OK, so for about a week now, both sides have been battling it out in an arguement about whether or not No Retreat applies to units that choose to pass their morale check after losing an assault. As such, I thought it was about time to bring it to a vote .

Strictly by RAW or 'HOW DO YOU PLAY IT'?

Isn't it always RAW? Anyways, both sides are claiming that RAW is on thier side.

Can someone summarize the exegeses used to justify those contradictory 'RAW' interpretations?

You can review the discussion via this link (I hope) http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/219443.page. It is only 3 pages long and at this point, everything has been said that could be said..

Yes, I know I can do that. I'm requesting that someone publish a summary in this thread.

The summary, to the best of my understanding at this point is.

No Retreat(Core Rules): "immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule)."

Marneus Calgar's God of War: "can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check they are called upon to take"

The arguments go that, because the word automatic is not used while other similar rules that resolve a morale check do specifically use the word automatic the test is not automatic despite the lack of dice rolls involved.

contrary to this is the view that it is automatic despite the word not appearing there because any time where a morale check is resolved without rolling it is inherently automatic. Support for this is drawn from the FAQ for the commisar, his entry does use the word automatic but that is used to dictate a lack of choice in whether he executes the sergeant, it then goes on to say "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight". GW ruled in regards to this matter that No Retreat does apply.

The stuff got taken a bit further in the discussions in the other thread, but that's the gist of it.

Sounds about right Drunkspleen. Oh, Nurglitch, I noticed you haven't weighed in on the discussion. Care to share your thoughts?

Without dice being rolled, special rules like Iron Will and God of War are clearly automatic. There is no chance of failure, simply a choice of such.

So the question is whether a model with the God of War rule is subject to the No Retreat! general rule when the player chooses for that model to pass its Morale Check.

The relevant material appears to be:

God of War, Codex: Space Marines, p.84. wrote:
Marneus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. Whilst Calgar is on the table, all units with the Combat Tactics special rue can also choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check they are called upon to take.

No Retreat!, Rulebook, p.44. wrote:
It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule). When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on.

These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).

The God of War rule enables Calgar to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can fail any Morale check he is called upon to make, then he can take Morale checks, and can fall back.

The God of War rule enables Calgar to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can be called upon to make Morale checks, and fail them, then he is not immune to Morale checks.

The God of War rule enables Calgar to either pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can either pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make, then he does not automatically pass Morale checks.

The model did not automatically pass its Morale check.

The model is not immune to Morale checks.

The model will sometimes fall back.

So no, a model with the God of War rule is not subject to No Retreat! when the player chooses for that model to pass its Morale check.

If Calgar is chosen to pass a Morale check he is called upon to make, then he suffers no ill effects, just as if he had passed the Morale check by rolling dice.

If Calgar is chosen to fail a Morale check he is called upon to make, then he Falls Back. What happens next is covered by And They Shall Know No Fear, so if Calgar is caught in the Sweeping Advance he will take No Retreat! wounds.

Truly, a man that can face such impossible odds, refuse to give ground, and survive is a God of War.

I've disagreed with you plenty of times in the past based on rules interpretations.

On this one I'm with you 100%. You get it.

Nurglitch wrote:
The God of War rule enables Calgar to either pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can either pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make, then he does not automatically pass Morale checks.

I disagree with that interpretation because a morale check is a test that involves rolling dice to determine success or failure. To pass or fail the test without rolling those dice is an acceptable use of the word automatic.

For instance, the God of War special rule could have been written:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to automatically pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


And this would mean exactly the same thing that it does as it is actually written in the codex. If it were written this way would you still argue that choosing to pass the morale check wouldn't trigger 'No Retreat!' wounds?

No, I absolutely would not. The term 'automatic' would be present, which brings Calgar in line with units using similar rules and No Retreat! would most certainly apply.

If GW puts out an official FAQ on the subject, then inclusion of 'automatic' would change the mechanics of God of War. But likewise, leaving it out when they've been quite reliably including it in every other similar no dice for pass/fail situations, suggests different mechanics. Thus No Retreat! does not apply to God of War in its current state. They read the same, but are mechanically different.

If they read the same, as a mechanism of WORDS, they are mechanically the same.

I am always awed by anyone's ability to delve so completely into the nuances of wording in order to prove a point. It isn't a talent that comes easy to me, though it does intrigue me.

My vote...I say that 'God of War' is not subject to the 'No Retreat' rule because of more simplistic wording. The special rule allows MC to "...pass or fail any morale check he is called to make." The pass or fail for me is the crux imo. Whether he is choosing to pass or fail a moral check by choice or automatically is not the issue, it is still seen as either passing or failing.

I actually voted for 'no retreat' but as I wrote this I changed my mind..LOL. My first gut reaction to the poll was based off the thought that if Space Marines, with ATSKNF, have to hold to the 'no retreat' rule then so would MC.

I think that he is not subject to no retreat, because he has a choice to pass or fail, he doesn't automatically pass. He has a choice to pass, but I don't think that counts as automatically passing as in no retreat if he chooses it.

yakface wrote:

For instance, the God of War special rule could have been written:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to automatically pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


And this would mean exactly the same thing that it does as it is actually written in the codex. If it were written this way would you still argue that choosing to pass the morale check wouldn't trigger 'No Retreat!' wounds?

Yes it could have been written that way, yet it wasn't. with the word automatically added it becomes completely different as far as rules go. Yes it may mean the same thing outside of this game, but in context to the rules it is not.

lord_sutekh wrote:If they read the same, as a mechanism of WORDS, they are mechanically the same.

Because your Mom says so.

They read the same, because the lay person injects whatever meaning they want into the rules. They are different, because when you look at the actual rules and how specific terms interact, they have clearly different meanings. "Because this is how it's always been and this is how it'll be FAQ-ed" might work for your friendly games, but I don't have your Future-telling Turban and I don't know what GW "intended" when they got together to write up a very specific rule set for this special character. All I have is the Rules As Written. All you've got is the interpretation that you repeatedly tell me is Rules As Written, but are still completely wrong about.

C'mon!

If you choose to pass the test without rolling, it is automatic!
Roll your saves vs. the extra wounds. Are you Space Marines or Space Weasels? If Marines, then act like it!
I mean, you're wearing power armor for corn's sake!

Even the man who has nothing can still offer his life! No?!?

MwaHaHaHa!!!

sourclams wrote:
They read the same, because the lay person injects whatever meaning they want into the rules. They are different, because when you look at the actual rules and how specific terms interact, they have clearly different meanings.

"Because this is how it's always been and this is how it'll be FAQ-ed" might work for your friendly games, but I don't have your Future-telling Turban and I don't know what GW "intended" when they got together to write up a very specific rule set for this special character.

All I have is the Rules As Written. All you've got is the interpretation that you repeatedly tell me is Rules As Written, but are still completely wrong about.

Thank you sour, couldn't have put it better myself.

sourclams wrote:Because your Mom says so.

They read the same, because the lay person injects whatever meaning they want into the rules. They are different, because when you look at the actual rules and how specific terms interact, they have clearly different meanings. "Because this is how it's always been and this is how it'll be FAQ-ed" might work for your friendly games, but I don't have your Future-telling Turban and I don't know what GW "intended" when they got together to write up a very specific rule set for this special character. All I have is the Rules As Written. All you've got is the interpretation that you repeatedly tell me is Rules As Written, but are still completely wrong about.

I'd mention what your mom says, but her mouth is full. Now that the requisite personal insults are complete...

I have yet to see how you're right and I'm wrong, and you're not actually articulating any real reasons why you'd be right. You'll forgive me if I don't suddenly "see the light" when your flashlight is broken.

My automatic car is not really automatic. I have to choose to drive it before it will change gears.

sourclams wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:If they read the same, as a mechanism of WORDS, they are mechanically the same.

Because your Mom says so.

They read the same, because the lay person injects whatever meaning they want into the rules. They are different, because when you look at the actual rules and how specific terms interact, they have clearly different meanings. "Because this is how it's always been and this is how it'll be FAQ-ed" might work for your friendly games, but I don't have your Future-telling Turban and I don't know what GW "intended" when they got together to write up a very specific rule set for this special character. All I have is the Rules As Written. All you've got is the interpretation that you repeatedly tell me is Rules As Written, but are still completely wrong about.

You can posture all you like but the reality is the meaning of the two sentences, with or without the word "automatically" actually written is the same.

A morale check is a test that is normally (manually) taken by rolling dice and this special rule allows the model to pass the test without rolling the dice which can most certainly be construed as the check being passed "automatically".


So the majority of us who see 'No Retreat!' working against 'God of War' aren't playing by some rules as intended, but rather the rules as written.

yakface wrote:

You can posture all you like but the reality is the meaning of the two sentences, with or without the word "automatically" actually written is the same.

A morale check is a test that is normally (manually) taken by rolling dice and this special rule allows the model to pass the test without rolling the dice which can most certainly be construed as the check being passed "automatically".


So the majority of us who see 'No Retreat!' working against 'God of War' aren't playing by some rules as intended, but rather the rules as written.

Oh really, please point me to the "wording" in the rulebook that states this pass is automatic. Until you can you are playing by your interpretations and RAI.

I do not see how you can possibly claim this is RAW when the word automatically doesn't even appear in the entry...

Simple logical argument that everyone can hopefully follow.

1. No retreat reads: some units may be immune to morale checks...or to "automatically" pass them for some reason

2. ATSKNF, Synapse, fearless all state that the unit automatically passes all moral checks.

3. GoW states "the unit may choose to pass or fail any moral check" notice the omission of the word automatic.

4. We must therefore take it that this pass or fail is not considered automatic, if it was it would be written in the entry.



Anyone who states that you can "assume" the word automatic is in the entry is using RAI. How can you use assume and RAW in the same sentence and believe you are correct?


One final thing, Gaylord from the original post (other thread) brings up a good point.
If you look at the rules for morale checks it states:

Morale checks are taken by rolling a 2D6 and comparing...(you know the rest). Some units have special rules pertaining to moral checks that are detailed int he appropriate codex.

So now we know that Morale checks do not always have to be taken by rolling 2D6, because as stated in the rules some units have special rules for these.
If you look at the morale checks entry that there is a lack of anything stating something along the lines of: Any of these special rule checks are considered automatic.

I would say with these 2 solid points that it is pretty clear that GoW doesn't trigger no retreat.

Timmah wrote:[
Oh really, please point me to the "wording" in the rulebook that states this pass is automatic. Until you can you are playing by your interpretations and RAI.

I do not see how you can possibly claim this is RAW when the word automatically doesn't even appear in the entry...

Simple logical argument that everyone can hopefully follow.

1. No retreat reads: some units may be immune to morale checks...or to "automatically" pass them for some reason

2. ATSKNF, Synapse, fearless all state that the unit automatically passes all moral checks.

3. GoW states "the unit may choose to pass or fail any moral check" notice the omission of the word automatic.

4. We must therefore take it that this pass or fail is not considered automatic, if it was it would be written in the entry.

Actually that is completely faulty logic.

The word "automatic" has a meaning, the inclusion of the word in a rule doesn't change the fact of whether the situation presented is automatic or not.

For example, if a rule said "Unit X passes all morale checks without rolling any dice."

Here, the word "automatic" has been omitted, but is this a situation of a unit automatically passing its morale check?

Of course it is, so the argument that the rule needs to have the word "automatic" in it in order to qualify as an automatic situation is most certainly incorrect.



So I'll ask again, here is the actual God of War text:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


If the rule was written as:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to automatically pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


Would that change your opinion?

Why so? In both cases the player has the option to choose to fail the morale check if he wishes. So why does the inclusion of a word in the sentence change the nature of the rule?


The answer is that it doesn't.

While we can all agree that when a unit always passes its morale checks without having to test this is clearly "automatic" (in that the unit doesn't even have a choice), as I've pointed out numerous times, there is another interpretation of the word "automatic" in this instance.

That being the act of taking the check (rolling the dice) is a manual procedure and passing it without having to roll can therefore be said to be automatic, even though the player had the choice of whether to automatically pass or fail the test.


The rule is clearly ambiguous, given the split in the poll so it behooves you to discuss it with your opponent before the game and, IMHO as a SM player using the rule you really should be playing by the more restrictive interpretation as it is not clear.

Yakface has it right. Just because it doesn't explicitely use the word "automatic", doesn't mean that Calgar isn't subject to No Retreat. He passes the morale test without rolling the dice (e.g. automatically), thus he is subject to No Retreat.

This is *not* like Force Weapons used to be, as "killed outright" is *not* the same as the named and defined rule of Instant Death and both were treated differently in several situations (look at Gargantuan Creatures in Apoc for example).

I have to disagree with this.

The word "automatic" is a term that is a rule, not something that can be added/deleted from entries.

If the Rule "automatically passes" is in the units entry then it is considered automatic per the rule.

If the Rule "automatic" is not in the entry than it is not considered automatic.

As my second point showed that under the morale test rules it states that some units have "special rules" for such tests that you should follow. These "special rules" allow you to take a moral check without rolling the dice, but does not reference them as automatic passes and fails.

As per your question, if the term automatic was written in the Calgar entry would it change my opinion?
Yes definitely, but we can not add/delete words from a rule to make it what we want it to be, that is RAI, not RAW.

Once again I see the term AUTOMATIC as a "game rule", not as a "descriptor". If it was not a game rule, and was a descriptor it wouldn't appear in every other entry including ATSKNF in the same book.


Once again your claim to be correct is based of an assumption that your allowed to add words to an entry as long as you perceive that you are not changing anything. This right here should prove that you are using RAI.

I however am not added/deleting anything from the rule, I am taking it exactly as worded by GW. Which if that is not the text book definition for RAW then I don't know what is.

Timmah wrote:I have to disagree with this.

The word "automatic" is a term that is a rule, not something that can be added/deleted from entries.

If the Rule "automatically passes" is in the units entry then it is considered automatic per the rule.

If the Rule "automatic" is not in the entry than it is not considered automatic.

So you are saying the meaning of the word "automatic" has absolutely no bearing on this conversation? The word itself is completely meaningless except as a descriptor that has to be used in a rule in order for it to qualify for 'No Retreat?'

So you would honestly argue that if a rule said: "Unit X passes all morale checks without having to roll any dice" this would not qualify as a 'No Retreat!' situation of a unit that automatically passes its morale check simply because it doesn't contain the word "automatic" in it?

Because if you're answering yes, then I hope you realize that you're being completely ludicrous.

As per your question, if the term automatic was written in the Calgar entry would it change my opinion?
Yes definitely, but we can not add/delete words from a rule to make it what we want it to be, that is RAI, not RAW.

Once again I see the term AUTOMATIC as a "game rule", not as a "descriptor". If it was not a game rule, and was a descriptor it wouldn't appear in every other entry including ATSKNF in the same book.

I'm not suggesting that we add any words, it was only an example to prove the flaw in your logic. If "automatic" is a game rule and not just a descriptive term, where is the supplied definition in the rulebook? The truth is there isn't one.

And besides, you have presented a fallacy regarding the word's use in other rules.

If I own a grocery store and I label every apple but one with a sticker that says "apple" does the one apple without a sticker suddenly stop being an apple?

Of course not. An apple is an apple just like if something is "automatic" it is automatic regardless of whether the actual word is used in the sentence or not.

I see no fallacy, I am using game terms, which you then are trying to relate to real life.

I am not arguing that "Unit X passes all morale checks without having to roll any dice" then unit X is not subject to No retreat. The No retreat rule states anyone unit that always passes morale checks is subject to it.

I am arguing that GoW states "Unit X can choose to pass or fail any morale check."

This is considered a special rule for morale checks so yes, you are still taking the test as explained in the Morale checks section of the rulebook, however you do not have to roll any dice.

Once again I stand by the fact that automatic is not in the entry yet is in the ATSKNF entry(and every other entry pertaining to no retreat).

So why would GW suddenly remove it from this entry and just decide players would figure it out even though they felt they needed to remind them of it in a different rule earlier in the codex.

Until the word "automatically" is added to the rule there is no way that you can add it and claim RAW.


In regards to your apple reference I still believe automatic to be a rule that clarifies in a given situation if No Retreat works.

So lets do a new "apple" situation. If there are 20 apples in a grocery store and they are all the same but one is labeled free and the other 19 are labeled $2.00. Would you bring a $2.00 up to the cashier and tell him its free or vice versa? I highly doubt that because the label makes it different.

And there we have it: The LABEL/WORDING makes it different, not the item but how it is WORDED/LABELED.

The WORDING of GoW makes it different from all other non-rolling leadership checks and therefore it should be played as such according to RAW.

Automatic is not a game term, so you fail.

Ok fine to humor Lord_Sutekh lets see what the definition of automatic is...

-according to dictionary.com:
-Automatic: Ocuring independently of volition; involuntary.
-Volition: the act of willing, choosing, or resolving

So automatic is the opposite of volition.
Volition is the act of choosing.
rule says: you can CHOOSE to pass or fail any morale test made.

