Calgar Rules Query?

[LIONS_SPEAK]

Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Well I have decided to take the plunge and am running Calgar this coming Monday. However I have just had a thought does choosing to auto pass morale checks in close combat make the unit subject to no retreat extra saves? :) As in the Rule for 'No Retreat' it states that the rule applies to any unit subjct to vow etc or that auto pass morale test.

 

So the question is I have a tactical squad in close combat I lose by say 5. I use Calgar auto pass rule am i subject still to my 5 no retreat save?

 

Thought this would be the right place to post as we are all battle brothers and Calgar is the boss.

:P

Courage and Honour

 

Marcus

[The Emperor's Champion]

No, Marneus doesn't make you auto-pass morale checks. Marneus lets you choose to pass OR fail.

[Magua]

You're not going to get a definitive answer, but be aware that the Adepticon FAQ says that yes, you would be liable for the no retreat wounds. Adepticon FAQ isn't official, but it is influential.

 

Personally, I would say yes as well. Calgar's ability is like being fearless, but better.

[The Emperor's Champion]

It's not tho. One is like being too insane to know when to fall back, the other is level headed tactical thinking.

It's NOT an auto-pass, simple as that. If there's two equally possible options by definition there's nothing automatic about it.

[Mal]

I thought the rule allowed you to choose to automatically pass the test or to automatically fall back....

[The Emperor's Champion]

"choose to pass or fail any Morale check they are called upon to take"

[Seahawk]

Announcer: "He winds up for the kick and...."

 

*punt*

 

Announcer: "It goes deep into Official Rule territory where they receive the thread. Oh, it looks like the other team doesn't even want it anymore."

[GTang]

I'd say no, but I've argued this too long to want to do it again. Opinion is divided nearly 50/50 on this, and until an official FAQ comes out, it might be something to mention and resolve before each game (or ask about before any tourney).

[rockdeity]

weird, what's the controversy? You can choose to pass or fail. I lose combat, I have to take an ld test... I choose to pass, no saves necessary. What's the mystery?

[HiveFleetEzekial]

You're getting around having to roll to see if you would pass or fail. That qualifies as 'automatically' passing/failing. And since 'No Retreat!' is triggered by things that are Fearless (or have some other special rule that lets them automatically pass) the test, they take the extra wounds. GoW falls into that 'or some other special rule' category.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Indeed, I am of the opinion that GoW lets you auto pass, or auto fail, at your discresion. Just becaus I could have chosen to fail doesnt make my pass any less automatic. There is no random probability, there is only a desicion. You should take your no retreat saves. That said the GoW says you can choose, not that you must, so you can still pick up your dice and roll them (you still have ATSKNF so not much to lose), unless the unit in quesiton is also fearless.

[JamesI]

Indeed, I am of the opinion that GoW lets you auto pass, or auto fail, at your discresion. Just becaus I could have chosen to fail doesnt make my pass any less automatic. There is no random probability, there is only a desicion. You should take your no retreat saves. That said the GoW says you can choose, not that you must, so you can still pick up your dice and roll them (you still have ATSKNF so not much to lose), unless the unit in quesiton is also fearless.

Agreed.

[rockdeity]

Oh, I see, I'm not sure that I agree but if you RAW there's definitely a case to be made there. That greatly diminishes the GoW then and also complicates it slightly, if that is the case. It is like choosing to be Fearless, or use Combat Tactics, or just take a test normally.

[Mal]

I guess its the choice that counts.

 

In some situtations its better to simply pass and take the wound (calgar + honour guard = 2+ saves all round)... but sometimes its better to split and run... and sometimes its better to let teh dice decide for you....

[gil galed]

I think that you don't suffer from no retreat, it's not that you don't test to fall back its that you can choose to pass it.

 

Important word is "Automatically Pass" in the wording of no retreat, your troops to not automatically pass, they pass because you choose that they will pass which (while automatic in the sense you don't roll dice) is not automatic in the sense you can 'never' retreat which is not the case

 

And:

Indeed, I am of the opinion that GoW lets you auto pass, or auto fail, at your discresion. Just becaus I could have chosen to fail doesnt make my pass any less automatic. There is no random probability, there is only a desicion. You should take your no retreat saves. That said the GoW says you can choose, not that you must, so you can still pick up your dice and roll them (you still have ATSKNF so not much to lose), unless the unit in quesiton is also fearless.

