yakface wrote:A Morale check means making a Leadership test (i.e. rolling the dice). If you get to choose to pass a Morale check without rolling any dice, guess what? You've automatically passed the test.

There you go, using logic again.

Crazy!

Brian P wrote:I just answered this on the AWC forum and I'm going to answer it the same way here.

"Choose to pass" is not "automatically pass." The unit COULD have failed but they didn't. That's not an automatic pass.

So "No Retreat" does not apply.

Probably the very reason that Calgar costs an ass-ton of points.

No he costs an ass-ton of points because being able to automatically keep your opponent bogged down in combat on YOUR turn is worth every penny you pay.

Choose to pass IS automatically pass.

Fearless units don't have this choice, see?

Please see Inquisitor Lords for how long there has been a 'choice' unit in the game and how it actually works, k thanks.

And have a nice day arguing this ad infinitum.

You lost me here...

The player? Wrong part of the discussion. The dice, the game, or perhaps the roll in question.

What is the wrong part of the discussion? If the player has no input, its automatic. A walker that loses an assault doesn't take a morale check. (Strangely this edition they're also immune to No Retreat") Its automatic, it operates independantly of the controlling player, fate, random chance, etc.

Independent of the roll we discuss, the player makes something to happen. . . wait for it. . . automatically

with "makes something to happen", I'm guessing your primary language is not English, so how about we both go slow, to avoid misunderstandings. Nothing a player makes happen is automatic. Automatic, by the definition given above, means the player could leave the room, and the event would still occur.

I'm with Breton on this one. Calgar is quite different from Fearless units, from Commissars, and from Zagstruk.

Commissars - pass the 2nd morale check without outside influences (choice or dice).

Fearless - pass all morale checks without outside influences.

Zagstruk - pass 2nd morale check without outside influences

Calgar - pass or fail any morale check with an outside influence (choice).

So for me, there's no point referring back to Commissars, Fearless units or Zagstruk for precedent because this doesn't compare like with like. I don't see anything in the context that changes the meaning of 'automatic' to exclude player choice as an outside influence or volition.

Effectively it makes Marine armies with Calgar immune from No Retreat unless they deliberately attempt to fall back from a lost combat and lose the sweeping advance check. That's certainly how I'll be letting my Marine opponents play it until an FAQ clears it up one way or another.

Which is certainly likely to happen. Both the FAQ, and getting caught by sweeping advances. Trying to fall back for a double-tap, or a round of pistol shooting, then re-assaulting is very, very tempting vs weak armored opponents.

On the bright side, this discussion has made me realize Calgar's GoW doesn't exclude Fearless like Combat Tactics does, which also has interesting applications.

I am in agreement with the "Choice does not equal Automatic" camp. I don't expect that GW will FAQ at all, or do so in a manner that is consistant with their use of language, but honestly I would make a point to discuss it with my opponant before the game to avoid issues.

olympia wrote:You're just wrong I'm afraid. As much as I want you to be right so that I can say the same thing for Boss Zagstruck it's simply not the case. The choice is between failing the test or automatically passing it.

The Marine codex is not exactly barren of Space Marine rules that ignore rulebook rules "because they're Space Marines". As has been stated before, Calgar works noticeably differently from the 4th edition precedence. It would surprise me not at all to find out that Calgar's rule is different because he's Calgar and he's different. Go look at the rules for Machine Spirit and Combat Tactics and tell me I'm wrong.

We can put logic aside because it's GW. We can put precedence aside because it's a new edition, pertaining to Marines, and precedence actually suggests that they get to be different just because they're new Marines. Til an FAQ comes out, your reasoning is about as good as 'Because my mom said so'.

Calgar gives you a choice. The choice is *not* automatic.

The choice lets you pass the test, without actually taking the test. When you pass a test without taking the test, it means you pass it automatically.

Yes, you get to choose whether you pass it automatically, but you still do.


You teacher says "We are taking a test today, you can take it, or just decide you pass." If you 'just decide' then you automatically passed it.


Some are getting hung up on getting a choice, and that the choice isn't automatic..... No Retreat doesn't care if you get a choice or not. It only cares if you had to take the test, or if you passed it automatically. And Calgar can.

God of War = auto-pass = No Retreat.

You make the choice to pass the test, it automaticly is so, thus No Retreat applies.

In a normal test, you choose whether to pass or not; the dice slap you around and call you a girl and do what they feel like, thus no No Retreat.

No Retreat Pg.44

These units do not take Morale Checks and will never fall back. Instead....

Marneus may choose to pass or fail any Morale check, and while he's on the board, any unit with combat tactics may choose to pass/fail.


Since Marneus and units still take the checks- they just choose to pass/fail- Trigger #1 is invalid. Since they may(and sometimes will) choose to fail thus falling back, Trigger #2 is invalid. No Retreat doesn't apply.

I will disagree, Breton. There is pretty solid precedence here in the Tyranid synapse. They aren't fearless but they still suffer from it. It is the same thing.

coredump wrote:Some are getting hung up on getting a choice, and that the choice isn't automatic..... No Retreat doesn't care if you get a choice or not. It only cares if you had to take the test, or if you passed it automatically. And Calgar can.

To use your same analogy, your teacher gives you the option of taking a test and accepting whatever grade you get as the result, or opting for pass/fail, which gives you credit but does not affect your GPA. Or, if Marneus Calgar is sitting in the desk behind you, you can just let him take the test for you and get an 'A' which will count as a 4.0 toward your GPA.

No Retreat does not apply because Marneus Calgar says so.

Somnicide wrote:I will disagree, Breton. There is pretty solid precedence here in the Tyranid synapse. They aren't fearless but they still suffer from it. It is the same thing.

Tyranids don't get a choice. Marneus Calgar Marines do. We've got a 5th ed rule book that spells out many rules. We've got a 5th ed Marine Codex that ignores several rules out of it because of different, special Marine rules. Precedence can apply both ways.

Deleted

sourclams wrote:

Somnicide wrote:I will disagree, Breton. There is pretty solid precedence here in the Tyranid synapse. They aren't fearless but they still suffer from it. It is the same thing.

Tyranids don't get a choice. Marneus Calgar Marines do. We've got a 5th ed rule book that spells out many rules. We've got a 5th ed Marine Codex that ignores several rules out of it because of different, special Marine rules. Precedence can apply both ways.

No, actually they don't. The rule is quite clearly to automatically pass or automatically fail. It gives you options beyond what people normally have. It is a good thing, but don't try and make it something it isn't.

Breton wrote:No Retreat Pg.44

These units do not take Morale Checks and will never fall back. Instead....

Marneus may choose to pass or fail any Morale check, and while he's on the board, any unit with combat tactics may choose to pass/fail.


Since Marneus and units still take the checks- they just choose to pass/fail- Trigger #1 is invalid. Since they may(and sometimes will) choose to fail thus falling back, Trigger #2 is invalid. No Retreat doesn't apply.

Breton, you're beating a dead horse. I wish you were right for Zagstruck's sake. I urge you to read the rules regarding both Zagstruck and Commissar. As I've said previously, both of these make a much stronger case than Calgar and yet in FAQs and at the Las Vegas GT it was ruled that "no retreat!" applies to them (for f*ck's sake in the case of zagstruck and the commissar you actually do roll dice and fail a test! That clearly shows that Trigger #1 doesn't apply yet GW has ruled consistently "no retreat!"). If you're opponent is unfamiliar with the new SM codex, zagstruck, 'nids, or commissars there is a chance you will be able to pull this off but do not plan a list around Calgar expecting this to work in any other setting than a game at a FLGS.

edit: btw, in the case of Commissars and Zagstruck, the "codex trumps rulebook" line was presented with much hand-wringing to no effect.

