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.

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.