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

[Legatus]

But naturally the rule only applies where either the basic rule says it does or a special rule says it does.

[nighthawks]

the only rule without exceptions within 40k is that every rule HAS exceptions.

 

agreeing with cale on RAW, but I still think it feels wrong and will likely house rule that GoW is subject to No Retreat!.

[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.

 

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.

 

That's not really how rules work. That rule text is the be-all and end-all of setting boundaries for No Retreat usage because that's the way it's worded. The fact that there are cases where other rules specifically invoke No Retreat, even for units to which it would not normally apply means that these other rules are exceptions to the general rule--a common occurance in 40k. It does not mean that they invalidate the general rule.

 

If every exception invalidated the general rule it was excepting, I really doubt that there would be any functional rules remaining at all--there certainly wouldn't be enough to play the game.

[Gentlemanloser]

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).

 

This appears to be the focus of the debate.

 

What's a GoW unit? There isn't any.

 

There are Marines units that are capable of falling back, that also have the option to call upon another units special rule to allow them to choose when not to fall back. When using this rule, they satisfy everything the No Retreat! rule stipulates.

 

When they don't choose to use GoW, they are treated as Marines normally are. This doesn't somehow invalidate them from No Retreat! being applied when they do become able to automatically pass/ignore Moral Tests in CC.

 

A counter example if we agree that GoW isn't suceptable to No Retreat! due to that last line;

 

A unit of Marines is joined by a Chaplain. Even though the Chaplain gives them Fearless, they never suffer from No Retreat! when they lose a CC. As they are capable of falling back when the Chaplain isn't attached to them, or the Chaplain dies.

[Cale]

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).

 

This appears to be the focus of the debate.

 

What's a GoW unit? There isn't any.

 

There are Marines units that are capable of falling back, that also have the option to call upon another units special rule to allow them to choose when not to fall back. When using this rule, they satisfy everything the No Retreat! rule stipulates.

 

When they don't choose to use GoW, they are treated as Marines normally are. This doesn't somehow invalidate them from No Retreat! being applied when they do become able to automatically pass/ignore Moral Tests in CC.

 

A counter example if we agree that GoW isn't suceptable to No Retreat! due to that last line;

 

A unit of Marines is joined by a Chaplain. Even though the Chaplain gives them Fearless, they never suffer from No Retreat! when they lose a CC. As they are capable of falling back when the Chaplain isn't attached to them, or the Chaplain dies.

 

This isn't really an accurate representation of the God of War rule. What God of War does is confer unto a set of units in your army a particular ability: the ability to choose to pass certain leadership tests. This ability is posessed by each of those units affected by Marneus' God of War ability, but it has no title itself. Referring to them as 'god of war' units is entirely short-hand, and, as you point out, probably not appropriate.

 

Rather, what you have is a unit which, due to a confluence of rules, has the ability to choose to pass or fail certain leadership tests.

 

This sort of unit is not accurately described by the phase "such units never flee" as, in fact, one of their abilities makes it particularly easy for them to flee should they want to (an ability which seperates them in a very significant way from Fearless units).

 

So, the way I used the term God of War was not correct, but the way you're using it is also not correct. A unit never uses the rule 'God of War'. It simply has a separate, unnamed ability conferred onto it by Marneus' God of War ability.

 

Further, it doesn't have two separate states which are relavent to the interaction between God of War and No Retreat. It only has one state--one in which it may choose to pass or fail certain leadership tests. It doesn't suddenly enter a state of "never fleeing" when it chooses to pass an individual leadership test. Rather, it has simply failed to flee in that particular instance--just as it would have had it made a leadership test the normal way.

 

At no point does the phrase "such units never flee" accurately describe a unit because that unit is being affected by God of War. God of War does not make a unit "never flee". Using the ability granted by God of War does not make a unit even temporarily "never flee."

 

 

The Chaplain conferring fearless on a unit is a different matter, though. The Chaplain does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while the Chaplain is attached, the unit will never flee. Note that such a qualifier still allows the unit to fall handily under the No Retreat rules. No Retreat affects units which never fall back. While the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached will never fall back. Thus, while the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached is subject to the No Retreat rule. There's not really a contradiction there at all.

 

Also note that the same thing can not be said about a unit's being affected by God of War. At no point does it become correct to say, "a unit which is affected by God of War will never fall back," or even, "a unit which chooses not to fall back will never fall back." Thus neither the state of being affected by God of War nor the act of choosing not to fall back subjects the unit in question to the No Retreat rule.

