Calgar Rules Query?

[Giant Fossil Penguin]

Wether you want to look at the result of the pass/fail choice as being automatic or not, Calgar DOESN'T make the unit Fearless and so it doesn't have to make any No Retreat saves. Wether people can see any similarity in the mechanic to Fearless is neither here nor there, as at no point in the description of the rule's effect does it state that it makes the unit Fearless. So there.

 

GFP

[Brother Gothard]

Wether people can see any similarity in the mechanic to Fearless is neither here nor there, as at no point in the description of the rule's effect does it state that it makes the unit Fearless. So there.

I noticed that too, and was going to make the argument, but then I also realized that the No Retreat! rules rely not on the presence of a "Fearless" unit (although it does mention a "fearless" unit - :cuss GW, you screwed this WHOLE thing up for lack of a capitalized letter??). So whether a unit is Fearless is irrelevant, because the No Retreat! rules play on a mechanic.

 

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

You may say that, and that is fine, and I somewhat agree with you that the OUTCOME of the choice is an automatic pass. But this is to argue the wrong point - its immaterial whether the mechanic of passing is automatic, because the criteria of always passing is not. Here's an example to illustrate this point. Here are two sentences:

 

1- This unit automatically passes all morale checks.

2- This unit automatically passes any morale checks that I decide it will automatically pass.

 

Which sentence refers to a unit that automatically passes all morale checks? Clearly not both. If you know which one it is, then you know why GoW is not subject to No Retreat! saves.

 

While I appreciate Cornishman's subtle flow-chart analogy, I think it somewhat unnecessarily dresses up the issue. Its not the case that the rule refers to a unit whose mechanic for passing morale checks is automatic. No, rather, it refers to a unit that automatically passes all morale checks. Therefore where in the flowchart the automatic pass takes place is irrelevant, since a unit with GoW simply does not fit the bill as a unit that automatically passes all its morale checks.

 

Now, if the argument is made that No Retreat! does not require automatically passing "all" morale checks, but merely to automatically pass them, I will counter that the combination of "immune to Morale checks for losing an assault" and "automatically pass them for some reason" with "These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back" gives an incontrovertible picture of a unit that automatically passes all morale checks, since it never falls back. Thus it is not merely that the mechanic is automatic, but that the unit must and does necessarily pass "all" of its checks.

 

What all this means is that Legatus is correct; GoW does not automatically pass morale checks.

[Seahawk]

These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back

If this line wasn't in the BRB, there'd be little to no issue, and I think it's unfortunate that at the time of writing, GW didn't even think that they'd come up with a different sort of (choosing) auto-passing morale checks, or choosing not to. I think the line is outdated and should be struck from the BRB, but that's just me. Every argument against GoW causing No-Retreat tends (correctly, currently) to hinge on this line.

[GTang]

It's either an unfortunate oversight, or an indication of what was intended. B)

 

Which should tell you where I stand.. RAW doesn't say automatic, and especially with that line, no "No Retreat!" seems to be intended by these rules.

[Giant Fossil Penguin]

A unit that triggers 'No Retreat' rolls is one that bypasses the entire Morale check step in the determining what they do at the end of a lost combat. So, step 1- the unit loses combat; Step 2- the unit takes wounds = to the number it lost combat by (and can take saves).

With GoW, you don't ignore the Morale check step. So, Step 1- unit loses combat; Step 2- unit chooses wether to pass/fail Morale check; Step 3- unti falls back/stays in the fight.

A unit affected by Calgar's GoW doesn't ignore Morale checks, and does not automatically pass or fail them. All that happens is that the game continues as if the dice had been rolled and the appropriate number came up. A unit that gets hit with 'No Retreat' just ignores Moral checks and the game skips the step. If you really wanted to you could actually roll dice for Calgar (or any unit his rule is affecting) and take what you get, or consider the GoW to modify the result to give you what you want.

I've seen this argument go on and on, and usually it devolves into people arguing the semantics of a word or the grammatical construction of a sentence. The word that gets analysed a lot is Fearless, which is a word that doesn't appear in the rule entry anywhere. Neither does 'Automatic'. If anyone gets to the point were they have to discuss semantics/permissive/non-permissive ruleset/syntax/grammar, then they have fallen well off the track.

And from a fluff point of view (which must be the origin for all special rules, or what would be the point of them. However, don't think I'm trying to use the fluff as a justification for my standpoint; it is just a...teaching aid, n'est pas?), why would the Greatest Living Chapter MasterTM get his troops into more trouble when he exercises his tactical nous?

