Rules Query: Marneus Calgar´s "God of War"

[Grandmaster_Phil]

Dear fratres, the following question popped out while gaming today:

 

Following situation:

Calgar sits in Landraider and thus conferes his "God of War" special rule to all models with "combat tactics".

There is also a close combat going on, which the marines loose. The marines elect to pass the morale check.

 

The problem:

My friends argue they now have to take armour saves as per the "no retreat" rule, because they did pass the morale check without rolling dice and were thus automaticaly passing it.

It is clear that the "not retreat" rule kicks in when you automaticly pass a morale check like beeing fearless.

BUT in my opinion the rule does not kick in because "God of war" gives you the choice of failing OR passing the check and therefore you do not AUTOMATICALY pass it.

 

What is your opinion about it?

[Thantoes]

My opinion would be that you treat it as a normal moral check. So by choosing to pass it you then follow the rules in regards to that. The unit isnt fearless so you wouldnt be subject to any rules in connection to that.

 

So you get beaten, choose to pass the moral check and continue the combat next turn. Or at least thats how I see it and how I have used Marneus and his rules in quite a few games now.

[nighthawks]

I believe that the decision to use the god of war ability to pass the test makes it automatic in terms of the penalties incurred in no retreat. obviously you can choose to fail and possibly be run-down in a sweep, where you would take the wounds anyhow.

 

the only way to avoid the no retreat rule would be to pass the moral test on a roll od 2D6 or to fail it AND win the initiative breakaway roll to fall back. YMMV, and we all know how GW handles their offical answers now, so don't expect a clarification from on high with this anytime soon.

[The Nephilim]

I agree with Nighthawks 100%. Took the words right from my post.

[Legatus]

Hm, I see that Calgar allowing a unit to pass it's morale check might be seen as "automatic" in the sense of the "No Retreat" rule. On the other hand, though, I have the feeling that the "No Retreat" rule is intended for "units that do not take Morale checks and will never fall back", as it is described in the second paragraph of said rule. But that is not the case for Ultramarines led by Marneus Calgar. They do not automatically pass all and every Morale check and never fall back.

[nighthawks]

that is true, Legatus, but the space marine ATSKNF rule DOES subject marines to no retreat if they are overrun by a sweeping advance. granted it is specifically called out, but the god of war rule definately grants a stragic "fearlessness" if you will. all marines are somewhat fearless, is my point... absolutley no RAW backing other than that. it's not a good argument, it's my gut. And until we have errata to clarify, it's as good as anyone else's read on it.

 

there's arguments to be made either way.

[Grandmaster_Phil]

So i´ll take a short summary of the arguments:

 

No retreat kicks in:

- you do not have to throw the dice, thus the moral chek is auto-passed

 

No retreat kicks not in:

-you have the choice, this means the result of the moral check is not predetermined and thus not AUTO-passed, its just passed as if you rolled a double one

-RAW does not say it´s AUTO-passed, in the codex it just says passed or failed; no where the mention of the word automatic

-ASFAIK the demon hunters codex also distinguishes between "Automaticaly failed" and "failed" as it contains the special rule "Iron Will" which does basically the same as "God of War" but specifically says that even in the case of "Automaticaly failed" checks you may decide if you pass or fail the check

- no retreat is not mentioned in the ruletext as it is with "fearless" and "they shall know no fear" (weak argument)

[Cale]

The wording in the "No Retreat" rule states:

 

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 tests 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).

 

This is the substantive text of the No Retreat rule. It defines what units are affected, and what effect the rule has. The important part is noting what units are affected. This contains three significant descriptive statements which relate to that issue:

 

"...units [that are] immune to morale tests for losing an assault..."

"...or [that] automatically pass them for some reason..."

-and-

"These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back."

 

Unfortunately, these descriptors don't seem to agree regarding God of War. A unit affected by God of War clearly falls into the first catagory (they are immune to morale tests for losing an assault), and they do not fall into the second (they do not automatically pass them). So far, that's fine; fitting into either of those initial catagories is sufficient to mandate that the rule affects you.

 

The tricky part is the last sentence, which describes all units which are allegedly affected by the rule. Its description does not apply, though, to God of War (units with God of War are capable of falling back, after all).

 

In the end, I think this last statement makes it quite clear to which units the No Retreat rule applies: those which never fall back. Since God of War does not make a unit incapable of falling back, it is not affected by the No Retreat rule.

