As a side note, several of my gaming buddies are going to be really annoyed that I sullied 40K talk with sports. However last time I checked this was my blog, so suck it Steve and Jason.
Anyway, back to 40K rules, during our last gaming session No Retreat! became an issue. See I've never claimed to be good at this game, actually if you ask some people I suck. And that includes the rules. Some I've misinterpreted and some I've just plain forgotten about. No Retreat! is one of those rules. It was one of those situations where the rule wasn't applied one game because I forgot about it, and later the mistake was found and it was applied from that point on. Needless to say when you don't expect a rule like that it can hurt....a lot. Then after that, to add insult to injury, I applied the rule wrong to the rest of my games.
Am I an idiot when it comes to the rules? Yeah. But that's why I do these articles so other people can correct me, and for making sure anyone who's coming close to my stupidity in the rules (because I don't expect anyone to match my rules retardation) gets the help they need.
Hit the jump for more.
Reminder, the bold emphasis is by me, any italics are directly from the book.
What the rule says:
Warhammer 40K Rulebook, p.44How I've messed it up: Well first of all I wasn't always applying this rule. Not for wanting to cheat (although as an Ork player it was beneficial to me), but because I just really forgot about it. Also when I did apply the rule I was taking a number of wounds equal to what I took in combat, and not saving against the wounds.
It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule)...
These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).
All types of saving throws, except for cover saves, can be taken against these wounds.
How this affected my games: Obviously if I'm not applying this rule then I'm gaining an advantage in numbers (I have played games where we both have fearless and didn't apply this rule, so in those instances it was a wash). But then I've also punished myself by taking too many wounds, or not taking the saves I'm eligible for. In those instances I hurt my forces, and chances, possibly more than I helped myself by not applying the rule.
How I should have played it: Obviously I need to apply these wounds when I lose assault. But beyond that I need to make sure I only apply the wounds equal to how much I lost combat by. And then I need to save against those wounds. As an Ork, these saves aren't the best, but occasionally I can roll a 6 when I need it.
So, am I right in how I'm interpreting the rule after re-reading it? I'm pretty sure this is the case, but I just want to make sure. I've checked the FAQ and nothing is listed there (not that I expected there to be), but please let me know if I'm totally screwing something up.
Only down 3-2 now.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was listening to the game on my cell phone during my daughter's Girl Scouts orientation, and just as it finished Young hit his second homer. I jumped up and pumped my fist revealing the fact I didn't really listen to a word the lady said.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting is this: Say you lose compat with your Orks, and have 10+Nob left (fearless) and you lose by 17 wounds (you got nailed in a multi-combat).
ReplyDeleteYou still can have the nob left on 1W if you want to tie the squad up another turn due to wound allocation -
1 per boy, 1 on the nob, 1 per boy until you run out of wounds -> Nob on 1W.
Or if you want them all out of combat, 1 per Nob, 1 per boy, another on the nob, then fill the boys out with the remainder.
Not much, but every little bit helps.