Multiple Fearless units losing CC and testing

[DJinni]

Originally Posted by omegoku

P44 If they cannot take a morale check because they are fearless, they take wounds instead

I'm leaving this one alone as it has come down to a "NO, YES" arguement.
one side notes that the grammatical representation of rules under no retreat specifies that the side takes X wounds divided into the number of units, and that the morale rules are not used due to morale not being a factor.
the other side sees it differently.

since during the 'Ard boys tournament the rep ruled in favor of the first representation, we in our local area will continue playing this way. feel free to pick your view and continue having fun.

[eiglepulper]

Originally Posted by DJinni

..[snip]..continue having fun.

That is the most important thing.

E.

[psichotykwyrm]

Originally Posted by DJinni

rules under no retreat specifies that the side takes X wounds divided into the number of units,

No. The division of wounds is something that you are inserting. One does not get to add steps to the rules, and then claim they are playing them as written.

Originally Posted by DJinni

and that the morale rules are not used due to morale not being a factor.

Incredibly wrong. The Morale Check modifier is the only condition used to determine No Retreat saves.

(How could Morale modifiers not factor when that is what determines them?)

Originally Posted by DJinni

since during the 'Ard boys tournament the rep ruled in favor of the first representation, we in our local area will continue playing this way. feel free to pick your view and continue having fun.

(Not any sort of negative statements or attack, but I must be a little stern here...)

Djinni, House Rules are perfectly fine to use, but you need to preface your ideas as such.

Here, we discuss how the rules are written, not tell anonymous people that they need to play "the way my group does".

I fear that you may confuse less experienced folks who come here for guidance. If you insist on constantly posting your own house rules, please add notes that label it as such, instead of coming back with ludicrously contradictory statements like above.

[DJinni]

Originally Posted by psichotykwyrm

Djinni, House Rules are perfectly fine to use, but you need to preface your ideas as such.

my view is not a house rule and are supported by the rules, as previously pointed out, my view does not add a step, as the other view does, by picking and choosing which part of which rule to follow at which point. I do however recognize how someone could interpret both views.
my view uses specific grammatical definitions. no inferment or opinions. nothing added or subtracted.
I would appreciate if you have a different viewpoint not to belittle mine by infering that it is a houserule, as I do not make that claim about your opinions.

[Moglun]

Djinni is correct in that the wording of the rules under 'No Retreat' do not clearly indicate whether they refer to fearless units in general or the specific fearless units involved in that particular combat. Outside of context, there is no way to tell if wounds are split.

Within context however, the intention is clear.
- Firstly, an example is given under 'No Retreat' which indicates that a particular fearless unit takes wounds equal to the amount that it lost combat by (p.44). The example does not differentiate this between combats with multiple fearless units; thus, we can assume it holds true for both situations with one fearless unit and more than one fearless unit.
- Secondly, all other sections of the rulebook use the general use of plural. For example, "Units that lose a combat must take a morale check (p.39)". Do all the units take one morale check between them, or does each unit take a morale check? We know the latter is the case, so we have precedent that when stating something like 'fearless units take X wounds' it refers to each unit taking X wounds.

[eiglepulper]

Originally Posted by Moglun

- Secondly, all other sections of the rulebook use the general use of plural. For example, "Units that lose a combat must take a morale check (p.39)". Do all the units take one morale check between them, or does each unit take a morale check? We know the latter is the case, so we have precedent that when stating something like 'fearless units take X wounds' it refers to each unit taking X wounds.

This is exactly what I was referring to earlier.

E.

[Moglun]

Yup (it was a really excellent post, BTW). I just figured I'd restate your conclusion using different evidence.

[omegoku]

Originally Posted by Moglun

Djinni is correct in that the wording of the rules under 'No Retreat' do not clearly indicate whether they refer to fearless units in general or the specific fearless units involved in that particular combat. Outside of context, there is no way to tell if wounds are split.

Within context however, the intention is clear.
- Firstly, an example is given under 'No Retreat' which indicates that a particular fearless unit takes wounds equal to the amount that it lost combat by (p.44). The example does not differentiate this between combats with multiple fearless units; thus, we can assume it holds true for both situations with one fearless unit and more than one fearless unit.
- Secondly, all other sections of the rulebook use the general use of plural. For example, "Units that lose a combat must take a morale check (p.39)". Do all the units take one morale check between them, or does each unit take a morale check? We know the latter is the case, so we have precedent that when stating something like 'fearless units take X wounds' it refers to each unit taking X wounds.

Rep for this post.
Nowhere in the book does it state that the wounds are split but it does say that units take a number of wounds equal to the combat modifier. Perfect.

[psichotykwyrm]

Originally Posted by DJinni

my view is not a house rule and are supported by the rules, as previously pointed out, my view does not add a step, as the other view does, by picking and choosing which part of which rule to follow at which point. I do however recognize how someone could interpret both views.

Are you absolutely positive on that? Let's illustrate...

Correct way:
1. Units lose combat.
2. Units make Morale Check with appropriate modifier(-X).
3. If no Morale Check is made, such a unit takes wounds equal to their Modifier(X).
(Because all losing units suffer the same modifier, all units subject to No Retreat make the same number of saves, as Eiglepulper and Moglun have so eloquently illustrated.)

Your way:
1. Units lose combat.
2. Units make Morale Check with appropriate modifier(-X).
3. If no Morale Check is made, such a unit takes wounds equal to their Modifier(X).
4. Group all the No Retreat units(Y) under one Morale Check Modifier, so that you may split the No Retreat saves (X/Y).

Looks like an added step to me, as their is no procedure on how divide the saves; but, since you've got such a firm grasp on things...

How, DJinni, does the book tell us to divide the saves if they would be split unevenly? Exactly what criteria are used if three saves are to be split between two units? Unit size? Wounds taken?

What if the two units are exactly the same size, took no wounds, and caused none to the enemy? How is this one resolved, by the book?

Originally Posted by DJinni

my view uses specific grammatical definitions. no inferment or opinions. nothing added or subtracted.

No, your view involves twisting the context of the use of a plural.

Originally Posted by DJinni

I would appreciate if you have a different viewpoint not to belittle mine by infering that it is a houserule, as I do not make that claim about your opinions.

I am not inferring anything, sir. I've stated quite clearly that, rules as written, your method is incorrect. It would be a House Rule, plainly stated.

I am not belittling anyone; you'll notice that I don't disgrace all of us by throwing around the word "opinion".

[DJinni]

as already stated its already been pointed at and reitterated in the previous posts, for both sides of the arguement so anything more is just repeating.

Originally Posted by psichotykwyrm

I am not belittling anyone; you'll notice that I don't disgrace all of us by throwing around the word "opinion".

By stating that a viewpoint is houserule you are marking the view as an opinion.
if you wish we can continue this elsewhere as we are getting off topic.