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.

Option 'A' is not RAW at all. These powers tell you not only what to do ('take a morale test and fall back immediately IF you fail') but also how to do it ('as if you took 25% casualties') - which means you do it at the end of the phase and only take one test for that whole phase's events.

+1 for Toreador, Red_Lives, Phoenix, JCarter, Drunkspleen, Solkan and kid_happy who seem to read the rules the same way I do.

For dancingcricket and Odinsspear45, just because playing the morale test immediately would make these powers more - er - powerful, doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to work.

I'd play it as C unless a specific power clearly states the morale check is immediate. Anything that includes 'as if suffering 25% casualties' or words to that effect only gets tested at the end of that phase.

Yak why do you think option A is RAW?

Why do you think you get to delay till the end of the turn. It's replacing a shooting attack, at least in most instances. So you get to resolve it at the end of the phase? No, you resolve the results from shooting when they happen. I'd love to wait till the end of the phase to resolve your shooting attacks against me, man that'd be broken. It's replacing a shooting attack, resolve immediately. You only wait till after all shooting is resolved to check morale for actual casualties.

dancingcricket wrote:Why do you think you get to delay till the end of the turn. It's replacing a shooting attack, at least in most instances. So you get to resolve it at the end of the phase? No, you resolve the results from shooting when they happen. I'd love to wait till the end of the phase to resolve your shooting attacks against me, man that'd be broken. It's replacing a shooting attack, resolve immediately. You only wait till after all shooting is resolved to check morale for actual casualties.

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

p. 44

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a morale check at the END of the phase"

Red_Lives wrote:

dancingcricket wrote:Why do you think you get to delay till the end of the turn. It's replacing a shooting attack, at least in most instances. So you get to resolve it at the end of the phase? No, you resolve the results from shooting when they happen. I'd love to wait till the end of the phase to resolve your shooting attacks against me, man that'd be broken. It's replacing a shooting attack, resolve immediately. You only wait till after all shooting is resolved to check morale for actual casualties.

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

p. 44

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a morale check at the END of the phase"

Please tell us, dear friend of the internet, how a unit that is subject to a psychic power that kills no models has lost 25% of more of it's models?

See, it is illegal to pass this morale check to the end of the phase unless you have LOST MODELS.

Thank you for reading before quoting rules. :S

Not disputing that. However, none of the abilities tell you to actually remove 25% of the models. They tell you to, instead of shooting, cause the target unit to make a morale check as if they had lost the requisite number of models. Should you wait to move the models when using pavane? No. Should you wait to roll saves from actual attacks? No. Should you wait to resolve any other result of any other immediate ability? No. So, should you wait till the end of the turn to resolve the effects of these immediate abilities? No, you shouldn't.

You can believe otherwise, but again, this is a RAI question that was posed, so everyone is entitled to their own opinions. So far at least though, judging by the poll results, A seems to be the most popular one.

Toreador wrote:Not much of a 4th ed assumption as much as a 5th ed assumption. I assume that any morale checks caused by 25% casualties are taken at the end of the phase they were caused in, as this is the 5th ed rules. When a rule, written for 4th ed, states that you treat it as you had suffered 25% casualties I assume that since I am using 5th edition rules, I would use those rules to figure out how morale was checked. I think you have your logic flipped. You are assuming it is like 4th ed. I see no other way to read it by RAW. If it said it was an immediate test, I would assume otherwise as that conflicts with the 5th ed rule for morale checks. But wouldn't the 5th ed rules still trump any 4th ed wording?

Since the 5th edition rulebook clearly says so.

Page 52. 74. 62.

What's it say about Codexes trumping the main rulebook?

Hey, it's a theme!

Right, this is a VERY FUN discussion but I think I should opt out now.

dancingcricket wrote:Not disputing that. However, none of the abilities tell you to actually remove 25% of the models. They tell you to, instead of shooting, cause the target unit to make a morale check as if they had lost the requisite number of models. Should you wait to move the models when using pavane? No. Should you wait to roll saves from actual attacks? No. Should you wait to resolve any other result of any other immediate ability? No. So, should you wait till the end of the turn to resolve the effects of these immediate abilities? No, you shouldn't.

You can believe otherwise, but again, this is a RAI question that was posed, so everyone is entitled to their own opinions. So far at least though, judging by the poll results, A seems to be the most popular one.

Hmmm maybe you mistook me for someone who disagrees with you.

Silly rabbit.

Stelek wrote:
Please tell us, dear friend of the internet, how a unit that is subject to a psychic power that kills no models has lost 25% of more of it's models?

See, it is illegal to pass this morale check to the end of the phase unless you have LOST MODELS.

