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.

Antonin wrote:In response, please see Trasvi's citation of the definition of "morale check" (which is the same as morale test, by the rule, by the way) - that definition does not include special rules which allow a choice one way or the other, it defines morale test as including a roll of 2d6 and the consequent randomness that results.

The problem with this is that the Morale check/test rules in the BRB say that the Codex can have Morale check/test rules that override the 2d6 roll. It's in the second paragraph. So the jump I'm making, if it is much of one, is that God of War presents one of those rules which overrides the standard one. The Morale check/test becomes "choose to pass or fail," with the rest flowing logically from that. Fearless units also take Morale check/tests. Their replacement for the 2d6 roll is "automatically pass".

The only thing I can recall offhand that's immune are walkers. But they're not subject to No Retreat! because it specifically says no No Retreat! Otherwise, it would be under the "immune to Morale checks" side of the No Retreat! rule.

Harkainos wrote:The argument here is that if no dice are rolled, no test is made and that simply isn't true.

The general rule for making a morale test is to roll dice, with Calgar we have a specific rule that states a different method of making a morale test.

This is correct. Codex trumps rulebook for determining how Calgar takes a morale test. The morale test is taken, just not in the manner described in the book (i.e. dice). You get it.

@Yakface:

If the rule was written that Calgar can CHOOSE to 'automatically-pass' (all one word, triggering NR), then that says something completely different from Calgar can CHOOSE to 'pass' (in the same way that dice let you pass, except no rolling is needed, because Calgar says so).

That's the difference. I'll keep saying it until the rules prove me wrong. Automatically passing and passing are two different terms. If they weren't, we'd take NR wounds when we passed using dice because rolling below our leadership lets us pass morale tests automatically... which makes no sense.

I vote definitely yes, he's subject to it. He chose to pass, thus he passed automatically.

We're not going into the hypothetical of "what if he chose to fail", the fact is he didn't, thus his passing was AUTOMATIC once he made the choice. Whether that ONE MAGICAL WORD was present or not is irrelevent to the fact that it actually IS automatic. Is there even a chance you could have failed if you didn't want to? No. None at all.

Inquisitor lords function the same way, actually, with a very similar rule [the only difference being that they can choose to pass even if failure is automatic - which if you think about it then the word "automatic" is actually worthless, because here we have a situation where it obviously wasn't so cut and dry].

sourclams wrote:In this sense, for game purposes, 'automatic' means that the unit does the same thing every time. A commissar will always execute the officer in charge, automatically, every time. A tyranid within synapse will ignore morale checks, automatically, every time. A Khorne Berzerker that watched nine buddies die will keep going, automatically, every time. There is no random element, ever. Will a Khorne Berzerker fail the test? Answer: No, to a degree of certainty that probability equals 1.

Wrong. It doesn't happen every time.

Deceiver: Make a morale check. Yes I know you usually automatically pass, make one anyway. Fearless models would take the check - and if Pariahs were nearby they'd be Ld 7, and they could very easily be chased off.

Calgar? He'd still automatically pass, just because he wants to.

Old immolators: Enemy units automatically fall back. Inquisitor Lord? Nope, choose to pass, even though falling back is automatic.

So you're in fact incorrect, the word "automatic" is not used to mean the same thing happens every single time. It means that there's no chance of failure. If you do not roll dice, there is no chance of failure. If you CHOOSE to fail, there is still no chance of failure in regards to the decision to pass. "Leave to choice" and "leave to chance" are NOT the same thing. There was no chance, you simply had a 100% odds to pass or 100% odds to fail depending on which way you CHOSE.

Spellbound wrote:Inquisitor lords function the same way, actually, with a very similar rule [the only difference being that they can choose to pass even if failure is automatic - which if you think about it then the word "automatic" is actually worthless, because here we have a situation where it obviously wasn't so cut and dry].

If you think choosing is automatic, the Inquisitor Lord rule is one so badly written, it works on itself. You choose to fail a morale test and then the last part of the same rule says, if it's an automatic failure, you can take the rule again. If the last part of the rule said "other automatic failures," it'd suggest that choosing was one.

I'd consider it a sign that choosing to fail the morale test means it's not an automatic failure, which means choosing to pass it is not an automatic pass either. According to the rules, if not necessarily how people feel about things.

The rules logic works better for choice = regular pass or fail rather than automatic pass or automatic fail. This isn't to say that automatic passes or failures don't exist in the rules. This doesn't happen to be one of them.

sourclams wrote:

Harkainos wrote:The argument here is that if no dice are rolled, no test is made and that simply isn't true.