 

I'm not applying the logic unevenly. A unit can be temporarily rendered unable to retreat. However, God of War never renders a unit unable to retreat--even when a unit under its influence chooses to pass a morale test and would have fled were the test failed.

 

The situation with the Chaplain simply fails to be analogous at all.

 

edit:

Also, I never used the phrase "GoW unit" or even "God of War unit." I'm not sure where you got that or whether you just imagined it, but I never wrote it.

[Seahawk]

Waaay too complicated here folks. The answer is so much simpler.

 

- You suffer No Retreat! when you lose an assault but automatically pass your Leadership check to stick around.

- Using the God of War ability makes you to automatically pass Leadership checks.

 

And there you have it. Anything else like "never" and the pedantics of whatever else is only ancillary in the description of the incredible majority of units that would normally suffer No Retreat!.

[Cale]

Well, if you put it that way, Seahawk, then you're obviously wrong.

 

I mean, God of War doesn't make you automatically pass leadership tests. Fearless (in contrast) makes you automatically pass leadership tests. God of War lets you choose to pass a leadership test. It's not automatic if you have a choice. You haven't automatically done something if you've chosen to do it. Those terms are entirely exclusive. You can't automatically choose to do something--that's not what it means to choose.

 

No, if, in fact, the rule boils down the way you say it does, then God of War definitely does not inflict No Retreat on the units it affects.

[Seahawk]

You're not automatically choosing to pass; you're choosing to automatically pass. Big difference.

 

Regardless if I'm wrong about the automatic madness, you're not making any dice roll; you're just passing the test. This is covered in the following part of the rules: "These units do not take Morale checks..." Now let's see what a morale check is... "Morale checks are taken by rolling 2D6," etc. When using the GoW rule, you are not taking a morale check, as you are not rolling 2D6, you're simply passing. Thus, if you choose to use it to pass after losing a close combat, you suffer No Retreat! wounds, right?

[Legatus]

This is covered in the following part of the rules: "These units do not take Morale checks..."

There is a part missing, isn't it?

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm not applying the logic unevenly. A unit can be temporarily rendered unable to retreat. However, God of War never renders a unit unable to retreat--even when a unit under its influence chooses to pass a morale test and would have fled were the test failed.

 

Again, I think this is the crux of the discussion. The 'never'.

 

But, that last section only applies to the rule as a whole. It's only valid when the first part is in use. When a unit doesn't have a Spcial rule to make them ignore/auto pass Moral, it doesn't apply.

 

When they do, it does anyway. It's a pointless stipulation that means nothing.

 

If a unit is made able to ignore/auto pass Moral, even temporarily (like GoW, or attaching Fearless) then they will never retreat, while that ability is active. And that's all that counts.

 

There is no diference mechanically in a unit using GoW or using Fearless to allow them to automatically pass Moral Tests.

 

The Chaplain conferring fearless on a unit is a different matter, though. The Chaplain does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while the Chaplain is attached, the unit will never flee. Note that such a qualifier still allows the unit to fall handily under the No Retreat rules. No Retreat affects units which never fall back. While the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached will never fall back. Thus, while the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached is subject to the No Retreat rule. There's not really a contradiction there at all.

 

Also note that the same thing can not be said about a unit's being affected by God of War. At no point does it become correct to say, "a unit which is affected by God of War will never fall back," or even, "a unit which chooses not to fall back will never fall back." Thus neither the state of being affected by God of War nor the act of choosing not to fall back subjects the unit in question to the No Retreat rule.

 

A Unit using GoW to automatically pass every Moral Test will never fall back.

 

It's the same deal. Except Fearless is always on, and doesn't give you the choice not to use it.

[Seahawk]

Yes but GoW was written after this was printed, and to my knowledge there is not a single other unit or rule in the game that gives the choice like ours. I blieve that piece should be thrown out because for all intents, at the time of writing it was true but no longer. amd is thus not accurate for all units that suffer from No Retreat!.

[Gentlemanloser]

Sorry, just want to highlight that last quote I posted.

 

The Chaplain conferring fearless on a unit is a different matter, though. The Chaplain does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while the Chaplain is attached, the unit will never flee. Note that such a qualifier still allows the unit to fall handily under the No Retreat rules. No Retreat affects units which never fall back. While the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached will never fall back. Thus, while the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached is subject to the No Retreat rule. There's not really a contradiction there at all.

