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.

Prior to 5th fearless reigned as king. Now.... not so much..... Prior to fifth if you lost combat, and were fearless you would take addition wounds on how much you were outnumbered by. 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 4 to 1. Now if you simply Lose combat you take additional wounds depending on how much you lost combat by. Now suddenly ATSKNF is suddenly king in close combat, because you get to make a moral check roll to see if you would fall back, passing makes you continue the fight with no additional wounds, if they fail, they are subject the to No Retreat and take additional wounds THE SAME AS FEARLESS would. Fearless gets no moral check roll, they automaticly take the wounds. I can understand GW wanting to simplify the combat resolution and taking out the 2:1,3:1,4:1. But fearless unit should have gottin a leadership check as well.

If I am wrongly interpreting this please let me know... Its more of rant than anything else...

well, you got it mostly right. You did miss the part about the Marines running away when they fail their Morale test and they only take No Retreat wounds IF they get caught in a sweeping advance. If not caught, it is possible for a unit of Marines to run off the table, where Fearless units don't have to worry about that.

Yeah, Marines are simply dealt wounds instead of wiped out completely, but I don't understand what's wrong with fearless being a blessing and a curse. why should one special rule "reign as king" as you put it?

It means that when something is really cutting you down, you continue to be really cut down. It's not just about numbers anymore, it's about being outmatched. If someons stomps you, they'll continue to do so.

And the UPside to fearless is that you'll NEVER fall back from shooting. Ask some non-fearless armies how often they've fallen back off of objectives and it's cost them the game.

the thing that really irks me about no retreat is this:

a bunch of thunderhammer terminators gang up on a carnifex. He loses by 3 wounds from the thunderhammers because they deny his 2+ armour save. However, during no retreat, he magically gets his armour save back! I find it a little hard to buy into.

I know that fearless has its additional perks (no fall back, no pinning, etc.) but it almost feels like that now fearless = poor leadership in combat. Where if Daemons have lost combat theres NO option for a moral check.. I could still outnumber marines 10:3, I take wounds if I lost combat. If the SM lost combat they get a check... Kind of makes the Daemons 10 Ld kinda pointless. Ill just tack i up the GW keeping ther SMs nice and safe and sound.

Don't compare to space marines. Keep this in mind: Other races, if they fail [and their ld is reduced by how much they lost by] and are caught, the ENTIRE UNIT IS WIPED.

Marines, too, while they get a check, it's modified by how much they lost - and if they're caught, yes they're not destroyed, but that's the good part about space marines - they do, however, suffer from no retreat.

So if you beat them badly enough, you can have a good chance of causing additional wounds to them too!

problem is spellbound, they get their 3+ save against those no retreat wounds, and you'll rarely beat marines by more than 5 or 6 since you'll have wiped them by then anyway, they rarely take much damage from losing a fight. There needs to be a greater penalty for marines getting caught when they run. It's bad enough when marines get away from the combat, outrun your consolidation, and turn around and blast you with heavy weapons on their turn. They shouldn't win even when they lose AND get caught

An army that pays 16 points a model for their basic troops and can lose an entire squad to being run down in combat wouldn't be all that viable. Ask a Necron player.

I suppose they could have made marines fearless, but they probably thought that too powerful. They can still be pinned, forced off objectives when they fall due to shooting, and fail moral tests in combat and flee off the table.

I'm surprised you're not complaining about combat tactics because that's what seems to have made And They Shall Know No Fear so good. Of course most people probably use a special character or simply forget to use this ability.

whocares wrote:An army that pays 16 points a model for their basic troops and can lose an entire squad to being run down in combat wouldn't be all that viable. Ask a Necron player.

What makes a Necron army not viable is all the Necron players' vision being too cloudy through their tantrum-throwing tears. They keep screwing up where to teleport their Necrons through the Monolith.

That you worry so much about the Marines' percieved strength in ATSKNF is laughable because, really, Marines generally lose close combat. With the exception of terminators, nothing in a Space Marine army is all that great for hand to hand. Ask most non-Marine players if they fear their inability to be wiped out in close combat unless you kill 'em to a man, I'm pretty sure most Ork, Chaos, Eldar, and Tyranid players could tell you it doesn't much matter.

cervidal wrote:What makes a Necron army not viable is all the Necron players' vision being too cloudy through their tantrum-throwing tears. They keep screwing up where to teleport their Necrons through the Monolith.

Yes. Having their squads so easily wiped in combat because of the large minuses allowed in fifth ed combat resolution and then their initiative 2 allowing no WBB save for anyone in the squad has nothing to do with it.

cervidal wrote:That you worry so much about the Marines' percieved strength in ATSKNF is laughable because, really, Marines generally lose close combat. With the exception of terminators, nothing in a Space Marine army is all that great for hand to hand. Ask most non-Marine players if they fear their inability to be wiped out in close combat unless you kill 'em to a man, I'm pretty sure most Ork, Chaos, Eldar, and Tyranid players could tell you it doesn't much matter.

I'll assume this wasn't directed at me.

I do tend to agree that Fearless would work a little better if the unit had a Ld check when losing combat, and only if they failed did they take wounds, but at the same time, being able to completly ignore psychology otherwise is a huge benefit.

I think if 40k made psychology a little more important, taking wounds due to being fearless in melee would seem like a great trade for ignoring the rest. As it is though, damn near everything has a LD 9 or 10, or Fearless, so our base line is a tad skewed.

Fearless wasnt all that great in 4th ed, it didnt help my friend who had a 500 pts worth of termies lock in combat for 3 of the 6 turns of the game, the games was only 750 pts!!! i fail to see why is any good.

ASTKNF is excellent, no doubt about it.

However, Fearless is still good. Like The Defenstrator (best forum name ever btw) says, the benefits of Fearless compound with better armor saves. Any fearless units with a 3+ or 2+ save is going to hang around for a long time, even when losing close combat.

Fearless is better as Don Mondo pointed out since you never break. If a squad of Marines breaks it is easy for the opponent to keep them broken.

G

I'll agree with The Defenstrator on the frustration with how the wounds can be saved. Nightbringer goes into a squad of termies, kills 3, takes no wounds (lucky saves), catches them as they flee, and now they actually get their 2+ armor saves against the extra wounds. Against a C'tan, which allows no saves in CC at all.

The problem is that it is too complicated to take weapons into account. For example, what if a unit was defeated in combat by a C'tan and a unit of Necron warriors? How would you determine which unit's weapons were doing the No Retreat! wounds? It only gets worse when you consider that there are units which can have many different CC weapons. Chaos Chosen, for example, could have CCWs, power weapon, and power fist in a single unit.

And then there's Strength to take into account. Should a unit that lost combat to Abbadon take Instant Death wounds because Abby is S8? What if it is a Slaanesh Lord wielding the Blissgiver?

The No Retreat! rule is the cleanest and best way to handle the wounds. Besides...the enemy unit has already gotten all of their attacks - suddenly giving them more attacks after combat also doesn't make sense.