Look, bottom line is, til an FAQ comes out you can make a case for reading it however you want. Might even be that GW FAQs it the same way you all say they will. I see more support, RAW, for No Retreat! not applying than for it.

You can cite precedence til you're blue in the face but regardless of how some Ork from last year or a political officer from a 3rd ed codex have been declared as mechanically similar, you've got nothing on Rules As Written.

Disclaimer: I don't own, use, or even like Marneus Calgar.

sourclams wrote:You can cite precedence til you're blue in the face but regardless of how some Ork from last year or a political officer from a 3rd ed codex have been declared as mechanically similar, you've got nothing on Rules As Written.

Really? You really think that? Uhhh... okay?

sourclams wrote:Look, bottom line is, til an FAQ comes out you can make a case for reading it however you want. Might even be that GW FAQs it the same way you all say they will. I see more support, RAW, for No Retreat! not applying than for it.

You can cite precedence til you're blue in the face but regardless of how some Ork from last year or a political officer from a 3rd ed codex have been declared as mechanically similar, you've got nothing on Rules As Written.

Disclaimer: I don't own, use, or even like Marneus Calgar.

As I said, good luck to anyone that uses Calgar if they want to try this. It will work against clueless players. Other things they could try including moving their guys 6 1/2" instead of 6", occasionally throwing an extra die into a roll, etc.

Because your Mom said so. Using RAW is cheating. Gotcha.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:So chosing to pass a test is not automatic? Rubbish. No roll is made (despite suggested phantom dice rolls that are incosequential) so I would say you automatically passed it. Automatic means there is no chance of it not happening, so if you choose to pass, with no roll, it's automatic!

Choosing to pass a test will no roll being made and automatically passing a test with no choice in the matter can be seen as two different situations. Personally I'm undecided on the matter and can see both sides of the argument as being valid.

OK, since the term automatic is going nowhere ...how about a different direction .

The language of No Retreat on pg 44 also states "It is not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault...When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down..."

A morale check is defined on pg 43:
"Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit's leadership value."

If you choose to pass or fail (as is the case with Calgar) then you are not rolling the 2D6 and are thus not making a morale check. As such, is not Calgar immune to having to make morale checks and therefore subject to No Retreat :S?

No, he's not immune to a Morale check. His rules simply allow him to choose to pass or fail any Morale check he has to make.

Tyranid synapse specifically says that those units "can't fall back" and "automatically pass their leadership tests". No option, no choice. Not the same situation as Caligar where you can fall back and do have a choice to fail the leadership test.

Ghaz wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:So chosing to pass a test is not automatic? Rubbish. No roll is made (despite suggested phantom dice rolls that are incosequential) so I would say you automatically passed it. Automatic means there is no chance of it not happening, so if you choose to pass, with no roll, it's automatic!

Choosing to pass a test will no roll being made and automatically passing a test with no choice in the matter can be seen as two different situations. Personally I'm undecided on the matter and can see both sides of the argument as being valid.

Let me just say that I've got healthy respect for your understanding of rules and their nuances, Ghaz. Both here and on Warseer when you weigh in on a YMDC-esque question, I've rarely found reading your posts to be a waste of time.

NaZ wrote:I agree with yakface here for sure

no different than if you choose to fall back with combat tactics and are caught.

if you didn't roll, then you automatically passed. simple enough

NaZ

It's not automatic. There is the *choice*. The decision is simply moved from luck (Dice) to the player. As long as there is the option to retreat, it cannot be considered automatic I'd say.

The No Retreat rule doesn't care if the player gets a choice. It only cares if the Morale Test was passed automatically.

What the *test* passed automatically.

The test is rolling dice and comparing to Ld. Did you do that, or did you just pass......

If you pass the test, without taking the test, then you passed automatically.

Choosing to pass a test will no roll being made and automatically passing a test with no choice in the matter can be seen as two different situations.

Yes, and auto passing due to Fearless and due to Synapse are also different situations. But both make you pass without taking the test.
Calgar gives you a choice, but you *still* get to pass the test without actually taking the test. You pass it automatically, the No Retreat rules don't care if the player has input into a decision or not. It only cares about the actual *test*



As for Nids. Sometimes those gaunts will fall back, and sometimes they will still take morale checks. It depends on the 'player decision' to leave them in synapse range or not.
Again, the No Retreat rule doesn't care what led up to the test, it only cares if it was passed without having to take the test.


People keep reading too much into the rule. The rule does *not* say you can't have a choice, or you can't effect things, or it can't be an option, or anything like that. It only cares if you pass automatically, if you pass without taking the test.
You can be given a choice to pass automatically.... but you still pass automatically.

Is the word "automatic" anywhere in Calgar's entry?

Because I can see the word 'Automatic' under the definition of both fearless and no retreat-and pulling out my Guard codex I even see the word 'automatic' in the Commissar entry-but I don't see the word 'automatic' in Calgar's entry. Now, you can infer whatever you like, but without the key term 'automatic', it's RAI, not RAW.

Well, the Tyranid player can CHOOSE not to be in synapse.
So OBVIOUSLY they do not take the wounds.

Right Breton?

sourclams wrote:Is the word "automatic" anywhere in Calgar's entry?

Because I can see the word 'Automatic' under the definition of both fearless and no retreat-and pulling out my Guard codex I even see the word 'automatic' in the Commissar entry-but I don't see the word 'automatic' in Calgar's entry. Now, you can infer whatever you like, but without the key term 'automatic', it's RAI, not RAW.

I pulled out my nids codex and in there it states they are assumed to "automatically" pass any leadership test if in synapse range. SO now we have multiple other rules that say its automatic. So unless Calgar's entry states they can choose to AUTOMATICALLY pass or fail leadership tests I would have to say they are not subject to No Retreat.

You guys can assume all you want that its automatic but in every other instance that GW has printed it specifically states it is automatic. I have to believe if they considered these automatic pass/fails they would have added 1 word to the codex.

So until it is FAQ'ed I am going to have to agree with sourclams here as this is RAW.

kirsanth wrote:Well, the Tyranid player can CHOOSE not to be in synapse.
So OBVIOUSLY they do not take the wounds.

Right Breton?

No:

A) It says in synapse you pass automatically.
B) That's daisychaining a few too many things together. At that point, If I choose to deepstrike my chaplain, does he take wounds before he even gets on the table because he chose not to be there?

I think I'll pass on any further comments for your strawman.

As for being immune to the morale check- they aren't. They still take it. The rulebook says roll 2D6, the codex says may choose. Last I checked codexes can still modify and alter the rulebook, and codexes still trump rule books. So if they're choosing to pass or fail, they're taking the test since if they were immune, they wouldn't be ABLE to pass or fail. An important if esoteric distinction much like rerolling immovable object/irreistable force collisions. (Must reroll all failed invuls and successul invuls for the same model for example) You still take the test, thus anything triggered by such a test is still triggered. If you played a one-off story driven mission where the first failed morale check will, from the despair caused by failed morale, summon a unit of Legion of the Damned to fight on your side, or a Greater Demon of Slaanesh to feed on your misery, etc... That would still occur.