The general rule for making a morale test is to roll dice, with Calgar we have a specific rule that states a different method of making a morale test.

This is correct. Codex trumps rulebook for determining how Calgar takes a morale test. The morale test is taken, just not in the manner described in the book (i.e. dice). You get it.

That is incorrect. The Codex does not offer a different mechanism by which the test is taken (for instance, a different mechanism would be "take the test on 3d6" or "test using the leadership of the Space Marine Captain, if there is one" for example), but instead says that he passes or fails the moral test based on his own choice. Therefore, as the codex does not offer a different rule, it does not supersede the basic rule. It simply indicates that Calgar gets a choice, and once he makes that choice, the result flows automatically from that decision.

good god, people are just making things up now.

It would work on itself? Geez. Nevermind, I'm done. This is the dumbest argument ever, made by people so convinced they're right they've blinded themselves to everything.

I'm just going to whip out my old chaos codex and play by those rules, where again by RAW I could have every character in my army 100% invincible, completely legally. I never DID that, of course, because I'm more concerned with rules as intended, and not whether "automatic" is actually present by WORD, rather than THE EXACT SAME MECHANIC.

I'd just love to have seen it - a typo.


Calgar's rule:
"May choose to pass automaticamally."

Anti-no retreat crowd:
"It doesn't say he passes automatically, it actually says he passes automaticamally, so obviously no retreat doesn't apply."


Is one single word THAT important? If adding that word doesn't WHATSOEVER change the meaning and mechanism of the rule, is it still absolutely required? You're so resolute that, given the previous hypothetical situation, it still wouldn't apply due to a misspelling, because it's THAT IMPORTANT?

And the next person that brings FLUFF into it of "Oh he's the supreme commander, he shouldn't be dragged down if he loses a combat" I will SLAP, because obviously nobody was thinking of FLUFF when they made the new chaos codex, so I don't see why it should be brought up now.

Rymafyr wrote:Ok, so Marneus Calgar's GoW falls on a players whole army. He is a special character after all. BTW, how many points is he in the new Codex, still 185? What use would GoW be if it didn't nullify NR? If GoW is subject to NR, then GoW is nothing better than ATSKNF and a useless rule. Oh, it allows them to choose to fall back? And risk getting wiped out? Who would choose that?

It isn't a replacement for ATSKNF, which sole purpose is to automatically allow marines to regroup . It is a replacement for combat tactics which allows you to automatically fail a morale test. GoW, like combat tactics, actually complements ATSKNF as you can still automatically fall back when being shot at thus not get assaulted . However, GoW is more powerful than combat tactics as you can now automatically pass your morale checks as well. Even if NR applied, this is still potent in CC. During your assault phase you can automatically pass your morale check and stay in the assault, an opponent isn't going to choose to pursue a fleeing marine squad at this point as his turn is next and he can shoot or get charge bonuses on you (if NR applied, yes you might take a few wounds, but it is still much better than getting whipped in your opponents shooting phase). Durring your opponents assault phase you can also choose to automatically fail your morale check, without fear of being run down thanks to ATSKNF. This sets you up to shoot/assualt your opponents unit during your upcoming turn if you successfully break away. GoW doesn't need immunity to NR to be powerful. Immunity to NR would make it ubber powerful.

Calgar is pricy because of all his equipment, characteristics, and special rules on top of GoW. Hell of alot better than Ragnar who doesn't have EW, a nasty gun, 2+ armour save, and only grants one unit his special ability.

wyomingfox wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:Ok, so Marneus Calgar's GoW falls on a players whole army. He is a special character after all. BTW, how many points is he in the new Codex, still 185? What use would GoW be if it didn't nullify NR? If GoW is subject to NR, then GoW is nothing better than ATSKNF and a useless rule. Oh, it allows them to choose to fall back? And risk getting wiped out? Who would choose that?

It isn't a replacement for ATSKNF, which sole purpose is to automatically allow marines to regroup . It is a replacement for combat tactics which allows you to automatically fail a morale test. GoW, like combat tactics, actually complements ATSKNF as you can still automatically fall back when being shot at thus not get assaulted . However, GoW is more powerful than combat tactics as you can now automatically pass your morale checks as well. Even if NR applied, this is still potent in CC. During your assault phase you can automatically pass your morale check and stay in the assault, an opponent isn't going to choose to pursue a fleeing marine squad at this point as his turn is next and he can shoot or get charge bonuses on you (if NR applied, yes you might take a few wounds, but it is still much better than getting whipped in your opponents shooting phase). Durring your opponents assault phase you can also choose to automatically fail your morale check, without fear of being run down thanks to ATSKNF. This sets you up to shoot/assualt your opponents unit during your upcoming turn if you successfully break away. GoW doesn't need immunity to NR to be powerful. Immunity to NR would make it ubber powerful.

