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.

It hits non-fearless harder - they can be lost in one go.

zeshin wrote:This thread seems to be wandering into proposed rules territory, but I have to say upon further review I will agree that the rule can make fluffy sense in certain circumstances and makes more sense for speed of combat (GW's intent if I remember was to speed up CC resolution so the game would play faster). And honestly that’s fine, but armies who are almost always fearless in CC get hit especially hard with rules like this ('Nids, BT etc).

Of course sweeping advance (which has some of the same issues of expediency over believability) hits non fearless armies just as hard so I guess it's a bit of a wash.

All said and done I have no problems with fearless wounds as a means of combat resolution...now. When I first restarted playing 40k I thought it was absolute hogwash and completely unfair. After playing the game for much longer and seeing how things work out I no longer disagree with fearless wounds themselves. As you pointed out it maintains the fast and brutal nature of assault while streamlining things. A bit of a kludge in approach but hey whatever it is what it is.

It's the multiplicative, cheesy and abusable nature of fearless wounds and multiple assaults I totally disagree with.

SumYungGui wrote:
It's the multiplicative, cheesy and abusable nature of fearless wounds and multiple assaults I totally disagree with.

See this is where I have to think...the kind of general that gets into these situations, doesn't deserve to have an army in the first place (which fearless takes care of for you)

SumYungGui wrote:
It's the multiplicative, cheesy and abusable nature of fearless wounds and multiple assaults I totally disagree with.

That's the rub right there. It's not the no retreat interaction with fearless that's the real problem here. It's the multiple assaults rules that allow the results on combat against one unit affect a completely different unit.

I can't think of anything more quintessentially Tyranid than a Hive Tyrant bringing his 30 closest friends into a fight and drowning the opponent in bodies. It's not like the fluff portrays that exact scenario happening constantly or the rules are specifically designed around encouraging that. Right?

It really frosts my flakes that the Hive Mind, in order to actually lead the troops to victory, has to specifically avoid charging a monstrous creature into the same fight that happens to have that crazy little thing that Tyranids are known for, tons and tons of cheap units. Can't do that though because a unit of Termagants are apparently the Hive Tyrant's Achilles heel with magically assassinating wounds multiplying faster than rippers. Or, ya know, GW sucks at updating rules.

Honestly if it was worded so that the number of no retreat wounds that can be applied to a unit in multiple assault cannot be more than the number of wounds it suffered that were factored into assault resolution the whole problem would go away. Want to kill off a ton of Termagants and thin the herd for available objective capturing troops? Plow your attacks into the Termagants. Want to kill the Hive Tyrant? Dear god in heaven you may actually have to attack him. Stunning I know

SumYungGui wrote:No it totally makes more sense that the Hive Tyrant is just shell shocked at seeing his close buddies die. Do you have any idea that kind of bonds forged on the field of battle? Those were like brothers to him. More than brothers. Being brothers is an accident of birth. He lived with these Termagants, day in and day out, getting to know them, their families. What hive ship they were from. When all those lives are lost and he has to witness each and every one of their deaths mere feet away he just can't go on with the fight. Nobody needs to attack him even a single time, he just loses the will to fight.

A bit OT I suppose- I'm glad you've bucked up and accepted the rules, but please start writing batreps with fluff from this perspective. Or at least a one-off. It would be amazing to read.

SumYungGui wrote:I can't think of anything more quintessentially Tyranid than a Hive Tyrant bringing his 30 closest friends into a fight and drowning the opponent in bodies. It's not like the fluff portrays that exact scenario happening constantly or the rules are specifically designed around encouraging that. Right?

It really frosts my flakes that the Hive Mind, in order to actually lead the troops to victory, has to specifically avoid charging a monstrous creature into the same fight that happens to have that crazy little thing that Tyranids are known for, tons and tons of cheap units. Can't do that though because a unit of Termagants are apparently the Hive Tyrant's Achilles heel with magically assassinating wounds multiplying faster than rippers. Or, ya know, GW sucks at updating rules.

You're oversimplifying. He has to avoid charging his monstrous creature into an assault where his little gaunts are going to be slaughtered wholesale. If it's a combat where the little guys have a chance in the first place (like if they've got Feel No Pain and/or poisoned attacks going for them), then the big bug's got nothing to worry about. It's only a problem if he throws two good units into a bad combat.

