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.

So if a unit that's falling back gets assaulted they immediately make a morale check to regroup, if not they are swept. All other morale checks on a unit falling back are auto failed. Did I read that right?

If a unit locked in combat gets terrified by malediction and fail, and they aren't space marines ATSKNF, do I have chance to sweep them in MY movement phase? I haven't tried this. Would you then get Consolidate and your mo effin movement phase??? I tried looking around for answers, but maybe I searched wrong.

Any thoughts?

Having reviewed your question again, the answer I am coming to is still no, but there some factors I need to check closer;
Right now I think the problem is a lack of permission to even carry out Sweeping result within the movement phase. There might be something in the rules which give you express permission to carry out a sweeping advance as part of the psychic power but I doubt this. As the Sweeping Advance requires a specific moral check to be failed, during a specific step that only occurs at the end of assault, I do not see anything granting permission to carry out one during the movement phase.

Ya and comparing the rules with your logic. Sweeping IS only allowed by the failed assault roll. And it Doesn't say "Sweep a falling back unit who fails their morale check to regroup" it just says remove them. However it's still during the Assault Phase that happens. Likely just gives them Fear check immediately.

Sweeping Advance is triggered by a unit falling back from combat. This is typically from making a Morale check due to losing combat. A unit that fails its Morale check can be SA.

Maledictions can be cast on units locked in CC. So you can target a unit in CC with Terrify.

RAW: Yes you can cast Terrify and SA that unit if it fails.

HIWPI: No, this is an oversight in the rules and it brings too many problems to other areas if allowed.

I don't see much problem with this? It just means your unit finishes it's combat early if the enemy runs, and you can then Shoot and assault.

How would this be any different (albeit a bit later) than the enemy being overrun in the previous assault phase? You would actually move more then. In this case you count as moved already etc

This is one I have been wondering about with a brood lord. However it should still unlock the engaged units and allow your unit to move as it is no longer locked.

Fragile wrote:
Sweeping Advance is triggered by a unit falling back from combat. This is typically from making a Morale check due to losing combat. A unit that fails its Morale check can be SA.

Maledictions can be cast on units locked in CC. So you can target a unit in CC with Terrify.

RAW: Yes you can cast Terrify and SA that unit if it fails.

HIWPI: No, this is an oversight in the rules and it brings too many problems to other areas if allowed.

I agree with your RAW. I don't see how this creates issues in "other areas." Maybe an example?

No.

"When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down their fleeing foes." -Pg 26 BRB, Sweeping Advance(Emphasis mine)

Only the victorious side can make a SA and a CC winner/loser is only determined in the assault phase. There is no victor during the movement phase so a SA cannot be preformed.

SA, not SW.

The victor can be said to be the side that isnt falling back, easily given the contet above.

Imo RAW they would fall back with no SA.

They are taking a moral test, not a moral test for losing combat - there has been no combat resolution, no determining assault results and no Moral check for losing combat - which is what allows SA.

Victor in this context means the side which caused more wounds in the combat - as defined by 'Determining combat results' P26

The side which has caused the most wounds is the winner

Without fulfilling the conditions for performing a Sweeping Advance, there can be no SA, a normal moral check does not fulfil these.

The only rules which apply to Moral Checks in this instance are on page 29 under Moral Checks

While making a moral check might not enable a SA they are still breaking from combat. A fleeing unit can be SA.

I am at work today but I will double-check tonight.

 Nem wrote:
Imo RAW they would fall back with no SA.

They are taking a moral test, not a moral test for losing combat - there has been no combat resolution, no determining assault results and no Moral check for losing combat - which is what allows SA.

There is no such differentiation. The trigger for SA is the unit falling back. Falling back is caused by a failed morale test.

When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down their fleeing foes.

Victors in this context, means the unit not falling back.


Farseer Pef: Would the unit consolidate? Would it consolidate and then move ? This falls into the category the Thrust moves do after winning combat. I find its much simpler to apply the Shooting into CC rules on pg28.

I don't know. This is going to sound stupid but I'm not 100% convinced a unit locked in combat that makes a fall back move is 'falling back from combat'. They are definitely falling back but you can make a case that they can only fall back from combat during the fight sub-phase because you only resolve the combat during the fight sub-phase. If they fall back at any other time its not 'from combat' even if they are locked in combat.

Fragile wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Imo RAW they would fall back with no SA.

They are taking a moral test, not a moral test for losing combat - there has been no combat resolution, no determining assault results and no Moral check for losing combat - which is what allows SA.

There is no such differentiation. The trigger for SA is the unit falling back. Falling back is caused by a failed morale test.

When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down their fleeing foes.

Victors in this context, means the unit not falling back.


Farseer Pef: Would the unit consolidate? Would it consolidate and then move ? This falls into the category the Thrust moves do after winning combat. I find its much simpler to apply the Shooting into CC rules on pg28.