 

GFP

[DevianID]

I am always puzzled as to why people think calgar should have some magical ability to both pass a morale check with no roll, and not incur no retreat for passing a morale check with no roll. Yes, I understand the nuiances of the argument, and yes I understand that he could also choose to fail. But, when calgar's units choose to pass, then 'These units (that choose to pass) do not take Morale checks and will never fall back.' When the unit does not choose to pass, they either take a morale check (thus dont suffer no retreat) or fail a morale check (thus fall back and do not suffer no retreat).

 

Also, it is still a HUGE advantage to choose to pass a check, which somewhere along the line I think was forgotten, no retreat armor saves or not. I cant tell you how many times pedro or lysander have flubbed a morale check (a stubborn one at that) and been escorted off the board. Given the option for running off the board, or making a few 3+ or 2+ saves, which is better? Why, calgar's is better!

 

So in closing, why is it such a big deal to make a few armor saves in an army that boasts the best armor saves in the game, to KNOW and GUARENTEE that you wont be taken out of the game with a single leadership check?

[Legatus]

I am always puzzled as to why people think calgar should have some magical ability to both pass a morale check with no roll, and not incur no retreat for passing a morale check with no roll.

Maybe that's because 'No Retreat!' does not work the way you think. The counter question would be why Calgar should take hits which units that are incapable to fall back would have to take?

 

It is not possible for a fearless unit to fall back, even against incredible odds. That means at no point is it in question whether that unit will fall back because of casualties or other effects. Both the owning player and the opposing player know that the unit will not fall back and neither of them could do anything about it. If a unit would be accompanied by a chaplain, and that chaplain would then leave the unit (or be killed in combat), both players would immediately know that there is a chance again that the unit might fall back, and the unit will once again be subject to tests and modifiers. The opponent could now target the unit specifically to force tests, for example.

 

Units under Calgars command can fall back, which means at some point in the game such units may suffer the consequences for being caught by the pursuing enemies. 'No Retreat!' is intended for units that would otherwise under no circumstances be in the situation to suffer the consequences of being caught by pursuing enemies. That is not the case for units commanded by Calgar, even if it is rare that they do. How much rarer than a re-rollable LD10 stubborn save (Cantor or Lysander armies can have a few of those) depends on the circumstances and whether the player decides that he wants to try and break a unit free of a certain combat at some point. The unit would then perform a fall back, the enemy could try to catch them, at which point they would suffer 'No Retreat!' wounds due to ATSKNF or might be forced to continue to fall back because they could not move far enough away from the enemy.

It is not impossible for a calgar commanded unit to be in such a situation, even though it is up to the owning player if he wants to risk a unit trying to escape from a combat instead of allways opting to pass the morale tests.

[DevianID]

if this statement is supposed to prove your point

It is not possible for a fearless unit to fall back, even against incredible odds

then consider the following modified statement which is just as true

It is not possible for a [unit that chooses to pass its check with no roll] to fall back, even against incredible odds

EDIT: Also

The counter question would be why Calgar should take hits which units that are incapable to fall back would have to take?

Calgar should take hits because when he chooses to pass a morale check instead of rolling the dice, he is incapable of falling back. When do you believe you check to see if a unit is incapable of falling back? Before the check? It cant be before the check, because before the check you dont need to fall back. After the check? It cant be after the check, because 'No Retreat' does not apply to units that have taken a check. Thus no retreat only applies to units that, thanks to some special rule (of which there are several) do not need to take a required check at the time of the check.

 

Do you argue that Synapse from Nids, which is conditional based on whether the nid player 'chooses' to have his models within 12 inches and in no way says that affected models are fearless, also do not suffer from no retreat? Models affected by synapse pass their morale checks with no roll. Models affected by GoW can pass their morale checks with no roll. The end result is the same when the models pass a morale check with no roll, and both results are covered by no retreat.

 

Finally, lets say the rule read 'You may either choose to be fearless, choose to make your morale roll as normal, or choose to fail, whenever you are called upon to make a morale check.' Would you still agree that you do not suffer 'No retreat' when choosing to be fearless in lieu of taking your check?

[Legatus]

And then you should also consider this:

It is not possible for a [unit that has just passed it's morale test] to fall back, even against incredible odds

So that means all units that are not retreating for whatever reason have to suffer 'No Retreat!' wounds? :(

 

A fearless unit will never fall back from combat.