Isn't that, from both a rules and fluff perspective, the job of a Termagant? To die. A lot? How many stories are there where there is literally nothing for them to do except exhaust the opposition's ammunition by catching bullets with their chest? From the rules side of the house they're a stupid cheap unit with minimal toughness and laughable armor save in a horde army. By design they are supposed to be weak and easy to kill but with two more popping up every time you kill them, so to speak. It's part and parcel with the whole horde army thing. Ask a Tyranid player how much he cares when a spawned unit of Termagants gets slaughtered wholesale, after tying up an enemy unit for a turn. They did their job, they died. Limit the wounds that can be applied by no retreat to the number of wounds done for assault resolution and the entire situation becomes much more fair. Want to kill the Hive Tyrant? Attack the Hive Tyrant. Want to kill Termagants? Attack Termagants. Their being affected by no retreat is not the issue. Their death providing a back door through the Hive Tyrant's stats, skill, abilities and functionality to just dump a ludicrous amount of wounds onto him when he was never even attacked is what's at issue.

The Hive Tyrant was never even attacked and he just dies. Whatever army you play apply that logic to it and imagine how frustrating that is to be on the receiving end of. Shoot enough guardsman and a tank dies. Should have kept the tank further away. Assault some scouts and a chapter master runs away. Should have kept the chapter master further away. Kill an Ethereal and watch as half your army runs awa- hey, wait a minute!

For bonus points have some passive aggressive trolls last page telling you that you suck and to just keep your HQ units away from the rest of the army because you suck and if you didn't suck it wouldn't be an issue. Like it isn't for them, because they don't suck. Like you. Cause you suck.

Actually, SYG, I agree with you, I think it is a rather stupid rule at worst and at best a bit of an oversimplification of melee combat. I can understand why it has been written into the rules (for the purposes of speeding up play and making combats more decisive etc), I just don't think it makes much sense at all.

But then again, it's not really something that crops up for me that often with the games that I play (pretty much uncompetitive). The only reason I posted on here and seemingly stirred up the hornet's nest was that I ran into it the other day and it got me thinking.

I suppose as always there is a trade off between complexity and playability. From the vague mists of my mind, 3rd Ed CC used to be something of a nightmare to work out and it's certainly much clearer now.

But I can imagine it being annoying to lose a Tyrant in the manner described, especially in some sort of tournament situation. And it might not necessarily occur due to bad generalship; you could just as easily lose and overwhelmingly stacked combat due to bad to hit rolls or something.

SumYungGui wrote:
The Hive Tyrant was never even attacked and he just dies. Whatever army you play apply that logic to it and imagine how frustrating that is to be on the receiving end of.

You mean like when a large unit of Nids assaults one of my IG units and tosses the last bug onto a second IG unit, and then BOTH of my IG units have to take their Morale test at -6 or -7 or minus however many he kills in the first unit, even if the second unit takes no casualties whatsoever? On that kind of receiving end? Like that?

Yeah it is annoying isn't it? All these morale modifiers just come out of nowhere and kill a unit that was never even attacked. The passive aggressive response I've been getting in this thread would be 'too bad, shouldn't have had them near each other'.

I don't feel that way though and have no issues with the wounds coming out of a given unit modifying only it's own leadership, not getting screwed the same way with multiple assaults. That's been the single problem from page one. Multiple assaults.

SYG, thing is, I don't actually consider it annoying. I was trying to point out that those same negatives apply to non-Fearless units, and in a worse manner than for Fearless. Sure, your Fearless units might take extra wounds if they fail their armor saves. My non-Fearless units can be completely destroyed if they run and are caught by a sweeping advance. Personally, I like the No Retreat rules as they are and have no problems with the multiple combat rules as they are.

SumYungGui wrote:Isn't that, from both a rules and fluff perspective, the job of a Termagant? To die. A lot? How many stories are there where there is literally nothing for them to do except exhaust the opposition's ammunition by catching bullets with their chest?.

Fluff =/= rules, though. How many stories are there where a single squad of marines takes on hundreds of enemy?

SumYungGui wrote: From the rules side of the house they're a stupid cheap unit with minimal toughness and laughable armor save in a horde army. By design they are supposed to be weak and easy to kill but with two more popping up every time you kill them, so to speak. It's part and parcel with the whole horde army thing. Ask a Tyranid player how much he cares when a spawned unit of Termagants gets slaughtered wholesale, after tying up an enemy unit for a turn.