Calgar is pricy because of all his equipment, characteristics, and special rules on top of GoW. Hell of alot better than Ragnar who doesn't have EW, a nasty gun, 2+ armour save, and only grants one unit his special ability.

Cool info, thx for the reply. I think alot of people thought my questions were solely rhetorical, they were not actually. As I said, I don't play SM so understanding the tactics of the two rules is nice, but doesn't really change the issue evidently. I was hoping looking at the picture in a larger sense would help clarify things..hmm, guess not.

Spellbound wrote:I vote definitely yes, he's subject to it. He chose to pass, thus he passed automatically.

We're not going into the hypothetical of "what if he chose to fail", the fact is he didn't, thus his passing was AUTOMATIC once he made the choice. Whether that ONE MAGICAL WORD was present or not is irrelevent to the fact that it actually IS automatic. Is there even a chance you could have failed if you didn't want to? No. None at all.

Inquisitor lords function the same way, actually, with a very similar rule [the only difference being that they can choose to pass even if failure is automatic - which if you think about it then the word "automatic" is actually worthless, because here we have a situation where it obviously wasn't so cut and dry].

Did you even read the previous posts.... it is apparent that the 'one magical word' is the entire crutch of this debate... and from the sound of it, the very fabric of the universe.

In all other previous texts in which GW was asked 'Hey, GW, does X unit need to roll No Retreat!?' and they said 'Yes, Jim!' the word AUTOMATIC was written in the rule. That word doesn't exist in the GoW rule, at all. You cannot say something is automatic, simply because no dice were rolled (you have nothing in ANY GW reference that states this), that is simply making stuff up.

Antonin wrote:That is incorrect. The Codex does not offer a different mechanism by which the test is taken (for instance, a different mechanism would be "take the test on 3d6" or "test using the leadership of the Space Marine Captain, if there is one" for example), but instead says that he passes or fails the moral test based on his own choice. Therefore, as the codex does not offer a different rule, it does not supersede the basic rule. It simply indicates that Calgar gets a choice, and once he makes that choice, the result flows automatically from that decision.

Yes it does, the mechanism is the player chooses. It is no different than how to remove models killed by Telion.

I play Space Marines and I agree that GoW should be subjet to No Retreat!, but the RAW doesn't support it.

Spellbound wrote:

sourclams wrote:In this sense, for game purposes, 'automatic' means that the unit does the same thing every time. A commissar will always execute the officer in charge, automatically, every time. A tyranid within synapse will ignore morale checks, automatically, every time. A Khorne Berzerker that watched nine buddies die will keep going, automatically, every time. There is no random element, ever. Will a Khorne Berzerker fail the test? Answer: No, to a degree of certainty that probability equals 1.

Wrong. It doesn't happen every time.

Deceiver: Make a morale check. Yes I know you usually automatically pass, make one anyway. Fearless models would take the check - and if Pariahs were nearby they'd be Ld 7, and they could very easily be chased off.

Calgar? He'd still automatically pass, just because he wants to.

This just supports our position.

Units that automatically pass morale checks are forced to take them, per the Deceiver's special rules. Khorne Berzerkers, a unit that is immune to morale checks (which is trumped by the Deceiver rule, codex > rulebook) would have to roll the dice and compare that number to their leadership score to determine the result.

Deceive Morale check < Fearless (general special rule) < Deceive (codex special rule) = dice = result

As you yourself have stated, Calgar is not affected in the same way. He still chooses whether to pass or fail.

Deceive Morale check < God of War: Pass/Fail (codex special rule) = result

This example spells out the key difference between Calgar and other automatic units about as well as you can ask for.

"60% of the time, it works all the time!"

Brian, I'm going to honest with you. That smells like pure gasonline!!

Ok last post and I'm out of this argument, if people can't accept reason and want to add words to rules fine, play it however you like.

Morale Checks.
Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6...
or
some units have special rules pertaining to morale checks that are detailed in their specific codex.

So you can make a morale check either by rolling 2d6 or using a special rule.

