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.

So this came up today.

A buddy of mine claims that his inquisitor using Iron will to pass his leadership test in a lost combat would not trigger no retreat! wounds, because whether or not to use Iron will to pass or fail is a choice the player has to make, which isn't "automatically" passing the leadership.

I can see where hes coming from, but I'm not 100% convinced. What do you guys think?

Falconlance wrote:So this came up today.

A buddy of mine claims that his inquisitor using Iron will to pass his leadership test in a lost combat would not trigger no retreat! wounds, because whether or not to use Iron will to pass or fail is a choice the player has to make, which isn't "automatically" passing the leadership.

I can see where hes coming from, but I'm not 100% convinced. What do you guys think?

It can go either way.

If a roll is passed without the need to roll any dice, then the roll was passed automatically.

solkan wrote:If a roll is passed without the need to roll any dice, then the roll was passed automatically.

The ROLL was passed, but the test itself was not because you could choose to pass or fail.

-Goes back to his bridge-

Counter-troll argument: Unless the dice are rolled, choosing to pass is indistinguishable from automatically passing because there is no such thing as free will. Therefore, no retreat kicks in because the player is automatically selecting whether to pass or fail the test, as determined by the state of the universe at that time.

So "No retreat" applies to characters that can choose to retreat... interesting.

LoL, I always had thought that "No reatreat" was a fearless rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another interesting point would be: When you roll double 1's, you automatically pass, right? So if you roll double 1's, you activiate "No retreat"?

Iron Will is funny in another way too - you can choose to pass or fail even if failure is automatic.

I see it that the cases where things can choose to pass or fail are meant to be superior to fearless units (which are too stupid/crazed to know when to give in/run for it) and as such support the ignores the No Retreat caveat...although I admit the rules wording is fuzzy for either argument.

Jack

The BRB defines "taking the test" as rolling the dice.

If you do not roll the dice, and instead choose the result, the test has been passed or failed automatically. This would then trigger NR! if you choose a "pass" result.

This is further backed up by the standard C:SM combat tactics stating that they can "choose to AUTOMATICALLY fail" - therefore choosing does not alter whether the pass (or failure) is automatic or not.

Rolling double 1 does not result in the test being passed auomatically, therefore doers nto trigger NR!

OT - the other threads got locked before I could reply. I think the "blacklist" idea might just need to be a summary of discussions on which no further discussion is needed. Sticky that at the top with links to the most definitive thread on the subject. Then if someone posts it again, the thread can be closed and pointed to the sticky list.

Just my thoughts...

Homer

No Retreat! is not a rule for Fearless units only or else it would be in the Fearless USR itself. It is a part of the morale checks from CC rules.

No Retreat! applies to units "immune to Morale checks for losing an assault" or those that "automatically pass them for some reason". Fearless is given as an example of a rule that fits the bill.

The intention of the rule is that a unit losing in CC, but determined to fight on because of a vow, orders, fearlessness, dedication or duty are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy.

The RAI is that No Retreat! wounds are the cost for any unit that continues to fight a losing battle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The BRB defines "taking the test" as rolling the dice.

I'm at work at the moment, so I can't check it, but if someone has a rulebook handy and can get a page number and confirm this, that could be the nail in the coffin that I need...

No Retreat! does apply to more than Fearless units. However, that doesn't mean it applies to Iron Will. The problem with immune to Morale checks or automatically passing them for Iron Will units is that the unit is not immune to Morale checks and the unit can fail them. In the latter case, if the player chooses to fail it. A unit that says it is immune to morale checks in close combat would unquestionably trigger No Retreat!. If it says it automatically passes a morale check, it would also unquestionably trigger No Retreat!. Unlike alternate examples, Iron Will doesn't flat out say it is immune or automatic to those things. Which means it may not be and was not meant to be.

The first paragraph of Morale checks on page 43 says they are taken by rolling 2d6. Then, in the next paragraph, it gives examples of Morale checks which aren't taken with dice rolls and stresses that Codex can override BRB on defining the morale check/test process. So that doesn't answer the question either.