Automatic = no way to fail in this case. The unit is incapable of falling back.

But choose....they can fall back, but choose not to.

If you want it to count as Fearless, then surely any unit which passes it test, whether through choice or not, counts as Fearless, seeing as they stuck around.

It doesn't count as Fearless. Fearless pass morale and pinning. GoW doesn't work on Pinning. Fearless is specifically mentioned in No Retreat. And there is a way to fail. Choose to. According to the Nid Player, Synapse says Automatically. Combat Tactics says automatically fail. GoW doesn't have automatically in either choice. So if GoW'ing marines were confronted with an automatic fail I'd have to say they either dice off to see which rule triumphs, or just as likely would have to choose fail.

Somnicide wrote:I will disagree, Breton. There is pretty solid precedence here in the Tyranid synapse. They aren't fearless but they still suffer from it. It is the same thing.

Its not the same thing. Synapse, firstly, apparently says assumed to automatically pass, actually using the word automatically according to a nid player who quoted it to me.
Second it says, according to the same quote from the same nid player, they don't even take them... thus invoking immunity to morale checks hitting BOTH triggers of No Retreat.


GoW doesn't prevent taking the test, just alters how you take it. Nor does it make passing automatic, since failing is still an option.

Your argument makes no sense. If you think it is not an automatic thing, then GoW should not affect an auto fail and there should be no question. It appear obvious, based on this last post of yours, that you think it should be automatic when it benefits him and not automatic when it doesn't.

Gotcha.

No, I think being able to choose to pass or fail is not automatic. I think if confronted with another rule that made morale checks automatically fail both rules would butt heads, and depending on how this hypothetical rule is worded would either cause an irresistable force/immovable object dice off every turn, or could force the SM player to have to choose to fail.

coredump wrote:The No Retreat rule doesn't care if the player gets a choice. It only cares if the Morale Test was passed automatically.

And if you have a choice in the matter, then it was not passed 'automatically'. For it to be passed 'automatically' you would not have a choice in the matter. You don't 'automatically' pass a test if you have the choice to pass or fail said test. Forgive me for bringing the dictionary into this discussion but I feel it clarifies the matter. From The American Heritage Dictionary:

au·to·mat·ic

ADJECTIVE: 2a. Acting or done without volition or conscious control; involuntary: automatic shrinking of the pupils of the eyes in strong light. See synonyms at spontaneous.

So how can you pass a Morale test 'involuntarily' if you have a choice of passing it or not?

Remember, too, that the No Retreat! rules describes these automatically passing units as ones that "do not take Morale checks and will never fall back." Units that fall under God of War don't fit this - sometimes, they do fall back. A lot of other rules wouldn't either, EXCEPT that you're told to treat them as automatic anyway. This doesn't happen here. So, you shouldn't.

I don't see the rules debate here.

"Can choose to Pass or Fail any Morale Check they are called upon to make." -p. 84 SM Codex

The unit does take a Morale check...and then it Passes it. Where does that constitue No Retreat?

I've never seen Iron Will ruled as Fearless.

No, the unit DOESN'T take the test; choosing to pass the test means no Morale Check. You can roll the dice, but they mean nothing... because you automaticly passed it, by choosing to.

The second paragraph of the Morale Check description on page 43 notes that "Some units always pass morale checks..." So choosing to pass the test still means a Morale Check took place.

RogalDorn wrote:I don't see the rules debate here.

"Can choose to Pass or Fail any Morale Check they are called upon to make." -p. 84 SM Codex

The unit does take a Morale check...and then it Passes it. Where does that constitue No Retreat?

I've never seen Iron Will ruled as Fearless.

Because of pg 44 of the rulebook "...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)."

Choosing to pass seems to mean that it automatically passes, right?

Somnicide wrote:
Because of pg 44 of the rulebook "...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)."

Choosing to pass seems to mean that it automatically passes, right?

Automatic is a specific term utilized under the No Retreat rule.

This specific term does not appear in Calgar's entry.

Until it does, this is Rules As Interpreted. And when GW FAQs it, your interpretation might even be the correct one. But, again until then, it is not Rules As Written.

I can get into my car. I can open up a six pack. I can drive erratically and endanger other motorists. But until I actually ingest enough alcohol to put myself over a testable legal limit, no court can ever charge me with driving under the influence. Specific terms, and conditions.

Most states will charge you for open container actually...

lord_sutekh wrote:No, the unit DOESN'T take the test; choosing to pass the test means no Morale Check. You can roll the dice, but they mean nothing... because you automaticly passed it, by choosing to.

No. You didn't 'automatically' pass the test without rolling, you instead chose to pass the test without rolling. If you choose, then it's not automatic.

But if you chose to buy and take to your car was budweiser then the beer you opened would be budweiser. You couldn't argue that you were now drinking a coors even though you had to choose.

sourclams wrote:

Somnicide wrote:
Because of pg 44 of the rulebook "...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)."

Choosing to pass seems to mean that it automatically passes, right?

Automatic is a specific term utilized under the No Retreat rule.

This specific term does not appear in Calgar's entry.

Until it does, this is Rules As Interpreted. And when GW FAQs it, your interpretation might even be the correct one. But, again until then, it is not Rules As Written.

This.

Every other time a test is automatic in every rule book it states that it is automatic. Until this one does, it is not.

I will not be using this "interpretation", when using Calgar. If an opponent chooses to argue this viewpoint, I'll shake their hand, tell them "good game", and declare a draw for ignorance of basic concepts of equality in effects.

It seems alot of people are still caught up on the idea that if the player chooses to do something it inherently isn't automatic but the answer to that is staring us right in the face

Codex Space Marines wrote:Combat Tactics: "A non-fearless Space Marine unit with this special rule can CHOOSE to AUTOMATICALLY fail any Morale Check it is called upon to take"

It seems pretty plain to me that a choice doesn't necessarily mean what happens isn't automatic. I definitely agree a FAQ would be best, because you could still use this tidbit to argue that because automatic is stated here and not under calgar's rules his aren't automatic.

Then next thing you know, your opponent is telling you to roll your morale tests because calgar's rules don't say you automatically pass or fail depending on what you chose, and if it's not automatic you still have to check, sure it's super dubious, but it's the sort of thing you will end up with trying to automatically pass a test without it counting as automatic.

Drunkspleen wrote:It seems alot of people are still caught up on the idea that if the player chooses to do something it inherently isn't automatic but the answer to that is staring us right in the face

Codex Space Marines wrote:Combat Tactics: "A non-fearless Space Marine unit with this special rule can CHOOSE to AUTOMATICALLY fail any Morale Check it is called upon to take"

It seems pretty plain to me that a choice doesn't necessarily mean what happens isn't automatic. I definitely agree a FAQ would be best, because you could still use this tidbit to argue that because automatic is stated here and not under calgar's rules his aren't automatic.

In every other entry pertaining to no retreat, the term 'automatic' is very clear and obvious, as you have yourself pointed out.

Except for Calgar's. Now, when I see every single entry, save one, with the key term 'automatic', do I take my ballpoint pen and write new words into the rule to enforce 'sameness', or do I accept that this is a clear exception based on a specific individual's special rules? GW has been consistent about including the term automatic everywhere they want it.

I will not be using this "interpretation", when using Calgar. If an opponent chooses to argue this viewpoint, I'll shake their hand, tell them "good game", and declare a draw for ignorance of basic concepts of equality in effects.

So you're "that guy" that refuses to play when he doesn't like the rules. Gotcha.