 

Also note that the same thing can not be said about a unit's being affected by God of War. At no point does it become correct to say, "a unit which is affected by God of War will never fall back," or even, "a unit which chooses not to fall back will never fall back." Thus neither the state of being affected by God of War nor the act of choosing not to fall back subjects the unit in question to the No Retreat rule.

 

How about reading it as (not going to replace Fearless, consider all Fearless below as "Some other special rule");

 

GoW conferring fearless on a unit is not a different matter, though. GoW does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while GoW is being used to auto pass, the unit will never flee. Note that such a qualifier still allows the unit to fall handily under the No Retreat rules. No Retreat affects units which never fall back. While GoW is being used to auto pass Moral on a unit, the unit to which GoW is being used in this fashion will never fall back. Thus, while GoW is being used to auto pass Moral on a unit, the unit to which GoW is being used in this fashion is subject to the No Retreat rule. There's not really a contradiction there at all.

[Legatus]

There is no diference mechanically in a unit using GoW or using Fearless to allow them to automatically pass Moral Tests.

Yes there is. When the time for a morale test comes, the fearless unit will never fall back, while the unit that uses GoW might.

 

GoW does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while GoW is being used to auto pass, the unit will never flee.

That is like saying, "A unit that keeps rolling only snake eyes for it's morale tests is incapable to flee, will never flee, and thus is subject to No Retreat", which is of course nonsense.

 

Yes but GoW was written after this was printed, and to my knowledge there is not a single other unit or rule in the game that gives the choice like ours.

At the time the 5th Edition rulebook was released, there were Daemonhunter and Witchhunter Inquisitor Lords with such a rule, as well as Marneus Calgar from the 4th Codex Space Marines.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yes there is. When the time for a morale test comes, the fearless unit will never fall back, while the unit that uses GoW might.

 

No.

 

If you're using GoW to auto pass, then you will never fall back.

 

That's the point.

 

That is like saying, "A unit that keeps rolling only snake eyes for it's morale tests is incapable to flee, will never flee, and thus is subject to No Retreat", which is of course nonsense.

 

Rolling isn't automatically passing. Nor is it being immune to the Test.

[Cale]

You're not automatically choosing to pass; you're choosing to automatically pass. Big difference.

 

No, you're not even choosing to automatically pass--you're just choosing to pass. The word "automatically" isn't in GoW's text at all, and there's a good reason for that: as I said, choosing and doing something automatically are inherently opposed concepts. If you have chosen to do something, you have not done it automatically. If you have done it automatically, you have not chosen to do it. You can't choose to do something automatically or automatically choose to do something--both phrases involve a misuse of one word or the other.

 

Regardless if I'm wrong about the automatic madness, you're not making any dice roll; you're just passing the test. This is covered in the following part of the rules: "These units do not take Morale checks..." Now let's see what a morale check is... "Morale checks are taken by rolling 2D6," etc. When using the GoW rule, you are not taking a morale check, as you are not rolling 2D6, you're simply passing. Thus, if you choose to use it to pass after losing a close combat, you suffer No Retreat! wounds, right?

 

Sure, but you left out the other part of that phrase: "These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back." And will never fall back. It's not "or will never fall back;" the unit has to meet both criteria for the rule to apply, and you have conveniently left out the one which units choosing to pass a leadership test do not meet. Poor workmanship, there, Seahawk.

 

Yes but GoW was written after this was printed, and to my knowledge there is not a single other unit or rule in the game that gives the choice like ours. I blieve that piece should be thrown out because for all intents, at the time of writing it was true but no longer. amd is thus not accurate for all units that suffer from No Retreat!.

 

What about Pure of Heart, Strong of Body (or whatever Calgar's rule was in the last codex that did the exact same thing for him and any unit to which he was attached?). Or the the rule for Inquisitors that also did the same thing? No, GoW's core mechanic has been around for quite a while, now, and I don't think it ever has, or has even been intended to invoke No Retreat.

 

 

Sorry, just want to highlight that last quote I posted.

 

The Chaplain conferring fearless on a unit is a different matter, though. The Chaplain does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while the Chaplain is attached, the unit will never flee. Note that such a qualifier still allows the unit to fall handily under the No Retreat rules. No Retreat affects units which never fall back. While the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached will never fall back. Thus, while the Chaplain is attached to a unit, the unit to which he is attached is subject to the No Retreat rule. There's not really a contradiction there at all.

