Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?