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

[Cale]

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.

 

No, once again: choosing to do something is entirely different from doing that thing automatically--in every sense of both words.

 

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.

 

No. That's simply a misuse of the word automatic. I'm not sure what else to tell you--perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

 

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...

 

It really wasn't an argument at all. I was just showing you how absurd your position really is. Here is your argument, represented as generously as it can be:

 

1. A unit is subject to No Retreat if it can be described accurately by the phrase "this unit does not take morale tests and never retreats" (which is paraphrased from the section of the No Retreat rule which governs its application).

 

2. During the time between deciding to pass a morale test (including the moment of decision) and the next instance it might be called upon to take a morale test, a unit which chooses to pass a morale test is accurately described by the statement, "this unit does not take morale tests and never retreats."

 

3. Thus, During the time between deciding to pass a morale test (including the moment of decision) and the next instance it might be called upon to take a morale test, the unit is subject to No Retreat.

 

 

It's a valid argument. However, the same argument could be made for any unit, simply by failing to include the moment in which the unit makes its test from the time period being discussed. After all:

 

1. A unit is subject to No Retreat if it can be described accurately by the phrase "this unit does not take morale tests and never retreats" (which is paraphrased from the section of the No Retreat rule which governs its application).

 

2. During the time between passing a morale test (not including the moment of the test itself) and the next instance it might be called upon to take a morale test, a unit which passes a morale test is accurately described by the statement, "this unit does not take morale tests and never retreats."

 

3. Thus, During the time between passing a morale test (not including the moment of the test itself) and the next instance it might be called upon to take a morale test, the unit is subject to No Retreat.

 

 

When you say "while GoW (used to auto pass) is present, they will never fall back," this is what you mean, right? That during this span of time (the time during which it is being used to "auto-pass," as you put it) the unit is subject to the No Retreat rule. If you really believe this, then you have to believe it about every other unit which passes a morale test ever. It is irrational to do otherwise.

 

 

Luckily, we don't have to believe it about any unit, since the unit benefitting from GoW isn't accurately described by the relavent phrase during any period of time--since using the word 'never' within such a short and specific time frame would be simply and utterly inappropriate.

 

 

When we compare this to a similar argument constructed for the Chaplain, the difference becomes clear:

 

1. A unit is subject to No Retreat if it can be described accurately by the phrase "this unit does not take morale tests and never retreats" (which is paraphrased from the section of the No Retreat rule which governs its application).

 

2. While a Chaplain is attached to a unit, that unit is accurately described by the phrase, "this unit does not take morale tests and never retreats."

 

3. Thus, while a Chaplain is attached to a unit, that unit is subject to No Retreat.

 

 

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

 

You don't 'use' Fearless to pass a morale test: it forces you to pass it. You have no say in the matter. You can't choose to roll normally. You can't choose to fail. You must pass the test. That's what it means for something to be automatic--that it happens on its own, automatically, without any act of volition on your part (and, as a side note, without any appreciable degree of randomness)

 

GoW is completely different. It doesn't force you to do anything. It simply gives you the option to pass the morale test without rolling. There's nothing automatic about it. Everything that happens happens because you want it to--none of it happens "automatically.'

 

The word automatically excludes the notion that there is a choice involved. Since a choice is clearly involved in the use of GoW, it is not automatic.

 

Now do you see your error?

 

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.

 

It's not a question of being able to say that the unit has never fallen back in the past, or that it will never fall back in the future: it's a question of whether the unit is accurately described by the phrase, "These units do not take morale tests and will never fall back."

 

When the chaplain joins the squad, the squad becomes fearless. While fearless, the squad is accurately described by the phrase in question. Thus it is subject to the No Retreat rule.

 

The unit being affected by God of War is never accurately described by the phrase in question--not 'while GoW is being used to auto-pass' or at any other time. Thus, such a unit is never subject to No Retreat because of the fact that it is affected by GoW--even if it does, in fact, choose to pass all the morale tests it is called upon to make.

 

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.

 

I discussed this in more detail, above, but the short answer is, no. You can say that while the chaplain is present, they will never fall back, but you cannot say that while GoW is being used to auto-pass, they will never fall back.

 

The second statement would only be true if the time period you're discussing (while GoW is being used to auto-pass) were one for which the word 'never' was appropriate. It is not.