...


So as I see it, whether you treat automatic as a game term or not, doesn't matter.
Both support my argument.

Timmah wrote:I have to disagree with this.

The word "automatic" is a term that is a rule, not something that can be added/deleted from entries.

Huh? "Automatic" is a rule? I think not, it is a descriptor, not a rule in itself like Instant Death! is. "automatic" is nothing more than a descriptor.

If the Rule "automatically passes" is in the units entry then it is considered automatic per the rule.

If the Rule "automatic" is not in the entry than it is not considered automatic.

Passing a test without rolling the dice is somehow different than "automatically" passing?

Please explain.




Looking at the whole of the No Retreat phrasing, its pretty clear that they did not mean to hinge the entire rule on the word "automatic" in itself, rather as a descriptor.

"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale
checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass
them for some reason (they may have the ‘fearless’
special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special
rule). When such units lose a close combat, they are in
danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy
despite their determination to hang on.

These units do not take Morale checks and will never
fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of
wounds equal to the number their side has lost the
combat by (allocated as normal).""

Any unit that needn't take a morale check is subject to no retreat. It seems pretty clear to me. Just because it isn't Fearless and doesn't have the word "Automatic" in it doesn't mean its immune to No Retreat. Anything that *DOES NOT* need to roll the dice for the morale check (whether it automatically passes, ignores morale tests, chooses to pass, etc.) is subject to No Retreat. I don't see how anyone could get anything else out of the wording above. Units that "Automatically" pass are given as examples, not as a prerequisite.

Since they can either pass or fail I chose option B. Fearless units will always pass. I know what Kratos would say too!

G

Then Calgar's rule has little point in close combat? Since if you roll and pass nothing bad happens, if you roll and fail the odds are good that you will be subject to no retreat, (ATSKNF) But if you choose to pass with Calgar you still suffer no retreat? This to me seems counter productive. That's why i choose option A.

Red_Lives wrote:Then Calgar's rule has little point in close combat? Since if you roll and pass nothing bad happens, if you roll and fail the odds are good that you will be subject to no retreat, (ATSKNF) But if you choose to pass with Calgar you still suffer no retreat? This to me seems counter productive. That's why i choose option A.

There are other morale checks than those made in assaults.

To my experience GW rule writers are pretty random in the choice of words. The word automatically just didn't happen to get in the phrasing this time.
I think that automatically, when it comes to morale tests, refers to not rolling any dice. So for me it's a B.

Well, if he chooses to fail the morale check in CC, then he won't be subject to No Retreat!

Anyway what is Mr. Calgod doing on the losing side of a fight? Hmmm?

MwaHaHaHa!

Vaktathi wrote:

Timmah wrote:I have to disagree with this.

The word "automatic" is a term that is a rule, not something that can be added/deleted from entries.

Huh? "Automatic" is a rule? I think not, it is a descriptor, not a rule in itself like Instant Death! is. "automatic" is nothing more than a descriptor.

If the Rule "automatically passes" is in the units entry then it is considered automatic per the rule.

If the Rule "automatic" is not in the entry than it is not considered automatic.

Passing a test without rolling the dice is somehow different than "automatically" passing?

Please explain.




Looking at the whole of the No Retreat phrasing, its pretty clear that they did not mean to hinge the entire rule on the word "automatic" in itself, rather as a descriptor.

"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale
checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass
them for some reason (they may have the ‘fearless’
special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special
rule). When such units lose a close combat, they are in
danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy
despite their determination to hang on.

Looks like it relies solely on the words immune and automatically pass to describe the only 2 situations where no retreat take effect.

Vaktathi wrote:
These units do not take Morale checks and will never
fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of
wounds equal to the number their side has lost the
combat by (allocated as normal).""

GoW still forces me to make a morale check it just allows me to decide the outcome. If GoW didn't make me take morale checks please tell me when I would choose to pass/fail a check. According to you I NEVER take a check and therefore can never choose to pass/fail a check...I'm pretty sure that would make your interpreted rules impossible.

Vaktathi wrote:

Any unit that needn't take a morale check is subject to no retreat. It seems pretty clear to me. Just because it isn't Fearless and doesn't have the word "Automatic" in it doesn't mean its immune to No Retreat. Anything that *DOES NOT* need to roll the dice for the morale check (whether it automatically passes, ignores morale tests, chooses to pass, etc.) is subject to No Retreat. I don't see how anyone could get anything else out of the wording above. Units that "Automatically" pass are given as examples, not as a prerequisite.

Sorry could you please highlight the part of the rule that states units that do not roll for morale checks are subject to no retreat?
I can not seem to find it...

Not rolling for morale and automatically passing are not the same. And nowhere does it state they are.

utan wrote:Well, if he chooses to fail the morale check in CC, then he won't be subject to No Retreat!

Anyway what is Mr. Calgod doing on the losing side of a fight? Hmmm?

MwaHaHaHa!

Actually, if you choose to fail the morale check there's a decent chance of being chased down by a sweeping advance and getting No Retreat'd anyway

The choice that Marneus makes is whether or not to pass his test. If he chooses to pass it, then he automatically passes it. Does anyone disagree with this logic so far?

I know that automatic does not appear in his rule, but the no retreat rule does not require the "automatic" word, it instead requires the "automatic" effect. Thus, when Marneus' choice results in an automatic effect, no retreat applies.

Once again I stand by the fact that automatic is not in the entry yet is in the ATSKNF entry(and every other entry pertaining to no retreat.

So why would GW suddenly remove it from this entry and just decide players would figure it out even though they felt they needed to remind them of it in a different rule earlier in the codex.

This is an RAI arguement

Antonin wrote:

I know that automatic does not appear in his rule, but the no retreat rule does not require the "automatic" word, it instead requires the "automatic" effect. Thus, when Marneus' choice results in an automatic effect, no retreat applies.

The arguement is whether or not choosing is an automatic effect

wyomingfox wrote:

Once again I stand by the fact that automatic is not in the entry yet is in the ATSKNF entry(and every other entry pertaining to no retreat.

So why would GW suddenly remove it from this entry and just decide players would figure it out even though they felt they needed to remind them of it in a different rule earlier in the codex.

This is an RAI arguement

Actually this is an RAW argument, automatically is not in the GoW entry so I am playing it exactly as worded. (RAW)
All of you who don't like this are playing RAI:

"I believe you can add the word automatically to the sentence without changing the meaning"
"I believe any morale test passed without rolling dice is considered automatic."

These are the 2 main arguments against it and both are making assumptions.
My stand point makes 0 assumptions.
The No retreat rule says units that automatically pass morale tests are subject to no retreat. The GoW entry never specifically states it is considered an automatic pass no matter how much you think that it implies it.

If I am wrong with this please show me but you keep bringing up the same arguments and no matter how many times you repeat them you are still making assumptions about rules where I have made 0 assumptions this entire time.

wyomingfox wrote:

Antonin wrote:

I know that automatic does not appear in his rule, but the no retreat rule does not require the "automatic" word, it instead requires the "automatic" effect. Thus, when Marneus' choice results in an automatic effect, no retreat applies.

The arguement is whether or not choosing is an automatic effect

No this is not the argument, as soon as you attempt to add words to an entry no matter how insignificant or whether they change the meaning or not you are making assumptions about rules and that is RAI.
I don't know how else to explain this to you cause you don't seem to get this.

My standpoint still makes 0 assumptions and takes the rules directly as worded with no other changes. No "well if I add this word", No "well GW probably just assumed they didn't need to add the word automatic", No "I think GW believes X is considered automatic"

NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOEVAR. every single argument against this makes assumptions and is therefore RAI. (If you can show me one that doesn't, please do.)

The No retreat rule says units that automatically pass morale tests are subject to no retreat. The GoW entry never specifically states it is considered an automatic pass no matter how much you think that it implies it.

I honestly don't see what is so hard about seeing the RAW for this dispute.

Red_Lives wrote:Then Calgar's rule has little point in close combat? Since if you roll and pass nothing bad happens, if you roll and fail the odds are good that you will be subject to no retreat, (ATSKNF) But if you choose to pass with Calgar you still suffer no retreat? This to me seems counter productive. That's why i choose option A.

"Little point?" If he loses combat by 3, he's testing Ld on 7, which is likely to make him and his unit flee, and sometimes the consequences of that unit fleeing are greater than a couple extra dudes dying. If Calgar and his squad are holding against a big enemy CC unit, then it may be advantageous in some situations to hold them there (maybe until the end of the opponents assault phase) until you can get a reaction unit over there.

Timmah wrote:Looks like it relies solely on the words immune and automatically pass to describe the only 2 situations where no retreat take effect.

How are you getting that?
? it's basically saying its not uncommon for some units not to have to take the morale test or roll the dice for them. the word "automatically" isn't the lynchpin there, its a descriptor, not a condition. the condition is not having to roll the dice.

GoW still forces me to make a morale check it just allows me to decide the outcome. If GoW didn't make me take morale checks please tell me when I would choose to pass/fail a check. According to you I NEVER take a check and therefore can never choose to pass/fail a check...I'm pretty sure that would make your interpreted rules impossible.

Units that automatically pass morale tests still technically take it, they just pass it as a matter of course and go straight to No Retreat. Now if the rule was only for those "Immune to Morale tests" I might be inclined to agree, but the rule doesn't simply cover those "immune to morale tests", it covers anything where the test is passed without rolling the dice.

Sorry could you please highlight the part of the rule that states units that do not roll for morale checks are subject to no retreat?
I can not seem to find it...

Again, choosing to simply pass is not functionally the same as automatically passing how? Simply because one can choose to fail as well doesn't mean you don't automatically pass if you choose to. "Automatic" isn't the cornerstone if the rule, its the descriptor of the effect of staying in the fight without rolling the dice.

Not rolling for morale and automatically passing are not the same. And nowhere does it state they are.

I fail to see how they aren't, and nowhere does it state they aren't.

Timmah wrote:Looks like it relies solely on the words immune and automatically pass to describe the only 2 situations where no retreat take effect.

How are you getting that?
? it's basically saying its not uncommon for some units not to have to take the morale test or roll the dice for them. the word "automatically" isn't the lynchpin there, its a descriptor, not a condition. the condition is not having to roll the dice.

Again no where does it state that not rolling dice = automatic
so this statement is an assumption which is a RAI

GoW still forces me to make a morale check it just allows me to decide the outcome. If GoW didn't make me take morale checks please tell me when I would choose to pass/fail a check. According to you I NEVER take a check and therefore can never choose to pass/fail a check...I'm pretty sure that would make your interpreted rules impossible.

Units that automatically pass morale tests still technically take it, they just pass it as a matter of course and go straight to No Retreat. Now if the rule was only for those "Immune to Morale tests" I might be inclined to agree, but the rule doesn't simply cover those "immune to morale tests", it covers anything where the test is passed without rolling the dice.

"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale
checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass
them for some reason (they may have the ‘fearless’
special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special
rule). When such units lose a close combat, they are in
danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy
despite their determination to hang on.

These units do not take Morale checks and will never
fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of
wounds equal to the number their side has lost the
combat by (allocated as normal).""

These units (ones subject to no retreat) DO NOT take morale checks. So if I never take a morale check how/when do I decide whether I pass or fail?

Not rolling for morale and automatically passing are not the same. And nowhere does it state they are.

I fail to see how they aren't, and nowhere does it state they aren't.

Exactly it doesn't state either way so we must take RAW and only consider it automatic if the rule entry states that it is! We cannot assume that it is one way or the other because then we get into RAI.

wyomingfox wrote:

Antonin wrote:

I know that automatic does not appear in his rule, but the no retreat rule does not require the "automatic" word, it instead requires the "automatic" effect. Thus, when Marneus' choice results in an automatic effect, no retreat applies.

The arguement is whether or not choosing is an automatic effect

Then it is no argument at all. The key point is not whether or not a unit gets to choose whether to pass or fail, the key point is whether the unit is immune to morale checks:

"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale
checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass
them for some reason (they may have the ‘fearless’
special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special
rule)."

Marneus is immune to morale checks: since he makes his choice, the result is automatic. So yes, he has a choice, but he is immune to the morale check, therefore the no retreat rule (by its explicit terms) applies.

See, no assumptions at all - just the rules!

yakface wrote:Actually that is completely faulty logic.

The word "automatic" has a meaning, the inclusion of the word in a rule doesn't change the fact of whether the situation presented is automatic or not.

The way rules are worded most certainly has an impact on their utilization in-game. If everything that was sort of similar was supposed to be identical for game purposes, Black Templar wouldn't have a 4+ storm shield and Rhinos wouldn't have different point costs across codexes. But this is somehow different, right? We don't need to enforce sameness for this stuff, right?

For example, if a rule said "Unit X passes all morale checks without rolling any dice."

Here, the word "automatic" has been omitted, but is this a situation of a unit automatically passing its morale check?

No. It's a situation where you take the decision-making element, which is normally random, and assume that the outcome is in favor of what you would normally wish for. Marneus Calgar essentially lets you decide what you want the dice to say. This is not automatic, it's more akin to wish-granting. Marneus Calgar makes dice do whatever he wants.

Of course it is, so the argument that the rule needs to have the word "automatic" in it in order to qualify as an automatic situation is most certainly incorrect.

Except that it's not. Using the terms in the rulebooks, it is not "automatic". The outcome is "favorable" is a better way of reading it for those who are getting stuck on the 'it's all automatic' line.

So I'll ask again, here is the actual God of War text:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


If the rule was written as:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to automatically pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


Would that change your opinion?

Yes

Why so? In both cases the player has the option to choose to fail the morale check if he wishes. So why does the inclusion of a word in the sentence change the nature of the rule?

Because it completely changes the rule, as it fits into the game mechanics.

The answer is that it doesn't.

Why? Because you say so? If this was true we wouldn't have two topics and more than half a dozen pages posted, with numerous people defending both sides. The people who are saying 'THIS IS WHAT THE RULE MEANS' are using interpretations based on precedence and what they feel the rule should be for ease of gameplay, whereas the other people are using 'WHAT THE RULE ACTUALLY SAYS'.

This is RAW versus RAI but for whatever reason the RAI crowd feels they have a strong enough platform to actually ignore RAW.

While we can all agree that when a unit always passes its morale checks without having to test this is clearly "automatic" (in that the unit doesn't even have a choice), as I've pointed out numerous times, there is another interpretation of the word "automatic" in this instance.

So when I roll the dice, and a '6' comes up, my unit automatically passes because the dice say so? That's where this whole line of reasoning falls apart. Calgar, with his big Power-hands, makes the dice say whatever he wants. Because he's Calgar. Because the rules say so. Given whatever outcomes there are, Calgar takes whichever variable is more appealing. This is unlike No Retreat! units, who are stuck doing the exact same thing, every single time, automatically.

The rule is clearly ambiguous, given the split in the poll so it behooves you to discuss it with your opponent before the game and, IMHO as a SM player using the rule you really should be playing by the more restrictive interpretation as it is not clear.

I disagree that it's not clear, I think it's actually quite explicit. I do agree, however, that there should be an FAQ because obviously there's enough confusion created to warrant one. I do not agree that people should ignore or handicap the rules within their list just because their opponent doesn't understand or may not agree. Look at how Lash of Submission and We'll Be Back/Monolith teleporting have always been used to fullest effect.

Antonin wrote:Then it is no argument at all. The key point is not whether or not a unit gets to choose whether to pass or fail, the key point is whether the unit is immune to morale checks:

Marneus is immune to morale checks: since he makes his choice, the result is automatic. So yes, he has a choice, but he is immune to the morale check, therefore the no retreat rule (by its explicit terms) applies.

See, no assumptions at all - just the rules!

This is absolutely and completely wrong. If Marneus was immune to morale checks, he could not pass or fail them. He'd just be a Fearless unit like a Khorne Berzerker.

Timmah wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Once again I stand by the fact that automatic is not in the entry yet is in the ATSKNF entry(and every other entry pertaining to no retreat.

So why would GW suddenly remove it from this entry and just decide players would figure it out even though they felt they needed to remind them of it in a different rule earlier in the codex.

This is an RAI arguement

Actually this is an RAW argument, automatically is not in the GoW entry so I am playing it exactly as worded. (RAW)
All of you who don't like this are playing RAI:

"I believe you can add the word automatically to the sentence without changing the meaning"
"I believe any morale test passed without rolling dice is considered automatic."

These are the 2 main arguments against it and both are making assumptions.
My stand point makes 0 assumptions.
The No retreat rule says units that automatically pass morale tests are subject to no retreat. The GoW entry never specifically states it is considered an automatic pass no matter how much you think that it implies it.

If I am wrong with this please show me but you keep bringing up the same arguments and no matter how many times you repeat them you are still making assumptions about rules where I have made 0 assumptions this entire time.

wyomingfox wrote:

Antonin wrote:

I know that automatic does not appear in his rule, but the no retreat rule does not require the "automatic" word, it instead requires the "automatic" effect. Thus, when Marneus' choice results in an automatic effect, no retreat applies.

