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.

Let's say a unit wins an assault, but takes 25% casualties doing so in a single assault phase, or a unit uses H&R, and both the H&R unit as well as the unit(s) they were in combat with took 25% casualties.

In either case, do the victors have to take a ld test at the end of the assault phase for suffering casualties, assuming they are no longer locked in combat?

Not unless they take 25% losses from something outside of the close combat.

BRB page 44

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 wil l fall back. Do not count
casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they
are covered later in C) Losing an Assault.


Losing an Assault goes on to state:

Units that lose a close combat (ie, they suffer more
wounds than they inflict) must pass a Morale check
to hold their ground. If they fail, they must fall back.


Unless, of course, I've missed something. I don't usually run into this situation :3

Only if it were from a nearby exploding vehicle that was not involved in the combat (or similar situation) [the now unengaged unit] would have to check morale.

As Wander said you do not count casualties caused by close combat attacks, but you count any other casualties, such as ones from a nearby exploding vehicle that was not involved in the combat.

Edit: clarification.

WanderingFox wrote:Not unless they take 25% losses from something outside of the close combat.

BRB page 44

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 wil l fall back. Do not count
casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they
are covered later in C) Losing an Assault.


Losing an Assault goes on to state:

Units that lose a close combat (ie, they suffer more
wounds than they inflict) must pass a Morale check
to hold their ground. If they fail, they must fall back.


Unless, of course, I've missed something. I don't usually run into this situation :3

DeathReaper wrote:Only if it were from a nearby exploding vehicle that was not involved in the combat (or similar situation) they would have to check morale.

As Wander said you do not count casualties caused by close combat attacks, but you count any other casualties, such as ones from a nearby exploding vehicle that was not involved in the combat.

DeathReaper is incorrect. WanderingFox missed the more important portion of pg. 44 under A) which states "A unit that is locked in close combat does not have to take Morale checks for taking 25% casualties."

Units stuck in only have to take morale checks at the end of every assault phase, and even then, only if they lost that round of combat.

Smash: DR was not wrong, he was addressing the H&R unit taking 25% casualties(from a nearby exploding vehicle) and breaking off fro their own combat; This case would have a unit, not locked in CC, taking 25% casualties that were not caused by CC attacks on the unit.

Example: 2 Assaults are taking place; In one assault is 8 Dark Eldar Hellions against Space marine Assault Marines, the other assault has Tactical marines assaulting a Ravager 3" away. The hellions only lose 1 model in their combat with the Assault marines, and win the fight but the marines remain intransigent. The tac marines score an "explodes" result on the Ravager, destroying it and the explosion reaches out 5"; and kills 2 Hellions(25% of their starting 8, and leaving only 5 left). 2 hellions die in the resulting explosion. As the DE player has next turn(if the ravager was stationary while marines were pummeling it something was wrong, so we will say it must have been the marine players turn), and has the opportunity to break off via H&R, then re-assault the marines, he does so. Now at the end of the assault phase the 5 hellions move their 3d6 striaght line back, have taken 25% casualties, not from direct CC attacks, and are not locked in close combat: they must take a morale test for having lost 25% casualties in this phase.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Smash: DR was not wrong, he was addressing the H&R unit taking 25% casualties(from a nearby exploding vehicle) and breaking off fro their own combat; This case would have a unit, not locked in CC, taking 25% casualties that were not caused by CC attacks on the unit.

Example: 2 Assaults are taking place; In one assault is 8 Dark Eldar Hellions against Space marine Assault Marines, the other assault has Tactical marines assaulting a Ravager 3" away. The hellions only lose 1 model in their combat with the Assault marines, and win the fight but the marines remain intransigent. The tac marines score an "explodes" result on the Ravager, destroying it and the explosion reaches out 5"; and kills 2 Hellions(25% of their starting 8, and leaving only 5 left). 2 hellions die in the resulting explosion. As the DE player has next turn(if the ravager was stationary while marines were pummeling it something was wrong, so we will say it must have been the marine players turn), and has the opportunity to break off via H&R, then re-assault the marines, he does so. Now at the end of the assault phase the 5 hellions move their 3d6 striaght line back, have taken 25% casualties, not from direct CC attacks, and are not locked in close combat: they must take a morale test for having lost 25% casualties in this phase.

While your scenario is technically correct in every way I can find, Reaper makes absolutely no reference to H&R in his entire post. He merely claims that nearby exploding vehicles could cause morale checks for 25%, which is untrue if the units remain locked in combat.

However, in a H&R situation, as I already stated, I can find but evidence that your above order of operations is correct. I find it silly and it seems like such an obscure situation that I'll probably not bother pushing it in games, much less remembering it when it ever comes up.