 

Further, were you able to make that second statement, you would be able to make a similar statement about every single unit in the game:

 

after passing a morale test (but before making its next one, an addendum you would have to add to your statement about GoW for it to be accurate), a unit is subject to No Retreat because it will not take a morale test and it will never fall back.

 

Your position is not only wrong, but, when examined closely, patently ridiculous. It mandates a consequence which we know to be wrong.

[Gentlemanloser]

Not going to bother any more Cale, you stick to your definition of what taking test in 40K without rolling dice is called, and I'll stick to mine.

[Cale]

Fair enough.

[Seahawk]

In case anybody is going and using, the judges for Adepticon have ruled in favor of it triggering No Retreat in their FAQ.

[rekrulcinam]

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

Um, if the codex said that you auto-passed or auto-failed, you might have an argument. As it is, it just states that you can choose to pass or fail. I don't see 'auto' anywhere in there. Are you making things up to support your argument...?

[GTang]

In case anybody is going and using, the judges for Adepticon have ruled in favor of it triggering No Retreat in their FAQ.

They don't have any more insight than anyone else on this. Opinion is nearly evenly split on which way to do this. Of course, if you're going to Adepticon, you have to abide by the con's rules.

[SeattleDV8]

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

Um, if the codex said that you auto-passed or auto-failed, you might have an argument. As it is, it just states that you can choose to pass or fail. I don't see 'auto' anywhere in there. Are you making things up to support your argument...?

 

That's got to be the most disingenuous argument i've seen in a while.

Any time in the rules you are allowed to pass or fail a test without rolling dice It is considered an automatic.

The fact that you can choose either in this case does not remove the automatic nature.

Even without the word automatic the effect is there.

[Legatus]

Yes, being able to pass a test without rolling for it is "automatically" passing that test. I am afraid he has a minor misconception about that. But I assume it is because that is not the only way a test can be "automatic", and he is more focused on the other instances. With "God of War" at least there is a choice involved, there are two different outcomes (is that the plural?). It is different for fearless units. There never is a question whether they will flee or stay in combat.

 

Usually, it is determined by chance (dice rolling) whether a unit flees or stays. With God of War, the player has free choice whether a unit flees or stays. With fearless units, there is no alternative. Fearless units never flee. It is not technically possible.

 

Here are the first two paragraphs again, to emphasize why GoW is different:

 

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 checks 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).

 

If you examine those two paragraphs, it looks very much like the first paragraph is merely an introduction, while the second paragraph contains the actual game mechanics. The first paragraph simply points out that there are certain units with different morale rules, and then gives a fluff description of what might happen to them in a fight. That is why me and some other people put more weight on the second paragraph, as in our (sound weird, perhaps I should say 'my') opinion this is where the rule is described.

 

"These units" it says, and that would indeed include those the previous paragraph mentioned. But it then goes on to specify these units. They "do not take Morale checks and will never fall back". But that description does not match with "God of War", so that makes us (me) doubt that the rest of the rule, describing how to handle these units, applies to units that use God of War.

[SeattleDV8]

Fair enough, thats a good argument. I don't feel the first is fluff and gives a guide for how the rule should work.

The Grey area is there though and either could be correct.

[Gentlemanloser]

I wasn't going to carry on with this any more, it's just going back and forth about what's automatic and what isn't, but a different tact hit me.

 

I've not got a book with me atm, but does failing a Tank Shock make you fall back? If so, Fearless troops still have to roll Ld for Tank Shocks don't they, so could be made to fall back, and;

 

and will never fall back

 

Becomes meaningless.

 

"These units" it says, and that would indeed include those the previous paragraph mentioned. But it then goes on to specify these units. They "do not take Morale checks and will never fall back". But that description does not match with "God of War", so that makes us (me) doubt that the rest of the rule, describing how to handle these units, applies to units that use God of War.

 

My whole point has been here is that the "these units" directly refers to the paragraph above, referencing units that have, and are using, a way to "to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason". Temporarily, or not. Other choices allowed, or not.