The arguement is whether or not choosing is an automatic effect

No this is not the argument, as soon as you attempt to add words to an entry no matter how insignificant or whether they change the meaning or not you are making assumptions about rules and that is RAI.
I don't know how else to explain this to you cause you don't seem to get this.

My standpoint still makes 0 assumptions and takes the rules directly as worded with no other changes. No "well if I add this word", No "well GW probably just assumed they didn't need to add the word automatic", No "I think GW believes X is considered automatic"

NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOEVAR. every single argument against this makes assumptions and is therefore RAI. (If you can show me one that doesn't, please do.)

The No retreat rule says units that automatically pass morale tests are subject to no retreat. The GoW entry never specifically states it is considered an automatic pass no matter how much you think that it implies it.

I honestly don't see what is so hard about seeing the RAW for this dispute.

Timmah, you have stated time and time again that "if GW wanted the NR to apply to God of War why didn't they use the phrase "Automatic" in the line like they did in every other case in which NR applies (paraphrase)". This is a Rules as Intended arguement because you are trying to derive the intent of GW through precedence.

Also note that I am not attacking you or Sourclams , I think your side has made several good arguements, I just don't fully agree with them, and if it came up in a gaming session I think thier would be enough grounds for a role off IMO.

I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the Inquisitor Lord version of this power adds that even against things that make them automatically fail their Morale test, the Inquisitor Lord can still use their Iron Will power. So, if choosing means they automatically pass or automatically fail, it means that Iron Will falls into an infinite recursive loop on itself if they keep choosing to fail... So, it probably does not mean that.

If RAI all passes you choose are automatic, Iron Will is a rule that works on itself. If they had written "other" in the part about being able to use Iron Will against powers that cause automatic failures, that would show that choosing is automatic. If they wanted to make rules that make sense, the intent seems to be that choosing does not lead to an automatic failure. Which means it doesn't lead to an automatic pass, either.

I am not deriving any intent, I am stating what GW did.

Take this phrase:

I believe that GoW entry does not have the word automatic in it.

If this was an assumption then the following would not be able to be proven:

The GoW entry does not have the word automatic.

The fact that automatic does not appear in the entry is not an assumption, it is a fact.

So as I have said before:
According to RAW, GoW makes no reference to being an automatic pass an therefore is not as it is read currently.

No words added, no assumptions, just the facts.

wyomingfox wrote:
Timmah, you have stated time and time again that "if GW wanted the NR to apply to God of War why didn't they use the phrase "Automatic" in the line like they did in every other case in which NR applies (paraphrase)". This is a Rules as Intended argument because you are trying to derive the intent of GW through precedence.

I am not deriving any intent. According to RAW as given to us by GW we must take the rules as they are worded in the codex. As the rules are now (RAW) if GW had wanted the pass to be automatic they would have needed to put the word automatic into the phrase. If they didn't it is RAW and since there is no reference to the pass being automatic there is no way for us to assume it is unless we go into RAI.

No intent in this phrase is being assumed, I am merely stating what GW would have needed to do in order for this to be an automatic pass according to their own rules.

In this case I am not trying to assume whether GW wanted the pass to be automatic or not, I am just saying by leaving the word out it makes the pass not automatic.


In terms of rules we cannot assume anything whatsoever. We can only take what GW has written. So we cannot assume what GW thought the meaning of automatic is. We can only have it apply to those situations where they wrote it into the rules.

People seem to be getting stuck on the fact that they believe they are allowed to determine the meaning of automatic without making this into a RAI debate. You can't. There is no possible way for you to tell me with 100% accuracy what GW meant by the word automatic, unless you yourself wrote this book. So because of have to take that it is just considered a pass or fail (as written), not as an automatic pass or fail. (which isn't written)

I like diagrams.

Nurglitch, your diagram is self-serving and incorrect. (though very pretty)

Right at the beginning - if the answer to "morale check" is "no" then nothing happens. I.e. you have created the left-hand arm of your diagram in error. Specifically, if the answer is "no" then that means nothing at all happens - the model doesn't even have to think about morale checks. This is the situation where 10% casualties, etc are caused.

Now, remember that fearless models "automatically pass" morale checks - they are not immune to the circumstances which lead to that check, they simply do not take the check - they auto pass it. So fearless models actually fall under the "yes' arm of your diagram.

Additionally, the other side is incorrect, but that is what we are talking about here, of course.

To simplify: your diagram should first ask if a morale check is necessary. Next, ask if the model has a special rule that controls how it takes that rule. If not, then take the test as usual. If it does have a special rule that controls the result of the morale check, then follow that rule.

If it has that special rule, then ask if the model actually has to take a morale check. If not, then no retreat applies. You will note that the no retreat rule specifically applies where there is a "special rule".

Wow, ltrftp to this post. I agree with the war camp that Nurglitch is in (even though his tact is less than desirable ).

The term ‘automatic’ isn’t listed in any reference material in the rulebook and so everyone will have their own interpretation of it. Because of that there will not be a resolution until there is FAQ on this.

To assume any word belongs somewhere in the book, when it isn’t written, is RAI.

@ Yak – if the rule did include the word ‘automatic’, there wouldn’t be a debate. Therefore its absence is very important, especially since it is included so often elsewhere.

@ timmah - regarding:

timmah wrote:No intent in this phrase is being assumed, I am merely stating what GW would have needed to do in order for this to be an automatic pass according to their own rules.

This is incorrect as we cannot know (nor have we ever come to a general consensus on) what 'their own rules' are.

Both the premise/conclusion post, and the diagram post, of Nurglitch are the correct RAW reading. I don’t like it, and I personally vote they should be required to the No Retreat! Special Rule, but the RAW doesn’t support it.

Again, the term ‘automatic’ isn’t in any GW 40k reference material and therefore not directly linked to ‘the lack’ of any action (dice rolls, measuring, etc.). Because it isn’t defined by GW, all we have is the dictionary - which is supporting Poll A.

Antonin:

No, the diagram is an entirely truthful representation of the rules as they are presented in the text.

If we ask ourselves the question, is there is a Morale Check to be taken, then we have one of two answers.

The first answer is the negative, 'no', there is no Morale Check to be taken. If a unit has won its close combat, for example, there is no Morale Check to be taken and the unit proceeds as normal.

However, if a unit is immune to Morale Checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them due to some special rule, then there is no Morale check to be taken, then the conditions have been obtained for the unit to be affected by No Retreat!

After the No Retreat! rule has been resolved, the game proceeds as normal.

The second answer to whether there is a Morale Check to be taken is the positive, 'yes', there is a Morale Check to be taken, the unit that lost the close combat is neither Fearless nor subject to some other rule that would make it immune to Morale Checks.

If there is a Morale Check to be taken, then it behooves us to ask whether the Morale Check is to be taken by an army that includes a model on the board with the God of War special rule.

If there is a model on the board with the God of War special rule, and the unit is either that model, or is a unit that has the Combat Tactics rule, then instead of deciding whether the Morale Check is passed or failed by way of rolling 2D6 and comparing the result to the modified Ld value of the unit, the player decides whether the test is passed or failed. They must make that choice, and because a choice is made the result is not automatic, as in the case of models that are immune to Morale Checks, or that are Fearless.

As mention, if the unit passes the Morale Check, whether it is chosen to pass the check, or passes on the good will of the dice, then the unit proceeds as normal.

But if the unit fails the Morale Check, whether it is chosen to fail the check, or fails on the ill will of the dice, then the unit competes in a Sweeping Advance.

If the unit wins the Sweeping Advance, then it Falls Back.

If the unit loses the Sweeping Advance, and it has the And They Shall Know No Fear special rule, then the unit is affected by the No Retreat! rule.

But if the unit loses the Sweeping Advance without such a rule, then the unit is Destroyed!

As we can see easily from the diagram, and should see easily from the rules, avoiding a Morale Check is not the same thing as passing it when given the choice instead of having to resort to the caprice of dice.

Gut tells me it should. Arguments tell me that it might, but probably doesn't. I value the choice =/= no retreat enough that until I see a FAQ to see if they rule like the commisar (where it's close enough) or that it doesn't apply at all. Until then, I'll suck it up and play by the way I read the rules.

Nurglitch - on the "no" arm of your chart, all that should appear is a straight arrow, going all the way to the bottom of the chart. That's all, because being fearless is irrelevant, and being a god of war is irrelevant, if no morale check is required at all.

It is only if a morale check is required (the "yes" result) that you even look to the special rules of the unit. So, the fearless troop should be included in the "yes' column of your chart, not the "no" column.

So no, your diagram is immediately incorrect, before we even get into the specific rules that we are talking about.

Fearless does not mean that a morale check does not occur. It means instead that the morale check is automatically passed, even if it normally would be automatically failed.

So, on your "yes" leg, the next inquiry is whether the unit has to roll the morale test. God of War or Fearless yield a "no" result to that test - fearless because it passes the test, and god of war because the unit decides whether to pass or fail. For both, no morale test is actually taken.

Let me ask: is it your contention that a God of War model takes a morale check? If so, please define what you consider to be a morale check. I define "morale check" to be "roll 2d6 and compare it to the models Ld, after modifiers if any." I'll need to read the rulebook, but I do believe that is approximately what the rulebook says about morale checks.

Antonin wrote:Let me ask: is it your contention that a God of War model takes a morale check? If so, please define what you consider to be a morale check.

Well, I think that God of War models take morale checks. What that is is choose whether you pass or fail.

EDIT: While the question at the top of Nurglitch's chart should probably say 'Immune to Morale' it doesn't invalidate its structure.

Harkainos wrote:EDIT: While the question at the top of Nurglitch's chart should probably say 'Immune to Morale' it doesn't invalidate its structure.

It goes directly to the heart of this matter. If a model gets to do whatever it wants when faced with a morale test, as opposed to actually having to take the morale test and live by the results, that constitutes a special rule that leads to no retreat. Thus, god of War and Fearless are on the same leg of choices on that chart, not on opposite ones. I agree that there is a revised chart that will incorporate all of the relevant rules, but I can also tell you that Nurglitch's chart is not it (yet).

basicly it boils down to this

1 did you lose combat?

2. if yes, did you run? if no, done.

3 if no, did you have to roll dice? if yes, done.

4 if no, you automaticlly passed the morale test take no retreat wounds. if yes, done

Now looking at the chart more thoroughly, i believe it is correct.

Fearless models do not take morale checks and fall under the left side.

The simple fact that a check is made put GoW on the right, regardless of how its made.

IF you don't roll the dice it is automatic and it falls under no retreat.

I have heard there is some fixing going on with the vote.

: (

G

Nurglitch,
Would you agree that, following your interpretation of calgar, Boss Zagstruck is also unaffected by the "no retreat!" rule?

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have heard there is some fixing going on with the vote.

: (

G

Yeah, it's hard to believe that 28 people could all vote so wrongly.

So all of you who voted that the unit is subject to no retreat per RAW.

Could you please point me to the entry that states GoW is considered an automatic pass?

If it is RAW, then it should be written in the codex. So just flip to the page and reference it.

If it is not written in the codex, how can you say it's RAW?

The Morale check rules tell you fearless units take morale checks. "Some units always pass Morale checks, while a few others always pass leadership tests." Can't pass what you don't take.

-----

1) We work out combat result, I lose.
2) I take the Morale test under God of War. "Choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check."
3) I choose to pass or fail. I can choose either.

No dice are rolled. I have still taken a Morale test. I am not required to choose to pass in the Morale test. So, I have not automatically passed. After I choose to pass, I'm outside the Morale test - it's done. No Retreat! doesn't care what happens outside the bound of the Morale test.

No Retreat! has no effect.

I normally don't agree with Nurglitch, and I don't believe he normally makes arguments that could be practically used in normal games due to being overly verbose and sometimes convoluted, but I believe he is correct in his interpretation, in both logic and practicality.

He has given the most logical argument regarding 'God of War' not being subject to 'No Retreat', IMO.

[edit]

My reasoning is this. It is posited that god of war is subject to no retreat by many here.

Because judging by what I am reading here (which is admittedly small as this is a huge thread and I actually have better things to do) is that god of war is subject to no retreat. Period.

Ok I havent seen this mentioned and if it has been forgive me. So if you choose to automatically pass a morale check, you are subject to no retreat? Are you likewise subject to no retreat if you...retreat?
Pass or fail the check, GoW would have to be subject to no retreat in its entirety or not at all.

Thus why I believe that GoW is not subject to no retreat.

lord_sutekh wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have heard there is some fixing going on with the vote.

: (

G

Yeah, it's hard to believe that 28 people could all vote so wrongly.

G

lord_sutekh wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have heard there is some fixing going on with the vote.

: (

G

Yeah, it's hard to believe that 28 people could all vote so wrongly.

When you can actually back that statement up, I'll agree with you.

Page 43.
"Morale Checks (also called morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the units Leadership value."

Were you required to take a morale check?
Did you take a morale check?
- By page 43, If you did not roll dice, you did not take a morale check.
Did you stay in combat or fall back?

Then logically, if you did not fall back, you must have passed morale. If you did not roll dice, you did not take a morale check.
The only link then is that if you passed morale without taking the test, you automatically passed.

gaylord500 wrote:The Morale check rules tell you fearless units take morale checks. "Some units always pass Morale checks, while a few others always pass leadership tests." Can't pass what you don't take.

-----

1) We work out combat result, I lose.
2) I take the Morale test under God of War. "Choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check."
3) I choose to pass or fail. I can choose either.

No dice are rolled. I have still taken a Morale test. I am not required to choose to pass in the Morale test. So, I have not automatically passed. After I choose to pass, I'm outside the Morale test - it's done. No Retreat! doesn't care what happens outside the bound of the Morale test.

No Retreat! has no effect.

Agreed, well said. The choice of either failing or passing the Morale check invalidates NR.

Hellfury wrote:I normally don't agree with Nurglitch, and I don't believe he normally makes arguments that could be practically used in normal games due to being overly verbose and sometimes convoluted, but I believe he is correct in his interpretation, in both logic and practicality.

He has given the most logical argument regarding 'God of War' not being subject to 'No Retreat', IMO.

[edit]

My reasoning is this. It is posited that god of war is subject to no retreat by many here.

Because judging by what I am reading here (which is admittedly small as this is a huge thread and I actually have better things to do) is that god of war is subject to no retreat. Period.

Ok I havent seen this mentioned and if it has been forgive me. So if you choose to automatically pass a morale check, you are subject to no retreat? Are you likewise subject to no retreat if you...retreat?
Pass or fail the check, GoW would have to be subject to no retreat in its entirety or not at all.

Thus why I believe that GoW is not subject to no retreat.

Funny, I had the same thought Hellfury. You more eloquently put it into words.

Also, Codex's notoriously overide rules from the RB, this should be no different. I would think if it was intended for a Special Character to be subject to NR that the writers would have included that snippet inside GoW. Like I said originally, I initially voted that GoW was subject to NR. After just reading the text of everything that applies I changed my mind. I don't play SM's (yet) and I believe I had some personal biase that influenced my initial thought concerning this.

do you have a chance to fail a test you want to pass?
No you auto pass any test you wish to pass. you are subject to no retreat. most people feel this way.
trying to avoid the no retreat wounds is the same slimy playing as leaving the doors closed in the new pod. hey it could be faq'd but until then i hope people don't try to pull this crap until it is.

Yes, you do have a chance to fail a test when you get a choice as to either pass or fail. Having a choice is what prevents it from being automatically passing.

Choice
- Pass
- Fail

Not Choice
- Automatic Pass

I do believe that Nurglitch nailed it there.

You can not auotomatically pass something if there is the choice (or chance) of failure.

As you may "choose" to fail - you cannot automatically pass.

As you did not automatically pass, no retreat has no effect.

I agree Nurglitch hit the nail on the head with that last post.

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, you do have a chance to fail a test when you get a choice as to either pass or fail. Having a choice is what prevents it from being automatically passing.

Choice
- Pass
- Fail

Not Choice
- Automatic Pass

I disagree. The player is choosing whether to automatically pass or fail the test.


Again, if the God of War rule said:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to automatically pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."


Would we still be having this argument? Just because the player has the choice of which option to pick doesn't mean that once he chooses to pass the check the test hasn't been automatically passed.

If the rule actually said that, Yakface, then we'd all agree with you.

But it doesn't.

If a bolter was 'AP6', a Guardsman would get an armor save against marine shooting.

But it's not.

When you add words to the rules, yes, you change the rules. Nobody's going to argue with you on that.

sourclams wrote:If the rule actually said that, Yakface, then we'd all agree with you.

But it doesn't.

If a bolter was 'AP6', a Guardsman would get an armor save against marine shooting.

But it's not.

When you add words to the rules, yes, you change the rules. Nobody's going to argue with you on that.

But the argument is that the player's choice is what makes this situation not-automatic and I'm pointing out that isn't the case.

