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 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