Morale check from falling back through dangerous terrain

[Bugs_n_Orks]

In a game last week we had the following situation. I multi-charged 2 Dire avenger units with an Ork mob and won combat causing both units to flee. One of the units was reduced to 2 models and had to fall back through a wave serpent wreck causing 1 of the DA to trip and die from a failed Dangerous Terrain check. Would the unit now had to take another morale check for taking 25+% causualties in a phase (and auto-fail it and fall back again)?

The relevant passage from the rulebook pg. 44:

A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a
single phase must pass a Morale check at the end
of that phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count
casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they
are covered later in C) Losing an Assault.

The wound obviously wasn't caused by a CC attack, but should we use the starting size of the unit (pre-combat at the start of the assault phase) or the unit size post combat?

[psichotykwyrm]

You're working off 25% per phase with this rule, so use the number they began the phase with. As combat casualties do not count, only the model(s) lost to the dangerous terrain would count towards the 25% requirement of the original number.

[eiglepulper]

No you wouldn't take another test *this* phase since the unit is considered to be falling back already and will automatically fail any further Morale Checks until it attempts to and succeeds in regrouping at the start of their next turn.

I don't have my BRB handy here so can't give you a page number for that, but it is at the end of the Morale section, top paragraph of the left column iirc.

E.

[psichotykwyrm]

E, there is absolutely nothing I can find in the Morale section that limits Morale Checks to once per phase.

-On page 44, "A) Casualties" and "C) Losing an Assault" are listed as separate criteria for taking a check. (Important note: CC casualties do not count for situation A.)

-The only thing at the end, bottom left, is that any unit Falling Back automatically fails another check (except to Regroup). Page 46.


So its quite possible, unless I've missed a very big exception, to Fall Back from CC then Fall Back again from terrain casualties or other nonsense. Keep in mind that this should be very rare because close combat casualties do not count towards the 25% requirement.

Let's examine a perfectly engineered situation that could cause this:

1. 10-man Tac Squad, full strength, in CC.
2. They lose 2 marines to CC and lose the Assault.
3. They fail a Morale Check, are not caught, and Fall Back.
4. They Fall Back through a wreck, and lose 3 marines to Dangerous Terrain.
5. Losing 3 out of the 10 starting the phase is 30% casualties, thus triggering a Morale Check.
6. They are already Falling Back, so therefore automatically fail the Morale Check.
7. Fall back again.

Generally though, most situations would likely involve enough CC casualties to make the second check very unlikely. That and the probability of losing that many models to terrain and such. Another example:

1. 10-man Tac Squad in CC.
2. They take 7 casualties and lose CC.
3. They fail the Morale check, are not caught, and Fall Back.
4. They lose 1 marine to Dangerous Terrain while Falling Back.
5. Losing 1 of the phase's starting 10 is only 10%, so no Morale Check due to casualties. (Remember, that the CC casualties do not count.)


So what we have is a situation that is not very likely, but still possible. If anyone is working off any gut feeling that this seems "too harsh", consider that some armies (in particular marines with ATSKNF) could easily turn this into an advantage. Then again, that would be a tactical discussion, and not a rules one.

[eiglepulper]

Yeah, I realise that, but unless I'm reading things wrong the OP said that these Eldar models were falling back through dangerous terrain and took their failed DT wound while falling back, so that's why I'm of the opinion that another test would not be taken this time.

One other point to mention though is that the "25% for taking Morale Checks" element is decided by the unit's *current* strength, not its *original* strength. The original strength size is only relevant for working out if the unit is under half strength or not.

E.

[psichotykwyrm]

Yeah, I realise that, but unless I'm reading things wrong the OP said that these Eldar models were falling back through dangerous terrain and took their failed DT wound while falling back, so that's why I'm of the opinion that another test would not be taken this time.

Well, there's no rule which prevents that from happening. The only consideration made to Morale Checks while Falling Back is that they are automatically failed except to Regroup.

One other point to mention though is that the "25% for taking Morale Checks" element is decided by the unit's *current* strength, not its *original* strength. The original strength size is only relevant for working out if the unit is under half strength or not.

Never said anything about original unit strength, E. (Though my examples did use a unit still at its initial starting number to make things easier to follow along.) It's always a function of the number of models lost for that current phase, as it is outlined in the book.

[Duo_Sonata]

Pertaining to the TC's question, unless the unit of Dire avengers was at no more than 4 models strong at the start of the phase then they would not have to take a morale test in this situation.

However if said unit was 4 strong or less then at the end of the phase the unit would indeed have to take a morale test as it fits the requirements for suffering 25% casualties. In which case they would then automatically fail their morale test resulting in them falling back again. There are three main situations for a unit to take a morale test according to the BRB. 25% Casualties, Losing combat, and tank shock. Just because the casualties happened while they were falling back from combat doesn't make them ineligible for the 25% casualty situation as they are not wounds caused by cc attacks.

[eiglepulper]

To Psichotykwyrm:

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you had put in your post. I should have known you wouldn't have made such an elementary error as that!

[psichotykwyrm]

Don't sweat it, E. (At any rate, I'm sure to have made a far worse error at some other point.)