Thank you for reading before quoting rules. :S

Because as yak quoted thats how the powers are worded? you know... perhaps?

yakface wrote:
The Divine Pronouncement Witch Hunter psychic power says (pg 14): "Designate a single enemy unit within 18" and not in close combat -- this unit must take a Morale check as if it had just suffered 25% casualties from shooting. . .If the test is failed, the target unit will immediately fall back according to the normal rules."

The Fear of the Darkness Space Marine psychic power says (4th edition codex, pg 26): "Every enemy unit within 12" of the Librarian not Locked in an assault must take a Morale check (as though they had taken 25% casualties) with a -2 modifier to their Leadership, or fall back."

Other similar game effects include: The Deceiver's 'Deceive' ability, Witch Hunter's Holy Prometheum, etc.

You can't have it both ways, Red_Lives.

Either the 5th edition rules are sacrosanct (you MUST suffer those casualties to be forced to take the test) or they are whatever you say they are today (I like not having to test twice, so I'll move this test to the end of the phase).

See, you miss the point (again) about relying on your interpretation of the rules.

The 5th edition rules say you MUST LOSE MODELS.

The Codex rules say you don't.

See, they use the same wording but actually have nothing to do with each other. It's just wishful thinking on your part (and many others).

Why people do not understand that GW games do not support 'as if' to be 'exactly' is beyond me.

This is not a permissive game system, where you can do anything you want to when you want to unless told otherwise.

This is a restrictive game system, where you do what you are told to immediately unless told otherwise.

See the difference? No? Fine, post more about how you're right and I'll give the internet a free 'I win' button.

What's your color? Let me guess, red?

Except bolth powers say "as if it had just suffered 25% casualties from shooting" that test is done at the END of the phase plain and simple. Cut and dry

Here's your button. Grats.

Wow. Im speachless. If a rule says "As if it had just suffered 25% casualties from shooting" then we are to play it as if they had. So unless the BGB says you only ever take this check if 25% of the models were physically removed from the table, then we play as if they were.

Some people don't actually read the rules, they just make stuff up as to how they THINK the rules should work.

how else exactly would you be following "as if it had just suffered 25% casualties from shooting" without testing at the end of the phase. If you follow those rules, it states you test once and at the end of the phase. You don't have to cause casualties, the as if part replaces that. How otherwise can you read it. As I see it all the proof you give, proves our point.

So again, prove your point. Where in the rules does it say to take the test immediately?

Yak, I too am curious how A is RAW. As it reads I only can come to the conclusion C is RAW.

Power is cast. You cause a morale check as if you had caused 25% casualties. You go to that section of the rulebook, and it states you take the test only once a phase, and at the end of the phase. I am not sure how that isn't RAW.

Why is it I state my case and people say 'you proved my point' instead of addressing the point I raised?

Is this a new tactic? It seems eerily familiar.

"Why?"

"Because I said so."

The rulebook does not tell you to take a test at the end of the phase 'as if you suffered 25% casualties'.

It tells you to take one test at the end of the phase 'when you suffer 25% casualties'.

The rulebook makes no mention of Codex generated morale checks--anywhere. You assume this means those morale checks occur when it is convenient for you. Some of you believe you can lump all of the morale checks into one, just because you want to.

That's horse and you know it. The 4th edition rules told you to take the same test, yet people would take as many tests as were forced upon them by the Codex rules. You believe 5th edition overrides the Codex rules, when as I pointed out it doesn't. Nowhere does it say 'take the morale check when you want to', and it also doesn't say 'check the main rules to see what your 8 year old Codex means'.

That isn't how 40K has ever worked, with one exception--the unit entries that changed how certain units were classified when that was standardized in the game.

The designers didn't put in the rule on autofailing all morale checks for nothing you know.

Since I know I'm talking myself hoarse for little gain, I'll put it another way:

If you are attacked by Deceive, and lose 25% of your number because you failed the test and failed the wounds caused--do you only take one test or two?

See, the RULES say you take a test for the Deceive ability AND they say you take a test for losing 25% of your models.

If the rules said what you say they are saying, you could NEVER meet the requirements of taking BOTH tests because one of two things happen:

You failed the test, but it happened at the "end of the phase". Should you even take saves? The power clearly tells you to, but aren't saves taken before "end of the phase" arrives?

What happens in the rules when two "end of the phase" items occur?

Why, nothing happens because there is no game mechanic to tell you what happens.

By insisting your way or the highway, you are breaking the rules--and if you grant the Deceive ability an exception so you aren't cheating, you must grant ALL of the abilities with similar wording the same exception.

I wager all the Black Templar players will be quite unhappy to find they suddenly cannot be forced to run forward because you say they can't, when they fail one of these tests inflicted by a special ability. Not multiple times, no sir, and we don't care what your Codex says because the fact that the main rulebook says Codices take precedence over the main rulebook means nothing to us.