Adding the word "automatic" to the sentence does not change the rule. Either the passing the test without rolling is considered automatic or it isn't. The inclusion of the word in the sentence is immaterial.


Because with the point that you've been trying to make is that it is mere presence of the player's choice in this situation that makes it non-automatic. Under that presumption, if the rule was written as I did above you'd have to conclude that it was still a situation of being non-automatic.

In this sense, for game purposes, 'automatic' means that the unit does the same thing every time. A commissar will always execute the officer in charge, automatically, every time. A tyranid within synapse will ignore morale checks, automatically, every time. A Khorne Berzerker that watched nine buddies die will keep going, automatically, every time. There is no random element, ever. Will a Khorne Berzerker fail the test? Answer: No, to a degree of certainty that probability equals 1.

A Calgar Marine will not do the same thing every time. It's the exact opposite of 'automatic'. Calgar lets you decide what you want the dice to say, taking the best possible choice whenever you want it, because he's Calgar, because his rules say so. That is clearly different, mechanically, from what happens to other, superficially similar units.

'Automatically pass or fail' is different from 'Pass or fail' in the same way that rolling a success and passing is different from automatically passing.

skkipper wrote:IF you don't roll the dice it is automatic and it falls under no retreat.

If you can find anywhere in any GW referance material and present it, it will certainly help your argument. As of right now, you telling me that does no good, as you are simply adding this assumption.

sourclams wrote:
A Calgar Marine will not do the same thing every time. It's the exact opposite of 'automatic'. Calgar lets you decide what you want the dice to say, taking the best possible choice whenever you want it, because he's Calgar, because his rules say so. That is clearly different, mechanically, from what happens to other, superficially similar units.

'Automatically pass or fail' is different from 'Pass or fail' in the same way that rolling a success and passing is different from automatically passing.

So you saying that if the rule was written:

"Marneus Calgar can choose whether to automatically pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make."

It would NOT be a case of the unit automatically passing its morale check because the player had the choice to fail or succeed?

Because it simply isn't possible to have it both ways. Just think of this in the outside world. In a classroom, there is a difference between:

Taking a test (filling out the test manually)

and

automatically passing a test (not having to fill out the test).


Now, it is possible for a teacher to give you the choice to automatically pass a test, automatically fail a test or let you manually take the test.

That still doesn't mean that automatically passing or failing the test wasn't "automatic" in this case.

Hmm... Quite a long discussion over this. Much parsing of words for what's likely a rare situation with minimal repercussions. I mean really, how many saves is Calgon's unit going to make? How many will actuallly fail if the unit is subject to NR!?
The 60-40 split on the subject certainly indicates that opponents should come to an agreement before a game if it is likely to come into play.

utan wrote:Hmm... Quite a long discussion over this. Much parsing of words for what's likely a rare situation with minimal repercussions. I mean really, how many saves is Calgon's unit going to make? How many will actuallly fail if the unit is subject to NR!?
The 60-40 split on the subject certainly indicates that opponents should come to an agreement before a game if it is likely to come into play.

It actually has a *massive* impact as Calgar passes this ability along to his entire army (for the most part).

Having units that can stay in combat when needed without taking the massive number of wounds 'No Retreat!' can pile-on is a big, big deal. Which probably contributes to why this debate has been as popular as it has.

utan wrote:Hmm... Quite a long discussion over this. Much parsing of words for what's likely a rare situation with minimal repercussions. I mean really, how many saves is Calgon's unit going to make? How many will actuallly fail if the unit is subject to NR!?
The 60-40 split on the subject certainly indicates that opponents should come to an agreement before a game if it is likely to come into play.

It gives pappa and his smurfs the most effective (if not the only effective) tarpitting unit(s) in the 5th edition setting. That is one hell of a buff over thier opponents.

Trasvi wrote:Page 43.
"Morale Checks (also called morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the units Leadership value."

Were you required to take a morale check?
Did you take a morale check?
- By page 43, If you did not roll dice, you did not take a morale check.
Did you stay in combat or fall back?

Then logically, if you did not fall back, you must have passed morale. If you did not roll dice, you did not take a morale check.
The only link then is that if you passed morale without taking the test, you automatically passed.

Trasvi, your quote is spot-on, thank you.

As I said before, does the God of War take a morale check? Morale check is a defined term, see page 43, as quoted. The answer is no, he does not roll 2d6 and compare it to his leadership value. Therefore, as he does not take that check, he is subject to "no retreat" by the explicit terms of the no retreat rule. Specifically, he chooses to pass or fail it, but he does not take the test. Yakface's analogy of the teacher and the test is a good one. If you get a pass on the test, you pass it but did not take it. Same here - you did not roll the 2d6 which is the part of the explicit, and stated, definition of "morale test" - there is no randomness at all to the result, and the result is automatic, based on the choice made by the god of war.

gaylord500 wrote:

Antonin wrote:Let me ask: is it your contention that a God of War model takes a morale check? If so, please define what you consider to be a morale check.

Well, I think that God of War models take morale checks. What that is is choose whether you pass or fail.

Gaylord is the only person to respond to my question about whether god of war takes a morale test (thank you for your response, GL).

In response, please see Trasvi's citation of the definition of "morale check" (which is the same as morale test, by the rule, by the way) - that definition does not include special rules which allow a choice one way or the other, it defines morale test as including a roll of 2d6 and the consequent randomness that results. So in response to GL, I would say the rules deny your point.

This is important, because the no retreat rule applies when units do not take the moral check. God of war units do not take morale checks, so are subject to no retreat.

ill say it simple he gets to either fall back or stand ground its the choice of the space marine player who uses Calgar

What I hear the camp 'for NR' saying, is that once a player chooses they either pass or fail their Morale check using GoW the decision becomes automatic and NR is triggered. This would be absolutely ludicrous because given that defunct logic you could apply the same consequence to normal moral checks and make any unit that passes, by rolling dice, to be subject to NR as well. Becaues once the dice have rolled that you passed, the decision is automatic.

Ok, so Marneus Calgar's GoW falls on a players whole army. He is a special character after all. BTW, how many points is he in the new Codex, still 185? What use would GoW be if it didn't nullify NR? If GoW is subject to NR, then GoW is nothing better than ATSKNF and a useless rule. Oh, it allows them to choose to fall back? And risk getting wiped out? Who would choose that?

I'm traditionally a DE player and I don't like the idea of fighting an army that isn't subject to NR just because the player takes Marneus Calgar but I'll deal with it none the less. So unless an official FAQ from GW says different, I'm saying GoW is not affected by NR.

The argument here is that if no dice are rolled, no test is made and that simply isn't true.

The general rule for making a morale test is to roll dice, with Calgar we have a specific rule that states a different method of making a morale test.

It does not say 'instead of taking a morale test' - it says he chooses whether he passes or not (a different method for morale tests)

It does not say 'automatic' and so, based on precidence we can only assume it isn't automatic, which apparently is the trigger for No Retreat! using the 'other methods'.

Antonin wrote:In response, please see Trasvi's citation of the definition of "morale check" (which is the same as morale test, by the rule, by the way) - that definition does not include special rules which allow a choice one way or the other, it defines morale test as including a roll of 2d6 and the consequent randomness that results.

The problem with this is that the Morale check/test rules in the BRB say that the Codex can have Morale check/test rules that override the 2d6 roll. It's in the second paragraph. So the jump I'm making, if it is much of one, is that God of War presents one of those rules which overrides the standard one. The Morale check/test becomes "choose to pass or fail," with the rest flowing logically from that. Fearless units also take Morale check/tests. Their replacement for the 2d6 roll is "automatically pass".

The only thing I can recall offhand that's immune are walkers. But they're not subject to No Retreat! because it specifically says no No Retreat! Otherwise, it would be under the "immune to Morale checks" side of the No Retreat! rule.

Harkainos wrote:The argument here is that if no dice are rolled, no test is made and that simply isn't true.

The general rule for making a morale test is to roll dice, with Calgar we have a specific rule that states a different method of making a morale test.

This is correct. Codex trumps rulebook for determining how Calgar takes a morale test. The morale test is taken, just not in the manner described in the book (i.e. dice). You get it.

@Yakface:

If the rule was written that Calgar can CHOOSE to 'automatically-pass' (all one word, triggering NR), then that says something completely different from Calgar can CHOOSE to 'pass' (in the same way that dice let you pass, except no rolling is needed, because Calgar says so).

That's the difference. I'll keep saying it until the rules prove me wrong. Automatically passing and passing are two different terms. If they weren't, we'd take NR wounds when we passed using dice because rolling below our leadership lets us pass morale tests automatically... which makes no sense.

I vote definitely yes, he's subject to it. He chose to pass, thus he passed automatically.

We're not going into the hypothetical of "what if he chose to fail", the fact is he didn't, thus his passing was AUTOMATIC once he made the choice. Whether that ONE MAGICAL WORD was present or not is irrelevent to the fact that it actually IS automatic. Is there even a chance you could have failed if you didn't want to? No. None at all.

Inquisitor lords function the same way, actually, with a very similar rule [the only difference being that they can choose to pass even if failure is automatic - which if you think about it then the word "automatic" is actually worthless, because here we have a situation where it obviously wasn't so cut and dry].

sourclams wrote:In this sense, for game purposes, 'automatic' means that the unit does the same thing every time. A commissar will always execute the officer in charge, automatically, every time. A tyranid within synapse will ignore morale checks, automatically, every time. A Khorne Berzerker that watched nine buddies die will keep going, automatically, every time. There is no random element, ever. Will a Khorne Berzerker fail the test? Answer: No, to a degree of certainty that probability equals 1.

Wrong. It doesn't happen every time.

Deceiver: Make a morale check. Yes I know you usually automatically pass, make one anyway. Fearless models would take the check - and if Pariahs were nearby they'd be Ld 7, and they could very easily be chased off.

Calgar? He'd still automatically pass, just because he wants to.

Old immolators: Enemy units automatically fall back. Inquisitor Lord? Nope, choose to pass, even though falling back is automatic.

So you're in fact incorrect, the word "automatic" is not used to mean the same thing happens every single time. It means that there's no chance of failure. If you do not roll dice, there is no chance of failure. If you CHOOSE to fail, there is still no chance of failure in regards to the decision to pass. "Leave to choice" and "leave to chance" are NOT the same thing. There was no chance, you simply had a 100% odds to pass or 100% odds to fail depending on which way you CHOSE.

Spellbound wrote:Inquisitor lords function the same way, actually, with a very similar rule [the only difference being that they can choose to pass even if failure is automatic - which if you think about it then the word "automatic" is actually worthless, because here we have a situation where it obviously wasn't so cut and dry].

If you think choosing is automatic, the Inquisitor Lord rule is one so badly written, it works on itself. You choose to fail a morale test and then the last part of the same rule says, if it's an automatic failure, you can take the rule again. If the last part of the rule said "other automatic failures," it'd suggest that choosing was one.

I'd consider it a sign that choosing to fail the morale test means it's not an automatic failure, which means choosing to pass it is not an automatic pass either. According to the rules, if not necessarily how people feel about things.

The rules logic works better for choice = regular pass or fail rather than automatic pass or automatic fail. This isn't to say that automatic passes or failures don't exist in the rules. This doesn't happen to be one of them.

sourclams wrote:

Harkainos wrote:The argument here is that if no dice are rolled, no test is made and that simply isn't true.

The general rule for making a morale test is to roll dice, with Calgar we have a specific rule that states a different method of making a morale test.

This is correct. Codex trumps rulebook for determining how Calgar takes a morale test. The morale test is taken, just not in the manner described in the book (i.e. dice). You get it.

That is incorrect. The Codex does not offer a different mechanism by which the test is taken (for instance, a different mechanism would be "take the test on 3d6" or "test using the leadership of the Space Marine Captain, if there is one" for example), but instead says that he passes or fails the moral test based on his own choice. Therefore, as the codex does not offer a different rule, it does not supersede the basic rule. It simply indicates that Calgar gets a choice, and once he makes that choice, the result flows automatically from that decision.

good god, people are just making things up now.

It would work on itself? Geez. Nevermind, I'm done. This is the dumbest argument ever, made by people so convinced they're right they've blinded themselves to everything.

I'm just going to whip out my old chaos codex and play by those rules, where again by RAW I could have every character in my army 100% invincible, completely legally. I never DID that, of course, because I'm more concerned with rules as intended, and not whether "automatic" is actually present by WORD, rather than THE EXACT SAME MECHANIC.

I'd just love to have seen it - a typo.


Calgar's rule:
"May choose to pass automaticamally."

Anti-no retreat crowd:
"It doesn't say he passes automatically, it actually says he passes automaticamally, so obviously no retreat doesn't apply."


Is one single word THAT important? If adding that word doesn't WHATSOEVER change the meaning and mechanism of the rule, is it still absolutely required? You're so resolute that, given the previous hypothetical situation, it still wouldn't apply due to a misspelling, because it's THAT IMPORTANT?

And the next person that brings FLUFF into it of "Oh he's the supreme commander, he shouldn't be dragged down if he loses a combat" I will SLAP, because obviously nobody was thinking of FLUFF when they made the new chaos codex, so I don't see why it should be brought up now.

Rymafyr wrote:Ok, so Marneus Calgar's GoW falls on a players whole army. He is a special character after all. BTW, how many points is he in the new Codex, still 185? What use would GoW be if it didn't nullify NR? If GoW is subject to NR, then GoW is nothing better than ATSKNF and a useless rule. Oh, it allows them to choose to fall back? And risk getting wiped out? Who would choose that?

It isn't a replacement for ATSKNF, which sole purpose is to automatically allow marines to regroup . It is a replacement for combat tactics which allows you to automatically fail a morale test. GoW, like combat tactics, actually complements ATSKNF as you can still automatically fall back when being shot at thus not get assaulted . However, GoW is more powerful than combat tactics as you can now automatically pass your morale checks as well. Even if NR applied, this is still potent in CC. During your assault phase you can automatically pass your morale check and stay in the assault, an opponent isn't going to choose to pursue a fleeing marine squad at this point as his turn is next and he can shoot or get charge bonuses on you (if NR applied, yes you might take a few wounds, but it is still much better than getting whipped in your opponents shooting phase). Durring your opponents assault phase you can also choose to automatically fail your morale check, without fear of being run down thanks to ATSKNF. This sets you up to shoot/assualt your opponents unit during your upcoming turn if you successfully break away. GoW doesn't need immunity to NR to be powerful. Immunity to NR would make it ubber powerful.

Calgar is pricy because of all his equipment, characteristics, and special rules on top of GoW. Hell of alot better than Ragnar who doesn't have EW, a nasty gun, 2+ armour save, and only grants one unit his special ability.

wyomingfox wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:Ok, so Marneus Calgar's GoW falls on a players whole army. He is a special character after all. BTW, how many points is he in the new Codex, still 185? What use would GoW be if it didn't nullify NR? If GoW is subject to NR, then GoW is nothing better than ATSKNF and a useless rule. Oh, it allows them to choose to fall back? And risk getting wiped out? Who would choose that?

It isn't a replacement for ATSKNF, which sole purpose is to automatically allow marines to regroup . It is a replacement for combat tactics which allows you to automatically fail a morale test. GoW, like combat tactics, actually complements ATSKNF as you can still automatically fall back when being shot at thus not get assaulted . However, GoW is more powerful than combat tactics as you can now automatically pass your morale checks as well. Even if NR applied, this is still potent in CC. During your assault phase you can automatically pass your morale check and stay in the assault, an opponent isn't going to choose to pursue a fleeing marine squad at this point as his turn is next and he can shoot or get charge bonuses on you (if NR applied, yes you might take a few wounds, but it is still much better than getting whipped in your opponents shooting phase). Durring your opponents assault phase you can also choose to automatically fail your morale check, without fear of being run down thanks to ATSKNF. This sets you up to shoot/assualt your opponents unit during your upcoming turn if you successfully break away. GoW doesn't need immunity to NR to be powerful. Immunity to NR would make it ubber powerful.

Calgar is pricy because of all his equipment, characteristics, and special rules on top of GoW. Hell of alot better than Ragnar who doesn't have EW, a nasty gun, 2+ armour save, and only grants one unit his special ability.

Cool info, thx for the reply. I think alot of people thought my questions were solely rhetorical, they were not actually. As I said, I don't play SM so understanding the tactics of the two rules is nice, but doesn't really change the issue evidently. I was hoping looking at the picture in a larger sense would help clarify things..hmm, guess not.

Spellbound wrote:I vote definitely yes, he's subject to it. He chose to pass, thus he passed automatically.

We're not going into the hypothetical of "what if he chose to fail", the fact is he didn't, thus his passing was AUTOMATIC once he made the choice. Whether that ONE MAGICAL WORD was present or not is irrelevent to the fact that it actually IS automatic. Is there even a chance you could have failed if you didn't want to? No. None at all.

Inquisitor lords function the same way, actually, with a very similar rule [the only difference being that they can choose to pass even if failure is automatic - which if you think about it then the word "automatic" is actually worthless, because here we have a situation where it obviously wasn't so cut and dry].

