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.

olympia wrote:@fullheadofhair
Your squirrel is drinking my pint!

and tasty it was to!

I have always treated the Inquisitors Iron Will ( I believe it is called) as being not subject to no Retreat. I passed the test, it was not automatic, there was a CHANCE I would run away however that chance was my decision. I chose not to I passed, it wasn't automatic.

doesn't that mean his choice is as close to RAI as we can get?

yes, but it's not automatic that the FAQ will be what Yakface Chooses, because he chooses it, and that obviously is in no way automati...no...wait.

lord_sutekh wrote:When the choice becomes the result automaticly, that's when. If your choice had a chance of not happening, then it ceases to be automatic.

Except it's the choice in the matter that keeps it from being 'automatic', not the result.

Ok, I will believe that it is considered an automatic pass, and as such, subject to no retreat if someone can explain to me the following.

Why in EVERY SINGLE OTHER circumstance of passing leadership INCLUDING IN THE SAME BOOK WITH ATSKNF, it specifically states that it is an automatic pass, yet in this 1 entry it does not?

You can cite the definition of automatic all that you want but in terms of game rules, as it stands now, this is not an automatic pass and is not subject to no retreat. If it was GW would have written they can choose to automatically pass or automatically fail any leadership test.

No one has yet to answer me the above question. And no GW is lazy answers, as if they were lazy it would be left out of other entries such as ATSKNF.

Timmah wrote:Ok, I will believe that it is considered an automatic pass, and as such, subject to no retreat if someone can explain to me the following.

Why in EVERY SINGLE OTHER circumstance of passing leadership INCLUDING IN THE SAME BOOK WITH ATSKNF, it specifically states that it is an automatic pass, yet in this 1 entry it does not?

You can cite the definition of automatic all that you want but in terms of game rules, as it stands now, this is not an automatic pass and is not subject to no retreat. If it was GW would have written they can choose to automatically pass or automatically fail any leadership test.

No one has yet to answer me the above question. And no GW is lazy answers, as if they were lazy it would be left out of other entries such as ATSKNF.

How about simple English comprehension and the fact that it is not needed because no dice = automatic pass or fail, your choice. In the other sections it is easy to add automatic because there is only one option, "automatically pass". Automatic is almost a superflous word and can be removed from ATSKNF - i.e Space Marines pass tests to regroup

Then why did they feel the NEED to add it in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SITUATION?

If automatic really was a superfluous word then they would not have put it in the ATSKNF (which is in the same book) entry either.

The second paragraph under the No Retreat section in the 5E rules (pg 44) clears this up definitively (at least in my mind)

"These units do not take Morale checks AND WILL NEVER FALL BACK...." (emphasis added).

GoW marines sometimes stay in combat but other times fall back. To me this pretty clearly says GoW does not suffer from NR.

This is in contrast to Fearless models, who clearly say that they will "never fall back" and to the Commissar who will ALWAYS execute the officer and force the squad to stay in combat. In both of these cases, there is only 1 possible outcome when they are forced to make the test, whereas with GoW there are 2 potential outcomes.

Then why did they feel the NEED to add it in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SITUATION?

If automatic really was a superfluous word then they would not have put it in the ATSKNF (which is in the same book) entry either.

Let me get this straight: you're expecting consistency... from GW rules writing.

Good luck with that, Don Quixote.

Except they were consistent every other time including earlier in the codex...

Timmah wrote:Except they were consistent every other time including earlier in the codex...

EVERY other time? That's an assertion you have an awful amount of work to do to prove. Let me just save you combing through a couple decades' worth of rules to vainly try and prove your positive, and grant that you misspoke yourself.

GW rules are written by committee, and are continually inconsistent to the point of hilarity. Thus, your premise fails. With this level of inconsistency, it is impossible to prove what a rule says or means by the use of any other rule, so what they say elsewhere, unless it declares itself to be directly on-point, has no relevance to the understanding of the rule in question.

lord_sutekh wrote:EVERY other time?

Pretty much, I think. I can't think of any other time it's done when they didn't mean for it to exclude No Retreat!.

gaylord500 wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:EVERY other time?

Pretty much, I think. I can't think of any other time it's done when they didn't mean for it to exclude No Retreat!.

How about in the commisar entry as mentioned earlier, it just says "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight" and the FAQ specifically states that they are subject to no retreat. Or are you argueing "GW makes lots of mistakes, but the Space Marine codex is a rare exception where there are no flaws in the language used".

The implication was not that the consistency was restricted to No Retreat, but that GW has always been consistent, even within codexes. If you think you can prove that GW's rules are consistent, and thus you can assume things based on that consistency, then I have a few hundred examples to prove you wrong.

The only one I'm not sure on is Orks. The Commissar summary execution rule, the Tyranid synapse rule, ATSKNF, and Fearless all include the term automatic. i.e. "The Commissar automatically..." If it's in Zagstruck's rule as well, it's a straight flush for purposes of 5e rules.

Even if it's not, it's still Rules As Written. The Blood Angels codex allows an Exsanguinator-carrying character to allow any MODEL within range to re-roll a failed cover save. Rules as written, this includes vehicles. A blood angel apothecary can slap bandaids onto a Rhino and somehow make it better. It makes no sense, but it's Rules As Written.

God of War has enough significant difference from all other similar special abilities to read differently Rules As Written. GW may or may not FAQ this, and if they do it may be decided that it does not provide immunity to No Retreat. But until they do, interpretations fail before Rules As Written.