Good find, Spleen.

As I was saying (or at least thinking...lol) "Automatic" refers to a lack of a roll. I still don't see how a Choice and Automatic are opposite.

sourclams wrote:
It seems pretty plain to me that a choice doesn't necessarily mean what happens isn't automatic. I definitely agree a FAQ would be best, because you could still use this tidbit to argue that because automatic is stated here and not under calgar's rules his aren't automatic.

In every other entry pertaining to no retreat, the term 'automatic' is very clear and obvious, as you have yourself pointed out.

Except for Calgar's. Now, when I see every single entry, save one, with the key term 'automatic', do I take my ballpoint pen and write new words into the rule to enforce 'sameness', or do I accept that this is a clear exception based on a specific individual's special rules? GW has been consistent about including the term automatic everywhere they want it.

Exactly if GW had wanted this pass to be automatic they would have added the word in. If you disagree that this is NOT an automatic pass please show me somewhere in any rulebook that has a non-rolling leadership pass that doesn't have automatic in the explanation.

Of course you can just keep arguing that GW wanted to save a little ink for this one entry, even though they used automatic elsewhere in the book to describe ATSKNF.

All the definitions and interpretations of Automatic are moot since they word is not in the description which obviously means GW didn't want it to be considered automatic.

sourclams wrote:So you're "that guy" that refuses to play when he doesn't like the rules. Gotcha.

No, I'm that guy who doesn't like to play people who purposefully stretch the rules to places they don't actually go through purposeful blindness or a need to cheat. Easy mistake to make. If I didn't like the rules AS THEY ARE, I wouldn't play the game... but what you're purporting isn't the rules, so I'm good.

Heah, Aduro: Completely off topic but what is with your choice of avatars. I notice that they have been changing quite often, but definatly share commonalities?

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=255

sourclams wrote: GW has been consistent about including the term automatic everywhere they want it.

We are talking about GW here right? The same company that will write in a codex one set of rules in the armory description and then turn around a write a conflicting set of rules for the same wargear in the summary section .

Drunkspleen wrote:
Then next thing you know, your opponent is telling you to roll your morale tests because calgar's rules don't say you automatically pass or fail depending on what you chose, and if it's not automatic you still have to check, sure it's super dubious, but it's the sort of thing you will end up with trying to automatically pass a test without it counting as automatic.

Interesting point. What I believe Drunkspleen is saying is that we are infering that the term "automatic" exists when we read the statement: "can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make" and conclude that by making a said choice the outcome of the choice automatically occurs without the roll of the dice (which is the litteral written case in combat tactics). (or in otherwords, without the implied "automatic" you would still be forced to make a 2D6 morale check even though you "chose" to pass it). Meanwhile others ignore the implied "automatic" in God of War when dealing with the conscequences of No Retreat.

This is not Rules as Implied its RAW.

Why would GW write it in the ATSKNF entry as being automatic and not this one.

The only RAW conclusion we can come to as this pass is not considered automatic.
If it was they would have written automatic as they have in EVERY OTHER CASE.

Sure maybe they forgot, maybe they were saving ink, but there is no way possible for you to claim that without turning this into RAI.

You are arguing what you feel should be right, I am telling you what the rules say.

lord_sutekh wrote:

sourclams wrote:So you're "that guy" that refuses to play when he doesn't like the rules. Gotcha.

No, I'm that guy who doesn't like to play people who purposefully stretch the rules to places they don't actually go through purposeful blindness or a need to cheat. Easy mistake to make. If I didn't like the rules AS THEY ARE, I wouldn't play the game... but what you're purporting isn't the rules, so I'm good.

Prove it. Show me where Calgar's rule states that it's automatic.

Just like how Black Templar storm shields are only 4+ invulnerable saves and certain Imperial armies have smoke launchers that downgrade to glancing without granting a cover save, is it "cheating" to insist that units and abilities costed for certain benefits adhere to the rules as written for their codexes? Because you and your buddies can play the game however you want and I'm perfectly fine with that, but whatever house rules you create to enhance your gameplay doesn't matter one iota to how the rules are actually written down.

Timmah wrote:This is not Rules as Implied its RAW.

Why would GW write it in the ATSKNF entry as being automatic and not this one.

The only RAW conclusion we can come to as this pass is not considered automatic.
If it was they would have written automatic as they have in EVERY OTHER CASE.

Sure maybe they forgot, maybe they were saving ink, but there is no way possible for you to claim that without turning this into RAI.

You are arguing what you feel should be right, I am telling you what the rules say.

I screwed up, I meant to refer to combat tactics not ATSKNF: "A non-fearless Space Marine unit with this special rule can choose to automatically fail any Morale check it is called upon to make"

Drunkspleens arguement is that units with God of War can choose to pass or fail a test but the choice will not dictate the outcome because unlike in combat tactics, the term automatic is not included. Instead, units must fall back to taking a 2D6 test with the outcome of the dice determining the units fate, not the players choice. However, because this does not seem the logical intention of the rule we infer that the choice must automatically dictate the outcome rather than the 2D6 test.

wyomingfox wrote:However, because this does not seem the logical intention of the rule we infer that the choice must automatically dictate the outcome rather than the 2D6 test.

And here is your problem. You are attempting to interpret what the writers wanted instead of using what they wrote.

Also I am willing to agree that this is an automatic pass in terms of definitions and such. However when it comes to 40k rules there is no where that this says that this pass counts as automatic so hence it is not.

They don't automatically pass it, they just pass it by choosing to. They conversely wouldn't automatically fail a test either, they would just choose to.

Where does CHOOSE and AUTOMATIC become the same word in meaning?

I thought it was about time we brought it to a vote , so here is the link to the poll: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/219633.page

Where does CHOOSE and AUTOMATIC become the same word in meaning?

When the choice becomes the result automaticly, that's when. If your choice had a chance of not happening, then it ceases to be automatic.

Let's go at it mathematicly. Unit of Marines loses 2 guys more than their opponents in CC. Assuming Ld 9, minus 2 for the loss, they have a 21/36 chance of passing, 15/36 chance of failing. Using God of War and choosing to pass, the chance becomes 36/36 pass, 0/36 fail. In other words, the chance of success using GoW to pass the test is 1-to-1, thus a statistical certainty, thus automatic.

As long as people are deciding to be thick about this, it'll go round and round forever. Automatic is not a game term, so it's not subject to definition under fixed terms. If something happens automaticly, it's automatic, whether the word is used or not.

sourclams wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:

sourclams wrote:So you're "that guy" that refuses to play when he doesn't like the rules. Gotcha.

No, I'm that guy who doesn't like to play people who purposefully stretch the rules to places they don't actually go through purposeful blindness or a need to cheat. Easy mistake to make. If I didn't like the rules AS THEY ARE, I wouldn't play the game... but what you're purporting isn't the rules, so I'm good.

Because you and your buddies can play the game however you want and I'm perfectly fine with that, but whatever house rules you create to enhance your gameplay doesn't matter one iota to how the rules are actually written down.

Ask yourself, seriously, when has yakface been wrong? Calgar will follow the commissar and zagstruck as "no retreat!" despite the poorly written description. And it's only under 'house rules' that Calgar will be exempt from 'no retreat!'. Be sure to check back with this thread after the next GT (granted, one can ignore GT rulings and repeat 'not until its FAQed!' over and over).