[Legatus]

I've not got a book with me atm, but does failing a Tank Shock make you fall back? If so, Fearless troops still have to roll Ld for Tank Shocks don't they, so could be made to fall back, and;

No, as per rulebook page 44 (morale tests), Tank Shock is one of the three basic morale tests. Not only do fearless units automatically pass these, but they will also, according to the description of the universal special rule, "never fall back" (page 75).

 

My whole point has been here is that the "these units" directly refers to the paragraph above, referencing units that have, and are using, a way to "to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason". Temporarily, or not. Other choices allowed, or not.

And indeed it does. "These units" refers to the units that have just been described, inluding units that automatically pass morale tests. But the description that is then given for "these units" does not match with God of War anymore. "These units" do not take morale checks and will never fall back, and will instead suffer additional wounds. But units that use the God of War rule can fall back. The "No Retreat" rule is a basic rule from the rulebook. There may be special rules in Codices that do not really fit into the description of this basic rule.

 

Fearless units get automatic hits because they are never in danger of being overrun, or retreat and being unable to rally. It is a tradeoff for never retreating. If units can use the God of War special rule you could potentially have them pass all the tests they ever need to make. But in every single instance there is also the option to have them run away instead. You can decide whether they do that, and usually you probably will not want them to. But there might be situations where you want them to retreat, though, such as when a dangerous enemy is close and might assault them after his shooting phase, or when they are stuck in close combat with a dreadnought. Then they might run. And while they still cannot be run down (because they are also Space Marines, but that is independent of "God of War"), there is the risk that they wont rally because of enemies nearby, or they might run off the board because you took your chances when the board edge was 10" away. Units that use "God of War" can retreat, and there might be disadvantageous situations because of it, but their morale rules really are to the benefit of the owning player.

[Gentlemanloser]

And those units that become temporarily Fearless? Like SoB, or attaching a Chaplain.

 

The SoB is the best exmaple I can think of atm. They have the choice to use thier power and become fearless (temporarily), they have the choice not to. Like using GoW. They are quite obviously never always never going to fall back. So they shouldn't be hit by No Retreat! either.

[GTang]

SoB with the Light of the Emperor don't take morale checks and never fall back. Similarly Sisters Repentia would get No Retreat! wounds even though they aren't called fearless - they 'automatically pass' morale checks in cc. Not just pass, automatically pass. Here, you have an example of the word 'automatic' before 'pass' when the codex intends for it to mean that.

 

GoW/IW units do take morale checks and do fall back. They pass or fail their morale checks by the decision of the player running the unit.

[Gentlemanloser]

See this is what I can't grasp here.

 

SoB with the Light of the Emperor don't take morale checks and never fall back

 

GoW/IW units do take morale checks and do fall back

 

That same SoB squad when they *choose* not to use LotE do fall back. GoW units only fall back when they *choose* not to use GoW to stop them fallign back.

 

Why the difference? LotE isn't permanent, there is a choice in it's use, just as there is with GoW. And they can both be used in exactly the same way.

 

Or chosen not to be used.

[Legatus]

"Light of the Emperor" is activated at the beginning of the owning player's movement phase and then lasts until his next turn. He cannot decide individually for morale tests he might be called upon whether he wants the unit to be fearless or not. If he did not use "Light of the Emperor" at the beginning of his turn, the unit is not fearless and takes tests normally. If he used it, then the unit is fearless and will not fall back under any circumstances.

[Baragash]

I'm playing GoW subject to No Retreat! because:

 

Use of GoW must, necessarily, come before the Morale Check.

 

Rulebook: "Morale checks are a specific kind of Leadership test... Like all other Leadershp-based tests, Morale checks are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leadership value."

 

So let's be clear - a Morale check is the action of taking those two dice and rolling them. The point where you choose between passing and failing MUST precede the test, as you can choose to take the test.

 

If we examine the logical sequence then:

1) We work out combat results, I lose.

2) I declare whether I'm using GoW prior to taking the test and rolling any dice. I decide to use GoW to pass the test. Calgar becomes a unit immune to the following Morale check.

3) Morale test. Calgar is immune to the test - no dice are rolled. Ergo, No Retreat! is triggered.

[Legatus]

I cannot quite agree with that view. You do not decide whether or not to pass a check with GoW before you know that there is going to be a test. Only when the test has to be taken you decide whether or not you want to fail or pass that test. GoW does not have to be declared in advance, but only when the test is actually required.