Drunkspleen wrote:How about in the commisar entry as mentioned earlier, it just says "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight" and the FAQ specifically states that they are subject to no retreat. Or are you argueing "GW makes lots of mistakes, but the Space Marine codex is a rare exception where there are no flaws in the language used".

The IG Codex includes the word "automatic" in it. And if there's a version that didn't, they did need to FAQ it to correct that error.

------

Unless it's something other than this, Orks get Fearless through Mob Rule, so they get automatic through that.

gaylord500 wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:How about in the commisar entry as mentioned earlier, it just says "The unit in question is then assumed to have passed the morale test after all and continues to fight" and the FAQ specifically states that they are subject to no retreat. Or are you argueing "GW makes lots of mistakes, but the Space Marine codex is a rare exception where there are no flaws in the language used".

The IG Codex includes the word "automatic" in it. And if there's a version that didn't, they did need to FAQ it to correct that error.

------

Unless it's something other than this, Orks get Fearless through Mob Rule, so they get automatic through that.

It says that the commisar automatically executes the sergeant, it does not say that this results in automatically passing the morale check and says specifically "assumed to have passed the morale test after all". Yes it did get FAQ'd, but it's a demonstration of the failure to use the word automatic in describing passing a morale check where no retreat applies, just like in this situation it may be.

NOW WAIT ONE SECOND!!!

You must all realize that you can automatically not do something automatically... or you can not automatically do something automatically.

I hope this helps. You guys need something.

G

Nonetheless, it's automatically happening.

As to whether this is wild or clearly in error....

Morale tests in the BRB say Codex rules can replace their procedure. God of War replaces dice rolling with choosing. The results from the morale test are the same as if you'd rolled the dice.

No Retreat! says it operates when the units are immune to morale tests or if they 'automatically pass' morale tests. I think we are currently in agreement that God of War does not make units immune to morale tests. They still take them, in their weird way. Under 'automatically pass,' the units No Retreat! says this works for are units that never fall back. God of War units can fall back.

If the Commisar didn't get No Retreat!, it'd be more likely that God of War did because it'd be an inconsistency. There isn't that much space to reinterpret this - on the face of it, it seems pretty tightly put together. God of War is written that way so that No Retreat! doesn't apply.

The Commissar gets the No retreat rule because they are considered to never fall back, as in the first part of the No Retreat Rule.

Just to clarify things.

All other "automatically pass" units have it stated in their entry. If this isn't consistent, I don't know what is.

Green Blow Fly wrote:NOW WAIT ONE SECOND!!!

You must all realize that you can automatically not do something automatically... or you can not automatically do something automatically.

I hope this helps. You guys need something.

G

You just blew my mind, GBF. I am going to go lay down... :S

Timmah wrote:The Commissar gets the No retreat rule because they are considered to never fall back, as in the first part of the No Retreat Rule.

Just to clarify things.

All other "automatically pass" units have it stated in their entry. If this isn't consistent, I don't know what is.

Just to clarify, Commissars can indeed fall back. The Summary Execution can only be used once. After that the squad is under the Commissars command and if they fail using his LD 10, they run away. So how does that "Never Fall Back" bit apply with the Commissar again............????

They never fall back when the Summary Execution happens...

It seems like the anti-no-retreat crowd is confusing the decision with the result. Sure, you get to choose whether to fall back or not, but that's irrelevant (although y'all have done a good job of framing this issue so that the debate is over your red herring). The issue for determining if no retreat applies necessarily involves the result of the decision not the ability to make a choice. If you choose to pass the morale check, the result of passing the morale check happens automatically without need for any pesky rolling of the dice. Chance is taken out of the equation and the result of your earlier decision happens automatically, so no retreat applies. Parse all you want, this is how the rule works, and despite attempts to frame it otherwise, this is not an issue of RAW versus RAI. This is just RAW.

Brice

Not using the dice doesn't mean things happen automatically. As the morale test's rules explictly tell you, the morale test can be replaced by any mechanism given in a Codex. As long as the result is not only "pass," that mechanism is not an automatic pass. God of War is neither random nor automatic.

So instead of rolling, you choose. And with the same two choices as if the dice were rolled. So the same things happens with respect to No Retreat!. Nothing.

Your choice is automaticly done. Thus, automatic.

"Your choice is automatically done" doesn't make logical sense. Choice and automatic are opposites. Or about as much sense as "your white is very black."

As someone said in the warseer forum on the same topic, that's like saying a manual transmission is an automatic one because you're there to change the gears.

Or saying an automatic transmission is a manual one, because you have to change gears? You have to put it in drive, reverse, whatever.

It's like folks are comfortable arguing all manual transmissions are automatic.

If you have to change from 1 to 2 to 3 or whatever, it's not an automatic transmission to start with. :p Unless, of course, the definition of automatic is changed as needed. It's going to take a better communicator than me to point out how little sense that stance makes. For some reason, the idea that dice or some random factor is needed to prevent this from being automatic has taken hold. All choices are automatic, even when one choice was voluntarily taken? That's a strange rewording. Well, freedom is tyranny and all that doublespeak.

Anyway, there seems to be a strong presumption against this being automatic. However, it's usually been played as not automatic when the rule wasn't about Space Marines or Ultramarines.

Look, I can choose something and it not happen automatically. I choose to win the lottery right now. Nope, didn't work. God of War let's you choose to pass or fail a morale test. If you choose to pass, you pass. Full stop. Passing happens automatically. As a result, No Retreat applies. For the purposes of determining if No Retreat applies, choice is irrelevant-the rule applies in any circumstance where a unit passes a morale test without rolling for it--take another look at the rule.

Brice