And, to make it even more complicated and with higher stakes, this has implications for how you would play with one of the more common Space Marine special characters. Although as a rule, Iron Will has existed for longer.

I'd say Iron Will doesn't hit No Retreat!, but a lot of other folks would go the other way. As a WH player, it's not something that comes up in my games all that often. This is one of those questions that justifiably has an even split of opinions.

gaylord500 wrote:I'd say Iron Will doesn't hit No Retreat!, but a lot of other folks would go the other way. As a WH player, it's not something that comes up in my games all that often.

QFT. The trash that is Inquisitor retinues is punishment enough, especially in CC. One doesn't even try to put them somewhere the question comes up.

gaylord500 wrote:No Retreat! does apply to more than Fearless units. However, that doesn't mean it applies to Iron Will. The problem with immune to Morale checks or automatically passing them for Iron Will units is that the unit is not immune to Morale checks and the unit can fail them. In the latter case, if the player chooses to fail it. A unit that says it is immune to morale checks in close combat would unquestionably trigger No Retreat!. If it says it automatically passes a morale check, it would also unquestionably trigger No Retreat!. Unlike alternate examples, Iron Will doesn't flat out say it is immune or automatic to those things. Which means it may not be and was not meant to be.

The first paragraph of Morale checks on page 43 says they are taken by rolling 2d6. Then, in the next paragraph, it gives examples of Morale checks which aren't taken with dice rolls and stresses that Codex can override BRB on defining the morale check/test process. So that doesn't answer the question either.

And, to make it even more complicated and with higher stakes, this has implications for how you would play with one of the more common Space Marine special characters. Although as a rule, Iron Will has existed for longer.

I'd say Iron Will doesn't hit No Retreat!, but a lot of other folks would go the other way. As a WH player, it's not something that comes up in my games all that often. This is one of those questions that justifiably has an even split of opinions.

It essentially boils down to simply a matter of timing, and because that timing is not defined by the rules, different people have differing interpretations of it.

Basically, you either take the Automatically Pass to be something you check at the very start of the morale test before you have made a decision, or you take it as something you check at the end of the morale test, when you know the result and the choice made.

Despite the discussions of people trying to argue this way or that the question was answered best in the first reply.

Gwar! wrote:It can go either way.

It does look split pretty evenly..

Does anyone know off hand what "automatically" passes morale tests other than fearless units, then?

It seems to me the hang up is that fearless units AUTOMATICALLY choose to AUTOMATICALLY pass, they have no say in the matter.

Iron will, and God of War, lets you MANUALLY choose to AUTOMATICALLY pass or AUTOMATICALLY fail.

Does the no retreat! trigger from the automatic choice, or the automatic pass?

Depends on who you ask; I would recommend the question be asked to your opponent.

Over at B&C they had the same discussion but with Calgars God of War ability, and they never came to any sort of conclusion because both sides of the argument make sense and (most importantly) are supported by RAW (but in different ways). It's one of those topics that you should bring up before the game, come to an agreement or roll off, then play the game.

On B&C the have a "Grey Areas" sticky containing a list of just such questions. I really like the format.


The issue
Does the use of Calgar's God of War rule to pass a morale test incur NO RETREAT?

Summary
The issue of using GoW has two main points of view with arguments thus:

Argument for NO RETREAT!
• As the test may be passed without "rolling" a morale check, and thus the decision to pass the test will always be succesful (i.e. "NEVER fall back" per BRB P. 44, NO RETREAT!) the choice to pass DOES incur NO RETREAT! and relevant saves

Arguments against NO RETREAT!
• GoW allows a test to be passed or failed as desired, but is not the same as "always passing" as the option, thus possibility, to fail is always available and therefore the unit using GoW is not included in the rule's "will never fall back" language.

Original discussion topic here. (This is of course a link over at B&C)


I believe the same system could work really well here. As have already been stated the MODS are looking into it.

Except it needs to be called "Emperor have Mercy on your Soul if you even DARE mention these topics again!"