 

If an enemy unit fires at a fearless unit, they know they will never run away. If an enemy unit fires at a GoW unit, they might.

 

If a fearless unit is beaten in combat, you know they will not run away. If a GoW unit is beaten in combat, they might.

[Gentlemanloser]

Under that stipulation, it makes the top part of No Retreat! meaningless. Only 'Fearless' units can ever be effected by it, and there's no room for any other special rule that makes you auto pass a moral test (like IW or GoW) or be immune to Moral Tests.

 

But that section is there for a reason, to apply No Retreat! to abilities other than Fearless.

 

If he did not use "Light of the Emperor" at the beginning of his turn, the unit is not fearless and takes tests normally. If he used it, then the unit is fearless and will not fall back under any circumstances.

 

Does it matter if it's temporary from the beggining fo the turn, or temporary from the resolution of the combat?

 

If GoW is used, the unit will not fall back under any circumstances.

[Cale]

If GoW is used, the unit will not fall back under any circumstances.

 

Unless it's used to fail, of course. =P

 

In addition, if a morale test is passed by rolling the dice, the unit will not fall back "under any circumstances" (by which I mean the same very limited set circumstances which allow your statement to be true.)

 

You still have the problem where if you 'interpret' No Retreat to include units choosing to pass their morale tests, you basically end up having to include units which simply pass their morale tests the normal way, too.

[Gentlemanloser]

No Cale, becuase they don't satisfy the top part of the rule. Having any way to automatically pass or ignore. Sucessfully making a Moral test is never in any way the same as automatically making it, nor being able to ignore the test.

 

But this is just going back and forth again, and is a good place for me to drop out. Again. ;)

[GTang]

Why the difference? LotE isn't permanent, there is a choice in it's use, just as there is with GoW. And they can both be used in exactly the same way.

A difference is LotE invokes 'Fearless' which uses No Retreat! whether you think it should or not, whenever Fearless comes into play. Iron Will is still not called 'automatic pass' or 'automatic fail'. In the WH codex, at least, both those terms have been used when that's what they meant.

[Gentlemanloser]

And we're back to the Yes/No of resolving a Test in 40K without using dice rolls is/isn't Automatic...

[Legatus]

Under that stipulation, it makes the top part of No Retreat! meaningless. Only 'Fearless' units can ever be effected by it, and there's no room for any other special rule that makes you auto pass a moral test (like IW or GoW) or be immune to Moral Tests.

 

But that section is there for a reason, to apply No Retreat! to abilities other than Fearless.

I raise you Tyranid Synapse rules. Creatures within Synapse range automatically pass morale tests. They are not "fearless", and there is no chance or choice invoved. That is exactly the other kind of special rule the "No Retreat" rule mentions.

 

Does it matter if it's temporary from the beggining fo the turn, or temporary from the resolution of the combat?

I think what matters is that when a unit has the specified rule, both the owning player and the opposing player know before initiating any kind of attack ro assault that the unit will not retreat because of the attack or flee from the combat.

[nighthawks]

agreeing with the prevailing logic here - the last line of No Retreat! DOES limit it's application, by RAW.

 

BUT I think that the use of such an ability, even though not "automatic" in the sense that it is a predetermined reaction to the test (as opposed to a choice that averides the test such as GoW or combat tactics to a lesser degree), does allow for the passing of a test under potentially absurd odds and therefore should have to feel the pain NR brings. it just seems so logical and fits so well with the (dare I say it?) fluff.

 

so cale, legatus, et al are right, but I don't think it's correct by intent so much as by RAW - but we only have the latter to go on. case closed, I feel.

[Legatus]

I could understand quite well if that was the intention. But in this case I am currently not certain that it is. Maybe the intention is that No retreat applies, because the rule is so useful. On the other hand, maybe it is not intended to apply, because these units (GoW) are not merely holding out under extreme circumstances, they are still tactically sound and can assess the situation they are in. They are able to fall back if it would be adviseable. They are not fearless units who will keep on fighting no matter the odds, so they are not in danger of being dragged down like them. Perhaps the rule is intended to be tactically more advantageous and with less risk than being fearless. At least the rule is a good deal rarer than fearless units are.