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.

Drunkspleen wrote:...I'm likely biased with regards to this...

I'm with you on the biased. I spent the better part of an hour trying to dig something up that would let it work (IMO). Not only am I a fan of the DE, but it would make me feel especially fuzzy to watch units like the Grey Knights in a "Retrograde Redployment".

I'd be interested to know if you can think of another example of "automatically" where it is in fact dependent on a special rule the target unit may have because I cannot think of any, although I acknowledge that it's not necessarily an argument for grotesques functioning the way I believe they do.

A lot of the examples that are going to come up are going to involve Fearless and issues with it, since GW seems to enjoy creating things that are "too horrible to behold", then turn around and make units that consider soul-eating monsters formed from mankind's deepest fears to be somewhat "meh" (usually Space Marines of some variety...lol).
I think the two words which have caused the most debates in 40k are probably "automatically" and "invulnerable". A lot of SoB players have argued that the inferno pistol could hurt the Eldar avatar since he's only immune to melta and flamer weapons (and the inferno pistol is only described as having the same effect, not actually "called" a melta weapon). GW FAQ'd that one at least.
One they missed, and I'm sure it's caused a few heated debates over the gaming table is the Black Templars ATSKNF rule. First, it never mentions that it's a "Black Templar" special rule. It says it's a Space Marine rule. I'm sure someone's tried to argue that one. Second, it says they "automatically pass all Morale tests to regroup", and GW has firmly stated that a regroup test is not a Morale test. The last sentence of that section reads "They will always regroup after each fallback move...", so is that read, they will always "attempt/test to regroup" or they will always "automatically regroup". It's come up often enough for the INAT FAQ to have a section for it.
One I can think of in the same "spirit" as "automatically" if not the wording, is that if an IG army with a Primaris Psyker is in a unit with a Commisar, and suffers a Perils of the Warp result from his psychic test, he is "immediately executed and removed as a casualty, but against a Tyranid army with Shadow in the Warp, all PotW results are "nullified". Typically, when GW uses the wording "nullified", they mean it still happens, but has no effect. So if it still happens, even without effect, it's still "suffers" the PotW so is executed by the Commisar.

These sorts of "debates" occur quite often where the older codices are in use. They would use different words to mean the same thing, or in many cases, it's just suffering from poor editing. And they can be especially bad about not cross checking between codices. In the DH/WH Armory lists, where a Bolter is 2pts for the SoB Inquisitor and 1pt for the GK Inquisitor. In addition, the DH bolter (24"/4/5/RF) is 1pt and the Hellgun (24"/3/5/RF) is 2pts. So the bolter is 1 pt stronger and 1 pt cheaper. Ok, I know arguing over "one" point is pretty much pointless (no pun intended) in armies numbering hundreds if not thousands of points, but what I'm driving at with that example is that if GW can't be bothered to even double-check something as simple as a wargear list, we definitely can't expect them to hammer out an ironclad wording to eliminate discrepancies. Especially since they're prone to changing the way they define things from one edition to the next.

What usually happens is you end up with two groups, one side arguing the exact wording (even sometimes going so far as to argue verb tense), and another arguing "if it looks like a duck...". I'm usually in the second camp, as it's my feeling that often the "discrepancy" is nothing more than a change in wording between editions, or poor editing/clarification. Like the original query that started this thread, does a Terrorfex work on Fearless units. No, it doesn't specifically call it a "pinning" test, but then, an inferno pistol isn't called a melta weapon either. Is it a pinning test? IMO, yes, I don't care it it doesn't specifically say so. Is a Dark Lance a "lance weapon"? IMO, yes. Can grotesques chase off a Fearless unit? IMO, no. Even though the wording may not be precise, the intent is pretty much the same, and while we're all arguing the semantics of "does" vs. "did", we're ignoring the real problem, which is someone needs to instigate a few Morale-check inducing scenarios over at GW until we get a decent/updated DE codex...lol

A funny thing... walkers that are defeated in CC never take Morale checks and aren't affected by No Retreat. Nothing about not falling back.