[Oldenhaller]

Not sure if i agree with your reasoning there Cale;

 

"...units [that are] immune to morale tests for losing an assault..."

 

Unfortunately, these descriptors don't seem to agree regarding God of War. A unit affected by God of War clearly falls into the first catagory (they are immune to morale tests for losing an assault)

 

I'd not say that they're immune to morale tests. If they were immune to the morale test then they wouldn't have the opportunity to pass or fail it in the first place. Thus they're not affected by the first part.

 

and they do not fall into the second (they do not automatically pass them). So far, that's fine; fitting into either of those initial catagories is sufficient to mandate that the rule affects you.

 

When you've been affected by the morale check you've then automatically passed it through your choice in GoW to choose to pass it.

 

The tricky part is the last sentence, which describes all units which are allegedly affected by the rule. Its description does not apply, though, to God of War (units with God of War are capable of falling back, after all).

 

In the end, I think this last statement makes it quite clear to which units the No Retreat rule applies: those which never fall back. Since God of War does not make a unit incapable of falling back, it is not affected by the No Retreat rule.

 

I'd summise that while unaffected by the first part (they're affected by morale checks) they are affected by the second (auto pass-they don't have to roll) the result is still the same as the rule states that the units affected 'do not take morale tests and will never fall back'. As while they do take morale tests they can fall back as stated.

 

sorry [/semantics mode]

 

~O

[Captain Idaho]

I'd summise that while unaffected by the first part (they're affected by morale checks) they are affected by the second (auto pass-they don't have to roll) the result is still the same as the rule states that the units affected 'do not take morale tests and will never fall back'. As while they do take morale tests they can fall back as stated.

 

sorry [/semantics mode]

 

~O

 

As an Ultramarines player, I will have to reluctantly agree with you here. It does explicitly state that they auto pass the roll. I believe this is against the intended interprutation mind, but I think it is the RAW.

 

The only argument against this is what Cale stated here:

 

"These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back."

 

and here

 

The tricky part is the last sentence, which describes all units which are allegedly affected by the rule. Its description does not apply, though, to God of War (units with God of War are capable of falling back, after all).

 

These things indicate to me that the rule is intended for fearless type units, and Calgar's god of war rule is a rule where you take the test, choosing to pass or fail in lieu of rolling dice.

 

Basically, these things are both contradicting each other slightly. I think the element of doubt here means a player should go with the intention behind the rules rather than their own interpretation.

[Oldenhaller]

sorry - re-read my post and realised that while I knew what I was talking about others might not be able to fathom what's in my head. Basically I'm agreeing with Cale's posting but for the opposite reasons from those he's posted.

 

my bad

 

~O

[Thantoes]

Basically, these things are both contradicting each other slightly. I think the element of doubt here means a player should go with the intention behind the rules rather than their own interpretation.

 

I think the problem here is working out just what the intention behind the rule in question actually was. I mean that one could look at all the fluff regarding 'ol Marneus and see that when he chooses not to fall back he generally kicks buttock (witness his stand at the gate against the orks mentioned in the codex), therefore any unit attached to him would inherit that fighting spirit. Which means they would fight with renewed vigour etc etc and not be dragged down.

 

But thats just fluff. Without a FAQ or Errata we will never know what the true intent was ^_^

 

Just my 2 cents

[Gentlemanloser]

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 tests 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).

 

Using Marneus' God of War to pass a Morla Test without rolling makes you susceptable to No Retreat! extra wounds.

 

A unit of Marines loses a CC. Normally, they aren't immune to the Moral check, nor pass it automatically (which here means not having to roll the Moral Check).

 

If you elect to use Marneus' "some other special rule", which allows the squad to automatically pass the Moral Check (and fail it too, but that's not relevant here), they are then subject to No Retreat!.

 

Marneus' "some other special ability" isn't a permenant one, as you can elect to use it or not (can choose) so the last line of the quote above doesn't apply.

 

When the Marines choose to use God of War, then yes they fit

These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back

. When they choose not to, they don't.

 

So in all cases Marines using GoW to automatically pass a CC Moral test are always subject to No Retreat!.

[Oldenhaller]

sums it up eloquently ;)

 

~O

[Legatus]

These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back

. When they choose not to, they don't.