No retreat.
Its not uncommon for a unit to be IMMUNE to morale checks or AUTOMATICALLY pass them.

No where in this rule does it define what an automatic pass is, therefore we can only know that its an automatic pass if it states it in the rule.

GoW makes no reference that it is an automatic pass.

Therefore for RAW we cannot assume, add words to make it be.

If you still disagree than you won't mind me adding automatically to a couple other phrases such as:


"Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6, if the amount rolled is less than the units leadership then they AUTOMATICALLY pass their check.

I just added the word automatic, which doesn't change anything according to Yakface.

Have fun taking no retreat wounds after any pass.

sourclams wrote:Deceive Morale check < God of War: Pass/Fail (codex special rule) = result

Blue text on a grey background...Sourclams, are you trying to give me eye strain

EDIT: Thanks! Green is MUCH better

yeah,
I vote for no retreat for calgar.

He's got a choice:
choose to pass his test (automatically) and not to retreat... aka... no retreat
or
choose to fail his test (automatically) and fall back...

anything else is dumb...

PanIc...

Remember that thanks to And They Shall Know No Fear Marneus Calgar will suffer from No Retreat! if he deliberately fails his Morale Check but gets caught in the ensuing Sweeping Advance.

If the entire argument here is hinging off the word 'automatic' then the word automatic must be defined.
Automatic is not mutually exclusive with choice. You choose something to happen, and then it is automatically done.

For example, i choose to pass the morale check and BAM INSTANT PASS...

I believe the word automatic is being used as the opposite to manual.
Ie, i could manually roll the dice and check the score and pass, or i automatically pass without rolling any dice.

In the same way i could be driving an auto. If i CHOOSE to go faster, then the car automatically changes gear for me. I hope you wont argue that a car isnt automatic because i have to choose to drive it.

Also, what happens if the choice for you is so obvious that it is automatic? In a certain situation you always want to keep Calgar in combat, thus that choice is automatic.

Basically the rules for morale checks state that you must roll 2D6. The 'exceptions' are listed as units that are immune, just as the 'examples' for No Retreat are listed as units who automatically pass.
If Calgar does not manually roll the dice, he automatically passes.

Calgar doesn't automatically pass the Morale Check. The player has to choose whether he passes or whether he fails. If the player chooses that Calgar fails, Calgar does not automatically fail his Morale Check.

I have listed three ways in which a model/unit with the God of War rule does not satisfy the conditions of the No Retreat! rule.

1. The model did not automatically pass its Morale check.

The player had to choose that the model passed the Morale Check. The Morale Check wasn't avoided or automatically passed, the player had to intervene and make a decision.

2. The model is not immune to Morale checks.

Since the usual dice roll for the outcome in a Morale Check is replaced by the player's choice of outcome, a model with the God of War rule is subject to Morale Checks.

3. The model will sometimes fall back.

A model that automatically passes any Morale Check it is required to make will never Fall Back. A player can choose for Marneus Calgar to fail the Morale Check and attempt to Fall Back.

yeah,
I disagree.
The choosing of pass or fail isn't calgars actual moral check.
The model chooses to pass or fail his check.
then he
1)automaticaly passes, or
2)automatically fails.

It's not like he can choose to have a modifier that helps him pass or fail and then still has some kind of test to pass
1) decide to try and pass -3 to moral check dice
2) decide to try and fall back +3 to moral check dice

He chooses to pass or fail.

I see the Calgars choice as simple:
he's not afraid of nothing but he may decide to tactically retreat like combat tactics from his blessed guilliman codex...
So when required to take a moral check he can:
1)be Fearless, or
2)op for a Tactical Retreat.

which boils down to :
1)Automatically Pass
2)Automatically Fail



Any thing else is just , as if he's not good enough as is...
You guys are squeezing this so Hard your looking to squeeze CheeseJuiceᵀᴹ from some crusty old that's been found under the fridge...

if he's not taking moral checks to see if he's going to leave combat.. he must be fearless... simple.

...

Nurglitch I think you decided/sided too quickly on the wrong side of the arguement, before you proper made up you mind looked at all the options, and now your fighting for the sake of it! which is a shame as I normally like how you fight on the side of reason..

PAniC...

Wow, the parsing of some people to get a miniscule advantage in game play is worthy of the finest of our trial lawyers and career politicians.

Yes, I know this doesn't directly contribute to the discussion, but I hope it makes some people reflect on how a sentence can equal a word even if that word doesn't appear in that sentece.

Hang on there. As a trial lawyer, I can say that we at least have to go before the judge and argue precedent in addition to the law.