 

Also note that the same thing can not be said about a unit's being affected by God of War. At no point does it become correct to say, "a unit which is affected by God of War will never fall back," or even, "a unit which chooses not to fall back will never fall back." Thus neither the state of being affected by God of War nor the act of choosing not to fall back subjects the unit in question to the No Retreat rule.

 

How about reading it as (not going to replace Fearless, consider all Fearless below as "Some other special rule");

 

GoW conferring fearless on a unit is not a different matter, though. GoW does, in fact, make the unit incapable of fleeing--while GoW is being used to auto pass, the unit will never flee. Note that such a qualifier still allows the unit to fall handily under the No Retreat rules. No Retreat affects units which never fall back. While GoW is being used to auto pass Moral on a unit, the unit to which GoW is being used in this fashion will never fall back. Thus, while GoW is being used to auto pass Moral on a unit, the unit to which GoW is being used in this fashion is subject to the No Retreat rule. There's not really a contradiction there at all.

 

This is why I pointed out that the situations are not analagous. The unit to which a chaplain is attached is utterly incapable of falling back. Period. Under no circumstance will it do so.

 

The unit benefitting from GoW is capable of falling back. It does not automatically pass anything. That's one thing that needs to be noted, time and time again until you folks stop misphrasing your arguments. GoW does not allow you to "auto pass" anything. It just allows you to choose to pass certain leadership tests. That's entirely different from auto-passing. Expressing it as auto-passing is simply misleading, and, at this point, dishonest.

 

The problem, really, is that we're talking about two different types of circumstances.

 

One type is simply the circumstance where a unit is being affected by a particular rule: the unit is benefitting from the Chaplain's "Honour of the Chapter" rule or Calgar's "God of War" rule. This seems like a circumstance that can legitimately trigger No Retreat. When under the influence of the Honour of the Chapter rule, a unit cannot fall back. Thus it is subject to No Retreat.

 

The same cannot be said about God of War. A unit under the influence of God of War can retreat, and thus is not subject to No Retreat.

 

You are trying to pin down a much, much smaller time frame, and one that I think is not a legitimate trigger for No Retreat. You're looking at just the time between a unit choosing to pass a morale test and the end of the resolution for that combat. If this were a legitimate time slice, then every unit would be subject to no retreat. After all:

 

My Chaos Marines are in combat. They lose combat, take their morale test, and pass it. From this point until the next morale test they must take, they will not take morale tests and they will never fall back. Great. So they suffer from No Retreat for simply having passed their test.

 

Obviously, that's not how it's supposed to work. It's not how it does work, because 'from the point immediately after the test is passed to the point at which the unit takes its next morale test' simply fails to be a legitimate time frame in which to test whether a unit is subject to No Retreat.

 

In other words, you're stretching. What you've proposed may seem marginally reasonable in the manner you've presented it, but, in fact, it is a gross manipulation of the rules which appears to have been done for no reason other than your aversion to a rule being quite as good as it is. It really boggles the mind that your desire to curb even tiny, tiny amounts of benefit have led you to attempt such a gross misuse of the rules.

 

 

Yes there is. When the time for a morale test comes, the fearless unit will never fall back, while the unit that uses GoW might.

 

No.

 

If you're using GoW to auto pass, then you will never fall back.

 

That's the point.

 

That is like saying, "A unit that keeps rolling only snake eyes for it's morale tests is incapable to flee, will never flee, and thus is subject to No Retreat", which is of course nonsense.

 

Rolling isn't automatically passing. Nor is it being immune to the Test.

 

Neither is choosing to pass. You cannot use GoW to auto-pass anything. You use it to choose to pass, in which case you pass--just as if you'd actually rolled the dice and passed. There is no difference except in that there are no dice, and that is not a difference which matters to No Retreat.

 

edit:

When I use the word 'legitimate' above with reference to time frames, I'm not talking about legitimacy in terms of the rules, but rather legitimacy in terms of the use of the word 'never'. Consider:

 

When I say, "a unit will never flee while it's attached to the Chaplain," the phrase sounds right. It is a legitimate period of over which to use the word never.

 

When I say, "a unit will never flee after it has passed a morale check, until it has another morale check," the phrase does not sound right. The word 'never' is out of place. The word 'not' would be appropriate, but the period of time simply isn't sufficient to justify the use of the word 'never'. After all, are you really 'never' doing something if, over the course of a single opportunity, you don't? No.

