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 know there's several lengthy threads on this topic, but the multiplicative nature of No Retreat still has me confused. Everyone seems to be in agreement that each Fearless unit on the losing side of the assault takes the full amount of wounds that their side lost by. But, as I read the rule, I just don't see it as cut and dry.

On page 44 of the BRB, No Retreat wound are defined as:
"...[Fearless] units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal)."

A hypothetical. Two 15 strong Fearless boyz squads have lost combat with the emperor himself by 2 wounds. Common interpretation would dictate that both boyz squads would take 2 (savable) No Retreat wounds.

So, looking at the words, if "these units" as a collective set "suffer a number of wound..." that would indicate that only 2 total wounds would be assigned to the two boyz squads, allocated as normal, or for each boyz mob, that could be allocated to a boy as normal.

I can see also how it would be interpreted as if "these units" indicates a set of independent squads "suffer wounds..." meaning that the squads take 2 each.

I guess my question is, how did the cheesier, less balanced, and broken interpretation of the rule become the commonly accepted one. Or, am I incorrectly parsing out that rule? Just seems to be a lot of wiggle room in there.

It is because each losing unit would normally have to check morale or fall back.

So if given a multiple combat with fearless and non fearless units, say 1 fearless and 2 non fearless. the 2 non fearless test morale as normal, and the fearless unit takes wounds in the amount their side lost the combat by

If we have 2 fearless units and 1 non, two units take wounds in the amount their side lost the combat by, and the non fearless unit test morale as normal.

Each unit normally has to take a morale test, fearless places a new set of rules to abide by in place of the morale check.

The no retreat rule is like this.
8 berserkers win against 8 berserkers
the berserkers(1) get 3 successful wounds and the berserkers(2) get 1 successful wound the berserkers(2) have now lost by 2 wounds so they take 2 armour saves.

BloaterPaste wrote:

I guess my question is, how did the cheesier, less balanced, and broken interpretation of the rule become the commonly accepted one. Or, am I incorrectly parsing out that rule? Just seems to be a lot of wiggle room in there.

Because it is the correct one?

In your interpretation, you would potentially be assigning 'no retreat' wounds to non-fearless units like if boyz and grots were in the same combat.

Every unit tests individually, and every unit is 'fearless' individually, and each fearless unit takes 'no retreat' wounds individually. Nothing even begins to suggest they are part of the general combat or allocatable to other units or shared through multiple fearless units.

nkelsch wrote:
Every unit tests individually, and every unit is 'fearless' individually, and each fearless unit takes 'no retreat' wounds individually. Nothing even begins to suggest they are part of the general combat or allocatable to other units or shared through multiple fearless units.

Ok, when I take the two paragraphs on P44 together, I can see that they're talking about replacement of the morale check. Which, of course applies to the units themselves.

It's still a gakky rule. =p

No, it's pretty well done.

I use it all the time to kill large Nid monsters. Not GW's fault Nid players always like to keep the squishies next to the big guys.

That situation is the reason it's a bad rule.

Others would say That situation is the reason it is a good rule.

Fearless units are already immune to falling back from combat. They suffer fearless wounds instead.

simple trade off.

That's not quite the situation being mentioned.

Simple solution, do not keep small bugs near big bugs.

if you do, do not be sad when they multi charge and kill 10 small bugs and win combat by 6 making your big bug take 6 fearless saves.

Right, that's the bad part. No one expects GW to write rules that jive with fluff, but it'd be nice it they weren't antithetical.

Hmm, maybe next codex "all tyranid Monstrous Creatures are hot-blooded noble warriors that will gladly kill themselves if they feel their lessers have interrupted their duels"

Crevab wrote:Right, that's the bad part. No one expects GW to write rules that jive with fluff, but it'd be nice it they weren't antithetical.

Hmm, maybe next codex "all tyranid Monstrous Creatures are hot-blooded noble warriors that will gladly kill themselves if they feel their lessers have interrupted their duels"

If you wanted fluff to equal rules, then Marine Players would have to buy only 1 Tac box; while guard players field 1,000 infantry(in the same game).

Fluff does not equal rules for a reason.

Bad tactics because "that is what they do in the fluff/Art", is still bad tactics and not a problem with the rules.

You have 12" of Possible gap between your little bugs and the big Synapse critters; if you are putting your little bugs 3" from your big bugs, and your big bugs are getting swept into and then dragged down: that is your fault. only 2 bugs get a pass on this: the mycetic spore, and the tervigon. but even then it is only when they are disgorging bugs that they get the pass.

I agree with Crevab. It's quite overdone. Having a trade off for the benefit of Fearless is fine. But, instead of just having additional losses, you have a multiplied set of additional losses is stupid. And, having to field your MC's separately and keep them far, far away from your little dudes not only doesn't match fluff, it entirely contradicts fluff. And contradicts what makes Tyranid, and some of the other horde armies fun to play.

I understand that some people defend it as RAW. Which is clearly is. Doesn't mean it's a good rule.