Uh, didn't Yakface write FAQs? If so, doesn't that mean his choice is as close to RAI as we can get?

Oh, and can someone please explain how Combat tactics "Choosing to automatically fail" and Marneus's "Choose to pass or fail" are different?

It seems as if they are the same things, minus one word.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

NaZ wrote:I agree with yakface here for sure

no different than if you choose to fall back with combat tactics and are caught.

if you didn't roll, then you automatically passed. simple enough

NaZ

It's not automatic. There is the *choice*. The decision is simply moved from luck (Dice) to the player. As long as there is the option to retreat, it cannot be considered automatic I'd say.

Of course it is automatic. If no dice are rolled the result is automatic. The choice is between an automatic fail and an automatic pass. How can it be anything else?

Like some-one elses example, you can turn up for a test an automatically pass it without answering a question or you can not bother to turn up in which case you automatically fail.

The fact that no dice is rolled means that you are deciding which of the two events you are going to automatically do. Normally the choice isn't to automatically pass or fail as the dice decide for you.

@fullheadofhair
Your squirrel is drinking my pint!

RogalDorn wrote:They don't automatically pass it, they just pass it by choosing to. They conversely wouldn't automatically fail a test either, they would just choose to.

Where does CHOOSE and AUTOMATIC become the same word in meaning?

Because, dear reader, one CHOOSES not to roll dice and AUTOMATICALLY passes or one CHOOSES not to roll dice and to AUTOMATICALLY fail. When does not rolling dice be anything but an automatic pass or failure.

olympia wrote:@fullheadofhair
Your squirrel is drinking my pint!

and tasty it was to!

I have always treated the Inquisitors Iron Will ( I believe it is called) as being not subject to no Retreat. I passed the test, it was not automatic, there was a CHANCE I would run away however that chance was my decision. I chose not to I passed, it wasn't automatic.

doesn't that mean his choice is as close to RAI as we can get?

yes, but it's not automatic that the FAQ will be what Yakface Chooses, because he chooses it, and that obviously is in no way automati...no...wait.

lord_sutekh wrote:When the choice becomes the result automaticly, that's when. If your choice had a chance of not happening, then it ceases to be automatic.

Except it's the choice in the matter that keeps it from being 'automatic', not the result.

Ok, I will believe that it is considered an automatic pass, and as such, subject to no retreat if someone can explain to me the following.

Why in EVERY SINGLE OTHER circumstance of passing leadership INCLUDING IN THE SAME BOOK WITH ATSKNF, it specifically states that it is an automatic pass, yet in this 1 entry it does not?

You can cite the definition of automatic all that you want but in terms of game rules, as it stands now, this is not an automatic pass and is not subject to no retreat. If it was GW would have written they can choose to automatically pass or automatically fail any leadership test.

No one has yet to answer me the above question. And no GW is lazy answers, as if they were lazy it would be left out of other entries such as ATSKNF.

Timmah wrote:Ok, I will believe that it is considered an automatic pass, and as such, subject to no retreat if someone can explain to me the following.

Why in EVERY SINGLE OTHER circumstance of passing leadership INCLUDING IN THE SAME BOOK WITH ATSKNF, it specifically states that it is an automatic pass, yet in this 1 entry it does not?

You can cite the definition of automatic all that you want but in terms of game rules, as it stands now, this is not an automatic pass and is not subject to no retreat. If it was GW would have written they can choose to automatically pass or automatically fail any leadership test.

No one has yet to answer me the above question. And no GW is lazy answers, as if they were lazy it would be left out of other entries such as ATSKNF.

How about simple English comprehension and the fact that it is not needed because no dice = automatic pass or fail, your choice. In the other sections it is easy to add automatic because there is only one option, "automatically pass". Automatic is almost a superflous word and can be removed from ATSKNF - i.e Space Marines pass tests to regroup

Then why did they feel the NEED to add it in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SITUATION?

If automatic really was a superfluous word then they would not have put it in the ATSKNF (which is in the same book) entry either.

The second paragraph under the No Retreat section in the 5E rules (pg 44) clears this up definitively (at least in my mind)

"These units do not take Morale checks AND WILL NEVER FALL BACK...." (emphasis added).

GoW marines sometimes stay in combat but other times fall back. To me this pretty clearly says GoW does not suffer from NR.

This is in contrast to Fearless models, who clearly say that they will "never fall back" and to the Commissar who will ALWAYS execute the officer and force the squad to stay in combat. In both of these cases, there is only 1 possible outcome when they are forced to make the test, whereas with GoW there are 2 potential outcomes.

Then why did they feel the NEED to add it in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SITUATION?

If automatic really was a superfluous word then they would not have put it in the ATSKNF (which is in the same book) entry either.

Let me get this straight: you're expecting consistency... from GW rules writing.

Good luck with that, Don Quixote.

Except they were consistent every other time including earlier in the codex...

Timmah wrote:Except they were consistent every other time including earlier in the codex...

EVERY other time? That's an assertion you have an awful amount of work to do to prove. Let me just save you combing through a couple decades' worth of rules to vainly try and prove your positive, and grant that you misspoke yourself.

GW rules are written by committee, and are continually inconsistent to the point of hilarity. Thus, your premise fails. With this level of inconsistency, it is impossible to prove what a rule says or means by the use of any other rule, so what they say elsewhere, unless it declares itself to be directly on-point, has no relevance to the understanding of the rule in question.

lord_sutekh wrote:EVERY other time?

Pretty much, I think. I can't think of any other time it's done when they didn't mean for it to exclude No Retreat!.

gaylord500 wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:EVERY other time?

Pretty much, I think. I can't think of any other time it's done when they didn't mean for it to exclude No Retreat!.

How about in the commisar entry as mentioned earlier, it just says "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight" and the FAQ specifically states that they are subject to no retreat. Or are you argueing "GW makes lots of mistakes, but the Space Marine codex is a rare exception where there are no flaws in the language used".

The implication was not that the consistency was restricted to No Retreat, but that GW has always been consistent, even within codexes. If you think you can prove that GW's rules are consistent, and thus you can assume things based on that consistency, then I have a few hundred examples to prove you wrong.

The only one I'm not sure on is Orks. The Commissar summary execution rule, the Tyranid synapse rule, ATSKNF, and Fearless all include the term automatic. i.e. "The Commissar automatically..." If it's in Zagstruck's rule as well, it's a straight flush for purposes of 5e rules.

Even if it's not, it's still Rules As Written. The Blood Angels codex allows an Exsanguinator-carrying character to allow any MODEL within range to re-roll a failed cover save. Rules as written, this includes vehicles. A blood angel apothecary can slap bandaids onto a Rhino and somehow make it better. It makes no sense, but it's Rules As Written.

God of War has enough significant difference from all other similar special abilities to read differently Rules As Written. GW may or may not FAQ this, and if they do it may be decided that it does not provide immunity to No Retreat. But until they do, interpretations fail before Rules As Written.

Drunkspleen wrote:How about in the commisar entry as mentioned earlier, it just says "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight" and the FAQ specifically states that they are subject to no retreat. Or are you argueing "GW makes lots of mistakes, but the Space Marine codex is a rare exception where there are no flaws in the language used".

The IG Codex includes the word "automatic" in it. And if there's a version that didn't, they did need to FAQ it to correct that error.