Yup. And Termagants can easily fill these functions. They can also be surprisingly durable and deadly when combined with nearby bugs to give them enhancements like FNP, FC, Poison, etc. And if you position them right and get into good combats, the gaunts will indeed serve to tie up enemy units, combo-charge with Tyrants to tie down a powerfist/throw a couple extra wounds in, lock down Walkers, or grab objectives for cheap points. They still do all the good things they used to. They just have a vulnerability now when a) you aren't buffing them AND b) you leave yourself open to a bad multiple assault. If your opponent manages to significantly outmaneuver you, he can score a big payoff. Sounds like a game rule encouraging tactics to me. I know the lack of verisimilitude in this particular rule sticks on your craw, but we certainly accept a lot of other impossible things in a game of 40k, so it feels a little bit to me like swallowing camels and straining at gnats.

SumYungGui wrote:Yeah it is annoying isn't it? All these morale modifiers just come out of nowhere and kill a unit that was never even attacked. The passive aggressive response I've been getting in this thread would be 'too bad, shouldn't have had them near each other'.

I don't feel that way though and have no issues with the wounds coming out of a given unit modifying only it's own leadership, not getting screwed the same way with multiple assaults. That's been the single problem from page one. Multiple assaults.

As has been pointed out, it's there for balance, it creates rewards for good positioning and maneuver, and it affects non-Fearless units just as badly or worse than it does Fearless units.

I don't think it's passive-aggressive to point out that many people play Tyranids in full awareness of these rules, and are able to compensate for/avoid the sting of this effect. Tactics and combinations exist which mitigate or eliminate its impact on your swarm. If you refuse to use them, I'm sorry but that's on you.

And it's not just impacting the poor Tyranids, either. Mondo learns to keep his IG squads positioned so as to minimize the bad multi-assault happening to him. I have to be careful with my Lesser Daemons to avoid them dying in droves to No Retreat wounds in a bad combat (they can't tarpit as well as they used to). Every time a new edition comes out you have to adjust your tactics, and this is a significant area of change in 5th.

What it, just what if, I do play knowing the impact of this rule and have avoided it precisely the way you outline for precisely the reasons you outline since it happened to me the first time...and still think it's a terrible rule? Can I do that? My main army is Tyranids and I still think a tank's 1D6 immobilization for difficult terrain is crappy. This is a rule that is not, in the normal course of events, applied to my models yet I still don't like it. Is that allowed or is there a contract somewhere I'm unaware of where I have to get screwed on a regular basis by a rule to think that rule is funky? We can discuss the rule, not me right? That's doable?

The outcome of multiple assaults, as has been my thrust since the first post, is out of whack and unfair. If you fully believe I should be able to throw one Termagant into thirty IG dudes, massacre a different squad with every single other Termagant in that unit and make them both run away then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that it's hogwash. Yours apparently supports that outcome.

P.S. I never played 4th edition, it is impossible to tell me I haven't 'adjusted my tactics'.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; as are we. If your opinion deviates from general consensus and is seemingly based on personal reasons, then of course you will be discussed along with the rule in question.

Multiple combats is basically the same as Single combats; if all the rules are followed, when your 1 Termagaunt contacts the 1 guardsman unit, the guardsmen get to make a "defenders react" move and the guardsmen in the second, ancillary unit, will be thoroughly involved in the combat(so if they do break it will be due to their own failure as much as the primary unit's failure). It is displayed(as said earlier) that your opinion is based of of personal beliefs, and unfortunately a misunderstanding of all the rules involved(or at least how all the rules interact).

Playing a previous edition hold no bearing on the necessity to adjust ones tactics. If your tactics are failing you, whether due to pre-conceived notions of how this should work or due to simple poor tactics, your tactics would need to be adjusted. Albert Einstein once said this: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Being unable to discuss a topic without targeting the people behind it is extremely counterproductive and will only result in frustration and time wasted.

I'm not so certain I'm misunderstanding any rules in this situation but if I am please correct me and point out where it has taken place.

"Every time a new edition comes out you have to adjust your tactics, and this is a significant area of change in 5th. " I am not the one that framed things in that manner. Telling me I need to change my tactics because of the edition is disingenuous at best. Attempting to, yet again, tell me it's all my fault for holding the belief that a given rule sucks based purely on the theory that I am getting repeatedly hammered by the rule every time I play and am only on here to complain about why I lose at this game is exactly the same. Refer to the first sentence in this post.

I do not feel it is fair to have one model touch base with an entirely different unit and destroy both units while completely ignoring the second one and never even taking a swing at them, much less 'earning' their destruction by doing damage. It is my opinion that in order to apply combat resolution to a secondary unit in multiple assaults you should have to actually attack that unit. To that end it has been my statement from the beginning that while the total amount of wounds or leadership modifiers should be determined by the assault as a whole, the cap on any given unit should be limited to what is supplied for combat resolution. This is my stance on the topic, not an opinion of you. Shall we discuss that?

