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.

Hi Everyone,

Recently started a demon army and stumbled upon the following at this site: http://intothemaelstrom40k.blogspot.fr/2012/07/6th-edition-chaos-daemons-comprehensive.html

Ill quote the relevant section: "Fearless – All Daemons have the Fearless Universal Special Rule (see 40k rulebook). This is a nice ability IMO, but it got a lot better in 6th Edition as units which are Fearless no longer take ‘extra wounds’ when they lose a round of combat. So this means that Daemons will last a lot longer in Close Combat. The only downside to this is that if you get stuck in combat with something you cannot Wound i.e. a Walker of some sort, then you cannot run away and are stuck there until the unit is wiped out or you get help from elsewhere."

I re-read the assault chapter in BRB but can't seem to find any mention of suffering additional wounds after losing combat? I mean yeah you'll die when you get caught in a sweeping advance?

Am I missing something?

5th edition rule - if a unit with Fearless loses a combat, they take additional wounds equal to the amount they lost combat by.

This is no longer the case in 6th edition.

The author is comparing the Fearless rules from 5th edition and 6th edition.

In 5th, if a Fearless (or similar) unit lost combat, then it would suffer a number of wounds equal to the number they lost the combat by, with saves as normal.

In 6th, if a Fearless unit loses combat then nothing special happens. The author is simply saying that this is a significant bonus to Fearless units.

In other words, ignore that reference. It's irrelevant to the current edition.

Problem now is Fearless shouldn't be on as many units. Morale is a system which is largely ignored. It's almost novel to have units that aren't morale protected in some fashion.

 Underachiever wrote:
Problem now is Fearless shouldn't be on as many units. Morale is a system which is largely ignored. It's almost novel to have units that aren't morale protected in some fashion.

Almost every space marine has to make their moral checks.
Tau have little chance of getting back together after being broken, same for orks, eldar, dark eldar, chaos space marines unless they have an upgrade, guard (a commissar can only do so much).

So no, actually Morale is a very important mechanic and if you get into close combat it is really important. If you are playing with a shooty army moral is your friend as you want to be forcing those 25% checks. While SM don't get all the bad effects they still can be pushed off the board with a badly timed moral check.

aliusexalio wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Recently started a demon army and stumbled upon the following at this site: http://intothemaelstrom40k.blogspot.fr/2012/07/6th-edition-chaos-daemons-comprehensive.html

Ill quote the relevant section: "Fearless – All Daemons have the Fearless Universal Special Rule (see 40k rulebook). This is a nice ability IMO, but it got a lot better in 6th Edition as units which are Fearless no longer take ‘extra wounds’ when they lose a round of combat. So this means that Daemons will last a lot longer in Close Combat. The only downside to this is that if you get stuck in combat with something you cannot Wound i.e. a Walker of some sort, then you cannot run away and are stuck there until the unit is wiped out or you get help from elsewhere."

I re-read the assault chapter in BRB but can't seem to find any mention of suffering additional wounds after losing combat? I mean yeah you'll die when you get caught in a sweeping advance?

Am I missing something?

The bolded is what you're missing. The author doesn't say that they take extra wounds, he's saying that with 6th edition they don't take the wounds like they did in 5th edition.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Underachiever wrote:
Problem now is Fearless shouldn't be on as many units. Morale is a system which is largely ignored. It's almost novel to have units that aren't morale protected in some fashion.

Almost every space marine has to make their moral checks.
Tau have little chance of getting back together after being broken, same for orks, eldar, dark eldar, chaos space marines unless they have an upgrade, guard (a commissar can only do so much).

So no, actually Morale is a very important mechanic and if you get into close combat it is really important. If you are playing with a shooty army moral is your friend as you want to be forcing those 25% checks. While SM don't get all the bad effects they still can be pushed off the board with a badly timed moral check.

I agree with this, it's far more important than the Internet seems to make it out to be.

Or maybe one of my regular opponents is simply terrible at rolling Leadership tests. In our last game, two Space Marine units (Grey Hunters and Wolf Scouts) ran off the table from failed Morale tests in the same turn. One of them from losing 4 models from a lucky Heldrake vector strike, the other from losing 5 models from the same vehicle's baleflamer. He wasn't amused (but I was).

(That's obviously anecdotal and was just included for amusement rather than to back up my point.)

I've broken three tau units in cc with a rune priest in 3 turns. The worst combat character in my army was on a roll due to low leadership.

As a Tyranid player i love playing on the fact that im fearless 9 times out or 10. Not taking additional wounds due to losing combat saves 3 to 5 gaunts every turn. Add the fact that my high Initiative on units like genestealers makes it easy to sweeping advance normally tough units to destroy "necron warriors for example" I play off morale constantly. I love the change from 5th to 6th in the fearless.

That original article all so seems to have missed the whole rule about being able to bail if you get caught in an assault were you can't hurt the opponent. It is something like " Our weapons are useless, sir!"

barnowl wrote:
That original article all so seems to have missed the whole rule about being able to bail if you get caught in an assault were you can't hurt the opponent. It is something like " Our weapons are useless, sir!"

And it specifically states Fearless units cannot use this rule.
Also, this rule is basically a worse form of combat tactics. You choose to fail the result, but you risk getting swept.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Underachiever wrote:
Problem now is Fearless shouldn't be on as many units. Morale is a system which is largely ignored. It's almost novel to have units that aren't morale protected in some fashion.

Almost every space marine has to make their moral checks.
Tau have little chance of getting back together after being broken, same for orks, eldar, dark eldar, chaos space marines unless they have an upgrade, guard (a commissar can only do so much).

So no, actually Morale is a very important mechanic and if you get into close combat it is really important. If you are playing with a shooty army moral is your friend as you want to be forcing those 25% checks. While SM don't get all the bad effects they still can be pushed off the board with a badly timed moral check.

I'm not sure how 5/6 means "little chance." Those eldar/dark eldar/csm have LD 9 in a lot of places, meaning a rally happens 5/6 of the time assuming no other modifiers are present. Also the guard have an order that allows them to rally, and Orks are fearless a lot of the time or else they are low enough that they wouldn't do much (but still have a high enough LD to rally a majority of the time).

Really, I have no idea what that paragraph of yours was trying to say.