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've been thinking about Wyches and if they're a liability were they to ever get Fearless through PoP.

If a Wych Squad suffers No Retreat, would they get their 4++?

I'm inclined towards no as the dodge says 'caused by close combat attacks' and No Retreat is not a close combat attack. Any ideas on this? I'm pretty much on 'No' but notice the topic hasn't come up yet (according to search).

The search function is a failure.

The answer is no for the reason you posted.

Nope, no dodge

another reason why starting them with a Haemi is such a good idea.

But, those wounds are ultimately caused by close combat attacks in the first place, and the FAQ shows that cause and effect need only be loosely related to be considered causal for another rule in the codex (if a unit takes an action that in some way leads to another unit being destroyed, regardless of intervening stages (so long as they are a direct result of the previous action) they're considered responsible; say a unit shoots a tank, which explodes, causing enough casualties to make another unit take a morale test, which it fails, causing it to run off the board, the unit that shot the tank is considered to have caused the destruction of the unit that fled), so the precedent is in favor of loose cause and effect...

So, close combat attack -> wound -> unsaved wound -> combat is lost by unsaved wound -> No Retreat! kicks in -> unit takes additional wound; or, in other words, close combat attack -> ... unit takes additional wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, no dodge

another reason why starting them with a Haemi is such a good idea.

They only have fearless if they have three tokens, so they'd already have FnP by the time this becomes an issue... In fact, starting with a Haemonculus would just make this "problem" worse, since they'd get fearless faster...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:But, those wounds are ultimately caused by close combat attacks in the first place, and the FAQ shows that cause and effect need only be loosely related to be considered causal for another rule in the codex...

If those wounds are caused by CC attacks then I sincerely hope the swimsuit babes don't claim FNP against power weapons, ID attacks and so on. Or do you intend to claim it's CC only for getting saves?

No Retreat is definitely not a close combat attack.

Spetulhu wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:But, those wounds are ultimately caused by close combat attacks in the first place, and the FAQ shows that cause and effect need only be loosely related to be considered causal for another rule in the codex...

If those wounds are caused by CC attacks then I sincerely hope the swimsuit babes don't claim FNP against power weapons, ID attacks and so on. Or do you intend to claim it's CC only for getting saves?

What? I don't see how that's comparable. Dodge can only be applied against wounds caused by close combat attacks, and I'm putting forth how a wound caused by No Retreat! can be said to ultimately have been caused by a close combat attack, and may thus fit the bill. FnP stipulates that attacks that always ignore armor, or which would inflict instant death, bypass FnP, regardless of where they come from.

Mannahnin wrote:No Retreat is definitely not a close combat attack.

No, but it's caused by close combat attacks, so any wounds that would be taken because of it can be said to have ultimately been caused by a close combat attack. The FAQ has units claiming pain tokens for having taken actions that led to another unit's destruction, even if their actions didn't directly cause it, so there's at least some precedent for "action X causes Y; Y causes Z; therefore X can be considered to have caused Z".

Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule destroys
an enemy unit, does it gain a pain token no matter how the
unit was destroyed? For example the resultant explosion
from shooting at a vehicle wipes out an enemy unit. (p25)
A: Yes.

Sure, but the phrasing for PfP is less specific than the phrasing for the wych save. Which specifies it only works on close combat attacks; not all wounds suffered in close combat.

And by the same PnP logic the wyches suffer No Retreat because of the unit(s) they're fighting...

page 44 under "no retreat!" paragraph 3 "All types of saving throws, except cover saves, can be taken for these wounds."

Mannahnin wrote:Sure, but the phrasing for PfP is less specific than the phrasing for the wych save. Which specifies it only works on close combat attacks; not all wounds suffered in close combat.

I'd personally read "destroys a non-vehicle unit it immediately gains a pain token," as being slightly more specific than "wounds caused by close combat attacks." It doesn't matter too much, since by the point it becomes relevant they'd have FnP anyways, and so would get their 6+ armor save plus the 4+ FnP, but I'd still argue that since close combat attacks caused the wounds the forced the unit to take No Retreat! wounds in the first place, the wounds could legitimately be argued to have been caused (even if in a round about fashion) by close combat attacks, just as if close combat attacks caused a vehicle to explode, wounds taken from the explosion were ultimately caused by close combat attacks on that vehicle...

Spetulhu wrote:And by the same PnP logic the wyches suffer No Retreat because of the unit(s) they're fighting...

Technically, they do, it's just not relevant to any saves...


Edit: in any case, I don't think this a conflict that can really be resolved. The wording is vague as to how strict the cause and effect has to be, and the only precedent for a loose cause and effect (X causes Y, Y causes Z, therefore X caused Z) relates to a different rule, which doesn't include the word "cause". I feel I've got a valid interpretation, and if the situation ever came up I'd argue it as eloquently as I could, and if my opponent disagreed, I'd suggest rolling for it. In the absence of an official errata or FAQ on it, of course.

OK, so are you also claiming that if I assault their transport and blow it up, that they get a 4+ save against those wounds since they (in your words) ' ultimately have been caused by a close combat attack, and may thus fit the bill'?

Simple answer. No, they only get the 4+ save from wounds caused by cc. Not against wounds derived from some other rule or action that may be a result of the cc.

don_mondo wrote:OK, so are you also claiming that if I assault their transport and blow it up, that they get a 4+ save against those wounds since they (in your words) ' ultimately have been caused by a close combat attack, and may thus fit the bill'?

Simple answer. No, they only get the 4+ save from wounds caused by cc. Not against wounds derived from some other rule or action that may be a result of the cc.

I was on the fence until this post. I agree no Doge from Fearless.

My only question is this, if the wounds are not caused by close combat attacks, what causes them??? You can only suffer No Retreat! wounds in Close Combat, and they are only done if you lose combat. And they are administered in terms of being in danger of being dragged down, so where in any of that was it not a close combat attack? I'm sorry but nowhere in there does it say you shoot me in the face or the back or anywhere with your lasgun or whatever cause I refused to run away, so I see it as a CC attack.

The No Retreat rule causes them. Sure, they are a result of the close combat, but they're not inflicted by any weapon in the close combat, they have no special weapon abilities or strength as the close combat wounds would, etc etc. They're part of the combat resolution, but not part of the combat itself.

^ I will agree with this, but seeing as they were still caused by something in the CC, I would lean toward letting the wyches have the dodge. But then again, I might be a stickler about it in a Tourney.

Not that my wyches really have ever lost combat and failed a LD test. Actually, I can't even think of a time where they lost the combat.....

Galador wrote: My only question is this, if the wounds are not caused by close combat attacks, what causes them???

They were caused by being fearless.

Galador wrote:You can only suffer No Retreat! wounds in Close Combat, and they are only done if you lose combat.

Just to clarify, you only suffer "No Retreat" wounds after you have lost the close combat.

Galador wrote:And they are administered in terms of being in danger of being dragged down, so where in any of that was it not a close combat attack?

Look at how to resolve combat on page 33, First you pick a combat, then you fight the combat (and this is where all close combat attacks occur), then you determine assault results, then you take morale checks (or not if fearless). Clearly, any wounds suffered from losing an assault occur long after the blows have been struck.

Galador wrote:I'm sorry but nowhere in there does it say you shoot me in the face or the back or anywhere with your lasgun or whatever cause I refused to run away, so I see it as a CC attack.

By the same token, nowhere does it say the wounds are "inflicted" by anyone, it merely says the fearless unit "suffers" a number of wounds.