaunts and direct all attacks on gaunts.

Multiple combats are such a deadly thing nowadays. Makes the massed gunline even more a thing of the past, in favor of rapid response-style tactics where you can keep some distance between units. Especially for fearless folks. Knowing this rule (which was correct in your game) can really decimate horde armies if you know where to hit them best.

Makes me glad I run Trukk boyz rather than footslogging mobs of 30... a couple of lost casualties and I'm no longer fearless and just testing a great Leadership.

Cheers.

Ozymandias wrote:Good way to kill some Carnifexes: Charge both Carnifex and gaunts and direct all attacks on gaunts.

I've seen this sort of thing mentioned a few times in the thread, and it's not incorrect, but there's a note that really should go with it which is that unless at least 1 model in the combat can harm something it does not take wounds, so for example, it wouldn't matter how hard a plain unit of space marines beat down a unit of guardians while in a multiple combat with guardians and a wraithlord because their ST4 is insufficient to wound the wraithlords T8, if a member of the unit had a power fist, or even just the benefits of furious charge, then the wraithlord would suffer No Retreat! wounds.

The 4th edition No Retreat! rules were a joke, so people are still getting used to actually having to respect them now. Still, being fearless is MUCH better than the alternative. High-priced elite melee units are now EXTREMELY dangerous in melee combat. You can't simply just tar pit melee units with inexpensive models. The new rules are not as bad as some people make them out to be. If you charge tactical squads and the such, you're not going to magically lose 25 guys in one assault phase. Now if you charge melee specialists with a bunch of fodder, be prepared to be torn a new one quickly.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Good way to kill some Carnifexes: Charge both Carnifex and gaunts and direct all attacks on gaunts.

I've seen this sort of thing mentioned a few times in the thread, and it's not incorrect, but there's a note that really should go with it which is that unless at least 1 model in the combat can harm something it does not take wounds, so for example, it wouldn't matter how hard a plain unit of space marines beat down a unit of guardians while in a multiple combat with guardians and a wraithlord because their ST4 is insufficient to wound the wraithlords T8, if a member of the unit had a power fist, or even just the benefits of furious charge, then the wraithlord would suffer No Retreat! wounds.

Page number?

C'mon guy, at least check before asking someone to do all the work for you.

Try reading the No Retreat section....

It seems that everyone here agrees that each unit takes 7 wounds (after the first 4 or 5 posts, I skimmed. Please, forgive me if someone disagreed and I missed it).
I'm not going to argue it, as I don't know.
I definitely have not been playing it that way, though.
Can someone point out a page # to me in the BGBG where it says that each unit takes the full # of wounds & not just the # that they lost the combat by (4,1,2, in this case)?
Thanks in advance.
Eric

BGB pg. 44 wrote: 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 (allocated as normal).

Emphasis mine.

coredump wrote:C'mon guy, at least check before asking someone to do all the work for you.

Try reading the No Retreat section....

My question was directed at the poster that implied that a unit does not have to take wounds in No Retreat if the unit attacking them is not able to hurt them. I cannot seem to find that rule anywhere.

MagickalMemories wrote:It seems that everyone here agrees that each unit takes 7 wounds (after the first 4 or 5 posts, I skimmed. Please, forgive me if someone disagreed and I missed it).
I'm not going to argue it, as I don't know.
I definitely have not been playing it that way, though.
Can someone point out a page # to me in the BGBG where it says that each unit takes the full # of wounds & not just the # that they lost the combat by (4,1,2, in this case)?
Thanks in advance.
Eric

page 41:
"When determining assault results in a multiple combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side to see which side is the winner. Every unit on the losing side has to check their Morale (they all use the same penalty, as described in the Morale section)."

whitedragon wrote:

coredump wrote:C'mon guy, at least check before asking someone to do all the work for you.

Try reading the No Retreat section....

My question was directed at the poster that implied that a unit does not have to take wounds in No Retreat if the unit attacking them is not able to hurt them. I cannot seem to find that rule anywhere.

As coredump said, read the No Retreat section.

page 44:
"If none of the enemies involved in the combat against a fearless unit can actually hurt it, the unit does not suffer any wounds if its side is defeated in combat, and simply continues to fight."

So that doesn't help the carnifex with a million gaunts, because s4 marines can most certainly hurt a T6 or T7 carnifex, which makes Ozy's example still viable.