------

Unless it's something other than this, Orks get Fearless through Mob Rule, so they get automatic through that.

gaylord500 wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:How about in the commisar entry as mentioned earlier, it just says "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight" and the FAQ specifically states that they are subject to no retreat. Or are you argueing "GW makes lots of mistakes, but the Space Marine codex is a rare exception where there are no flaws in the language used".

The IG Codex includes the word "automatic" in it. And if there's a version that didn't, they did need to FAQ it to correct that error.

------

Unless it's something other than this, Orks get Fearless through Mob Rule, so they get automatic through that.

It says that the commisar automatically executes the sergeant, it does not say that this results in automatically passing the morale check and says specifically "assumed to have passed the morale test after all". Yes it did get FAQ'd, but it's a demonstration of the failure to use the word automatic in describing passing a morale check where no retreat applies, just like in this situation it may be.

NOW WAIT ONE SECOND!!!

You must all realize that you can automatically not do something automatically... or you can not automatically do something automatically.

I hope this helps. You guys need something.

G

Nonetheless, it's automatically happening.

As to whether this is wild or clearly in error....

Morale tests in the BRB say Codex rules can replace their procedure. God of War replaces dice rolling with choosing. The results from the morale test are the same as if you'd rolled the dice.

No Retreat! says it operates when the units are immune to morale tests or if they 'automatically pass' morale tests. I think we are currently in agreement that God of War does not make units immune to morale tests. They still take them, in their weird way. Under 'automatically pass,' the units No Retreat! says this works for are units that never fall back. God of War units can fall back.

If the Commisar didn't get No Retreat!, it'd be more likely that God of War did because it'd be an inconsistency. There isn't that much space to reinterpret this - on the face of it, it seems pretty tightly put together. God of War is written that way so that No Retreat! doesn't apply.

The Commissar gets the No retreat rule because they are considered to never fall back, as in the first part of the No Retreat Rule.

Just to clarify things.

All other "automatically pass" units have it stated in their entry. If this isn't consistent, I don't know what is.

Green Blow Fly wrote:NOW WAIT ONE SECOND!!!

You must all realize that you can automatically not do something automatically... or you can not automatically do something automatically.

I hope this helps. You guys need something.

G

You just blew my mind, GBF. I am going to go lay down... :S

Timmah wrote:The Commissar gets the No retreat rule because they are considered to never fall back, as in the first part of the No Retreat Rule.

Just to clarify things.

All other "automatically pass" units have it stated in their entry. If this isn't consistent, I don't know what is.

Just to clarify, Commissars can indeed fall back. The Summary Execution can only be used once. After that the squad is under the Commissars command and if they fail using his LD 10, they run away. So how does that "Never Fall Back" bit apply with the Commissar again............????

They never fall back when the Summary Execution happens...

It seems like the anti-no-retreat crowd is confusing the decision with the result. Sure, you get to choose whether to fall back or not, but that's irrelevant (although y'all have done a good job of framing this issue so that the debate is over your red herring). The issue for determining if no retreat applies necessarily involves the result of the decision not the ability to make a choice. If you choose to pass the morale check, the result of passing the morale check happens automatically without need for any pesky rolling of the dice. Chance is taken out of the equation and the result of your earlier decision happens automatically, so no retreat applies. Parse all you want, this is how the rule works, and despite attempts to frame it otherwise, this is not an issue of RAW versus RAI. This is just RAW.

Brice

Not using the dice doesn't mean things happen automatically. As the morale test's rules explictly tell you, the morale test can be replaced by any mechanism given in a Codex. As long as the result is not only "pass," that mechanism is not an automatic pass. God of War is neither random nor automatic.

So instead of rolling, you choose. And with the same two choices as if the dice were rolled. So the same things happens with respect to No Retreat!. Nothing.

Your choice is automaticly done. Thus, automatic.

"Your choice is automatically done" doesn't make logical sense. Choice and automatic are opposites. Or about as much sense as "your white is very black."

As someone said in the warseer forum on the same topic, that's like saying a manual transmission is an automatic one because you're there to change the gears.

Or saying an automatic transmission is a manual one, because you have to change gears? You have to put it in drive, reverse, whatever.

It's like folks are comfortable arguing all manual transmissions are automatic.

If you have to change from 1 to 2 to 3 or whatever, it's not an automatic transmission to start with. :p Unless, of course, the definition of automatic is changed as needed. It's going to take a better communicator than me to point out how little sense that stance makes. For some reason, the idea that dice or some random factor is needed to prevent this from being automatic has taken hold. All choices are automatic, even when one choice was voluntarily taken? That's a strange rewording. Well, freedom is tyranny and all that doublespeak.

Anyway, there seems to be a strong presumption against this being automatic. However, it's usually been played as not automatic when the rule wasn't about Space Marines or Ultramarines.

Look, I can choose something and it not happen automatically. I choose to win the lottery right now. Nope, didn't work. God of War let's you choose to pass or fail a morale test. If you choose to pass, you pass. Full stop. Passing happens automatically. As a result, No Retreat applies. For the purposes of determining if No Retreat applies, choice is irrelevant-the rule applies in any circumstance where a unit passes a morale test without rolling for it--take another look at the rule.

Brice

BBeale wrote:God of War let's you choose to pass or fail a morale test. If you choose to pass, you pass...Passing happens automatically. As a result, No Retreat applies.

Brice

pg. 44 No Retreat!: "These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back."

So I just chose to pass the morale test that I do not take?

I didn't buy a lottery ticket! I choose to win the lottery! What?

BBeale wrote:God of War let's you choose to pass or fail a morale test. If you choose to pass, you pass. Full stop.

No need to go beyond that. Full stop. If you choose to pass, you pass. If I roll a 2, I also pass. If I didn't need to roll or check for a result, then whatever that result was was automatic.

No, Sourclams, the pertinent question is, "Did you take a morale test?" No, you chose to use God of War. Fine. You did not take a morale test and you automatically passed due to the special rule. Now you've met the conditions for No Retreat to apply.

Brice

BBeale wrote:No, the pertinent question is, "Did you take a morale test?" No, you chose to use God of War.

BRB under Morale Tests. Some Codexes will let you use another means to make a morale test other than what is listed in the BRB. Such as, with God of War, choosing the result rather than rolling it. The morale test was still taken. The unit was not immune to taking it, and was not required to pass it or fail it.

Having to take the test and actually taking it are not the same thing. If you choose the outcome of the test via God of War you are not actually taking the test, since taking the test requires rolling the dice. Not to mention, all precedent we have from GW, and even rules interpretations by paid judges at GTs, supports this position. If this ever gets a FAQ, God of War WILL trigger No Retreat if used to pass a morale test. Lots of people with more experience and perspective than I have already said the same in this thread, but I guess this is what dead horses are made for.

Brice

Timmah wrote:
Why in EVERY SINGLE OTHER circumstance of passing leadership INCLUDING IN THE SAME BOOK WITH ATSKNF, it specifically states that it is an automatic pass, yet in this 1 entry it does not?

You can cite the definition of automatic all that you want but in terms of game rules, as it stands now, this is not an automatic pass and is not subject to no retreat. If it was GW would have written they can choose to automatically pass or automatically fail any leadership test.

Why does everyone arguing that it's an automatic keep ignoring this question and citing what the definition of automatic is. I know what it is!

The only answer I have got to the above question is that GW is inconsistent with rules. However that doesn't really refute this point as GW has been consistent with this rule up until now including in the same book.

So once again one of you people claiming it is an automatic pass please explain the above question to me.