All of the precedent in this case supports No Retreat being applied when Calgar (or any units using his ability) chooses to automatically pass a morale check. The anti-No Retreat crowd has thrown precedent to the wind. Additionally, they've created arguments out of whole cloth, such as the "alternative method" for taking a morale check argument. At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

Brice

Timmah's got RAW covered. Which is the simpler argument.

I'm arguing RAI, which is the more complicated one.

Anyway, alternate methods for taking morale checks are explicitly allowed by the rules. It's the same as in the case of smoke launchers. The rules give you the most common one, but then explicitly says that Codexes can provide for their own. The jump is saying that God of War is one of these examples.

A problem the pro-NR folks have is that they make the assumption that this rule cannot possibly exist without NR. However, if it is true that this rule works without NR, those assumptions are incorrect. You assume it can't work and then say it doesn't work. That doesn't seem quite right. Looking at it more neutrally, there's basis for believing it does work - the rules allow for it to exist in this way. It's written in a particular fashion to use the outs given in the the Morale check and No Retreat! rules.

Nurglitch wrote:Calgar doesn't automatically pass the Morale Check. The player has to choose whether he passes or whether he fails. If the player chooses that Calgar fails, Calgar does not automatically fail his Morale Check.

I have listed three ways in which a model/unit with the God of War rule does not satisfy the conditions of the No Retreat! rule.

1. The model did not automatically pass its Morale check.

You can choose either side of the check.
The 2d6 roll is circumvented, not ignored. The roll is never made, a choice is made.
The check is then (automatically) resolved following the choice that was made.

shrug

Panic wrote:yeah,
I disagree.
The choosing of pass or fail isn't calgars actual moral check.
The model chooses to pass or fail his check.
then he
1)automaticaly passes, or
2)automatically fails.

Ok sure.

A unit rolls 2d6 with a leadership of 8.
1) He rolls a 6 and automatically passes
2) He rolls a 10 and automatically fails

By your logic the rolling of the dice/choosing isn't the morale check, the result is.



On another note:
Combat tactics it states a unit can "choose to automatically fail a morale check".

This is just more evidence that GW has put the word automatic everywhere that they wanted it.

BBeale wrote:Hang on there. As a trial lawyer, I can say that we at least have to go before the judge and argue precedent in addition to the law.

All of the precedent in this case supports No Retreat being applied when Calgar (or any units using his ability) chooses to automatically pass a morale check. The anti-No Retreat crowd has thrown precedent to the wind. Additionally, they've created arguments out of whole cloth, such as the "alternative method" for taking a morale check argument.

Hang on here, as a supreme court justice...(psst, GW rules are different/function differently,resolved differently than real life law)

Ok first of all we have not. The anti-no Retreat crowd has shown that GW used the word automatic in every other case of automatic passing there is, this doesn't have one.
Second there is not really any precedence for this case as there has never been anything exactly like this before.
And thirdly arguing precedence is using RAI to figure this out. (I/no one else, needs precedence to read the entry and figure out what is written.)

BBeale wrote:At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

I love this quote as it sums up the viewpoint of everyone arguing for No-Retreat.
A. It's not FAQed
B. Unless your a GW employee who makes/decides how stuff is FAQed this is a complete LIE. (as a trial lawyer you should know that you can't claim to read peoples minds/predict the future and use it in a case)


If you want to argue RAW you need to prove, IN WRITING, one of the following:

1) Any morale check pass/failed without dice is automatic.
2) The GoW entry has the word automatic in it.

1) There is nothing in the rulebook that specifically states that making a morale check without dice makes the result automatic.
It states making a morale check involves rolling 2d6. However in the next paragraph it said some morale checks are made with special rules. You will notice the omission of anything along the lines of "The special rules make the result automatic"

2) This should be an easy one. Read the GoW entry, there is nothing stating that it is a automatic pass/fail, just that it is a pass/fail.


And there you have it again, in another simplified explanation.

BBeale wrote:Hang on there. As a trial lawyer, I can say that we at least have to go before the judge and argue precedent in addition to the law.

All of the precedent in this case supports No Retreat being applied when Calgar (or any units using his ability) chooses to automatically pass a morale check. The anti-No Retreat crowd has thrown precedent to the wind. Additionally, they've created arguments out of whole cloth, such as the "alternative method" for taking a morale check argument. At this point, some people are just arguing for argument's sake, so whatever. If this ever gets a FAQ, it is a guarantee that No Retreat will apply.

