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.

In my game yesterday I played Annihilation which has the special rule No Quarter which ignores the Retreat! rule.

My Antipode controller was killed so does that mean my antipodes (which were still full strength) act normally and don't have to do the normal WIP roll to see if they retreat and can continue as they are?

Thank you

This seems like a problem with naming a game state and end of game condition the same.

The game state Retreat! can be applied to models. The End of Game condition rules for Retreat! are the same, and is applied to every model in the army that loses enough of their points.

No Quarter says the Retreat! 'rules' are not used. RAI it sounds like they are referring to the Retreat! end of game condition, not the game state, You play until the end of turn 3 regardless of casualties. But RAW it should apply to both as they have the same name. There's no distinction in No Quarter that they are referring to the rules for End of Game condition Retreat! or simply the Retreat! game state.

Unless there's a FAQ somewhere, I'd go with ignoring both the game state and the end of game condition.

The rules for Retreat! is not applied for the mission, so none is affected by it. The mission explicitly tells you to ignore the rules for Retreat! so any rule that can induce this state is simply ignored as it fall under the entire category of Retreat! rules.

In other words, yes they act normally.

Antipodes still suffer the Retreat! state in Annihilation.

See question 33. here: http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/28585-its-2015-rules-questions-4-unanswered/#comment-623987
The "Retreat!" situation and "Retreat!" state are two separate conditions, that are unfortunately named the same despite being somewhat different. Classic CB.
Here's a RAW citation.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Valor_(V)#VALOR_LEVEL_1._COURAGE
-Troopers with the V: Courage Special Skill are unaffected by the Retreat! state, acting normally until the end of the game.
-However, even in a Retreat! situation, troops possessing V: Courage are affected by Loss of Lieutenant.

 avantgarde wrote:
Antipodes still suffer the Retreat! state in Annihilation.

See question 33. here: http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/28585-its-2015-rules-questions-4-unanswered/#comment-623987
The "Retreat!" situation and "Retreat!" state are two separate conditions, that are unfortunately named the same despite being somewhat different. Classic CB.
Here's a RAW citation.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Valor_(V)#VALOR_LEVEL_1._COURAGE
-Troopers with the V: Courage Special Skill are unaffected by the Retreat! state, acting normally until the end of the game.
-However, even in a Retreat! situation, troops possessing V: Courage are affected by Loss of Lieutenant.

What the f.... that's laughable! How on earth did they not think that would not cause confusion?

Yeah, I'm scratching my head as well. N3 is largely a much better written game than N2, but I didn't think something like this would creep in.

And really, they could have solved it by wording No Quarter differently. Rather than saying 'Retreat! rules are ignored', they could have written 'the Retreat! condition is ignored, not the Retreat! state'.

Or they could have just given one of them a different name. Like call the Retreat! state Fall Back instead.

So if CB has this clarification error do I assume the Antipodes rule supersedes scenario rules then?

492hike wrote:
So if CB has this clarification error do I assume the Antipodes rule supersedes scenario rules then?

No, there's no superseding. There are 2 sets of rules 'Reatreat!'. The End of Game condition when you lose enough of your list, and the game state that can be applied to individual models.

When an Antipode Assault Pack loses their controller, they need to make a WIP-3 roll or go into the game state Retreat!. When you lose enough of your list, what's left goes into the End of Game condition Retreat!. No Quarter is referring to ignoring the End of Game condition Retreat!, but it does not affect the game state Retreat!

It's confusing, but that's what happens when you give two different rules the same name.

 Zewrath wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
Antipodes still suffer the Retreat! state in Annihilation.

See question 33. here: http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/28585-its-2015-rules-questions-4-unanswered/#comment-623987
The "Retreat!" situation and "Retreat!" state are two separate conditions, that are unfortunately named the same despite being somewhat different. Classic CB.
Here's a RAW citation.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Valor_(V)#VALOR_LEVEL_1._COURAGE
-Troopers with the V: Courage Special Skill are unaffected by the Retreat! state, acting normally until the end of the game.
-However, even in a Retreat! situation, troops possessing V: Courage are affected by Loss of Lieutenant.

What the f.... that's laughable! How on earth did they not think that would not cause confusion?

They're highly related, since the Retreat! army condition inflicts the Retreat! state. Probably 99% of interactions between the two Retreat! rules are clear cut and blurring the two doesn't impact game play. The purpose of the state version is to allow the removal of Retreat! effects on an individual model basis via command tokens or special skills.

The correct thing to do, as Loki suggested, was to word the No Quarter rule more tightly. Even then it only becomes an issue with Antipode packs since it's the only profile (correct me if I'm wrong) capable of entering the Retreat! state without the army being in Retreat!.