So let's examine what's changed between 4th and 5th.

Well let's see, the actual RULE hasn't changed.

4th:

"A unit losing 25% or more of it's current unit strength in models from shooting during a single shooting phase must pass a morale check at the end of the shooting phase, with the appropriate modifiers, or it will fall back."

Versus 5th:

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back."

Gee, NOTHING CHANGED there except shooting became ALL phases. And everyone knows, pinning has been replaced with gone to ground, which still requires you to take all morale checks.

Now what else changed?

GW changed this 4th edition rule: "A unit that is already falling back, is pinned or is locked in close combat does not have to take this test."

To it's 5th edition version: "Troops who are falling back automatically fail all Morale checks except those to regroup."

Gee, I used to have to take these tests immediately--why not now?

Because you don't WANT to.

To sum it all up:

Nothing has changed between 4th and 5th edition morale checks with ONE difference, and this whole thing is a bunch of bull .

Like it or not, this is rules lawyering at it's worst and everybody can feel the grime on this "discussion".

You aren't fooling anyone.

Everyone knows yak and I do not see eye to eye, but when we are both telling you the same thing you really need to re-examine your position. It will be a cold day in hell when we both agree and are both wrong. Or a warm sunny day in Jervis land. Either way, you get the meaning.

Actually, this is why I am having this discussion. If you look back, it has been this way since at least 3rd ed. We have had discussions in this area about it all the time. If you take a test that is worded "as though they had taken 25% casualties", do they make more than one check per turn or not, and when do you take it. This has always been an issue, and discussion around here. If it only stated you had to make a morale check, it would be discussion over, but the fact that for 3 editions it has said you treat it as if you had taken 25% shooting casualties AND that you only take one morale check from it, AND you take it at the end of the round leads me to believe that nothing has changed, and maybe all of us have been playing it wrong. By the wording, it has always been that way as per RAW, whether I like it or not.

It has nothing absolutely to do with convenience, and it's not rules lawyering. It is reading the rules as they are. We have always played around here that you take multiple checks, but what I am saying is that the actual rule, and the way people assume we should play are a lot different.

Lets break it down a last time specifically for veil of darkness.

"Every enemy unit within 12" of the Librarian not locked in an assault must take a Morale Check (as though they had taken 25% casualties) with a -2 modifier to their Leadership, or fall back. All normal modifiers and/or exceptions apply (ie, units that never fall back are immune to this power.)"

Okay, so you cast the power. Every unit within 12" has to take a morale check at -2 just as if they took 25% casualties. So now we use only that section. We treat it as if we had taken 25% casualties, even though we have not lost any. Ok, so it reads "A unit losing 25% more of it's models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back." So we must wait till the end of the phase, and then test morale just like we had lost 25% AND the units only have to make a single test.

If it said just take a Morale Check I would be ok with what you are saying, but they did not. To treat it just like the rule for losing 25% means you have to follow those rules. I would also say that if you are locked in CC you don't have to take it either. It is really quite specific, and I see no reason why they would say to treat it just as you had lost 25% for any reason other than to make us follow those rules. If it just caused a Morale Check, it has the same end result (Fearless ignores it, they still fall back if they fail), except that there can be multiple Morale Checks in a turn and you do have to take a Morale Check if locked in combat.

And on this, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on what the rules are saying, so I will end it at that. Yak also just put up his original thoughts. He hasn't posted since, and I have seen him change his position more than once. It also isn't entirely what the poll is about. If it is going to be continued, it should be moved out of this topic.

I have a question for anyone with any old resources, as I couldn't find anything, but do we have any evidence ever of a case where there was a FAQ answer or anything that talked about multiple Morale Checks from things that are treated "as if they had taken 25% casualties"? Everything has been worded this way for 3 editions. You would think there would be something out there.

Stelek wrote:Hmmm. This is confusing?

"...unit must take a Morale check as if it had just suffered 25% casualties from shooting. . .If the test is failed, the target unit will immediately fall back"

"Units make a fall back move immediately".

Holy Promethium:

"...will force a unit it causes a casualty upon to take a Morale Check as if it had just suffered 25% or more casualties."

Effect of both: IMMEDIATE. Cause a casualty, you WILL take a morale check right now. There's no fething around, since when did GW write permissive rule sets? Where does it direct you to take morale checks when you want to? All of the powers you list are IMMEDIATE effects.

I use my power, you fail the test, you run away. If you suffered 25%, you get to run away again. If I have multiple effects to trigger on you, you keep running as each occurs.

Your new way: I suffer the effect but like some wierd game of magic I can wait until the end of the "phase" to suffer them, and the effects "stack" so you only suffer it once.