BBeale wrote:If this ever gets a FAQ, God of War WILL trigger No Retreat if used to pass a morale test. Lots of people with more experience and perspective than I have already said the same in this thread, but I guess this is what dead horses are made for.
Brice

Also on a side note, here is the problem all of you for this triggering no retreat are having. This is clearly an assumption that all of you have and that is why you are claiming it triggers because you believe if it does get FAQed it will trigger no retreat.

Timmah wrote:

Timmah wrote:
Why in EVERY SINGLE OTHER circumstance of passing leadership INCLUDING IN THE SAME BOOK WITH ATSKNF, it specifically states that it is an automatic pass, yet in this 1 entry it does not?

You can cite the definition of automatic all that you want but in terms of game rules, as it stands now, this is not an automatic pass and is not subject to no retreat. If it was GW would have written they can choose to automatically pass or automatically fail any leadership test.

Why does everyone arguing that it's an automatic keep ignoring this question and citing what the definition of automatic is. I know what it is!

The only answer I have got to the above question is that GW is inconsistent with rules. However that doesn't really refute this point as GW has been consistent with this rule up until now including in the same book.

So once again one of you people claiming it is an automatic pass please explain the above question to me.

BBeale wrote:If this ever gets a FAQ, God of War WILL trigger No Retreat if used to pass a morale test. Lots of people with more experience and perspective than I have already said the same in this thread, but I guess this is what dead horses are made for.
Brice

Also on a side note, here is the problem all of you for this triggering no retreat are having. This is clearly an assumption that all of you have and that is why you are claiming it triggers because you believe if it does get FAQed it will trigger no retreat.

I asked it and I do believe you replied.

arguments that support GoW as UNAFFECTED by NR:

1.) No Retreat includes the following text to describe who it affects "These models do not take morale checks and will never fall back from combat"

there are 2 conditions in that statement coupled with the word 'AND' which indicates BOTH conditions must be met.
-condition 1 "...do not take morale checks...":
-condition 2 "...will never fall back"

For the sake of argument lets assume no check happens because no dice are rolled, allowing condition #1 to be met. However, GoW units clearly can/will/do fall back which is in direct opposition with the 2nd condition that needs to be met for No Retreat to take effect.


2.) People are hung up on the word automatic

-according to dictionary.com:
-Automatic: Ocuring independently of volition; involuntary.
-Volition: the act of willing, choosing, or resolving
-by definition choosing the outcome of the test is the exact opposite of being automatic



3.) Comparison of syntax between GoW, Fearless, ATSKNF and the Commissar entries

-the entry for Fearless in the basic rule book (pg 75) uses the word automatic twice in the brief 4 sentences that describe the rule. "... automatically pass all Morale and Pinning tests..."
-the Commissar entry in the IG codex (pg 41) also uses the word automatic "This happens automatically..."
-the ATSKNF entry in the SM codex (pg 51) uses the word automatic when talking about Morale tests "... automatically pass tests to regroup...". This entry also explicitly states that NR will be in effect under certain conditions
-the God of War rule never uses the word automatic in its description


4.) The intent of No Retreat is to describe what happens to units who lose a combat but are too zealous/stubborn/stupid/etc to run. The intent of GoW is that calgar and posse are so smart/experienced/tactically wise/etc that they can set aside their emotions and make decisions based on logic


If someone of the opposing viewpoint could give some clear explanations of all the reasons they think the rule should apply, I would love to see it. Unfortunately my quick summary of the opposing view falls back to the following arguments:

-"events with more than a single possible outcome can be considered automatic" (only on opposite day)
-"unless dice were rolled everything is automatic" (i dont roll dice to see if i am going to shave before going to work every morning but i don't automatically fire up the razor after every shower either)
-"gw doesn't proofread/edit/control the specifics of the language they use when writting rules so consistency can't be expected" (my firewarriors have toughness 5 and 3+ saves but unfortunately gw doesnt have any quality control and there are typos in my codex)


*edited for a spelling typo*

BBeale wrote:Having to take the test and actually taking it are not the same thing.

BRB pg. 43: "Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2d6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leadership value...

"Some units have special rules pertaining to Morale checks that are detailed in the appropriate codex. For example, some particularly fanatical units may be immune to the effects of morale. Some units always pass Morale check, while a few others always pass all Leadership tests. This is a subtle but important difference..."

-----

SM Codex, pg. 84: "Mareus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make..."

----

God of War uses a Codex-mandated Morale test or Morale check mechanism. Morale tests are taken and don't need to use the standard 2d6 check versus leadership mechanism. It's replaced by the mechanism given in God of War. This should be indicated by the quoted rule sections above. I'd also like to point out that this is probably a dead-end argument. Even Fearless units pass their Morale check or Morale test according to the Morale check rules (according to the Fearless USR).

The dice are not a requirement. God of War units are taking Morale tests, and passing or not passing them as Mareus-freakin'-Caligar chooses.

If a Morale test doesn't use dice, that by itself does not make the result of the test automatic. If it was automatic, you would already know which of the two possible results would happen by what the special rule says. Since you don't know that with God of War, any Morale test passes chosen by the player should not be considered automatic passes of a Morale test.

Now that I think of it, the morale check text is relevant. I hope you don't if I respond to something from the poll thread here. Or maybe it's 3 a.m. thinking. You tell me.

First, accept that God of War legitimately replaces the mechanism for Morale checks or tests as given two posts ago. Morale checks for units with God of War means "choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check..."

Secondly, the part of the No Retreat! rule (BRB pg. 44) we're arguing over is "or to automatically pass them for some reason", which by the meaning of the rest of the sentence, is the same as "or to automatically pass Morale checks for some reason". I think this word replacement is not controversial.

People who say No Retreat! applies say that after the player chooses to pass a Morale check under God of War, it automatically passes. Or that choosing pass means it's automatically pass.

Look at that No Retreat! rule again. It's the Morale check itself that must be automatically passed. "...to automatically pass Morale checks for some reason". Only what happens during the morale check itself is relevant for consideration. The Morale check mechanism, however, is the text of the God of War. "Choose whether to pass or fail." We determine whether it's automatic by looking at whether "choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check" alone means you must pass. What happens outside, after, or before the Morale check is not relevant to No Retreat!.

No Retreat! asks whether you automatically pass the Morale check, not pass after the Morale check's result. So even if choosing to pass means it's an automatic pass later, since that later part is not part of the Morale check, it doesn't matter.

sourclams wrote:It'll have to wait on an FAQ then because as-written Marines still have the option of passing or failing the test. Any time you have a choice, it's not automatic.

The choice to pass is not automatic, but once you choose to pass the Morale test is passed automatically.

The choice to roll low not automatic, but once you roll below the LD, the Morale check is passed automatically.

gaylord500 wrote:The choice to roll low not automatic, but once you roll below the LD, the Morale check is passed automatically.

To go back to the transmission analogy.

The choice to change gears is not automatic, but once I shift into third, the car shifts into third automatically.

And we could go on all day, his post has a point, yours is just being stupid.

gaylord500 wrote:The choice to roll low not automatic, but once you roll below the LD, the Morale check is passed automatically.

QFT BUUUURRNNNNN!

The word Automatic means as follows:

Acting or done without volition or conscious control; involuntary: automatic shrinking of the pupils of the eyes in strong light. See Synonyms at spontaneous.

This indicates to me that there can be no choice in the matter.

For example:
Synapse for Tyranids: They do not have a choice or an option to fail and also will not fall back. Thus they are subject to no retreat.