DR was responding to the OP; the OP referenced H&R.

This is evidenced in DR's second paragraph wherein Wanderingfox is cited, this indicates to the reader that the initial sentence/paragraph was addressed to the OP and his original Post(The tread Question itself). Since the basic rules tell us that Unit's locked in combat do not ever need to check morale for 25% casualty loss, and the OP mentioned H&R, and I have personal knowledge of DR's understanding of the 25% casualties in the assault phase interactions(this is not the first time it has been brought up, but it is also brought up rarely enough that new threads about it are preferable to re-opening the old ones; also the Search function does not always work) I could deduce that he was specifically referring to the H&R scenario.

My address to you was specifically explaining what it was that DR meant, and why that(very rare) situation is true.

DR should have been more clear about what he was addressing, I will concede that, not all of us have been around for as long or even read the many discussions of Assault phase morale. So I can see why you responded in your kind, my correction was only to show you that rare situation.

@ork_smash I was aware, I was just tailoring the rules i stated to specifically match the OP, mainly the question of non-cc attacks affecting a close combat

Kommissar Kel wrote:DR was responding to the OP; the OP referenced H&R.

This is evidenced in DR's second paragraph wherein Wanderingfox is cited, this indicates to the reader that the initial sentence/paragraph was addressed to the OP and his original Post(The tread Question itself). Since the basic rules tell us that Unit's locked in combat do not ever need to check morale for 25% casualty loss, and the OP mentioned H&R, and I have personal knowledge of DR's understanding of the 25% casualties in the assault phase interactions(this is not the first time it has been brought up, but it is also brought up rarely enough that new threads about it are preferable to re-opening the old ones; also the Search function does not always work) I could deduce that he was specifically referring to the H&R scenario.

My address to you was specifically explaining what it was that DR meant, and why that(very rare) situation is true.

DR should have been more clear about what he was addressing, I will concede that, not all of us have been around for as long or even read the many discussions of Assault phase morale. So I can see why you responded in your kind, my correction was only to show you that rare situation.

Kel is correct, I was answering the OP's question about the situation given where the unit was no longer in CC.

I am unsure of how you missed that I was answering the OP's question. But I guess I could have made it overly clear by adding, [the now unengaged unit] instead of "they" after the "(or similar situation)"

DeathReaper wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:DR was responding to the OP; the OP referenced H&R.

This is evidenced in DR's second paragraph wherein Wanderingfox is cited, this indicates to the reader that the initial sentence/paragraph was addressed to the OP and his original Post(The tread Question itself). Since the basic rules tell us that Unit's locked in combat do not ever need to check morale for 25% casualty loss, and the OP mentioned H&R, and I have personal knowledge of DR's understanding of the 25% casualties in the assault phase interactions(this is not the first time it has been brought up, but it is also brought up rarely enough that new threads about it are preferable to re-opening the old ones; also the Search function does not always work) I could deduce that he was specifically referring to the H&R scenario.

My address to you was specifically explaining what it was that DR meant, and why that(very rare) situation is true.

DR should have been more clear about what he was addressing, I will concede that, not all of us have been around for as long or even read the many discussions of Assault phase morale. So I can see why you responded in your kind, my correction was only to show you that rare situation.

Kel is correct, I was answering the OP's question about the situation given where the unit was no longer in CC.

I am unsure of how you missed that I was answering the OP's question. But I guess I could have made it overly clear by adding, [the now unengaged unit] instead of "they" after the "(or similar situation)"

I think I actually somehow skimmed over the whole H&R reference in OP, and as such glaringly left out what should have been obvious assumptions in DR's post. You may now feed me to the squig-hounds as needed.

As others have pointed out, vehicles from a different combat exploding are the most common way this issue arises. The others you need to watch out for is if you get a poor roll on a dangerous terrain check as you assault, or if you loose enough models from PotW.

Grakmar wrote:As others have pointed out, vehicles from a different combat exploding are the most common way this issue arises. The others you need to watch out for is if you get a poor roll on a dangerous terrain check as you assault, or if you loose enough models from PotW.

All while ending the Assault Phase no longer locked in combat, of course.

Fun Fact: A unit of 8 models that assaults an enemy unit through dangerous terrain, loses 2 models, then loses the combat, fails its morale test but breaks away clean will fall back a grand total of 4d6". 2d6" for falling back from the combat, then at the end of the assault Phase they will have sufered 25% or more casualties not from CC attacks and no longer be engaged and therefore will have to take a Morale test, as they are already falling back they will automatically fail this morale test, ad as they have failed a morale test they will immediately fall back 2d6" per the fall back rules.