 

No, automatic is by definition without choice, you don't automatically pass your retreat test you choose to pass it, Also saying GoW means you can just use ATSKNF is as dodgy a rule interpretation, GoW says you can do X OR Y, it doesn't say you can Pass/Fail or roll on normal leadership, i disagree with being able to do this

 

 

Edit: Also in no retreat it says "These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back" this is simply not true of units under Calgar's GoW and thus excludes them from taking saves

 

N>B i never run big blue or intend to, so this isn't bias :jaw:

[Frosty the Pyro]

So a chaplains unit wont take "no retreat" because if the chaplain left/died they might retreat, how bout tyranids under synapse, they could retreat if synapse wasnt there. This is a dice game, automatic means without needing dice.

[Mal]

I don't honestly thing both sides are going to come to agreement on this matter... there is just too much room for contention and interpretation for the answer to be completly clear...

 

I think this one needs a FAQ.

[gil galed]

So a chaplains unit wont take "no retreat" because if the chaplain left/died they might retreat, how bout tyranids under synapse, they could retreat if synapse wasnt there. This is a dice game, automatic means without needing dice.

 

this analogy holds no water, its plainly wrong, The rule states that 'at the time' they have to take a retreat test if they will automatically pass (which they would if they had chaplain/synapse etc.) they take saves. If however 'at the time' they come to test they don't automatically pass then they don't suffer saves, simple as.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Well it's not exactly like GoW lets them go 'hmm, wait a minute. Let me/us think about this one for a moment..' The choice to auto pass/fail, or make the test has to be made when the test is called for, not after it.

[Ming]

The other shoe becomes, you chose to automatically fail, then retreat 2d6. Lets say you then are 5 inches from an enemy unit....you then still have to fall back...you cannot automatically choose to pass rallying if you cannot actually rally.

 

 

There are situations where the GoW benefit makes sense, or not. You will have to work that out.

[Cornishman]

Decide before your game with your oppenent is the best I can think of for this one. As the two interpretations can be roughly be put down like this:

 

1)

a ) You make the morale check,

b ) When you make it you choose to pass or fail,

c) The pass can't be automatic as there is an option for failure, so no 'No Retreat' can not be triggered from CC.

 

2 )

a ) You choose to pass the forth coming morale check

b ) You then make the morale check,

c ) With no chance of failure will trigger 'No Retreat' from loosing CC.

 

The critical part is the 'flow chart' of making a morale check and what makes a pass 'automatic' with respect to triggering 'No Retreat'. As a guide look to Tournement FAQ's on this matter, whilst you may not agree with a particular item (The Adepticon FAQ and UK GT FAQ both say that using GoW will trigger no-retreat), as a whole they make life a lot easier (they usually address a lot of issues that often come up). Given the RAW I would say GoW (or Inquisitors Iron will) doesn't trigger no-retreat due to the wordings and that choice involved. However in spirit, effect and critically rules mechanics I can see the strong arguement why it should.

 

As said above there is no clear cut winner in terms of rules, Offical FAQs on similar effects, or implied rules which often serve allow us to figure these things out. Until an offical FAQ comes up on this, GoW will continue to be a hot pot of discussions

[Brother Gothard]

I know, I know, you dont want to argue this anymore. Too bad, because I do, since I feel I can make a good defense of this. Plus, you are free to ignore me. Besides, who argues for the sake of their opponent, anyway :) So, here I go:

 

Pg. 44, AoBR booklet, emphasis mine:

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).

 

So, this rule refers to units that are "immune to Morale checks for losing an assault" or that "automatically pass them for some reason." However, there is a further stipulation for these units. They must be such as that they "do not take Morale checks and will never fall back." Whether or not choosing to pass or fail a morale check counts as "taking a morale check" is immaterial here. What I intend to contend that is units with the God of War special rule do not count as "automatically passing morale checks," nor are they such that they will "never fall back."

 

Pg. 84 of the C:SM:

Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any morale check he is called upon to make.