SumYungGui wrote:I'm not so certain I'm misunderstanding any rules in this situation but if I am please correct me and point out where it has taken place.

I do not feel it is fair to have one model touch base with an entirely different unit and destroy both units while completely ignoring the second one and never even taking a swing at them, much less 'earning' their destruction by doing damage. It is my opinion that in order to apply combat resolution to a secondary unit in multiple assaults you should have to actually attack that unit. To that end it has been my statement from the beginning that while the total amount of wounds or leadership modifiers should be determined by the assault as a whole, the cap on any given unit should be limited to what is supplied for combat resolution. This is my stance on the topic, not an opinion of you. Shall we discuss that?

This is where I believe you are misunderstanding the rules in question(or at least the reasoning behind them).

When your 1 Termagaunt contacts the second unit, the second unit gets a defenders react move and must contact as many of the termaguants(or any other enemy models involved in the combat) and will be able to make attacks on units it is now engaged with, so in the event that the 2 Guard units still lose the combat against the 1 termagaunt unit it is perfectly reasonable that both units would flee.

Imagine you and 2 few friends get into a fight with a significantly smaller number of opponents, like 1 guy. Your 2 friends get beat up pretty bad while the guy ignores you. You are now stuck in a situation where although you have been hitting this guy, he doesn't seem to care about your attacks, and you have 2 badly bruised friends who wish to flee; would you stick around alone or flee with your pals?

I can feel SumYungGui's problems with this rule. The rule was in 4th, but it had a cap on how many wounds you suffered, which IMHO was a good median. But now you have armies like Nids, Daemons, and Orks who can get a large amount of models removed by just being in the fight. I mean you have a big bad Hive Tyrant wanting to get in a fight, but he's got to stand back, looking at his watch, while he waits for all the Termagants to die(which can easily die that turn due to "No Retreat")...... Because if he even gets one claw in the fight he might kill 3-4 guys, but then the opposing unit is going to pile all their attacksa(that they are allowed to) on the Termagants because they are easier to kill, and they will do "no retreat" wounds onto the Hive Tyrant, which is much easier than actually trying to wound the Tryant themselves. This is even worse if the Termagants and the Tyrant get charged by a unit. The biggest issue I believe SumYungGui (and many others) have with this rule is that ALL the losing units take the same number of wounds. So if the Nids lost combat by 6 the Gants take 6 wounds and the Hive Tyrant takes 6 wounds, so the opposing side just got to do 12 extra wounds, 6 against the Hive Tyrant that they may have not been able to do on their own.


I can fully understand how this seems unfair, and very much un-fluffy. But it's what we have to live with (for now). Fearlessness is nice when being shot at, but in CC it can make your own units just evaporate.

I'd like to go against the apparent flow and "general consensus" and say that I too think "No Retreat" is a bad rule.

I personally think it's a very poor rule, and to say the automatic drawback is for balance is laughable, and this is why:

Ruleswise Stubborn is superior to Fearless in every way, provided your leadership is at least average (8) It gets better as your leadership improves. Yet fearless models generally cost more than stubborn ones, and get this, generally pay extra points for their leadership (which doesn't get used when it should) to be above average.

Explain that one.

For what it's worth, testing on leadership and upon failure taking no retreat wounds is a much better rule for "Fearless".

culsandar wrote:

For what it's worth, testing on leadership and upon failure taking no retreat wounds is a much better rule for "Fearless".

To be honest, I thought that was the logical thing to do until I actually had cause to read the rule properly when the situation arose.

Sorry, SYG, don't mean to impugn you personally. I think the rule as it exists works pretty well overall. Perhaps my judgment is affected by comparing it in context to the 3rd ed & 4th ed rules.

Culsander, I agree that Stubborn is a bit broken.

Fearless would perhaps make more sense if it worked more like in Warhammer; say if the Fearless unit got the chance to test against its modified LD, and if it missed, took a number of No Retreat wounds equal to the amount by which it missed.

The current rules for Fearless have some issues, but overall I don't find them much dumber or crazier than a lot of other rules we accept to have a fast-moving and fun science fantasy wargame. I think being outraged about the rule seems strange, given the larger context of the game, and given that (in practice and actual play) one can largely avoid the worst and strangest outcomes.

Mannahnin wrote:The current rules for Fearless have some issues, but overall I don't find them much dumber or crazier than a lot of other rules we accept to have a fast-moving and fun science fantasy wargame. I think being outraged about the rule seems strange, given the larger context of the game, and given that (in practice and actual play) one can largely avoid the worst and strangest outcomes.