Commisar's Ability: The unit fails a moral check but has no choice but to pass due to the rules for summary execution thus subject to no retreat.

These both illustrate the fact that there is no choice to pass the leadership test and thus it is an involuntary action. For GoW there is a choice that choice is pass or fail and because of it the unit voluntarily passes the test. The dice roll is a random of way of doing this process. This just takes the randomness out of it.

So GoW marines are not subject to No Retreat.

I have a question with regards to GoW. If the affected unit rolls morale and passes, there is no No Retreat. If you fail, it becomes pass. Is this automatic?

Homer

Drunkspleen wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:The choice to roll low not automatic, but once you roll below the LD, the Morale check is passed automatically.

To go back to the transmission analogy.

The choice to change gears is not automatic, but once I shift into third, the car shifts into third automatically.

And we could go on all day, his post has a point, yours is just being stupid.

You see that doesn't make the car an automatic one.

And it's not a stupid point - it's the reason why folks don't see No Retreat! from this rule. It doesn't matter that if you shift into the third the car automatically shifts to third. If you roll below LD, you automatically pass the Morale check, too. That part being automatic cannot be what No Retreat! is talking about when it asks whether an automatic pass of the Morale check happens. Otherwise, there would never be a time it doesn't apply.

It's whether the transmission is an automatic or manual, whether the Morale test is resolved or needs to be resolved. Can you shift the car into third? It's not automatic, then.

gaylord500 wrote:

BBeale wrote:Having to take the test and actually taking it are not the same thing.

BRB pg. 43: "Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2d6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leadership value...

"Some units have special rules pertaining to Morale checks..."

The portion you do not address is that the "no retreat" rule on the next page states that units that use those "special rules" are subject to no retreat.

I don't think the special rules mentioned in the Morale test are necessarily the same as the ones mentioned in No Retreat!.

That said, No Retreat! says some special rules may mean No Retreat! applies. And then it says those special rules are ones which the units can never fall back or do not take Morale checks (2nd paragraph of the No Retreat! rule). God of War is a Morale check mechanism and those units can fall back. Therefore, it is not one of the special rules No Retreat! says it covers - units covered by it can fall back and do take Morale checks (albeit their own rather than the BRB's).

Homer S wrote:I have a question with regards to GoW. If the affected unit rolls morale and passes, there is no No Retreat. If you fail, it becomes pass. Is this automatic?

Homer

If you fail a morale check as a space marine it does not "become a pass" you then roll to fall back and the enemy rolls to sweeping advance, if they catch you then instead of being wiped out you stay in combat and are subject to no retreat. This is a clear exception where the codex tells you no retreat applies where it normally would not.

gaylord500 wrote:I don't think the special rules mentioned in the Morale test are necessarily the same as the ones mentioned in No Retreat!. (snip) God of War is a Morale check mechanism and those units can fall back. Therefore, it is not one of the special rules No Retreat! says it covers - units covered by it can fall back and do take Morale checks (albeit their own rather than the BRB's).

God of War does not replace the morale check requirement, so the codex does not override that portion of the rules - instead it overrides the need for the God of War to actually take the check itself.

The special rules in the one rule match up perfectly with the special rules for the no retreat rule. I do have to disagree with the assumption that the two are different.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Homer S wrote:I have a question with regards to GoW. If the affected unit rolls morale and passes, there is no No Retreat. If you fail, it becomes pass. Is this automatic?

Homer

If you fail a morale check as a space marine it does not "become a pass" you then roll to fall back and the enemy rolls to sweeping advance, if they catch you then instead of being wiped out you stay in combat and are subject to no retreat. This is a clear exception where the codex tells you no retreat applies where it normally would not.

I understand ATSKNF, but thanks! It does if the unit has GoW, which is what the whole discussion is about.

Homer

Dude, how about this.

Do you roll dice?

if yes, it is not automatic

if no, it is automatic

It isn't the talmud, it isn't rocket science, and it isn't unclear.

Somnicide,

Do you have a choice?

if yes then its not automatic

if no then it is automatic.

This is simple folks automatic means, without choice, or involuntary. In this case passing the test is a voluntary action and thus is not automatic.

Antonin wrote: God of War does not replace the morale check requirement...

Sure it does. God of War units aren't immune to Morale checks. They take them as they say they are taken.

Fearless units aren't immune to Morale checks either. They take them as they say they are taken; they "automatically pass."

Walkers are immune to Morale checks in close combat. They don't take them. As an additional benefit to being walkers, No Retreat! doesn't apply to them.

A Morale check is a mechanism. Pass or fail are the results. 2d6 compare to LD is the most common way to take a morale test. God of War and Fearless have two examples of alternate ways. This is perfectly fine according to the BRB.

Or are you saying the only alternate morale test is something like "roll 3d6 and compare to LD"? If that's so, I'd ask why you would assume that. There's nothing that says the dice have to be used by Codex-replaced Morale test rules.

Wow, I will just agree to disagree. My group has decided that we will play by no retreat until a faq reverses that and will make sure and check with tourney organizers before hand.

In all other situations, a morale check that you automatically pass is one where you do not the dice.

Automatically is not a game term, stop trying to turn it into one. It is a descriptive term which is saying you don't roll the dice, you just pass.

Calgar does not roll the dice, he just passes.

If you pass without rolling, that is qualification for No Retreat.

Trasvi wrote:In all other situations, a morale check that you automatically pass is one where you do not the dice.

Automatically is not a game term, stop trying to turn it into one. It is a descriptive term which is saying you don't roll the dice, you just pass.

Calgar does not roll the dice, he just passes.

If you pass without rolling, that is qualification for No Retreat.

Actually, nowhere in his ability does it say you don't roll, you just choose whether to pass or to fail.

Trasvi wrote:In all other situations, a morale check that you automatically pass is one where you do not the dice.

Except possibly for this rule and Iron Will.

You assume that's true and rely on that assumption to criticize the rule. Since I don't believe that's so, I can believe the following. (If it was written that automatically means use the dice, you'd have a case for it.) It's written that alternate methods of Morale testing are acceptable. Such as choosing. Or not being able to choose; passing automatically.

Fearless replaces a roll of the dice with automatically passing. A bunch of other rules that don't use dice do, too. God of War and Iron Will replaces it with choosing to pass or fail.

Likewise every other situation where automatic has been conceeded by both sides of this arguement, have only one possible outcome.... A big enough orc mob will pass. A fearless unit will pass. A Combat Tactic'ing SM squad will fail. A guard squad that was just forced to summarily execute its sgt/lieutenant will pass.

Well yes. Rules that are automatic get it. Rules that aren't don't. Even if it's not normally automatic, if it tells you it is, it is.

So what does that 'automatic' mean? By RAW, if it's not written there, it's not there. Case closed.

By RAI, if there's only one result from the morale test, then that result is automatic. If there's two, it's not. God of War and Iron Will allow you to pass or fail the morale test. Therefore, it's not automatic.

While I agree with you, unless your name is Matthew Ward, I don't think you can tell us what the RAI is.

If you're not interested in discussions on RAI you cannot fairly say RAI means No Retreat! applies, either - I believe you are not Matthew Ward as well.

And must go by the RAW alone.

Actually I am interested in RAI as much as RAW, as RAI will change RAW when its FAQ'ed. And I like to think I've always said I think RAI is... instead of RAI is. A subtle difference like automatically pass, and choose to pass.