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.

SumYungGui wrote:That is an extremely fallacious approach to any discussion not deserving of a defense as it will then devolve into pointless bickering and 'your mom' territory.
Discuss the issue not the people.

Except the issue isn't whether or not the rule is bad. The rule is what it is. You can either learn to play the game with that rule there or make your own house rule.

This discussion is indeed about whether the rule is bad or not. Reread the original post.

The OP asked if his understanding of the rule is correct. It was.

Whether or not the rule is bad is a pretty pointless discussion. Not liking it isn't going to change it (unless you want to houserule it in which case proposed rules would be the correct venue)

Scott-S6 wrote:The OP asked if his understanding of the rule is correct. It was.

Whether or not the rule is bad is a pretty pointless discussion. Not liking it isn't going to change it (unless you want to houserule it in which case proposed rules would be the correct venue)

filbert wrote:
Basically, it looks to me like Fearlessness really has a major drawback in CC - ie you don't even get the chance to see if the unit may or may not fall back; simply because it is Fearless it takes further wounds. This seems to me like Fearless is at a disadvantage compared to 'normal' units in CC? Or am I reading the rule wrong somehow?

Steelmage99 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The OP asked if his understanding of the rule is correct. It was.

Whether or not the rule is bad is a pretty pointless discussion. Not liking it isn't going to change it (unless you want to houserule it in which case proposed rules would be the correct venue)

filbert wrote:
Basically, it looks to me like Fearlessness really has a major drawback in CC - ie you don't even get the chance to see if the unit may or may not fall back; simply because it is Fearless it takes further wounds. This seems to me like Fearless is at a disadvantage compared to 'normal' units in CC? Or am I reading the rule wrong somehow?

Thank you for proving Scott's point.

The OP asked if his understanding of the rule was correct.

If that line was not there the mod's would have been asked looong ago to move the thread to tactics; and at this point the thread really should be moved to tactics, the last 2 pages have been about nothing but tactics as the actual rules question was answered.

Sumyunggui: how is it a fallacious approach; When a question needs answered, and an example is needed, the easiest way to explain the situation is by personalizing it; that means using terms such as "Your", and "My". This particular rule can be problematic for players that need to improve their tactics, learn from your mistakes and do not make them again(and if you get the chance use what you learned on another player).

Basically this game has a learning curve; you have to be willing to adjust your tactics in order to get the best use out of your models; for this exact reason i have 4 armies that each have distinct playstyles, in this way i can learn more how to do certain things, and how to prevent certain things from happening to me.

I have a question is along the same lines.

Stubborn. We know it means that the modifiers are excluded when rolling for morale. I'd like to know what to do with multi-unit assaults and No Retreat!

Bob's tactical and Sternguard units are in a Multi-unit assault with a swarm of Fran's 'nids. The SM lose the round by 3 wounds.

The tacical SM roll morale with the penalty. The SG roll morale without the penalty. Let's say Bob rolls an 11 for them ... and:
1. The tactical passes morale
2. The tactical fails morale

What happens next in each case?

Check out Multiple Combats on page 41.

So in your situation, "swarm" of 'nids are fighting a Tac squad and a SG squad. For the moment let's assume the swarm is just one squad.

The SG break.
1. The tac squad passes morale. In this event, the nids cannot Sweeping Advance. They are only permitted to Sweeping Advance if ALL of the units they were Locked in combat with fall back. The SG fall back out of combat, and the nids pile in to maximize contact with and continue fighting the Tac squad.
2. The tac squad fails morale. In this event, the Nids can (and must) Sweeping Advance. The Nid player rolls a d6, adds the nid unit's Initiative score, and the space marine player does the same for EACH of his units falling back- the tac squad and the SG squad. The nid player's score is compared to both the SM units' scores. Any falling back unit which rolls equal to or lower than the Nid units' score is caught. They would normally be destroyed there, but And They Shall Know No Fear kicks in to save them, although it does trigger No Retreat wounds. Each SM unit caught suffers 3 wounds and takes normal armor saves, as they lost the combat by 3. If either SM unit rolls higher than the 'nids did on the Initiative +d6 roll, they successfully escape, suffering no wounds but falling back as normal.