Outrage is a little strong, and my angst is not really directed at the rule per se. The problem I have with it is that some people in this thread have stated the rule is fine, and defend it with an "Oh you're just bad" mentality. While I do agree that a seasoned player can generally avoid the more negative aspect of multi-assaulting fearless units, I imagine this rule can blindside the newer player who may not be as strong tactically as some of the "Game Gurus" in this thread.

Sure, you can plan for and play around this bad rule, but that doesn't make the rule any less bad does it?

SumYungGui wrote:Isn't that, from both a rules and fluff perspective, the job of a Termagant? To die. A lot.

Yes, they're there to die but they aren't there to die whilst also not accomplishing anything. Neither is the job of the hive tyrant to accompany gaunts on a suicide attack.

Throw your gaunts and tyrant into a combat where they aren't going to get completely whipped and you won't have a problem with fearless wounds will you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
]

SumYungGui wrote:I do not feel it is fair to have one model touch base with an entirely different unit and destroy both units while completely ignoring the second one and never even taking a swing at them

How have they "never even taken a swing at them"? When you contact the other unit they get a 6" move to get as many models into contact as possible. Everyone in your unit that is in contact with squad two must swing at them (unless they're in base contact with both squads). Your example is pretty ridiculous. Better to say "one model touches base with a different unit and they pile into the fight with a bunch of my guys fighting them".

I'm not sure you understand what SumYungGui is saying. He's talking about, for example, a squad of Marines being charged, or charging, a unit of Gaunts and a Hive Tyrant at the same time. If the Marines are doing the charging, it is very easy to get just one Marine on the Hive Tyrant, while the rest are engaged with the Gaunts. The HIve Tyrant will makes it attacks, and possibly kill 2-3 marines, which the Marine players pulls the one from base to base with the Tyrant. Now the Marines and Gaunts go, but the Gaunts(unless it's a very numerous squad) probably won't do many wounds (if any), where as the Marines can easily kill 5-6 of them. So now the Marines have won combat, winning by 2+, causing 2 wounds on the Hive Tyrant, which they didn't even "swing at", and 2 more on the Gants.

Even if the Marines get charged by the Gants and Tyrant, when they do their Defenders React move, they don't have to evenly distribute between the Tyrant and Gants, and will more than likely try to get as many into Base to Base contact with the Gants. Again, the Marine player just has to remove the ones in B2b with the Tyrant when the Tyrant attacks, and follow the same results as above. Although with the Gants and Tyrant charging they should hopefully be able to beat the Marines (if it's just basic Vanilla Marines...)

This get's even worse if instead of Gants it's something like Warriors, that have multiple wounds. Again the Tyrant may kill 2-3 but when the power fist from the Marine squad goes and can get 3-9 wounds by itself (not counting any wounds from the normal Marines), it's even more annoying!

I think he knows very well what SumYung is talking about, and frankly, it isn't that hard to avoid. Even more so during your OWN assault phase. Don't throw expensive guys in combats that they'll lose...

Being unable to discuss a topic without targeting the people behind it is extremely counterproductive and will only result in frustration and time wasted. Twice in the last three posts this has been violated.

Stop pointing out how someone sucks because they suck and couldn't avoid a problem like people that don't suck because they suck and the only way this is a problem is if you suck but the rule is 100% meaningless with no consequences if you don't suck.

The crux of the counter argument is that the rule doesn't suck; you just need to general better.

That is the nature of this debate:
Your end: The rule sucks because i am getting myself into situations where the rule harms me.

Our end: Quit getting yourself in those situations.

Honestly I am sorry that you are feeling personally attacked, but your presentation of your position is what is causing that.

Also whenever one needs to explain a rule, or a rule dynamic, and how that is going to effect a situation the OP is generally used in the example(to relate the OP better with the situation given); useing terms such as "when one is doing x, blah, blah, blah" is generally more difficult to understand than " When you are X, blah, blah, blah"

That is an extremely fallacious approach to any discussion not deserving of a defense as it will then devolve into pointless bickering and 'your mom' territory.

Discuss the issue not the people.

The problem is that, IMO, it's not an issue to begin with. I think it's balanced enough. I agree that in some situation the rule can be a pain, but let's put it this way, if the Tyrant wasn't fearless in the past example he would be running, or be run down. (I.e, a gain for the fearless guy)

But I can give in that fearless units should have to possibility to pass a normal morale check (with modifiers ofc.) to avoid the wounds.

I also want to apologise that my previous post was rude.