 

A unit with a Chaplain will (as long as that Chaplain is with the unit) never fall back from combat.

 

A unit in Calgar's army can fall back.

 

If you attach the condition that the unit just chose to pass the test also never falls back, that is the same as saying that a unit that just rolled and passed the test never falls back. It is a nonsensical argument, because the test to see whether the unit falls back or not has just been passed. The test could just as well not have been passed, in calgars case just as in the roll for case. The test could NOT not have been passed in the case of a fearless unit.

[Mal]

And then you should also consider this:

It is not possible for a [unit that has just passed it's morale test] to fall back, even against incredible odds

So that means all units that are not retreating for whatever reason have to suffer 'No Retreat!' wounds? :(

 

A fearless unit will never fall back from combat.

 

A unit with a Chaplain will (as long as that Chaplain is with the unit) never fall back from combat.

 

A unit in Calgar's army can fall back.

 

If you attach the condition that the unit just chose to pass the test also never falls back, that is the same as saying that a unit that just rolled and passed the test never falls back. It is a nonsensical argument, because the test to see whether the unit falls back or not has just been passed. The test could just as well not have been passed, in calgars case just as in the roll for case. The test could NOT not have been passed in the case of a fearless unit.

 

Keeping with the synapse as thats a good description...

 

Firstly your statement is no good, you do not difenterate between rolling and not rolling... thats key for no retreat, if you have to make a dice test then no retreat does not apply. Period.

 

Secondly a gaunt unit can fall back... if not in synapse range yes if they are in synapse they have to take 'no retreat' saves...

 

A conditional argument actually works in favour of making GoW take the saves so you may want to take a different approach here.

[Legatus]

Firstly your statement is no good, you do not difenterate between rolling and not rolling... thats key for no retreat, if you have to make a dice test then no retreat does not apply. Period.

That's not really how the rules put it, though.

 

Secondly a gaunt unit can fall back... if not in synapse range yes if they are in synapse they have to take 'no retreat' saves...

There are several cases where a unit can become "fearless" for a temporary period. You mentioned Synapses, then there are Chaplains, or the unit may be within the range of a certain Banner or Character. So actually the Phrase:

 

"These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back."

 

Should more correctly be something like this:

 

"These units, as long as they are under the respective effect, do not take Morale checks and will never fall back."

 

I am saying it should be that way to match the way 'No Retreat!' is applied in the cases mentioned above (Synapse/Chaplain/Banner), not to better fid the Calgar case.

 

In case of calgar:

 

- These units do take morale tests.

 

- The outcome of the test is not predetermined as being allways passed.

 

- The unit can fall back.

 

THat is why 'No Retreat!' does not apply. It is not one of the units described by that rule. If the player decides to pass that test, then the unit just passed the test, hence it is compareable to a unit that just rolled under it's (appropriately modified) leadership value, and not to a unit that is under the effect of a rule that makes them fearless or allways automatically pass morale tests.

[Brother Gothard]

I am always puzzled as to why people think calgar should have some magical ability to both pass a morale check with no roll, and not incur no retreat for passing a morale check with no roll. Yes, I understand the nuiances of the argument, and yes I understand that he could also choose to fail. But, when calgar's units choose to pass, then 'These units (that choose to pass) do not take Morale checks and will never fall back.' When the unit does not choose to pass, they either take a morale check (thus dont suffer no retreat) or fail a morale check (thus fall back and do not suffer no retreat).

I am going to have to say that you do not understand the nuances of the argument. This statement alone shows that you have failed to grasp the conditions under which No Retreat! applies.

 

There are only two; a unit must both:

1) be "immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason..."

2) be such that it does "not take Morale checks and will never fall back."

 

Units with GoW do not automatically pass morale checks. Units with GoW are not such that they never fall back.

 

"Automatically pass morale checks" is not the same as "having the option to pass every morale check" any more than "never falling back" is the same as "having to option to never fall back." The difference between them is that No Retreat! is an actuality of automatic passing and never falling back, and GoW is a potentiality for automatic passing and never falling back.

 

Here, I will quote myself:

Here's an example to illustrate this point. Here are two sentences:

 

1- This unit automatically passes morale checks.

2- This unit automatically passes any morale checks that I decide it will automatically pass.

 

Which sentence refers to a unit that automatically passes all morale checks? Clearly not both. If you know which one it is, then you know why GoW is not subject to No Retreat! saves.