Did you even read the previous posts.... it is apparent that the 'one magical word' is the entire crutch of this debate... and from the sound of it, the very fabric of the universe.

In all other previous texts in which GW was asked 'Hey, GW, does X unit need to roll No Retreat!?' and they said 'Yes, Jim!' the word AUTOMATIC was written in the rule. That word doesn't exist in the GoW rule, at all. You cannot say something is automatic, simply because no dice were rolled (you have nothing in ANY GW reference that states this), that is simply making stuff up.

Antonin wrote:That is incorrect. The Codex does not offer a different mechanism by which the test is taken (for instance, a different mechanism would be "take the test on 3d6" or "test using the leadership of the Space Marine Captain, if there is one" for example), but instead says that he passes or fails the moral test based on his own choice. Therefore, as the codex does not offer a different rule, it does not supersede the basic rule. It simply indicates that Calgar gets a choice, and once he makes that choice, the result flows automatically from that decision.

Yes it does, the mechanism is the player chooses. It is no different than how to remove models killed by Telion.

I play Space Marines and I agree that GoW should be subjet to No Retreat!, but the RAW doesn't support it.

Spellbound wrote:

sourclams wrote:In this sense, for game purposes, 'automatic' means that the unit does the same thing every time. A commissar will always execute the officer in charge, automatically, every time. A tyranid within synapse will ignore morale checks, automatically, every time. A Khorne Berzerker that watched nine buddies die will keep going, automatically, every time. There is no random element, ever. Will a Khorne Berzerker fail the test? Answer: No, to a degree of certainty that probability equals 1.

Wrong. It doesn't happen every time.

Deceiver: Make a morale check. Yes I know you usually automatically pass, make one anyway. Fearless models would take the check - and if Pariahs were nearby they'd be Ld 7, and they could very easily be chased off.

Calgar? He'd still automatically pass, just because he wants to.

This just supports our position.

Units that automatically pass morale checks are forced to take them, per the Deceiver's special rules. Khorne Berzerkers, a unit that is immune to morale checks (which is trumped by the Deceiver rule, codex > rulebook) would have to roll the dice and compare that number to their leadership score to determine the result.

Deceive Morale check < Fearless (general special rule) < Deceive (codex special rule) = dice = result

As you yourself have stated, Calgar is not affected in the same way. He still chooses whether to pass or fail.

Deceive Morale check < God of War: Pass/Fail (codex special rule) = result

This example spells out the key difference between Calgar and other automatic units about as well as you can ask for.

"60% of the time, it works all the time!"

Brian, I'm going to honest with you. That smells like pure gasonline!!

Ok last post and I'm out of this argument, if people can't accept reason and want to add words to rules fine, play it however you like.

Morale Checks.
Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6...
or
some units have special rules pertaining to morale checks that are detailed in their specific codex.

So you can make a morale check either by rolling 2d6 or using a special rule.

No retreat.
Its not uncommon for a unit to be IMMUNE to morale checks or AUTOMATICALLY pass them.

No where in this rule does it define what an automatic pass is, therefore we can only know that its an automatic pass if it states it in the rule.

GoW makes no reference that it is an automatic pass.

Therefore for RAW we cannot assume, add words to make it be.

If you still disagree than you won't mind me adding automatically to a couple other phrases such as:


"Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6, if the amount rolled is less than the units leadership then they AUTOMATICALLY pass their check.

I just added the word automatic, which doesn't change anything according to Yakface.

Have fun taking no retreat wounds after any pass.

sourclams wrote:Deceive Morale check < God of War: Pass/Fail (codex special rule) = result

Blue text on a grey background...Sourclams, are you trying to give me eye strain

EDIT: Thanks! Green is MUCH better

yeah,
I vote for no retreat for calgar.

He's got a choice:
choose to pass his test (automatically) and not to retreat... aka... no retreat
or
choose to fail his test (automatically) and fall back...

anything else is dumb...

PanIc...

Remember that thanks to And They Shall Know No Fear Marneus Calgar will suffer from No Retreat! if he deliberately fails his Morale Check but gets caught in the ensuing Sweeping Advance.

If the entire argument here is hinging off the word 'automatic' then the word automatic must be defined.
Automatic is not mutually exclusive with choice. You choose something to happen, and then it is automatically done.

For example, i choose to pass the morale check and BAM INSTANT PASS...

I believe the word automatic is being used as the opposite to manual.
Ie, i could manually roll the dice and check the score and pass, or i automatically pass without rolling any dice.

In the same way i could be driving an auto. If i CHOOSE to go faster, then the car automatically changes gear for me. I hope you wont argue that a car isnt automatic because i have to choose to drive it.

Also, what happens if the choice for you is so obvious that it is automatic? In a certain situation you always want to keep Calgar in combat, thus that choice is automatic.

Basically the rules for morale checks state that you must roll 2D6. The 'exceptions' are listed as units that are immune, just as the 'examples' for No Retreat are listed as units who automatically pass.
If Calgar does not manually roll the dice, he automatically passes.

Calgar doesn't automatically pass the Morale Check. The player has to choose whether he passes or whether he fails. If the player chooses that Calgar fails, Calgar does not automatically fail his Morale Check.

I have listed three ways in which a model/unit with the God of War rule does not satisfy the conditions of the No Retreat! rule.

1. The model did not automatically pass its Morale check.

The player had to choose that the model passed the Morale Check. The Morale Check wasn't avoided or automatically passed, the player had to intervene and make a decision.

2. The model is not immune to Morale checks.

Since the usual dice roll for the outcome in a Morale Check is replaced by the player's choice of outcome, a model with the God of War rule is subject to Morale Checks.

3. The model will sometimes fall back.

A model that automatically passes any Morale Check it is required to make will never Fall Back. A player can choose for Marneus Calgar to fail the Morale Check and attempt to Fall Back.

yeah,
I disagree.
The choosing of pass or fail isn't calgars actual moral check.
The model chooses to pass or fail his check.
then he
1)automaticaly passes, or
2)automatically fails.

It's not like he can choose to have a modifier that helps him pass or fail and then still has some kind of test to pass
1) decide to try and pass -3 to moral check dice
2) decide to try and fall back +3 to moral check dice

He chooses to pass or fail.

I see the Calgars choice as simple:
he's not afraid of nothing but he may decide to tactically retreat like combat tactics from his blessed guilliman codex...
So when required to take a moral check he can:
1)be Fearless, or
2)op for a Tactical Retreat.

which boils down to :
1)Automatically Pass
2)Automatically Fail



Any thing else is just , as if he's not good enough as is...
You guys are squeezing this so Hard your looking to squeeze CheeseJuiceᵀᴹ from some crusty old that's been found under the fridge...

if he's not taking moral checks to see if he's going to leave combat.. he must be fearless... simple.

...

Nurglitch I think you decided/sided too quickly on the wrong side of the arguement, before you proper made up you mind looked at all the options, and now your fighting for the sake of it! which is a shame as I normally like how you fight on the side of reason..

PAniC...

Wow, the parsing of some people to get a miniscule advantage in game play is worthy of the finest of our trial lawyers and career politicians.

Yes, I know this doesn't directly contribute to the discussion, but I hope it makes some people reflect on how a sentence can equal a word even if that word doesn't appear in that sentece.

Hang on there. As a trial lawyer, I can say that we at least have to go before the judge and argue precedent in addition to the law.

All of the precedent in this case supports No Retreat being applied when Calgar (or any units using his ability) chooses to automatically pass a morale check. The anti-No Retreat crowd has thrown precedent to the wind. Additionally, they've created arguments out of whole cloth, such as the "alternative method" for taking a morale check argument. At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

Brice

Timmah's got RAW covered. Which is the simpler argument.

I'm arguing RAI, which is the more complicated one.

Anyway, alternate methods for taking morale checks are explicitly allowed by the rules. It's the same as in the case of smoke launchers. The rules give you the most common one, but then explicitly says that Codexes can provide for their own. The jump is saying that God of War is one of these examples.

A problem the pro-NR folks have is that they make the assumption that this rule cannot possibly exist without NR. However, if it is true that this rule works without NR, those assumptions are incorrect. You assume it can't work and then say it doesn't work. That doesn't seem quite right. Looking at it more neutrally, there's basis for believing it does work - the rules allow for it to exist in this way. It's written in a particular fashion to use the outs given in the the Morale check and No Retreat! rules.

Nurglitch wrote:Calgar doesn't automatically pass the Morale Check. The player has to choose whether he passes or whether he fails. If the player chooses that Calgar fails, Calgar does not automatically fail his Morale Check.

I have listed three ways in which a model/unit with the God of War rule does not satisfy the conditions of the No Retreat! rule.

1. The model did not automatically pass its Morale check.

You can choose either side of the check.
The 2d6 roll is circumvented, not ignored. The roll is never made, a choice is made.
The check is then (automatically) resolved following the choice that was made.

shrug

Panic wrote:yeah,
I disagree.
The choosing of pass or fail isn't calgars actual moral check.
The model chooses to pass or fail his check.
then he
1)automaticaly passes, or
2)automatically fails.

Ok sure.

A unit rolls 2d6 with a leadership of 8.
1) He rolls a 6 and automatically passes
2) He rolls a 10 and automatically fails

By your logic the rolling of the dice/choosing isn't the morale check, the result is.



On another note:
Combat tactics it states a unit can "choose to automatically fail a morale check".

This is just more evidence that GW has put the word automatic everywhere that they wanted it.

BBeale wrote:Hang on there. As a trial lawyer, I can say that we at least have to go before the judge and argue precedent in addition to the law.

All of the precedent in this case supports No Retreat being applied when Calgar (or any units using his ability) chooses to automatically pass a morale check. The anti-No Retreat crowd has thrown precedent to the wind. Additionally, they've created arguments out of whole cloth, such as the "alternative method" for taking a morale check argument.

Hang on here, as a supreme court justice...(psst, GW rules are different/function differently,resolved differently than real life law)

Ok first of all we have not. The anti-no Retreat crowd has shown that GW used the word automatic in every other case of automatic passing there is, this doesn't have one.
Second there is not really any precedence for this case as there has never been anything exactly like this before.
And thirdly arguing precedence is using RAI to figure this out. (I/no one else, needs precedence to read the entry and figure out what is written.)

BBeale wrote:At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

I love this quote as it sums up the viewpoint of everyone arguing for No-Retreat.
A. It's not FAQed
B. Unless your a GW employee who makes/decides how stuff is FAQed this is a complete LIE. (as a trial lawyer you should know that you can't claim to read peoples minds/predict the future and use it in a case)


If you want to argue RAW you need to prove, IN WRITING, one of the following:

1) Any morale check pass/failed without dice is automatic.
2) The GoW entry has the word automatic in it.

1) There is nothing in the rulebook that specifically states that making a morale check without dice makes the result automatic.
It states making a morale check involves rolling 2d6. However in the next paragraph it said some morale checks are made with special rules. You will notice the omission of anything along the lines of "The special rules make the result automatic"

2) This should be an easy one. Read the GoW entry, there is nothing stating that it is a automatic pass/fail, just that it is a pass/fail.


And there you have it again, in another simplified explanation.

BBeale wrote:Hang on there. As a trial lawyer, I can say that we at least have to go before the judge and argue precedent in addition to the law.

All of the precedent in this case supports No Retreat being applied when Calgar (or any units using his ability) chooses to automatically pass a morale check. The anti-No Retreat crowd has thrown precedent to the wind. Additionally, they've created arguments out of whole cloth, such as the "alternative method" for taking a morale check argument. At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

Brice

The Anti-No-Retreat crowd has shown that:

the terms 'pass' and 'automatically pass' are different within game mechanics

precedence shows that GW has included 'automatic' in all previous instances of similar mechanical functions, even within the 5e Marine Codex, setting God of War apart as being clearly different

the wordings of 'automatically pass' and 'pass' have significantly different effect in certain situations, for example in the case of the Deceiver's Deceive ability

reading the Rules As Written, without adding words or meaning, without trying to read the mind of GW and assume we know what they intended, without supposition based off of previous editions and codexes, God of War has a clearly different game mechanic based off of player choice than units that are bound into one option 'automatically' by their special rules

The 'Yes No Retreat!' crowd has shown:

an impossible understanding of GW's intent, especially since there is an assumed inconsistency within the 5th edition marine codex itself on the use of the term automatic between ATSKNF and GoW

an argument based on simplicity of rules similarity, declaring precedence from as many as 2 editions ago that falsely correlate to 5th ed Marine special rules

a fallacious assumption that the term 'automatic' is both interchangeable and redundant, even though inclusion of this word has can completely skew game mechanics

The only reason this is even an argument is because it's easy to lump everything onto the No Retreat! bandwagon. Which hoses a player choosing a 250 point model in the same way that saying Necrons do not get a second WBB roll with monolith teleporting or Lash of Submission cannot change a unit's formation would players using those special rules.

It's simplistic, it's stupid, it's narrow-minded, but it's also easy, so let's just go with that.

Regardless of how he chose, he chose. That, by the dictionary definition, is not automatic.

It isn't automatic simply because you say it is.

As an aside, I love it when non-lawyers presume to tell lawyers how the system "works." Oh, and I really appreciate that I'm being told that I'm a liar because I stated a well-founded opinion as to what GW will do with this issue if it ever gets a FAQ.

As far as this issue goes, no one on the Anti-No Retreat side of this argument has been able to sucessfully answer Yak's question, "If you insert the word 'automatically' into Calgar's rule why would that change how GOW is interpreted?" The word "automatic" is wholly irrelevant and unecessary in a context where you choose the outcome since it is implicit in that choice that the outcome happens automatically. By framing this argument where the focus is on the choice and not the result itself, the Anti-No Retreat crowd has hinged their interpretation on a non-issue. The wording of No Retreat is not concerned with the choice, but the result-passing a morale check without actually taking one.

Additionally, I take issue with the fact that it is being argued that "automatic" is a defined term as far as game mechanics are concerned. I'd love to see a citation for that.

Brice

I have to throw my 2 cents in on this one.

1. I for one is/maybe was in the No retreat crowd. Mainly because this is how it was always done for all the years I have been playing.

2. Now after doing research and reading these arguments I am now leaning to the Calgar special rule *may* actually not trigger 'No retreat'. I say this not due to the rule books line "...for units to be immune to Morale checks...or to automatically pass them for some reason..." But due to the second paragraph that explains it a little more.

This is where I need you guys to follow me on this one. The second paragraph does state "These units do not take morale checks and will NEVER fall back. (emphasis is mine of course).

As you can see, Calgar's rule actually allows the unit an option to fall back and hence breaking the caveat of Never falling back as in never, no chance, no choice, ain't gonna happen no matter what kinda thing.

So in summary, I may need to think on this one some more, but because of this new enlightenment, it actually may be the break that the proponents are looking for.

padixon wrote:I2. Now after doing research and reading these arguments I am now leaning to the Calgar special rule *may* actually not trigger 'No retreat'. I say this not due to the rule books line "...for units to be immune to Morale checks...or to automatically pass them for some reason..." But due to the second paragraph that explains it a little more.

This is where I need you guys to follow me on this one. The second paragraph does state "These units do not take morale checks and will NEVER fall back. (emphasis is mine of course).

Except that there are too many examples of units that can and do fall back that can and do also suffer No Retreat. Tyranids in Synapse suffer no retreat, Tyranids outside synapse can fall back. Eldar near Avatar suffer No Retreat, Eldar without Avatar run away. IG Commissar actually has to FAIL a Morale test to trigger No Retreat, as do Space Marines without the Combat Tactics/God of War rule. I'm sure there are others. Basically, they screwed up on that "never fall back" bit cause everyone (even Fearless) can fall back under the right circumstances (Necron C'tan ability), so are we going to say that since everyone can fall back under certain circumstances, then no one is subject to No Retreat? That's what you're saying.

BBeale wrote:As far as this issue goes, no one on the Anti-No Retreat side of this argument has been able to sucessfully answer Yak's question, "If you insert the word 'automatically' into Calgar's rule why would that change how GOW is interpreted?"

So a rule that's not automatic is made automatic by adding the word in there.

Surprise. It's automatic now. How did that make it automatic before? Looks like you needed to put the word there to do it.

don_mondo wrote:Except that there are too many examples of units that can and do fall back that can and do also suffer No Retreat. Tyranids in Synapse suffer no retreat, Tyranids outside synapse can fall back. Eldar near Avatar suffer No Retreat, Eldar without Avatar run away. IG Commissar actually has to FAIL a Morale test to trigger No Retreat, as do Space Marines without the Combat Tactics/God of War rule.

RAW still holds together pretty well if you look carefully at how those things are worded.

However, this is why I like my RAI opinion better. If the morale test only has one result, it's automatic. If it doesn't, it's not. It lets me agree, for example, that Zagstruck's ability should probably be considered automatic even if the word 'automatic' isn't there. If the particular Morale test is automatically passed by my definition of it (which I consider the intended meaning of how these rules interact), it suffers No Retreat!