Brice

The Anti-No-Retreat crowd has shown that:

the terms 'pass' and 'automatically pass' are different within game mechanics

precedence shows that GW has included 'automatic' in all previous instances of similar mechanical functions, even within the 5e Marine Codex, setting God of War apart as being clearly different

the wordings of 'automatically pass' and 'pass' have significantly different effect in certain situations, for example in the case of the Deceiver's Deceive ability

reading the Rules As Written, without adding words or meaning, without trying to read the mind of GW and assume we know what they intended, without supposition based off of previous editions and codexes, God of War has a clearly different game mechanic based off of player choice than units that are bound into one option 'automatically' by their special rules

The 'Yes No Retreat!' crowd has shown:

an impossible understanding of GW's intent, especially since there is an assumed inconsistency within the 5th edition marine codex itself on the use of the term automatic between ATSKNF and GoW

an argument based on simplicity of rules similarity, declaring precedence from as many as 2 editions ago that falsely correlate to 5th ed Marine special rules

a fallacious assumption that the term 'automatic' is both interchangeable and redundant, even though inclusion of this word has can completely skew game mechanics

The only reason this is even an argument is because it's easy to lump everything onto the No Retreat! bandwagon. Which hoses a player choosing a 250 point model in the same way that saying Necrons do not get a second WBB roll with monolith teleporting or Lash of Submission cannot change a unit's formation would players using those special rules.

It's simplistic, it's stupid, it's narrow-minded, but it's also easy, so let's just go with that.

Regardless of how he chose, he chose. That, by the dictionary definition, is not automatic.

It isn't automatic simply because you say it is.

As an aside, I love it when non-lawyers presume to tell lawyers how the system "works." Oh, and I really appreciate that I'm being told that I'm a liar because I stated a well-founded opinion as to what GW will do with this issue if it ever gets a FAQ.

As far as this issue goes, no one on the Anti-No Retreat side of this argument has been able to sucessfully answer Yak's question, "If you insert the word 'automatically' into Calgar's rule why would that change how GOW is interpreted?" The word "automatic" is wholly irrelevant and unecessary in a context where you choose the outcome since it is implicit in that choice that the outcome happens automatically. By framing this argument where the focus is on the choice and not the result itself, the Anti-No Retreat crowd has hinged their interpretation on a non-issue. The wording of No Retreat is not concerned with the choice, but the result-passing a morale check without actually taking one.

Additionally, I take issue with the fact that it is being argued that "automatic" is a defined term as far as game mechanics are concerned. I'd love to see a citation for that.

Brice

I have to throw my 2 cents in on this one.

1. I for one is/maybe was in the No retreat crowd. Mainly because this is how it was always done for all the years I have been playing.

2. Now after doing research and reading these arguments I am now leaning to the Calgar special rule *may* actually not trigger 'No retreat'. I say this not due to the rule books line "...for units to be immune to Morale checks...or to automatically pass them for some reason..." But due to the second paragraph that explains it a little more.

This is where I need you guys to follow me on this one. The second paragraph does state "These units do not take morale checks and will NEVER fall back. (emphasis is mine of course).

As you can see, Calgar's rule actually allows the unit an option to fall back and hence breaking the caveat of Never falling back as in never, no chance, no choice, ain't gonna happen no matter what kinda thing.

So in summary, I may need to think on this one some more, but because of this new enlightenment, it actually may be the break that the proponents are looking for.

padixon wrote:I2. Now after doing research and reading these arguments I am now leaning to the Calgar special rule *may* actually not trigger 'No retreat'. I say this not due to the rule books line "...for units to be immune to Morale checks...or to automatically pass them for some reason..." But due to the second paragraph that explains it a little more.

This is where I need you guys to follow me on this one. The second paragraph does state "These units do not take morale checks and will NEVER fall back. (emphasis is mine of course).

Except that there are too many examples of units that can and do fall back that can and do also suffer No Retreat. Tyranids in Synapse suffer no retreat, Tyranids outside synapse can fall back. Eldar near Avatar suffer No Retreat, Eldar without Avatar run away. IG Commissar actually has to FAIL a Morale test to trigger No Retreat, as do Space Marines without the Combat Tactics/God of War rule. I'm sure there are others. Basically, they screwed up on that "never fall back" bit cause everyone (even Fearless) can fall back under the right circumstances (Necron C'tan ability), so are we going to say that since everyone can fall back under certain circumstances, then no one is subject to No Retreat? That's what you're saying.