 

Argument 1: Okay so look. I dont want to make this get ugly, but it is very clear that being able to choose or to fail a morale check does not count as "automatically passing" them. The attitude that "not having to roll dice to pass means automatically passing" plainly lacks analytical rigor. For example, Calgar loses an assault, and therefore has to take a morale check. Does he automatically pass? Clearly not. It is up to me. I chose whether he does or not. He may fail, or he may pass. Its not automatic because there are to outcomes. This is the basic definition of automatic. Here are some examples I got from typing into google search engine "define:automatic":

operating with minimal human intervention; independent of external control; ...without volition or conscious control

 

This argument has been made previously in this post, but regardless it merits reiteration. Automatic means there there will be one set outcome regardless of any external controls. Not having to roll a dice once you choose an outcome may be automatic, but that does not imply that a unit "automatically" passes a morale check. Arguing to the contrary is ... well, I am sorry, but it is just wrong.

 

Argument 2: Units with the God of War special rule clearly, clearly do not count as units that will never fall back. Never is a specific word, meaning that it is not possible for a unit to fall back. If I choose for the unit to fall back, it will fall back. Thus, it is not a unit that will "never fall back."

 

To add strength to my argument, here is an example of a unit that would count for the No Retreat! rule. Units with the Fearless special rule count. From pg. 75 of the AoBR booklet: "Fearless troops automatically pass all Morale and Pinning tests they are required to take, and will never fall back." There, THAT is a unit that automatically passes all morale checks and never falls back. Note the lack of any such sentences or words in the God of War rule.

 

Conclusion 1: Units with the God of War special rule do not automatically pass morale checks.

 

Conclusion 2: Units with the God of War special rule can fall back, they are not a unit that never falls back.

 

Conclusion 3: Since to be effected by the No Retreat! rule, a unit must "automatically pass morale checks" and "never fall back", and since units with God of War do not automatically pass morale checks, and do fall back, units with God of War special rule do not suffer from the No Retreat! special rule.

 

However in spirit, effect and critically rules mechanics I can see the strong arguement why it should.

Spirit does not count, effect and critical rules mechanics suffer from a serious "reasonable doubt," to the point of being completely inadmissible.

 

As said above there is no clear cut winner in terms of rules, Offical FAQs on similar effects, or implied rules which often serve allow us to figure these things out. Until an offical FAQ comes up on this, GoW will continue to be a hot pot of discussions

Dont give up so easy. The only part of GoW that has an actual legitimate claim to RAW conflict is the "on the table" debate. This one is not so hard to solve. The problem results from a loose reading of the rules, and an insufficient grasp of the meaning of words.

 

I sense that you guys will seriously start to hate me, but I just cant let certain things go.

[Cornishman]

I sense that you guys will seriously start to hate me, but I just cant let certain things go.

 

I don't. ^_^ All I was trying to give a 'balanced' summary of both sides of the arguement, and show that there is "reasonable doubt" on both sides of the arguement.

 

For me the crux of the arguement comes down to when GoW has to be used, the process of making a morale check (i.e. the flow chart), and how other rule reference it. Is 'making a 'morale check' the process of resolving something that triggers a morale check? The act of rolling or otherwise resolving the outcome? Or is it confusingly both?. If making the morale check refers to the process then GoW can't trigger 'No Retreat' as the process isn't automatic. If no-retreat refers to resolving the outcome then GoW may trigger 'No Retreat' as resolving the outcome may in the 'flowchart' come after deciding to use it, and if 'No-Retreat' is triggered by automatically passing at the resolution step (of this hidden flowchart), then it will trigger. I know I have put it in ugly terms and decided to make a flowchart to describe the various interactions of rules mechanics but I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. Given the popularity of Marine armies I hope GW do resolve this once and for all very shortly, rather than for us to havinh to reverse engineer hidden mechanics or other wise gain oracle like insight.

[Baragash]

My take:

 

A Morale Check is defined in the rulebook as the roll of 2D6.

 

A definition of "Automatic" is "happens without reference to external control".

 

The external control on the Morale Check is the roll of 2D6.

 

GoW does not redefine what a Morale Check is, it just gives you the ability to choose the outcome.

 

Choosing to pass or fail is therefore free of the external control (the roll of 2D6), and is therefore automatic.

[Legatus]

Chosing whether something happens or does not happen is also a form of external controll. A unit of fearless berserkers could not fail the test and fall back. A unit of Ultramarines led by Calgar could. On your choice.