God of War and Iron Will are not intended to suffer No Retreat! Not having the world automatic is one sign. But having two options in its morale test is the really clincher.

In evaluating which side makes a stronger case, I think it might be helpful to be open to all these possibilities.

BBeale wrote:As an aside, I love it when non-lawyers presume to tell lawyers how the system "works." Oh, and I really appreciate that I'm being told that I'm a liar because I stated a well-founded opinion as to what GW will do with this issue if it ever gets a FAQ.

No one has done this, as far as I can tell.

"If you insert the word 'automatically' into Calgar's rule why would that change how GOW is interpreted?" The word "automatic" is wholly irrelevant and unecessary in a context where you choose the outcome since it is implicit in that choice that the outcome happens automatically.

I personally have answered this one a couple times now in two threads. You can't just throw 'automatic' in wherever you want because it does, indeed, change the meaning of rules. For example, if under Morale Test the description said 'you roll 2d6 and compare this number to the unit's leadership value; if it is equal to or below that value the test is passed automatically' then everything that ever took a leadership test would take No Retreat! wounds. Which makes no sense.

Additionally, I take issue with the fact that it is being argued that "automatic" is a defined term as far as game mechanics are concerned. I'd love to see a citation for that.

If you don't see the difference between automatically passing and simply passing, as with a Fearless unit versus a God of War unit taking a morale test to react to the Deceiver's Deceive ability, then there's nothing else I can do for you. You simply do not understand the significance of such a difference.

When rules that react differently in the same situation based on the presence or absence of one word, then that one word clearly has a mechanical impact on the game.

Yes...but Tyranids in Synapse range are fearless (well assume to ALWAYS pass all morale checks), Eldar in range or the Avatar are fearless, IG Commissar executes (in which he most ALWAYS do) produces the never fall back state. In all these circumstances, a condition *changes* the units ability to choose to fall back and hence will trigger no retreat, because while in range or in the same unit of said unit, they will NEVER retreat.

But, Calgar never does this, there is ALWAYS a choice to fall back, there is never always a choice with ANY of the examples you mentioned (notice I used the word always that means in synapse range, next to the avatar, a screw ball commisar hangging out with ya...I am sure you get the picture here). Its like the SoB faith ability to make the fearless, it is an ability with defined parameters that make them fearless just like all the other things you mentioned. Sooo unlike Calgars God of War rule.

If you want an example (and this is the reason I am not completely sold on it too btw) is the Inquisitor Lords, because they basically have the same rule.

So how exactly did I screw this one up?

Every instance of automatic that is agreed to by both sides has one possible end result, making that result automatic. A guard unit led by a Sgt, with an attached commisar will see their sgt shot, the commisar take command and automatically pass their test. A combat tactic'ing marine will automatically faill. (and both cases say automatic). Iron Will and GoW are neither FAQ'ed nor do either have one and only one possible result, nor do either contain the word automatic.

And FYI, the rulebook itself apparently points out that a dice roll is not required to take the check, and says that codexes may replace the dice roll with a different mechanic.

Edit: My bad, I forgot that Iron Will can override an automatic failure that doesn't really apply yet, but may at some future date, theoretically via Chaos or Necron redos. I can see an automatical failure coming from gifts of the dark gods, or necron rules being strenghtened from a LD modifier to automatic results.

Who cares about the word 'automatic', its the phrase "...units that will NEVER fall back" thats got me thinking. (found in the second paragraph. Calgars rule and the Inquisitor one (Iron will?). Do not trigger this second caveat of the no retreat rule.

I'm rooting for the Calgar no "no retreat!" crowd even though GW will over-rule them with an FAQ soon--by 2011 I'd say. If people want to play that Calgar is unaffected by "no retreat!" then I am going to play that Boss Zagstruck is similarly unaffected: Deepstriking, assaulting on the same turn, and not subject to "no retreat!"

BBeale wrote:As an aside, I love it when non-lawyers presume to tell lawyers how the system "works." Oh, and I really appreciate that I'm being told that I'm a liar because I stated a well-founded opinion as to what GW will do with this issue if it ever gets a FAQ.

Brice

No, you stated that you knew what GW would do, which you can't possibly.

If you had said, I believe if GW will FAQ it, it will be subject to no retreat, then it would have been an opinion.

But you said

BBeale wrote:At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

You claimed you knew what GW meant. Which there is no possible way you can. (unless you are Matthew Ward) If that isn't a lie, I don't know what is...

sourclams wrote:

BBeale wrote:As an aside, I love it when non-lawyers presume to tell lawyers how the system "works." Oh, and I really appreciate that I'm being told that I'm a liar because I stated a well-founded opinion as to what GW will do with this issue if it ever gets a FAQ.

No one has done this, as far as I can tell.

olympia wrote:I'm rooting for the Calgar no "no retreat!" crowd even though GW will over-rule them with an FAQ soon--by 2011 I'd say.

I don't personally care either way about God of War. I'm coming in through Iron Will.

It's only been 4 days since the new SM codex officially came out. As such, I think they'll probably release some sort of errata or FAQ for it sooner rather than later. And, if it says we forgot to put the word "automatically" in front of "pass or fail" in Caligar, it'd apparently make the majority of folks happy.

I haven't played so many games. For a 250 point unit though, it seems strong but not outrageous or game breaking. An army needs to be built around this, and the rule goes away with the model. CSM got improved, so naturally the SM got improved. The two most popular army lists in the game.

Timmah,

Someday you might appreciate that experience and perspective count for something. When I say that an outcome is a "guarantee" it's based on those things. It doesn't make me a liar. That said, if this thread is any indication, you're going to respond and tell me how it does, ad nauseum, with little support for your position aside from a strained interpretation of what I said that hinges on my use of some undefined word that you'll frame a restrictive, self-serving definition for.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Timmah,

Someday you might appreciate that experience and perspective count for something. When I say that an outcome is a "guarantee" it's based on those things. It doesn't make me a liar. That said, if this thread is any indication, you're going to respond and tell me how it does, ad nauseum, with little support for your position aside from a strained interpretation of what I said that hinges on my use of some undefined word that you'll frame a restrictive, self-serving definition for.

Brice

Do you have experience with the mind of the writer of the Codex? Do you have the exact perspective of the writer of the Codex?

If you answer no to either question, or both, then you do not have the grounds to say it is a "guarantee" as to how a FAQ will handle the said issue.

Fabius,

Thanks for the "gotcha". "Guarantee" is a figure of speech, and I've used far less hyperbole than many of the posters in this thread, but I'm comfortable enough with my opinion, and the basis for it, to state it as a relative certainty. Perspective and experience doesn't have to be as restrictive as you've deemed to make it for it to be valuable. I've been involved in this hobby for over 20 years. I've seen a lot of rules FAQed. Arguing that No Retreat will not apply to GOW is wishful thinking at its best and total fabrication at its worst.

Brice

At this point, no one is going to suddenly say, "Hey, you're right!" and switch sides. Everything has been said ad nauseam. The discussion of the issue is going in circles with some slightly unpleasant divergence.

Right now, it has come to the point where prior to a game, players must agree to either:
1) Choose an interpretation they can both live with
2) Abide by the result of a roll-off
3) Find someone else to play against
4) Waste lots of time arguing

Tourneys should have judges to resolve these types of questions expeditiously.

Here is my experience in the hobby, GW makes some amazing decisions as how to handle a rules question. For all we know GW will just say that GoW gives all Units with Combat Tactics the ability to order Pizza once per game.

Yes, sarcasm. I honestly don't care either way, he is a huge point sink that could potentially kill your army for you.

BBeale wrote:Someday you might appreciate that experience and perspective count for something. When I say that an outcome is a "guarantee" it's based on those things. It doesn't make me a liar.

I appreciate what you're saying. I honestly do. But this isn't the 'How I feel rules work' forum. When you say that you have specialized knowledge based on being a trial defence lawyer that's played the game for 20 years, unless you're also a trial defence lawyer with 20 years game experience who writes Marine Codexes for GW, you've really got squat. In addition, you come across as a beligerent and condescending ass. I don't care, because rules as written you're still wrong, but it won't win you much support on these forums unless you can also be a belligerent ass that can argue the rules. Not a beligerent ass that goes 'Because my Mom said so'.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Here is my experience in the hobby, GW makes some amazing decisions as how to handle a rules question. For all we know GW will just say that GoW gives all Units with Combat Tactics the ability to order Pizza once per game...

yeah,
and the anti-No-retreat crew will twist the wording of the FAQ so that they get four cheeses topping on those pizzas... cos they love their cheese.

PaniC...

padixon wrote:Yes...but Tyranids in Synapse range are fearless (well assume to ALWAYS pass all morale checks), Eldar in range or the Avatar are fearless, IG Commissar executes (in which he most ALWAYS do) produces the never fall back state. In all these circumstances, a condition *changes* the units ability to choose to fall back and hence will trigger no retreat, because while in range or in the same unit of said unit, they will NEVER retreat.

But, Calgar never does this, there is ALWAYS a choice to fall back, there is never always a choice with ANY of the examples you mentioned (notice I used the word always that means in synapse range, next to the avatar, a screw ball commisar hangging out with ya...I am sure you get the picture here). Its like the SoB faith ability to make the fearless, it is an ability with defined parameters that make them fearless just like all the other things you mentioned. Sooo unlike Calgars God of War rule.

If you want an example (and this is the reason I am not completely sold on it too btw) is the Inquisitor Lords, because they basically have the same rule.

So how exactly did I screw this one up?

Didn't say you "screwed it up", just pointing out a problem in the logic that No Retreat cannot apply to Calgar just because he can choose to fall back. Point is, all of those are conditional, they are not "never fall back", just as Calgar's is conditional (ie you get to choose). If we are to say that only units which "never fall back" regardless of any circumstance (which is what it says since it lists no exceptions to never fall back) are subject to no retreat (and it doesn't say units that never fall back when this or that applies, it just says never fall back), then we have to say that no one is subject to No Retreat.

padixon wrote: the Inquisitor Lords, because they basically have the same rule.

And they are also subject to No Retreat if they use Iron Will to choose not to run.............

Basically it boils down to this, whether or not you (this is a group you, not you personally) think that getting to choose makes the choice to run or fall back "automatic". IMO, if there is no dice roll, it's an automatic pass or fail.

Sourclams,

Previously in this thread, as well as the other one on this issue, I have argued the basis for the No Retreat position and given reasons that do not involve some variation of "because my mom said so." I wasn't the first person to assert that if this issue is ever FAQed, GW will side with the No Retreat people. For whatever reason though, Timmah decided to call me to the mat for my opinion and call me a liar instead of addressing the issue. Now you want to get in on it too. Whatever.

The bottom line is this, this isn't a RAW argument. If it were, the Anti-No Retreat crowd would be able to point at GOW and say, "it says in the rule that No Retreat does not apply when you choose to pass your morale check." This is clearly not the case. So, we are stuck trying to interpret GOW and reconcile that interpretation with the No Retreat rule and guidance we have gotten from GW in the form of FAQs interpreting No Retreat in other instances. Make no mistake, everyone is arguing RAI here, but if it makes you feel better to call me a condescending ass and claim that RAW supports your position, fine. I think we all know who the condescending ass is though.

Brice

@ BBeale - you are assuming it is automatic because dice are not rolled. That is a false assumption

In fact, it is only automatic when the rule says it is automatic - that is RAW.

If GW comes out with a definition for the word automatic (that is somehow different than EVERY dictionary out there) then maybe the word automatic would be implied. (An example: GW says every morale check that is made w/out rolling dice is automatic)

Now, lets point out why that is apparently so important. Since somehow you believe that Yak's argument wasn't rebuttled.

Yes, if the word automatic is placed in the sentance it changes the sentances meaning, drastically. Because we can't assume it is automatic.

No one is debating RAI - but simply RAW

don_mondo wrote:And [Inquisitor Lords] are also subject to No Retreat if they use Iron Will to choose not to run.............

Yet Inquisitor Lords are allowed to use Iron Will whenever they automatically fail any morale test. Do you try to reconcile that inconsistency with the rules or do you choose to ignore that inconsistency in that rule?

To me, that's a sign that these choose to pass or fail morale tests do not give automatic results.

This is the crux of the issue though. It is only RAW if you assume that No Retreat is talking about anything other than the result of passing a morale check without having to roll any dice. The interpretation of the Anti-No Retreat crowd means that any mechanism for determining that a morale check is passed without the need for rolling dice (other than fearless, but including previously FAQed examples which have been ruled to trigger No Retreat) would not trigger No Retreat. We already know this is not the case. The most glaring example is Iron Will (in which the "magic" word "automatic" is not even used in the same context). Both sides are making assumptions to support their claim. It just happens that all available precendent supports No Retreat being applied.

Brice

The relevant material appears to be:

God of War, Codex: Space Marines, p.84. wrote:Marneus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. Whilst Calgar is on the table, all units with the Combat Tactics special rue can also choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check they are called upon to take.

So apparently Marneus Calgar can be called upon to take Morale checks, as that is a condition for being able to choose to either pass or fail said Morale check.

No Retreat!, Rulebook, p.44. wrote:It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule). When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on.

These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).

Units that must take wounds from No Retreat do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. They automatically pass any Morale check they are required to take.

Marneus Calgar does take Morale checks, and may fall back. He can choose to pass or fail any Morale check he (and accompanying units with Combat Tactics) are required to take.

Therefore God of War disagrees with No Retreat! in these three ways:

1. Having two options, pass or fail, is not the same as having no option, automatically passing.

2. Never falling back is not the same as sometimes passing and sometimes falling back.

3. Taking a Morale Check and either passing or failing is not the same as not taking a Morale Check.

There is only one time when Marneus Calgar will suffer from No Retreat!, and that is when, as he chooses to fail a Morale check, he is caught in the ensuing Sweeping Advance.

BBeale wrote:The interpretation of the Anti-No Retreat crowd means that any mechanism for determining that a morale check is passed without the need for rolling dice (other than fearless, but including previously FAQed examples which have been ruled to trigger No Retreat) would not trigger No Retreat.

I think that mischaracterizes the argument. I thought it'd be clearer after so many posts saying the following. If it's not, here it is again.

The Fearless mechanism for the morale check doesn't use the dice and does get affected by No Retreat! No one is arguing any differently on that. The morale check only gives you one result in that situation. So, it's automatic. Iron Will and God of War give you two possible results for the morale check. Because of that, it should be treated just like getting a pass or fail from rolling dice; it is not automatic and does not trigger No Retreat!.

Or if you go by the RAW folks, Fearless says automatic. So, it is. God of War and Iron Will don't, so they're not. Both RAW or RAI folks (which.. mm would be me, I think. ) are not saying automatic passes don't exist in the rules. They're saying these rules are not examples of them.

Nurglitch wrote:He can choose to pass or fail any Morale check he (and his entire army) are required to take.

Just thought I'ld correct your little mistyping...

Twin-linked flamers and meltas are a powerful SM special character ability, too. All of them are actually pretty powerful, if you get right down to it; costs as much as a Land Raider for one infantry model.

Saying that the term "automatic" has to be included by RAW is without basis in the rules - so far, I have seen no reference in the rules that state that the rule has to use specific "magic language" before it applies. The question is whether the effect is automatic, not whether the word automatic appears somewhere in the rule.

There's a lot of stuff that's not included in the rules. If you're a believer in using rules as written, you can't write something into the rules. That's using rules as you think they ought to be.

If you want RAI, I have my opinion on what the RAI should be. I'd rather not explain it again since it's all in this and the other thread. I'm pretty satisfied with it, though. None of my RAI arguments conflict with any of the rules as written, as I see them.

Anyway, Iron Will has been around a lot longer than God of War - WH and DH are 3rd edition codexes. I think most Inquisition players would play it as no No Retreat!, but that's just a feeling not a fact.

So saying the term flamer has to be included by RAW is without basis in the rules, and Vulkan now twin links Flame Cannons?

Antonin:

That's not 'mis-typing'. If Marneus Calgar is part of an army where units have exchanged their Combat Tactics for a Chapter Tactic, then his entire army will not benefit from God of War; only Calgar will.

Nurglith - I said that jokingly, and not picking on you; the bottom line is who will give up combat tactics when it gives god of war?

Antonin wrote:Saying that the term "automatic" has to be included by RAW is without basis in the rules - so far, I have seen no reference in the rules that state that the rule has to use specific "magic language" before it applies. The question is whether the effect is automatic, not whether the word automatic appears somewhere in the rule.

Wait isn't this exactly what RAW is. A word has to be in the description for it to be that.

You don't see people making bolters rending because they feel they should be and just because the "magic word" rending isn't in the description doesn't mean they aren't.

That's a question for the Tactics Forum to discuss. In this thread we're discussing whether a model with the God of War rule is subject to No Retreat! when the player chooses to pass the Morale check instead of failing it.