 

You couldn't say, "Yesterday between eleven and noon, I never smoked a cigarette." That wouldn't be an appropriate use of the word 'never', and it's perfectly analagous to the manner in which you're trying to use it.

 

You could say, though, "I never smoke cigarettes while I'm in the hospital." That would be an appropriate use of the word 'never' because it incorporates multiple opportunities during which you fail to do the thing in question.

 

So, really, you're not just trying to twist the rule, you're trying desparately to twist the language. A reasonable grasp of that language, though, shows your efforts for what they are--little more than nonsense.

[Gentlemanloser]

Neither is choosing to pass. You cannot use GoW to auto-pass anything. You use it to choose to pass, in which case you pass--just as if you'd actually rolled the dice and passed. There is no difference except in that there are no dice, and that is not a difference which matters to No Retreat.

 

Choosing to pass is Auto passing in this situation.

 

As posted above, taking a test is rolling dice. Anything that lets you make the test without rolling dice is an automatic resolution.

 

If you roll 2d6 for Moral Tests, you're taking the test.

 

If you pass or fail a Moral Test without rolling dice you are automatically passing / failing the test.

 

My Chaos Marines are in combat. They lose combat, take their morale test, and pass it. From this point until the next morale test they must take, they will not take morale tests and they will never fall back. Great. So they suffer from No Retreat for simply having passed their test.

 

Bad arguement. This doesn't apply, as they aren't subect to the start of the rule in question, your Chaos marines have no way to automatically pass or ignore Moral Tests...

 

Cale, What is the mechanical difference in using Fearless to pass a CC Moral Test, or using GoW to pass one?

 

You couldn't say, "Yesterday between eleven and noon, I never smoked a cigarette." That wouldn't be an appropriate use of the word 'never', and it's perfectly analagous to the manner in which you're trying to use it.

 

Turn one.

 

Marine Tac Squad is first turn assaulted, loses CC and Fall back.

 

Turn two.

 

Chapain Joins the Squad. The Squad is then assaulted, losses again.

 

You now can't say they have never fallen back. Can you.

 

You can say that while the Chaplain is present, they will never fall back. Just in the same way you can say while GoW (used to auto pass) is present, they will never fall back.

[Legatus]

Well, part of the unit you describe above never ever will fall back. You have models that cann fall back and models that never fall back join, and the latter just so happens to convey his susceptibility to "No Retreat" to the rest of the unit.

 

But there are other examples where "Fearless" is not permanent, such as Ork squads, who lose that rule as soon as they sink below 10 models, or Sisters of Battle units who can be made fearless for one turn by one of their blessings. What all of them have in common though is that while they are fearless, there is no question whether they might fall back or not. They cannot.

 

That is not really compareable to a model chosing to pass a test with God of War, since it could have just as well chosen not to pass the test. Passing the test is not predetermined as it is with fearless units.

[Gentlemanloser]

I agree.

 

But the choice offered by GoW doesn't impact that it works exactly the same way Fearless does, when you use it in that fashion. And it also complies with everything the rule asks for, exactly like Fearless.

 

Like SoB. They can choose to use that Faith power. They can choose not to. When they do choose to use it to automatically pass a Moral Chack, they are effected exactly like a Marine unit using GoW to do the exact same thing.

 

Imagine that the Faith Power was changed from Fearless to applying GoW. Would the effect be any different?

[Praeger]

GUYS

 

2 things here.

 

1st - im watching this so please dont make this topic too heated...I hate brining the melta out on a hot day.

 

2nd - Personaly I agree wit hCale here, but for a completly difrent reason.

 

GOW gives the unit two choices.

 

A - to act like a fearless unit (in all intent and purposes)

 

B - to run away.

 

The thing is that while they are able to ACT like they are fearless, they are NOT fearless.

 

Your probably wondering why I bring up something like this that isnt even in the rules, and the answer is just that - its not in the rules.

 

The unit basicly gets all the benefits just like they would if they where fearless. But it never says the unit is fearless, instead it lists out what benefits they get.

 

Whys this important? 1 simple reason. GW seam to make the rules alot clearer now. If they had meant the unit to be fearless they would NOT have listed the benefits but have said "the unit can chose to withdraw OR be fearless for that turn"

 

Now if they had said THAT, then the unit would be effected by the full effects of the fearless rule and suffer the downsides etc. However they are not fearless, they have the same basic rules but are NOT fearless.

 

Hope that makes sense :huh:

[Gentlemanloser]

It's does, but the No Retreat rules include Fearless, or any other special ability that allows you to atuo pass/ignore Moral Tests. Which GoW does.