I note that all of these abilities occur in the shooting phase and have in their codex or the FAQ's that these are "instead of firing a weapon".

If I shoot you with psychic powers do you get to "choose" to take the models off at the end of the shooting phase? No. Everything is resolved immediately.

Only ACTUALLY suffering 25% casualties will trigger a morale check at the end of the phase.

Why? That's the only instance where you are told to check at the end of the phase.

GW changed the rules from 4th edition, and wanting it to go back to 4th edition is not going to help any.

Unless I am misunderstanding you post, which isn't that well laid out, you are getting the IMMEDIATE part of this wrong. The test is not immediate. No where in the rules does it say the morale test is immediate upon reaching the conditions to cause one. It just says "must take a test". Well, when do you take a morale test per the rule book? One test per unit at the end of the phase PG 43. "Must" does not equal "immediately".

Unless the rules say I must take an immediate test I will do all my morale tests at the end of the phase - in this case the shooting phase.

As I wrote before, I think the test at end of phase is RAW; however, that doesn't obviously limit the number of tests to one. The question is still open as to whether a unit that is affected by the power AND takes 25% casualties in the same phase must roll two tests or one. Anyone have some specific wording from the BBB that would apply?

JCarter wrote:As I wrote before, I think the test at end of phase is RAW; however, that doesn't obviously limit the number of tests to one. The question is still open as to whether a unit that is affected by the power AND takes 25% casualties in the same phase must roll two tests or one. Anyone have some specific wording from the BBB that would apply?

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back."

That's the rule in the BRB. However it never makes any mention anywhere in the book about needing to take the same test twice in 1 phase. And as far as my knowledge it is not necessary to take the same test multiple times, so the "as if they had taken 25%" powers/abilities replace this test. but i am sure others will disagree with me.

Just wishful thinking that being told to take a test can be converted into one test only.

One ping only, Vasily...

I'm with Option C. A 25% shooting phase morale check is taken at the end of the phase. If the power said that I take an immediate morale check then I'd say that it is independent of the end of phase morale check and take it at once, however there is no immediate in telling me when I take the test.

As if they had taken 25% casualties. This might have been put in there so that between editions of the rules, they didn't have to mess around with the abilities so much. Much easier than saying 'as if they'd lost CC by 5 wounds', and leaving it up to the edition to figure out what kind of modifiers you got. 5th you'd take -5 to your roll, 4th - well your not outnumbered so no mods unless your below half str, etc. It also puts in in the catergory of morale check as opposed to leadership checks, which fearless units don't necessarily pass automatically. Otherwise, it's an immediate power, you don't wait till the end of phase to see who's in range, theirs no requirement to when you use it except that it's done in place of something else that's immediate. So it's done at that time.

The way it seems is that if you were hit by an immolater with promethium, you take a check and then if you take 25% casualties you take a check. Both would be at the end and would stack.

I don't know. If you read holy promethium it says it will force a unit it causes a casualty upon to make a morale check as if it had just suffered 25% or more casualties.

So the replacement is this.

Causes one wound.
Enemy unit has to make a morale check just like it had been caused by 25% casualties. It seems to me this would follow under the same rules. It is another replacement.

You cause one wound, it acts as if you had caused 25% casualties, so therefore it is taken once and at the end of the phase. The once in the shooting rule for taking 25% casualties is not exclusive. If you follow part of it, you follow all of it.

There is no part of the rules that says what you say it does.

There never has been.

GW rules against this type of rules lawyering at every opportunity.

Think of it like a status effect. There is a rulebook status effect that says if you lose 25% of a unit you must make a morale check at the end of the phase.

The psychic powers/wargear in question all have the wording "as if it had taken 25%" so in essence all these abilities do is add that status effect to a unit, regardless of if it had taken 25% or not.

Red, there are no status effects in 40k.

When 40k becomes a card game, we can talk about status effects, stacking, counters, and all that crap.

Please, not until the glorious day we all play PP games ok?

It's always been this way Stelek. Read all three past editions. If it was just a Morale Check it would be that.

What it does is make units make a morale check AS IF they had taken 25% casualties.

What are the rules for taking 25% casualties?
1)It must make a morale check at the end of the phase or it falls back.

Now if you want to argue that you have to make multiple checks, you have more grounds. Taking a check as if you took 25% casualties is ambiguous enough to mean an extra check, but if you follow the rules by RAW, you count as causing 25% casualties during the phase, so you would only take A check at the end of the phase. Even if you could argue you make multiple morale checks, it would still only be at the end of the phase. I still say you are on shaky ground at best.

This is the problem. Why would they word it that way? Why not just say make a morale check? Is it because of the CC clause? What do they gain?

and that glorious PP day has passed long ago. We found it's problems and moved on.