Falling back from losing combat is mentioned specifically

Can choose to automatically fail its moral check for losing a combat..

Who is the winner of the combat is very clearly defined on page 26 as the unit which caused the most wounds, nothing suggests you become the winner because an enemy unit is forced to take a moral test for something other than losing combat.
Under SWEEPING ADVANCES;

When a Sweeping advance is performed, both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6 and ....

We know what the winning unit is, by the rules is; the unit which caused the most wounds. Further contesting this please quote the rule which says the unit that is not falling back is the 'winner of combat'... Problem is there can't be, there can not be a assault winner without an assault.

For a SA there needs to be Assault to be able to determine the assault results and a moral check for losing combat.

Sweeping Advance
When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down their fleeing foes

It does not say, when a unit falls back from losing combat,.. It only mentions a falling back.

Fragile wrote:

Farseer Pef: Would the unit consolidate? Would it consolidate and then move ? This falls into the category the Thrust moves do after winning combat. I find its much simpler to apply the Shooting into CC rules on pg28.

Under the assumption you can SA during the Movement Phase (due to Terrify and failed morale), I see no issue with carrying out the normal rules for SA. You roll off with Initiative added, after you wipe them or fail to, you always consolidate. This is movement, and you can't move twice in the move phase, so you are done moving for the phase and count as having moved for the purpose of shooting in the next phase (e.g. Heavy weapons).

Fragile wrote:

Sweeping Advance
When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down their fleeing foes

It does not say, when a unit falls back from losing combat,.. It only mentions a falling back.

It doesn't need to, you can only sweeping advance if you win combat (You need to be the 'winner'). Have you won combat?

You Win combat, become the winner by causing most wounds. SA is a mechanic of combat resolution, it has nothing to do with falling back or moral checks as general rules, only when your doing those things as part of combat resolution. There is just no justifiable link between Terrify causing a moral check and then SA, as SA is part of combat resolution. If your not resolving combat, there's no option to SA. Combat resolution uses a Moral check sure, like lots of other sections in the rules. I mean, do I start linking Terrify from removing a units models down to 25% as that's another time I take a moral test? What causes Moral tests in these circumstances are completely unrelated.

You take a moral test due to Terrify is no the same as taking a moral test for losing combat, or taking a moral test for losing most of a unit. It is simply a moral test, the rules for that in its entirety are on page 29.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SA, not SW.

The victor can be said to be the side that isnt falling back, easily given the contet above.

Doh! Corrected my error, TY. I'm sure you meant context instead of contet

The winner or 'victor' is defined as the unit that dealt the most wounds that turn and is not decided until the 'Determine Assault Results' sup-phase.

"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents." -BRB, pg 26

As neither side has dealt wounds no side can be the victor as defined by RAW. While I agree that SA should be allowed per RAI (an oversight I feel) there is really no RAW argument that would allow for it unless someone wants to show that being the winner is somehow different from being the victor. In this context, I don't think any honest differentiation can be made though as they both obviously refer to the same thing. Even if such a thing were proven, 'victor' would then become undefined and subject to interpretation. That would remove any possibility of defining RAW in this and every other situation involving the 'victor'.

Again; that is the winner, not victor. Different sentence, different context. The context here us that if you're falling back, you aren't the victor

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again; that is the winner, not victor. Different sentence, different context. The context here us that if you're falling back, you aren't the victor

That is obviously untrue IMO but if you want to see it that way I can't stop you.

It's to bad the 'victor' is not allowed to make the SA test. Only the 'winner' and the unit falling back are allowed to do so.

"When a Sweeping Advance is performed, both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6 and add their unmodified Initiative to the result."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again; that is the winner, not victor.

It's the winner that's set by wounds inflicted, and it's the winner that gets to roll the sweeping advance. The notion that the "victor" is someone else entirely makes no sense in context, and has no other support. In fact, you've just made up a definition out of the blue. After all, even accepting the argument that the victor/winner (your side of the argument absolutely requires both, BTW) isn't the unit causing the most casualties, the natural assumption is not another unit in the assault, but rather the unit which caused the test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Different sentence, different context.

Different sentence does not prove different context. It's not even evidence. I would say it's very much the same context, and the Sweeping Advance rule uses victor and winner interchangeably.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The context here us that if you're falling back, you aren't the victor

Sure. But that's insufficient to prove that the other unit necessarily is, particularly in unusual circumstances.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again; that is the winner, not victor. Different sentence, different context. The context here us that if you're falling back, you aren't the victor

So we're in agreement 'winner' is defined? As SA says the ' Winner' makes the SA

both the unit falling back ad the winning unit roll a D6 and add their unmodified initiative to the result

At the end of the day, RAW there is no such thing as winner or Victor of a Moral check. The only RAW for being the winner of combat is causing the most wounds. Unless anyone cab quote a passage saying if your enemy falls back from combat you automatically win, or you can win combat by your opponent failing a moral check I think we're done.