 

For the intents of the No Retreat rule, doesn't GoW act in exactly the same fashion as Fearless?

 

Edit: If No Retreat only effect Fearless troops, I'd agree 100% with you. ;)

[GTang]

You're not automatically choosing to pass; you're choosing to automatically pass. Big difference.

 

Regardless if I'm wrong about the automatic madness, you're not making any dice roll; you're just passing the test. This is covered in the following part of the rules: "These units do not take Morale checks..." Now let's see what a morale check is... "Morale checks are taken by rolling 2D6," etc. When using the GoW rule, you are not taking a morale check, as you are not rolling 2D6, you're simply passing. Thus, if you choose to use it to pass after losing a close combat, you suffer No Retreat! wounds, right?

This was also covered in the other discussion.

 

My response to this is as follows. Morale checks are *typically* taken by rolling 2d6, but may be overriden by a different mechanism given in the Codex (as that rule states). In the case of the SM's God of War and the longer-existing Iron Will (of DH and WH), dice rolling has been replaced by choosing to pass or fail. So a morale test still happens. Does that morale test require you to pass? No. You may pass or fail, just like if you had rolled dice.

 

So, No Retreat! does not apply. These units do take morale tests, and these morale tests do not automatically pass.

[SeattleDV8]

Seems like you are really trying Way to hard on that logic GTang.

Yes there is a choice to pass or fail, but once that choice is made the test has been auto-failed or auto-passed.

If you don't roll them bones thats a auto something.

The "will never fall back" argument has a point. Not a strong point, but a real one.

BRB pg. 44 "...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)."

You don't have to be fearless, it can be some other rule.

I feel GOW fits that description. You auto pass for some reason, in this case your choice to.

[GTang]

The opposite of automatic is not random. Having more than one option doesn't make either option an automatic one.

 

What I mean by that is, for example. Rolling the dice, we agree, is the standard kind of morale test. After you roll below the LD or after you roll above the LD, would you call it an automatic pass or fail? Under the system used to say God of War and Iron Will is automatic, yes. After all, you can't decide to fall back after you rolled a 2; falling back is not an option anymore. And calling that roll at that time an automatic success is the same thing as saying choosing to pass is an automatic pass - you noticed it passed after the test was made. Under this system, after you have a result of the test, even a standard morale test would be called automatic. But No Retreat! doesn't ask whether the morale test results are automatic. It asks wheter the morale test itself is automatic.

 

What you need to ask is whether the morale test can possibly give you more than one result before you take it. Fearless can't. Iron Will can. That's an important difference between them, the one that gives one the No Retreat! rule and leaves the other without it.

 

Iron Will says that it works against automatic failures. Which you say that choosing to fail means. Is there any other rule written so that it works on itself? If it's not automatic, that problem also goes away.

 

Looking at BRB for the rules to both No Retreat! and Morale Tests, you can see that this way of thinking about it has been allowed. Explicitly in the case of Morale Tests (where it says codexes can offer another way of doing it) and implicitly in No Retreat!, where is does not say anything other than a die roll Morale Test would require No Retreat!

[SeattleDV8]

The opposite of automatic is not random. Having more than one option doesn't make either option an automatic one.

 

What I mean by that is, for example. Rolling the dice, we agree, is the standard kind of morale test. After you roll below the LD or after you roll above the LD, would you call it an automatic pass or fail?

 

Actually in the GW rules in this case the opposite of automatic is random.

 

A normal Ld test is 2D6, your basic random number generator. An automatic pass or fail is no rolling of dice.

 

In the case of GoW you have 3 choices

A. do not use it and take a ld test

B. choose to pass the test

C. choose to fail the test

It is at this point you would check to see if No Retreat affects the unit, not before the test as you seem to suggest.

if your choice was A.or C. in does not.

If your choice was B. you would have passed the test automatically and are subject to No Retreat.

[Tutteman]

This is probably going to go on for a long time. Mostly because I can see there is logic in both viewpoints and the main disagreement is over the parameters that you apply to the rules involved. Personally I'm leaning towards GTang's point of view but I'm not sure and I'm hardly impartial.

 

As far as I can see the problem can only be properly solved by the guys who wrote these rules telling us what the rules were intended to mean. In the meantime I have two ideas, firstly, agree on the parameters we are applying to the involved rules. And my second idea for if that fails (as I suspect it will ;) ).

 

 

Flip a coin. B)