I can't say i'm a huge fan of no retreat, as i play both Nids and Orks, but the main reason i'm not a fan is that my save is for tinfoil armour/chitin ie 6+. 2+ armoured fearless folks get it a lot easier on no retreat, though they cost waaay more. Also, if your squad of gaunts/orks is less than 20 or so its too small (barring remnant squads that were this big on turn 1).

If you want to choke a potent cc squad down, its bets to tenderise it a bit first (30 devourers and a tyrant with twinlinked brainleech worms will generally put enough worms in ANYTHING that you might reasonably expect the squad to harm in CC, and all nid weapons, just about, are assault, so pepper 'em first, then charge.

Same goes for orks too Dakka da choppa, an' choppa da Dakka!

Kommissar Kel wrote:Sumyunggui: how is it a fallacious approach; When a question needs answered, and an example is needed, the easiest way to explain the situation is by personalizing it; that means using terms such as "Your", and "My". This particular rule can be problematic for players that need to improve their tactics, learn from your mistakes and do not make them again(and if you get the chance use what you learned on another player).

Basically this game has a learning curve; you have to be willing to adjust your tactics in order to get the best use out of your models; for this exact reason i have 4 armies that each have distinct playstyles, in this way i can learn more how to do certain things, and how to prevent certain things from happening to me.

SumYungGui wrote:it will then devolve into pointless bickering and 'your mom' territory.

Anytime SumYungGui is involved in a thread it devolves into pointless bickering and 'your mom' territory.

You seem to have an opinion on this topic, not to be confused with pointless bickering and insults towards people. Fantastic! This is what makes forums go 'round. For the furtherance of everyone's enjoyment please state your opinion in a neutral, debatable format. The easiest way to accomplish this if you're having difficulty is to stick purely to 'I' statements. Do not at any point refer to any other person, state nothing except your position on the topic and explain your reasoning.

As an example from earler:

SumYungGui wrote:I do not feel it is fair to have one model touch base with an entirely different unit and destroy both units while completely ignoring the second one and never even taking a swing at them, much less 'earning' their destruction by doing damage. It is my opinion that in order to apply combat resolution to a secondary unit in multiple assaults you should have to actually attack that unit. To that end it has been my statement from the beginning that while the total amount of wounds or leadership modifiers should be determined by the assault as a whole, the cap on any given unit should be limited to what is supplied for combat resolution.

Do not at any point refer to any other person,

That is, no quotes, references or "I agrees"? Where is the limit?

NOT referencing another person make it hard to argue and it will quickly re hash the same things. And, even worse, faulty logic cannot be poked at.

Eventually it's necessary to address the other person's opinions in a neutral, constructive manner but that's something of an advanced tactic. We're having some difficulties with the basic steps it appears.

The general idea is to not insult people but debate the issue.

Just ran into a further example of this and was hoping the rules experts here could clarify/back up the result before this thread gets locked! Details:

A multiple combat involving a unit of termies, a solitary SM bike against a unit of Ork 'Ard Boyz and a unit of Tankbustas.

Upshot of the combat is that the ard boyz unit gets wiped out (takes 9 wounds) and the tankbustas unit fails morale check and so potentially gets caught in a sweeping advance. Now the only unit that can SA is the solitary biker. Is that correct? It ended up that the single SM bike destroyed the entire tankbustas unit (which seemed a little odd).

Yeah. No one likes direct insults. The problem is that, IMO, forums aren't that much of a good discussion tool.
Why? Written text.

Some people are so used to smileys that they can't take a gibe unless it has a next to it.
Other people doesn't really grasp the language (I say that I don't) so may come across as rude, or see insults where there are none.
Also, we are all individuals. Our personal insult levels are all different.

And of course, there are those that just insults and degrades people for the heck off it, they are the problem.

Yes, that is perfectly fine. There is no lower limit to thenumber of models that can sweeping advance and, assumign the biker wasnt an IC attached to the termis, is a legal "choice" to sweeping advance potentially an entire unit.

I think that's correct, but only because Terminators have something in their rules that disallows their performing sweeping advances...I thnk. I don't play space marines so I'm going from what I've seen on the table top and that's my understanding. Now if there had been any other unit, even one gretchin facing down an entire unit of Terminators, still left in that fight when the Tankbustas ran away nobody would have been able to perform a sweeping advance as they would still have been 'engaged'.

Yeah that's what I figured but as I said, it seemed a wee bit odd. Cheers!