Okay I've been thinking about this one (and refraining from commenting) for like three days and here's what I think is happening.

"Automatic" has two meanings in the dictionary.

In one, "automatically" means "without choice." If a person defaults on a loan, the co-signer automatically becomes responsible for it, has no choice.

In the other, "automatically" means "independent of action." An automatic pilot flies the plane "automatically" without any action from the human pilot.

So your answer to this question depends on which definition of "automatically" you are using.

If you read it as meaning "without choice," then a GoW character choosing to pass is not passing automatically because he chose.

If you read it as meaning "without action," then a GoW character choosing to pass is passing automatically--he's choosing to pass automatically.

So it's ambiguous. I don't think the RAW question can be answered with the materials at hand.

-deleted-

The precedence that you have to AUTOMATICALLY pass morale in order to be subject to No Retreat! is in plain text in the rulebook.

So what we're saying here is that the only units in the game that suffer No Retreat are Marine units that are caught on a Sweeping Advance?

This is due to the "never fall back" clause. Notice that this clause is not conditional or dependent upon a die roll or anything, just says they never fall back. Every unit in the game (including Fearless) can fall back, ergo, every unit in the game fails to meet this one necessary qualification to suffer No Retreat. Space Marines, however, have a clause in their codex (which of course will take precedence over the rulebook) that they suffer No Retreat if caught by a Sweeping Advance.

Pretty silly, ain't it? And yet, by pure RAW, that's the rule. Also silly (IMO, not trying to cast any personal aspersions at anyone) is thinking that being able to pass a test that normally requires a die roll without rolling dice isn't an automatic pass of that test. Besides, the fact he can choose to fail has no bearing or meaning on taht portion of the equation. The rule doesn't ask if you can automatically fail a test, just if you can automatically pass a test. And yes, he can say "I pass" and it is so. No element of chance or it not occuring. Pull out your dictionaries all you want, that is the definition of automatic.

But we're all going to disagree until GW FAQs it, which they probably won't because it's clear to them...............

It's not ambiguous though.

The No Retreat! rule goes to some lengths to define automatically passing the Morale check as being:

1. Immune to Morale checks
2. Automatically pass Morale checks

If to be immune to Morale checks is to be equivalent to automatically passing Morale checks, then "automatically" must be read in the first sense as meaning with choice, since passing a Morale check is an action whether you choose to pass it or you pass it by rolling the dice.

Saying that a model with the God of War special rule is choosing to pass the Morale check automatically is the same as saying that a unit rolling 7 on a Morale check of 8 is passing automatically - true, but not the conditions upon which No Retreat! is applied.

Moreover there are the other two exceptions to the No Retreat rule, such as the fact that No Retreat! only applies to units that will never fall back, and that do not take Morale checks.

No Retreat! applies to units that will never fall back. A model with God of War can, and occasionally will, fall back. No Retreat! does not apply to such a model.

No Retreat! applies to units that do not take Morale checks. A model with God of War does take Morale checks, and only in taking them can decide to pass or fail. No Retreat! does not apply to such a model.

Harky,

Come on man, of course I've been reading the posts. Just because I choose not to argue this issue on the grounds defined by the Anti-No Retreat crowd doesn't mean I'm incapable of coming to a genuine conclusion.

As pointed out by Yak, the inclusion of "automatic" language in GOW is redundant. Flavius just did a great job of explaining why the ambiguity exists here-without "action" versus without "choice".

Additionally, the Anti-No Retreat crowd is not using the previous ruling on similar rules as precedent. If they were, then the conclusion would be that No Retreat applies. What the Anti-No Retreat crowd is doing is attempting to distinguish GOW from the precedent, which is why we're having all of this discussion about the inclusion of "automatic" language.

Brice

don_mondo wrote:This is due to the "never fall back" clause. Notice that this clause is not conditional or dependent upon a die roll or anything, just says they never fall back.

Never fall back when taking a morale check. While it does say never in the second paragraph, you're seeing if they automatically pass their morale checks by the first paragraph part of No Retreat!. So taking both together, you're seeing if they never fall back on their morale checks, not if they never fall back for all time (although I think there might be some units that do that. That's just an aside - they're covered as a subset of these already).

So I believe that's how this applies to Commisars, Tyranids in particular situations, etc. In the times when they can fall back when taking a morale check, the No Retreat! rule does not apply to them either. When they can't, it does. Since God of War'ed units can sometimes fall back, I would say that they do not automatically pass. So this part of the no-NR for God of War/Iron Will view is consistent with the rules and play for the other units you have mentioned.

----

If you want to link to Flavius's argument again BBeale, I'd be happy to try and respond to it. I don't remember what he said specifically, or if it was much different than what the rest of the pro-NR folks have been saying.

BBeale wrote:Harky,

Come on man, of course I've been reading the posts. Just because I choose not to argue this issue on the grounds defined by the Anti-No Retreat crowd doesn't mean I'm incapable of coming to a genuine conclusion.

As pointed out by Yak, the inclusion of "automatic" language in GOW is redundant. Flavius just did a great job of explaining why the ambiguity exists here-without "action" versus without "choice".

again adding the term automatic to stuff is not redundant as seen in my example below.

Timmah wrote:
"Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6, if the amount rolled is less than the units leadership then they AUTOMATICALLY pass their check.

I just added the word automatic, which doesn't change anything according to Yakface.

Have fun taking no retreat wounds after any pass.

BBeale wrote:
Additionally, the Anti-No Retreat crowd is not using the previous ruling on similar rules as precedent. If they were, then the conclusion would be that No Retreat applies. What the Anti-No Retreat crowd is doing is attempting to distinguish GOW from the precedent, which is why we're having all of this discussion about the inclusion of "automatic" language.

Brice

Please show me a previous ruling for this.
There has been nothing like this ruled on before. In every other case the "pass" is stated as automatic in its rules.

Until GoW states in its rules IN WRITING that it is automatic there is no way you can argue RAW here.

Because as I stated before you can not claim to know that GW meant for it to be considered an automatic pass.

Once again for GoW to be subject to no retreat you must prove (FIND IN WRITING IN A RULEBOOK) one of the following:

1) GoW states in its entry that it is an automatic pass
2) All morale checks that are passed without dice are considered automatic

Neither of which you can do, as I have stated previously.

Timmah wrote:Ok last post and I'm out of this argument, if people can't accept reason and want to add words to rules fine, play it however you like.

Timmah,

What happened? I thought you were done, instead you keep letting yourself get drawn right back in

I know, I know. /cry

You can do it Timmah, I believe in you! (It is addictive though)

@Bbeale - it only applies because you say it applies.

You are adding the word automatic to fit your own logic.

Adding some words to sentences does change their meaning, just like the lack of some words in sentences change their meaning.

You have to automatically pass a morale test for No Retreat! to apply.

You are under the assumption that if a player chooses the units fate, or didn't roll dice, that the fate is automatic, that isn't true (by definition).

Timmah,

Re-read Flavius' post above. He does a very good job of explaining why automatic is so contentious in this context. How automatic is applied and whether it is even relevant are very much the issue. It is not the magic bullet that you insist it is. As I've said before, neither side can argue RAW here-this is totally RAI. In some ways, the precedent argument is one of form versus substance.

Your side insists that "automatic" has to be included, my side says look to the result. Regardless, your side is only arguing "automatic" in an attempt to distinguish GOW from the precedent--you're saying previous rulings on similar rules do not apply because they all include the term "automatic" in the definition of the rule. It has been pointed out that this notion is undercut by rulings on Iron Will because it includes "automatic" in a context that doesn't apply to this debate. Furthermore, if "automatic" were inserted into GOW, it would be entirely redundant and would not effect the how the rule works-you would still pass or fail the test per yer choice-but you side insists that the failure to include "automatic" means No Retreat does not apply despite this fact.

Instead of me searching for your shopping list of written rules we both know don't exist, why don't you show us all where the text of GOW states that No Retreat does not apply.

Brice

BBeale:

Nurglitch wrote:So the question is whether a model with the God of War rule is subject to the No Retreat! general rule when the player chooses for that model to pass its Morale Check.

The relevant material appears to be:

God of War, Codex: Space Marines, p.84. wrote:
Marneus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. Whilst Calgar is on the table, all units with the Combat Tactics special rue can also choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check they are called upon to take.

No Retreat!, Rulebook, p.44. wrote:
It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule). When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on.

These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds equal to the number their side has lost the combat by (allocated as normal).

The God of War rule enables Calgar to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can fail any Morale check he is called upon to make, then he can take Morale checks, and can fall back.

The God of War rule enables Calgar to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can be called upon to make Morale checks, and fail them, then he is not immune to Morale checks.

The God of War rule enables Calgar to either pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. If he can either pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make, then he does not automatically pass Morale checks.

The model did not automatically pass its Morale check.

The model is not immune to Morale checks.

The model will sometimes fall back.

So no, a model with the God of War rule is not subject to No Retreat! when the player chooses for that model to pass its Morale check.

If Calgar is chosen to pass a Morale check he is called upon to make, then he suffers no ill effects, just as if he had passed the Morale check by rolling dice.

If Calgar is chosen to fail a Morale check he is called upon to make, then he Falls Back. What happens next is covered by And They Shall Know No Fear, so if Calgar is caught in the Sweeping Advance he will take No Retreat! wounds.

Truly, a man that can face such impossible odds, refuse to give ground, and survive is a God of War.

And just which previous examples are similar?

Summary Execution? No-
A) No choice involved.
B) Only one possible result

Tyranids in Synapse?
A) No choice involved
B) Only one possible result

Fearless?
A) No choice involved.
B) Only one possible result.

Caught by Sweeping Advance?
A) No Choice Involved
B) Only one possible result

Absolutely gigantic Ork Mob?
A) No choice involved
B) Only one possible result.

I haven't found or been told of a FAQ'ed rule that has:

A) Choice involved
B) More than one possible result

when dealing with morale and No Retreat.

Come on Nurglitch, you know what point I was trying to make. I'm well aware of how the Anti-No Retreat crowd gets from point A to point B. That's not the issue. The point I was making is that while "automatically" is not expressly included in GOW, neither is immunity to No Retreat--both sides are working with interpretations and intent here. It just happens that in every incident to date where a unit passes a morale check regardless of the dice, GW has ruled that No Retreat applies.

Brice

How about you finish that sentence then? In every case where a unit passes a morale check without rolling the dice, as its only option, they've been subject to No Retreat.

Breton,

Choice is not the issue. The issue is whether or not by making the choice the outcome is automatic. One side says yes, the other says no. No Retreat is only concerned with how a unit passes a Morale Check. The majority here, and precedent agree that if a unit passes the check without having to roll (or in some cases re-roll), the result of passing is automatic and No Retreat applies.

Brice

None of the anti-Marine crowd has been able to influence me to change my original opinion.

G

BBeale:

Yes, and I was showing that your point is wrong, because in getting from the rules to their correct application, God of War explicitly exempts Marneus Calgar from suffering No Retreat! if he chooses to pass the Morale check.

1. The rules explicitly mention that God of War takes effect when he makes a Morale check. Units affected by No Retreat! do not make Morale checks.

2. The rules explicitly mention that God of War allows a unit to fail a Morale check and thus Fall Back. Units affected by No Retreat! never Fall Back.

3. The rules explicitly mention that God of War requires that a player make a choice between passing and failing a Morale check, rather than automatically defaulting to a pass.

But, as I keep pointing out, God of War does not make Marneus Calgar immune to No Retreat! because, like all models with And They Shall Know No Fear he will suffer No Retreat! if caught in a Sweeping Advance.

BBeale wrote:Breton,

and precedent agree that if a unit passes the check without having to roll (or in some cases re-roll),

And as I think I just pointed out, in none of those precendents was there more than one end result possible. None of your "precedents" have the possible end result of falling back. Every single one of the precedents laid out had only one end result. Passing the check. If you want to list all your precedents I'd be happy to go through them one by one until we find one that is actually similar to GoW.

BBeale wrote:Come on Nurglitch, you know what point I was trying to make. I'm well aware of how the Anti-No Retreat crowd gets from point A to point B. That's not the issue. The point I was making is that while "automatically" is not expressly included in GOW, neither is immunity to No Retreat--both sides are working with interpretations and intent here. It just happens that in every incident to date where a unit passes a morale check regardless of the dice, GW has ruled that No Retreat applies.

Brice

I only agree with you in the fact that GW has never stated that the word automatic was what swayed their decisions in the other FAQ'd examples. However, they have set a precedent in the fact that ALL of those examples did have the word automatic in them. You (your warcamp) is the side going against that precedent.

--EDIT--

I'm back. BBeale, not picking on ya. Just seems like we happen to be limited of dakkaddicts at this point.

Now, one cannot ignore the FACT that No Retreat! is only activated by the reasons Nurglitch has posted (since they were cut and paste from the book). Unfortunately, automatically passing a morale test is one of the criteria.

We (the entire floor) have gone over and over what the definition of automatic, bring out dictionaries, diagrams, even slurs on others parents. Until we can come to an agreement on what automatic is, I call stalemate.

You believe that if no dice are rolled, it is automatic.

I believe that if there is any chance of a unit failing, it isn't automatic. I also believe that GoW expressly states a different method to taking morale tests.

Nurglitch,

Among other things, there is a huge difference between choosing to pass a test and taking it. This has been discussed elsewhere, ad nauseum, and I don't have anything valuable to add. The assumption that they are they same underpins your entire position and only takes us back to whether or not "automatic" is redundant in the GOW context.

Breton,

All of the precedent you cited supports GOW triggering No Retreat. What you have done is attempt to distinguish it by stating that there are no possibilities of other outcomes from those rules aside from passing, so GOW should be treated differently. Your list noticably excludes Iron Will, which tournament judges have deemed triggers No Retreat. To date there is no precedent for the assertion that the absence of the magic word "automatic" or the ability to choose the outcome of a Morale Check grants immunity to No Retreat. It has been discussed, also ad nauseum, that many of those rules are highly situational, and those units are not always going to automatically pass morale checks. That's really a non-starter though. The issue for many people is whether or not dice are rolled in order for the unit to pass a morale check. That was certainly the crux of all of the FAQs discussing those rules.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Timmah,
Instead of me searching for your shopping list of written rules we both know don't exist, why don't you show us all where the text of GOW states that No Retreat does not apply.

Brice

Ok, Please point me to the text where it states that Bolters are not Rending. You can't say because a rule doesn't state No Retreat doesn't applie means it doesn't.

BBeale wrote:Come on Nurglitch, you know what point I was trying to make. I'm well aware of how the Anti-No Retreat crowd gets from point A to point B. That's not the issue. The point I was making is that while "automatically" is not expressly included in GOW, neither is immunity to No Retreat--both sides are working with interpretations and intent here.

BBeale wrote:It just happens that in every incident to date where a unit passes a morale check regardless of the dice, GW has ruled that No Retreat applies.

Brice

If something isn't specifically stated in the rules it means it isn't according to RAW

GoW does not specifically state it is automatic just as Bolters do not specifically state they have rending.

Yet by your logic, I could say, show me where it is written Bolters do not have rending. And because you couldn't then I could say they do.

BBeale wrote:It just happens that in every incident to date where a unit passes a morale check regardless of the dice, GW has ruled that No Retreat applies.

Brice

Actually I have yet to see any ruling of this to date. Why? Because all of the previous examples have automatic written into the rule itself.

Reposting, as posts are just flying in:

I'm back. BBeale, not picking on ya. Just seems like we happen to be limited of dakkaddicts at this point.

Now, one cannot ignore the FACT that No Retreat! is only activated by the reasons Nurglitch has posted (since they were cut and paste from the book). Unfortunately, automatically passing a morale test is one of the criteria.

We (the entire floor) have gone over and over what the definition of automatic, bring out dictionaries, diagrams, even slurs on others parents. Until we can come to an agreement on what automatic is, I call stalemate.

You believe that if no dice are rolled, it is automatic.

I believe that if there is any chance of a unit failing, it isn't automatic. I also believe that GoW expressly states a different method to taking morale tests.

BBeale:

You're putting the cart before the horse if you think that I am assuming that taking a Morale check and choosing to pass a Morale check are the same thing.

The fact is that it is the conclusion of my premises, which I take to be the text of the rules I have quoted, that taking a Morale check and passing on a roll of the dice is the same as taking a Morale check and passing on the whim of the player.

Whether you pass a Morale check thanks to either a random element or the exercise of agency, you:

1. Take a Morale check

2. Have the possibility of obtaining either outcome.

3. Have the possibility of falling back.

These three points contradict the conditions of the No Retreat! rule, and the only valid conclusion to draw from them is that a model with the God of War special rule is not subject to No Retreat! when the player chooses for it to pass any Morale check it is subjected to instead of failing it.

Timmah,

Rending is a specific rule for weapons, inclusion of it means that the weapon rends. Rending has to be included in the stats of the weapon for it to work.