Somehow I feel that units occasionally never falling back is not an entirely logical statement.

[GTang]

I'm definately on the side of no "No Retreat!", as can probably be seen on those other threads (I'm gaylord500 on other forums).

 

-----

 

If you say you automatically pass *after* you decide because you have no choice but to pass after that, I'd point out that if you roll a 2 on two dice, you have no choice but to pass after that, too. This part can't be what No Retreat! is talking about.

[Cale]

I may not have been entirely clear in my post. Let me try to rectify that.

 

These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back.

 

This is the line that decided the issue for me. This line purports to describe every type of unit affected by No Retreat!

 

It seems to follow, then, that any unit which is affected by No Retreat! should be accurately described by this line, and, further, that any unit which is not accurately described by this line should not be affected by No Retreat!

 

Units benefiting from God of War may sometimes fall back and they may sometimes take morale tests.

 

Thus, units benefiting from God of War are not accurately described by the line above.

 

Thus, units benefiting from God of War are not affected by No Retreat!

[angronn]

What about ATSKNF? Normal Space Marines, who can indeed fall back (if they escape being swept or from ranged wounds) can be subject to No Retreat through the workings of ATSKNF.

[Legatus]

There is not really any logic behind the "No Retreat" rule and how it is applied. A squad of Berserkers losing a turn of combat will take additional hits, but a squad of gretchins who lose but pass their test will not get any hits. Space Marines get hits when they fail their test and are caught (because Space Marines don't really run away), but they get no hits if they pass their test. A unit of Orks might still be above 10 models one turn and get additional hits, but next turn they sink below 10 models, pass their test and get no additional hits at all. And the "No Retreat" rule almost makes "stubborn" superior for higher LD models for fighting in combat than "fearless" would be.

[Cale]

What about ATSKNF? Normal Space Marines, who can indeed fall back (if they escape being swept or from ranged wounds) can be subject to No Retreat through the workings of ATSKNF.

 

But only because ATSKNF specifically states that they do. If it were not so stated, ATSKNF would not activate No Retreat!

 

ATSKNF ends up being irrelavent to the argument at hand, since it is such a singular exception to the general No Retreat! rules.

[Playa]

Hey,

 

There is not really any logic behind the "No Retreat" rule

 

RB p44 (paraphrased):

NR affects Units with Special Rules granting immunity/ autopass to Morale Checks from lost CCs.

Are GoW Units granted immunity/ autopass to Morale Checks from lost CCs? No.

Then, NR does not refer to GoW, but instead to other SRs - like Fearless.

 

Fearless Units incur no losses when they succeed NR rolls, but do when they fail.

 

[shrug] Seems logical to me.

 

 

Playa

[Legatus]

[shrug] Seems logical to me.

Answering to the thread directly before mine, which was referencing another situation where "No Retreat" is applied for a comparison, my post then was obviously adressing the logic behind what kind of brave soldiers would be dragged down by the overwhelming enemies and what kind would not. I think as much was appearent from the examples I gave. The mechanics of a rule are a different matter.

 

Fearless Units incur no losses when they succeed NR rolls, but do when they fail.

And what's a NR roll?

[Oldenhaller]

Are GoW Units granted immunity/ autopass to Morale Checks from lost CCs? No.

 

Playa

 

Um, if they have to roll dice then i'd say that you're right....but under GoW they get to choose if they auto-pass or auto-fail

 

~O

[GTang]

Um, if they have to roll dice then i'd say that you're right....but under GoW they get to choose if they auto-pass or auto-fail

Iron Will, though, suggests that failing by choosing is different than auto-failing. Which then suggests God of War is not talking about auto-pass or auto-fail.

[angronn]

What about ATSKNF? Normal Space Marines, who can indeed fall back (if they escape being swept or from ranged wounds) can be subject to No Retreat through the workings of ATSKNF.

 

But only because ATSKNF specifically states that they do. If it were not so stated, ATSKNF would not activate No Retreat!

 

ATSKNF ends up being irrelavent to the argument at hand, since it is such a singular exception to the general No Retreat! rules.

 

The first sentence is true, but the second is not because of how you constructed your argument using the "These units do not take morale tests and never fall back". A unit that IS subject to No Retreat is not accurately described by the rule text there, and thus that rule text cannot be used as the be-all and end-all of setting boundaries for No Retreat usage.