IMO, it's stupid rules like this that make people not want to play 40k.

Maybe the carnifex slips on the piles of dead gaunts and takes wounds from that? Even fearless creatures can become confused by too much going on... maybe the Carnifex is confused and someone does some critical harm to it? There are dozens of arguments to counter the 'My unit is fearless and should be invincible!' fluff argument.

Arguing fluff is absurd... basically the fearless units fight with no regard for themselves or others and if they are not winning they are often in a disadvantage when all is said and done.

There is a reason when you fight as a unit you stay with your unit and not run ahead of the battle line. The fearless units can be at a disadvantage because they can quickly find themselves surrounded or trapped behind dead bodies or dozens of other valid things... hell they may be trampled to death by their own fleeing comrades who are not fearless.

The rule is fine... FEARLESS is not always an advantage and you have to play the game 'better' to maximize the gains while mitigate the downsides. That is called playing better and not just having an invisible unit with I.W.I.N. buttons.

Being able to kill a Tervigon by killing termagants is not a good rule.

Have sheer numbers beating elite armies because they can't be sweep isn't a good rule either. The only reason they have this rule is so 40 models doesn't always win because the most you can kill is say 20 in a round

NeutronPoison wrote:Being able to kill a Tervigon by killing termagants is not a good rule.

Yes it is. it Is called balance. The rule works fine... people just want point and click units where hordes and high toughness models have no counter in CC. Basically get into assault and I WIN! When the game worked like that, it was a bad rule.

Maybe the rule should be called 'reckless' instead of 'fearless' and work exactly the same. Basically that is what fearless units are doing and there should be a downside.

[quote=nkelsch
Yes it is. it Is called balance. The rule works fine... people just want point and click units where hordes and high toughness models have no counter in CC. Basically get into assault and I WIN! When the game worked like that, it was a bad rule.

There are plenty of counters to both hordes and high toughness in CC. I stand by my assertion. If you want to force saves on a Tervigon, you should have to attack the Tervigon.

NeutronPoison wrote:There are plenty of counters to both hordes and high toughness in CC. I stand by my assertion. If you want to force saves on a Tervigon, you should have to attack the Tervigon.

I can't agree more.

BloaterPaste wrote:

NeutronPoison wrote:There are plenty of counters to both hordes and high toughness in CC. I stand by my assertion. If you want to force saves on a Tervigon, you should have to attack the Tervigon.

I can't agree more.

I can't disagree more.

nkelsch wrote:

BloaterPaste wrote:

NeutronPoison wrote:There are plenty of counters to both hordes and high toughness in CC. I stand by my assertion. If you want to force saves on a Tervigon, you should have to attack the Tervigon.

I can't agree more.

I can't disagree more.

I am with nkelsch, I play against bugs a lot.

having 6 high toughness bugs and a horde of T3 bugs on the table is very tough to outmaneuver.

getting into CC with a big bug and a bunch of small bugs is the only way you can kill the big ones sometimes.

Game Balance is a good thing.

DeathReaper wrote:

I am with nkelsch, I play against bugs a lot.

having 6 high toughness bugs and a horde of T3 bugs on the table is very tough to outmaneuver.

getting into CC with a big bug and a bunch of small bugs is the only way you can kill the big ones sometimes.

Game Balance is a good thing.

I play Orks. In 3rd edition, ork hordes could instantly win games by simply marching across the table and reaching combat. If there was no penalty for being fearless or drastically nerfed penalties like spreading the wounds across combat to weaker models, Ork hordes would be overpowered and there would be no drawback. Once they reach assault they just grind meat until your opponent has nothing.

Now you have to be smart and commit your forces and guard your flanks in a conscious way.

Orks would be much stronger with no 'no retreat' or a nerfed version... but I am interested about what is good for the game as a whole not what is good for my home team. Right now it is only a liability for bad players who don't plan ahead or use tactics. You need to protect your weaknesses which means protect yourself from multi assaults if they can be used against you.

I guess I feel like I don't need No Retreat! to beat Tervigon tyranids or Horde Orks, but whatever, this isn't the forum for this argument.

DeathReaper wrote:
I am with nkelsch, I play against bugs a lot.

having 6 high toughness bugs and a horde of T3 bugs on the table is very tough to outmaneuver.

getting into CC with a big bug and a bunch of small bugs is the only way you can kill the big ones sometimes.

If Tyranids had vehicles, I would agree.
If armies had a hard time wounding t6--when there are not targets with AV, I would agree.
If Eternal Warrior had remained in the Tyranid codex, I would agree.

Bottom line, any army that can compete does not need to help to kill t6 Tyranids.
And yet, there it is.

All in all, the RULE is fine.
The application--for Tyranids especially--is atrocious.

Right, as Neutron pointed out, I probably shouldn't have tried to start a convo in YMDC

Just bubble wrap your big nasties, then you wont get into multi assaults you dont want to be in.