We have quoted RAW for how you win combat - if you think RAW allows another way to win combat please quote it.


Makes a lot of sense anyway. Not really in the spirit of the game to wipe out a unit through SA by casting 1pp they already have the chance of running off the board, either way it's abusive and obviously not intended. Quick search on past threads shows this wasn't addressed, pretty shocked as RAW Is pretty clear on this- contains all the right words where you need them... Also causes issues with consolidate then normal movement...

 Nem wrote:

At the end of the day, RAW there is no such thing as winner or Victor of a Moral check. The only RAW for being the winner of combat is causing the most wounds. Unless anyone cab quote a passage saying if your enemy falls back from combat you automatically win, or you can win combat by your opponent failing a moral check I think we're done.

To be clear, your saying that the only thing that will allow a sweeping advance is if your enemy fails a morale check triggered in the fight sub phase by you causing the most wounds in the assault phase?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Nem wrote:

At the end of the day, RAW there is no such thing as winner or Victor of a Moral check. The only RAW for being the winner of combat is causing the most wounds. Unless anyone cab quote a passage saying if your enemy falls back from combat you automatically win, or you can win combat by your opponent failing a moral check I think we're done.

To be clear, your saying that the only thing that will allow a sweeping advance is if your enemy fails a morale check triggered in the fight sub phase by you causing the most wounds in the assault phase?

A long winded way yes, SA in basic rules are only allowed to be performed on the 'losing' unit, by the 'winning' unit. A sweeping advance is an extra process step contained in the fight subphase between taking a Moral check and Falling back, it is not part of the normal process for taking a Moral check, it's a specific rule which comes into play when resolving a fight subphase.
Rules for sweeping advance

When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance....
When a Sweeping advance is performed, both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6....

.

Undeniably one unit is falling back. This however, does not mean they have lost combat, or the opposing unit has won combat. The whole context if pages 26 and 27 rely on the definitions given in 'determining assault results' and talk about the winner/Victor and loser thereafter.

To decide who has won combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted... .... The side who has caused the most wounds is the winner, The losing unit must make a moral check ... ... If both sides suffer the same number of wounds the combat is drawn

So a condition of performing a SA is Winning combat, were told how that occurs.
While by the power you can force the unit to make a moral test, the power nor the test makes you the winner of the assault.

Not everyone can SA, and you may be able to SA at other times in the genera when given permission to make a SA specifically

Unfortunately, the paragraph about Sweeping Advances on P26 is independent from the morale check and Wounds suffered.

The best way to make an example is the Our Weapons are Useless paragraph. If they fail the check and fall back, SA applies. They did not "Loose" the combat either: Winning or loosing wounds/Combat is irrelevant.

The only required condition for SA is "When a unit falls back from combat,(...)"

However they fall back if irrelevant, only that they do indeed fall back and therefore allow SA.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Unfortunately, the paragraph about Sweeping Advances on P26 is independent from the morale check and Wounds suffered.

The best way to make an example is the Our Weapons are Useless paragraph. If they fail the check and fall back, SA applies. They did not "Loose" the combat either: Winning or loosing wounds/Combat is irrelevant.

The only required condition for SA is "When a unit falls back from combat,(...)"

However they fall back if irrelevant, only that they do indeed fall back and therefore allow SA.

No it's not, you can't choose to fail a moral check if you have not lost combat, if you did not lose combat there is no moral check for you to choose to fail! Our weapons are useless is a perfect example of how everything on those pages are dependant on combat resolution results

Will people actually read the rules before replying. You can only SA if you win combat, as per the rules of SA.

If you win combat and the other unit is falling back, they are both conditions of SA, written right there in the SA rules which have been quoted on this thread


'the unit falling back and the winning unit...' < your telling me it has nothing to do with winning combat even though it uses the words winning unit?

Now there's one RAW possibility of what a winning unit is...

 BlackTalos wrote:
Unfortunately, the paragraph about Sweeping Advances on P26 is independent from the morale check and Wounds suffered.

The best way to make an example is the Our Weapons are Useless paragraph. If they fail the check and fall back, SA applies. They did not "Loose" the combat either: Winning or loosing wounds/Combat is irrelevant.

The only required condition for SA is "When a unit falls back from combat,(...)"

However they fall back if irrelevant, only that they do indeed fall back and therefore allow SA.

As Nim said you can only use the 'our weapons are useless' rule if you lose the combat.

You might be technically correct on one point here. The 'why' of the fallback may not matter... but the 'when' does.

For SA to be an option-
-It must be in the 'determine assault results' step so that a winner and loser can be determined
-The losing unit must fall back
-The other unit must be the winner of the combat as defined by number of wounds caused during the fight sub-phase.

Aside from the standard moral test, I don't know of anything that would cause the loser to fall back at that time but if there is, I'd allow SA. During the movement phase it is not possible because a winner/loser cannot be defined per RAW.