9 members of a Striking Scorpion squad.

2 become casualities in a round of shooting.

Do you...

A.) Not take a morale check for 25% or more casualties to shooting. (2 of 9 isn't "25% or more", it's 22.222%. Thus no check unless at least 3 had been killed.)

or

B.) Do you take a morale check... because their is no way in that unit to hit exactly 25% shooting casualties, and since you can't get partial kills, you round off.

I love the title. It draws the reader in without revealing too much.

B. No reason to start rounding if it doesn't tell you to, and even if you DID round, who determines where the cut off point for rounding is? Rounding to the nearest percent puts you at 22%, or 23% if you round UP to the nearest percent, neither of which is 25% or higher. But I digress... there is really nothing anywhere that indicates you round this sort of thing, up or down. Those scorpions will just have to wait for a 3d casualty before they get their morale check.

EDIT: The fellow who did the yelling thought you rounded? Well, I guess if you're going to be a jerk you might as well not know what you're talking about while you're at it...

EDIT 2: WHOOPS! I said B, but I meant A. Sorry!

 

EDIT: The fellow who did the yelling thought you rounded? Well, I guess if you're going to be a jerk you might as well not know what you're talking about while you're at it...

I'll have to check when I get off work with my friend who played the Nids later, but I was told it went like this.

Nid player did the shooting, Eldar player took the 2 of 9 and rolled Morale.

Newbie asked question, was blown off by Eldar player who said you round for the test because you can't partial kill.

Newbie came back and was reading the book near the table when the Nid player asked him what he was reading. So the newbie showed him the page, mentioned that he'd had the conversation with the store's 40k guy (who runs the tournament) about it a few weeks before, and the Nid player was looking at it with him.

That's when the Eldar player went off (who would have benefited, although he'd passed the check so it wouldn't have effected the game), he's done this before when people question his interpretation of the rules, and he told the newbie he was just "Wrong", that he couldn't do the math, and that's the part we heard at our table and when the newbie just let it drop.

 

It's situation "A". You have to do 25% or more to cause a morale check... If you cannot get exactly 25% (because a squad cannot evenly be divided by 4), you must therefore get over 25%. In the situation you provided, 3 of 9. Or if he killed only 2 this turn, then 2 (now of 7) the next would be enough.

 

Yeesh.

I don't mean to stick my nose in your personal affairs, but if I may make a suggestion, maybe you could play a few games with the new guy outside of the store? That way he could experience the game in a friendlier atmosphere, to see how he likes it without Yelling Guy around.

 

Hi,
It is indeed actually 25% or more (page 27 BGB), so there is iron clad proof of your position here.

As to the abusive opponent, perhaps a reminder of sportsmanship might be in order and any time someone “claims” something ask them politely to show the existence of it in the rules. It is a permissive rules set after all so they should be able to back up what they are saying.

Cheers.

 

as above, it is A

 

Isn't it a real shame that someone's enjoyment - or in the newbie's case, potential future enjoyment - of a game can so easily be ruined by a moron.

I second the suggestion that the newbie be taken under someone's wing and given a game in an atmosphere of friendly, helpful gaming. After all, every one of us was a newbie at one time or another, we didn't know the rules and were always glad of help from more experienced players.

Suggesting that the staff should be brought into the matter is maybe a good idea. If they weren't immediately involved at the time, then perhaps a word in the manager's ear might not be a bad thing to prevent a recurrence. My own local store has had to deal with idiots from time to time, and it's best if they deal with moronic behaviour rather than the other customers/gamers doing it, particularly if it happens in-store. That is where they have total authority and they can bring it to bear when necessary.

E.

 

As everyone else here has said, killing 2 of 9 dose not cause a moral test.

 

I'm sorry to hear about the incident at the store. This is why I only choose to play against people who I know well. Just reading the account makes me feel quite disappointed but I can't say that I'm surprised.

I've seen this happen a number of times at my local GW which is why I am less than keen to play there. Sometimes people need to calm down and realise that just because someone has just started the game, they could be right about something.

Anyway, the answer's A as everyone has said.

In what bizarre world does 22.2dot get rounded to 25 or 30? I think the "veteran" needs to go back to primary school.

Good job on befriending the newbie by the way. This hobby needs more people like you.

 

If I may piggy back this thread as it sets up the question, my friends and I are having with the Moral check/fall back/regroup. If I'm out of line or its too off topic feel free to delete the post or move it.

We've had similar situation arise in our friendly games: 25 man squad (orks) 6 wounded and killed (24%). No check rolled. Next Shooting phase 6 more caught bolter rounds. Moral check rolled however Orks check size (13) so the roll will auto pass. Third shooting round 3 orks are blown away. Moral check, orks check size (10) roll a 12. They are now set to fall back, and per the regrouping rules (rule 1, pg 49) they can't regroup and wind up running off the board. Now it seems we're playing it right but it struck us both as a pretty harsh rule.
are we following the correct procedure?

 

If I may piggy back this thread as it sets up the question, my friends and I are having with the Moral check/fall back/regroup. If I'm out of line or its too off topic feel free to delete the post or move it.

We've had similar situation arise in our friendly games: 25 man squad (orks) 6 wounded and killed (24%). No check rolled. Next Shooting phase 6 more caught bolter rounds. Moral check rolled however Orks check size (13) so the roll will auto pass. Third shooting round 3 orks are blown away. Moral check, orks check size (10) roll a 12. They are now set to fall back, and per the regrouping rules (rule 1, pg 49) they can't regroup and wind up running off the board. Now it seems we're playing it right but it struck us both as a pretty harsh rule.
are we following the correct procedure?

That is correct, unless orks have some kind of a special rule about regrouping. One little thing is that the orks would have -1 on that last check, as they are making it at below 50% (P.47).

 

Okay just to add to the previous posts about the Jerk... Now it's none of my buisness but why would you guys let him get away with that. I mean I wouldn't start an argument but I would finish one. Don't know if you guys were there or not, but Warhammer is a game that spawns arguments up the @#$# lol. Tell this "Newbie" that if he feels like he is treated unfairly or knows he's right he should stand up for himself. I mean this can be turned into a bit of a life lessons wouldn't you say?

There are warhammer bullies just the same as school bullies. It's also up to us experienced and possibly older players to make sure young "newbies" don't get bullied out of playing.

-Razal1983