No Retreat is a specific rule for Morale Checks. All morale check of a certain type are affected by no retreat. In order for morale check of a certain type to be immune to No Retreat, that would have to be included in the discription of the unit.

There's no analogy there. It's apples and oranges. However, this does underscore the actual issue that we are trying to figure out--How is that certain type of Morale Check defined. Is it defined by effect (the passing of the test) or is it defined by cause (is there a choice). The waters are further muddied by how we define the cause and effect. Which is why we keep coming back to "automatic."

Brice

BBeale wrote:
No Retreat is a specific rule for Morale Checks. All morale check of a certain type are affected by no retreat.

You are correct all morale checks of the "Automatic type" are subject to no retreat.

Now please show me where it is written that GoW is an automatic Morale check.

Gah! I can't keep up anymore and I feel like everyone is just repeating themselves at this point (including me). I agree with Harky though, it comes down to "automatic" (which causes several problems for both sides, not the least of which is if you have the power of choice it is axiomatic that your choice is implemented automatically). Until we get some common ground on that, we're just spinning our wheels until GW does what I think they'll do and apply No Retreat to GOW.

Brice

BBeale wrote:
No Retreat is a specific rule for Morale Checks. All morale check of a certain type are affected by no retreat.

You are correct all morale checks of the "Automatic type" are subject to no retreat.

Now please show me where it is written that GoW is an automatic Morale check.

And if you tell me that they don't roll dice, then please show me where it says not rolling dice = a morale check of the automatic type.

Ok. Choosing for Calgar is just like rolling. Some people are saying:

The model chooses to pass or fail his check.
then he
1)automaticaly passes, or
2)automatically fails.

And stuff like that. That's like saying that a unit rolls for their morale check, and then if they succeed, then they automatically pass. There is an option. No auto.

Cmon BBeale, show me one of your precedents that have more than one possible outcome?

I vote YES.

Automatic is not a game term. It's quite obvious what the intention is. If you choose to pass the test, then that's an automatic pass in my book.

That's why I made that quote from Anchorman earlier in the thread, because a joke in that movie dealt specifically with the sort of claim that despite an initial condition being conditional, once obtained the consequence is automatic.

People claiming that a model with the God of War rule is subject to No Retreat! when the player chooses to pass a Morale check the model is required to take are claiming that because the result of a choice is automatic, that the decision itself was automatic.

That is false.

If you consider Morale checks as a decision-procedure, you will find that they are defined by the following three things:

1. The conditions that require them to be taken.
- Casualties
- Tank Shock
- Losing an Assault

2. The action by which they are decided.
- Normally the result of 2D6 compared to a Ld value
- In God of War the choice of the player

3. The results of that decision.
- The unit passes.
- The unit fails.

God of War merely substitutes the action by which the results are decided, while No Retreat! requires that the result by determined.

This is a problem of order, which is why I drew that diagram, to show what the order of conditions and consequences was following the Morale rules stated in the texts at issue.

Breton,

I'm not going to beat a dead horse here, but as I stated earlier all of the examples you cited support No Retreat being applied. You have attempted to distinguish them by saying they don't apply because of various reasons. I have given precendent. You've said they don't apply. You've ignored the 800lb gorilla in the room, Iron Will. It comes down to "automatic". I just agree to disagree.

Timmah,

This issue over not rolling is implicit in the definitions of Morale Check and No Retreat, as the very definition of a Morale Check involves rolling dice. Previous FAQs have revolved around this issue. It still brings us back to "automatic" and the source of this disagreement.

Brice

Yes the definition of a morale check is rolling dice, however it states it clearly in the rulebook that there are other ways to take morale checks thru special rules.

It may be important to note the rule change from 4th ed 'No retreat' to the 5th ed rule of the same name. They are nearly identical except for 3 glaring changes.

1. It includes walkers as an example to a unit that will not retreat and be subject to the rule (changed/omitted in 5th)

2. the subject in which the failed combat fearless units takes wounds (by combat losses [5th] instead of out numbered [4th])

3. *this one IMO is the one that pertains to this discussion* The first sentence of the second paragraph for both 4th ed. and 5th ed. has changed.

For those that still have the book, please take a look and see the difference between how it explains the difference and why such rules as Iron Will took 'No Retreat' wounds, and how they may be exempt from it now.

For those who are lazy (like me) or threw the book away. I will sum up in quotes the differences:

4th ed: "The unit in question will not HAVE TO FALL BACK but suffers one additional wound by..."

5th ed: "These units do not take Morale checks and will NEVER fall back. Instead, these units suffer a number of wounds..."

*Note: I ended the quote where it explains how wounds are taken* *and Emphasis is mine too*

Anyways my point is that in 4th units were subject to no retreat when they did NOT HAVE to fall back (i.e. were forced to due to a special rule examples include but not limited too ATSKNF, Iron Will, etc..., when in fact they could of normally fallen back if such rule was not enforced like being in range or in a unit of something that forces the condition or creates a condition where they would of had to normally fallen back but decided not too.)

In 5th edition it takes away that wording and apparently on purpose, to a condition in which the unit in question will in fact NEVER fall back.

I IMHO believe this is an important distinction on the rule change that has not been addressed so far.

BTW I am playing more of a devil's advocate in this one, because I believe if it were true than GOW is an EXTREMELY broken rule (maybe intentional [see lash as an example]) because it effects an entire army instead of the not so bad rule of Iron will which just effects units with Inq lords. Also note that ATSKNF does state that the unit is subject to No retreat when it is used.

Edited for clarification

BBeale wrote:Breton,

Choice is not the issue. The issue is whether or not by making the choice the outcome is automatic. One side says yes, the other says no. No Retreat is only concerned with how a unit passes a Morale Check. The majority here, and precedent agree that if a unit passes the check without having to roll (or in some cases re-roll), the result of passing is automatic and No Retreat applies.

Brice

Well, its a good thing those tournament judges are never wrong, and I never hear horror stories of tournament judges flubbing rules. Now if you could just point me to the FAQ for Iron Will that says it invokes No Retreat? Or if you could point me to the general FAQ that states not rolling the dice is an automatic pass? Or the FAQ that says if half the rule is the same, its obviously the same, even if the other half either directly contradicts the other rule, or is flat out missing.

I have two kids. One is not allowed to watch TV. One is not allowed to watch TV, but is allowed to play Nintendo. They must obviously have the same rules for their entertainment sources, as they're both automatically forced to pass on watching TV.

Automatic Pass = No chance, or choice to fail the Test.

Fearless Troops NEVER Fallback. No test is ever taken.

God Of War - I have option to Fall Back or to stand my ground.

Ergo, God of War, because it expressly allows failure, is not an automatic success.

End of story. Stop powergaming, stop rules lawyering, learn to enjoy the game.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
In the other, "automatically" means "independent of action." An automatic pilot flies the plane "automatically" without any action from the human pilot.

In this case the Pilot has no choice but to follow the direction in which the automatic pilot takes him in even though the destination will be the same. Also the pilot has a choice in either fling the plane himself or turning over to a computer to make the decisions for him.

Also to touch on the action portion of this. I assume you are referring to the act of rolling the dice. This is substituted by acting of a Boolean choice (yes or no for those who are wondering what Boolean means). So in this case the action is no longer the dice roll but rather the declaration of fight or flee. There is both a choice and an action here so your premise that this is ambiguous is false.

BBeale wrote:Breton,

I'm not going to beat a dead horse here, but as I stated earlier all of the examples you cited support No Retreat being applied. You have attempted to distinguish them by saying they don't apply because of various reasons. I have given precendent. You've said they don't apply. You've ignored the 800lb gorilla in the room, Iron Will. It comes down to "automatic". I just agree to disagree.

Timmah,

This issue over not rolling is implicit in the definitions of Morale Check and No Retreat, as the very definition of a Morale Check involves rolling dice. Previous FAQs have revolved around this issue. It still brings us back to "automatic" and the source of this disagreement.

Brice

So I cited examples that show No Retreat being applied, and show how GoW differs, making them NOT precedents. Iron Will and GoW are much more similar than Fearless et al, however there is no FAQ answer for Iron Will. I'm not ignoring the 800 Pound Gorilla, I'm waiting for the 800 pound Gorilla to decide where it wants to sit, while pointing out everyone else's examples of "automatic" are 50 pound chimpanzees flinging their solid waste at the topic.

I think the squad should not be subject to "No Retreat", but I think the rules as written are poorly worded. GW should have made the rule, "instead of rolling, the squad can choice what dice roll is made when making a morale check". If it were worded this way, I would say it is an open and shut case.

My feelings are not strong either way however.

I think Stubborn is looking better and better....

Mez

Fearless troops do take morale checks. They just automatically pass. It is possible under certain circumstances for fearless troops to fall back.

If we strictly follow the exact wording of one paragraph and ignore the rest of the rules:
"These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back".
Fearless units do not fit into this category, therefore they do not suffer no retreat.
I mean, of course, if you look at other paragraphs in the book, its fairly obvious that fearless units do suffer no retreat. So it just goes to show that you can't look at individual rules in isolation to prove your point.


Both sides have valid points, and it all hinges on English being a stupid language and GW not writing well.
One side says Automatic means 'without choice' - you chose to pass, therefore is not Automatic
One side says Automatic means 'without action' - you did not do the action of rolling, thus is Automaitc

Both are correct and this will not be resolved until it is FAQ'd.
/thread.

Trasvi, The rules for Fearless state they will never fall back.

The only way a Fearless unit will ever fall back is if they loose the fearless ability. In that case they are no longer Fearless and thus can fall back.

ok stayed out this for a while now but heres my 2c

now i may have read this wrong but every one is still taking a Morale check but (and this is the big but) they get to choose the results ... so they're not fearless as they can fail.

at first glance this makes Marneus Calgar seem amazing ... but end of the day he's a toughness four, three wound model with 3+ armour costing the same a landraider ... just kill him already, it only last whilst he is on the table.

It's like the swooping hawk 'deep-striking' 'skyleap' debate. on paper the swooping hawks seem to gain a huge advantage ... in practice the points would be better spent else where.

-Tri-

Negativemoney wrote:Trasvi, The rules for Fearless state they will never fall back.

The only way a Fearless unit will ever fall back is if they loose the fearless ability. In that case they are no longer Fearless and thus can fall back.

C'tan special ability can force any unit, even Fearless units, to fall back. So they can and do fall back......................................

Only because the C'tan special rule trumps the rulebook special rule. Special Rule > General Rule = Dice

And, in addition, Marneus Calgar marines would *not* have to roll their morale test, they could choose to pass it without having to throw dice. Special Rule > other Special Rule = No Dice

This specific scenario, more than anything, displays the clear difference between God of War and other 'automatic' abilities because of wording.

Here's one way of playing it:

When you want Marneus Calgar to pass his Morale check, place on the table. Calgar passes the test.

When you want Marneus Calgar to fail his Morale check, place on the table. Calgar fails the test.

Doesn't say you get to choose a number, just that you pass or fail on your own choice.

sourclams wrote:Only because the C'tan special rule trumps the rulebook special rule. Special Rule > General Rule = Dice

.

Yep, that's right. Point is, some are saying that only units which "never fall back" (ie never as in under no circumstance whatsoever), are subject to No Retreat while units that can fall back are not subject to No Retreat. Oh deary me, Calgar can choose to fall back so he doesn't qualify for No Retreat because only units which never fall back suffer No Retreat. I'm just pointing out that by that line of reasoning, since every single unit in the game CAN fall back, then only Marines caught in a sweeping advance are subject to No Retreat (due to ATSKNF, a codex specific rule). You can't use that line of reasoning unless you're willing to apply it to EVERY unit that CAN fall back.
And what about units that are sometimes Fearless (Eldar near an Avatar) and sometimes not, those same units with no avatar. Do we say that they are not subject to No Retreat while Fearless (near an Avatar) because they can fall back when he's not around? Nope. Nids in or out of Synapse, same deal. So why does it matter that Calgar can fall back (by choice)? It doesn't.
Personally, I'm in the "passes without an action" equates to an automatic pass and GoW is subject to No Retreat. Not that it's ever likely to matter in my games, I mean, IG beating up on Marines in hth....???? Maybe once in every 200 combats. But we'll all argue about it until (if....?) GW posts an FAQ on it. Carry on.

Are you really attempting to argue that interpretation? I mean, all those situations do is set Calgar even further apart from the 'No Retreat!' rules by making his 'Choice' option even more superior to automatic units that are forced to roll dice.

Nurglitch wrote:Here's one way of playing it:

When you want Marneus Calgar to pass his Morale check, place on the table. Calgar passes the test.

When you want Marneus Calgar to fail his Morale check, place on the table. Calgar fails the test.

yeah...

That's the worst thing i think i've ever heard you say...

It Makes Me Sad....

Panic...

It would suffice the rules... I mean his test is another method of taking morale tests and if people are SOOOO bent on dice needing to be part of the picture, there they are

Panic:

I must be doings something right then.

lord_sutekh:

Yes, of course the rules say that you choose to either pass or fail. But since some people seem to think a Morale check is about dice, and models always pass Morale checks on snake-eyes, and alway fail Morale checks on box-cars, I figured playing it that way should satisfy those who cannot comprehend Morale checks without dice (despite all the other defining elements of Morale checks).

After all, choosing the results of the dice is the same as choosing whether to pass or fail.

Harkainos:

Exactly.

sourclams wrote:Are you really attempting to argue that interpretation? I mean, all those situations do is set Calgar even further apart from the 'No Retreat!' rules by making his 'Choice' option even more superior to automatic units that are forced to roll dice.

Of course not, merely pointing out the problems in someone else's argument.

IMO, any unit that passes a Morale test without rolling dice (ie without having to make an action that is normally required, one of the definitions of automatic) is subject to No Retreat.

don_mondo:

You fail to apply the definition for 'automatic' correctly.

Whether the outcome of a Morale check is decided by a player instead of by dice, the action is deciding. That action, which is always required of Morale checks, is made.

Specifically that decision is made because the outcome is not automatic, it was in doubt, it could have been otherwise, and a decision-action was required to achieve one of two possible results.

Nurglitch wrote:don_mondo:

You fail to apply the definition for 'automatic' correctly.

Whether the outcome of a Morale check is decided by a player instead of by dice, the action is deciding. That action, which is always required of Morale checks, is made.

Specifically that decision is made because the outcome is not automatic, it was in doubt, it could have been otherwise, and a decision-action was required to achieve one of two possible results.

The outcome of deciding to pass was automatic success, perhaps you mean it was not compulsory?

olympia:

You also fail at applying the definition of 'automatic'.

The outcome of deciding to pass a Morale check is not automatic success. Automatic success would be success without need for the action that is normally required: the decision.

If I were to say: "Hey, 60% of the time, my car works all the time! Therefore, my car works all the time," then I would be saying the same sort of thing as saying that choosing to pass a Morale check automatically passes that Morale check.

There's a reason that such reasoning was a joke in "Anchorman"...

What if the decision was automatic? For example, in a situation where there is no way in hell that you'd want to fail, and you'd always want to pass. There would be no chance that you would fail and there figuratively would be no choice.


Stop arguing the semantics of the word Automatic. Even if it's what the argument hinges on. Wait for an FAQ and until then just win combats.

The rules on page 44 "These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back" is obviously faulty. Nearly every unit in the game can fall back (in the Ctan circumstance) so that pretty much nullifies that part of the wording, if we're being particular about the definitions of words. Fearless units always pass morale checks, they do not *not* take morale checks. Thus fearless units don't fit the first part. If we're being technical about the definition of words.

Even in your example there is a want to pass, not the automatic pass, you could still choose to fail.

Citing your second example, the Ctan ability is a Special Ability overriding a Rulebook statement because it is expressively stated to do so.

don_mondo wrote:C'tan special ability can force any unit, even Fearless units, to fall back. So they can and do fall back......................................

In any circumstance other than this they will never fall back. What you are doing is illustrating a very specific rule that will not come up in 99.9% of games that are played.

Besides I was stating a fact, that is written into the current Fearless rules where the main rule book explicitly states they never fall back.

I don't think you're seriously arguing that all units fall back, so therefore no units are ever subject to No Retreat! So I'm not sure that the C'tan special ability matters to whether God of War is an automatic pass or not. I think the C'tan ability probably does work against God of War units, but that's another discussion.

As I've already said, the C'tan ability does indeed work against God of War-ed units, but those units can still choose to pass the test.

Now, if they were written to 'automatically pass', then in that case they would not be able to choose and would have to roll the dice just like any other unit, fearless units included.

I compare the full Iron Will rule versus the God of War rule, and from the difference I think it indicates Iron Will is meant to work against the C'tan ability while God of War might not. It'd likely take a FAQ to undescore that that is what's meant.

Does Dakka have a thread size limit, or does a moderator need to step in? I'm just curious if this thread is going to keep going until a FAQ comes out...

nice one solkan

There's been bigger, and ones filled with more vitriol and sarcasm. Dakka will endure.

Yes, but I think this one has reached the point where every argument has been reiterated several times over.

Locking now. . .