[DevianID]

I think it is important to understand what the morale check is... The morale check is the action of rolling dice and comparing it to a leadership score. Thus, when you choose to pass a morale check, you never take the morale check. SO,

These units do take morale tests

that line is false when using a part of GoW, as you never take a morale check.

[Legatus]

So perhaps I should have said something along the lines that, other than fearless units, these units are called upon to take morale tests and the outcome of those tests is not already and automatically decided by a rule that is in effect.

[Grey Mage]

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.

Its automatic if you choose to use it. Its an arbitrary decision, theres no roll- you just decide and it happens automatically.

[DevianID]

So perhaps I should have said something along the lines that, other than fearless units, these units are called upon to take morale tests and the outcome of those tests is not already and automatically decided by a rule that is in effect.

 

Again, the outcome being known before the test is called for has no bearing. Also, the word automatic is a poor word for the argument, as others have said, as automatic can be interpreted poorly. Finally, 'Fearless' is a REALLY poor example of 'No Retreat' and I think is the cause of the whole mess, as units that are 'Fearless' do not automaticly suffer no retreat, it is the act of passing the morale check with no actual check that makes a unit take No Retreat saves. Units with the Fearless special rule are just ONE of the many units that may suffer no retreat for some reason, yet many people I meet feel that if a unit is not fearless all the time, they dont have to take 'No Retreat' saves.

 

Before Calgar, there were the Inquisitor Lords ability to pass/fail morale checks, and I already mentioned tyranids. Ghazghull can become fearless for a time, and so can sisters with faith. Marines can become fearless a number of ways, either from ATSKNF or from a chappy. In each case, the ability is not permanent, yet we understand that 'No Retreat' is called for. In the case of ATSKNF, you actually take 'No Retreat' AFTER you make a morale check.

 

So how is Calgar's ability to choose to pass a morale check ANY different from Ghazghulls ability to choose to pass morale check once each character has decided to use their respective ability after losing a combat and being called upon to make a morale check?

[Legatus]

Its automatic if you choose to use it. Its an arbitrary decision, theres no roll- you just decide and it happens automatically.

But can such a unit fall back?

 

Again, the outcome being known before the test is called for has no bearing. Also, the word automatic is a poor word for the argument, as others have said, as automatic can be interpreted poorly.

It is also not that relevant because it is pretty much the fluff prologue which talks about "automatically passing morale tests", while what can be seen as teh actual rule describes units that do not take morale tests and never fall back.

 

Finally, 'Fearless' is a REALLY poor example of 'No Retreat' and I think is the cause of the whole mess, as units that are 'Fearless' do not automaticly suffer no retreat, it is the act of passing the morale check with no actual check that makes a unit take No Retreat saves.

And I would say it is the lack of the danger of having to fall back and suffer the consequences that makes such units suffer additional wounds instead. Calgar units can fall back, and they will suffer the consequences if they do.

 

In each case, the ability is not permanent, yet we understand that 'No Retreat' is called for.

With the exception of the Inquisitor Lord I would agree. Well, ATSKNF is no fearless either. The other cases you describe have a crucial thing in common. In those cases (Synapse, Chappy, Act of Faith) there is absolutely no possibility that the unit would fall back and suffer the consequences. Instead they get 'No Retreat!' wounds. Marines under Calgar can fall back, which is the key difference.

 

In the case of ATSKNF, you actually take 'No Retreat' AFTER you make a morale check.

That is because the rule explicitely says so. Not really because that would be the neccessary conclusion you would get from the rule.

 

So how is Calgar's ability to choose to pass a morale check ANY different from Ghazghulls ability to choose to pass morale check once each character has decided to use their respective ability after losing a combat and being called upon to make a morale check?

For one thing Ghazghkulls ability specifically makes every unit in the army "fearless". Calgars rule on the other hand can just as well be used to have the unit fall back.

[DevianID]

But can such a unit fall back?

When using that ability? No, they will never, ever fall back, until they choose to stop using that ability. Kind of like how a unit with a chappy will not ever fall back until they choose to stop being with the chappy.

 

Also, even Fearless units could potentially fall back. There is at least 1 power I know of that can make a fearless unit fall back on a failed morale check, despite normally being able to pass any morale check. Thus the 'possibility' that the unit can fall back under a circumstance does not mean that the unit is suddenly immune to 'No Retreat' when that circumstance is not present.

[Legatus]

When using that ability? No, they will never, ever fall back, until they choose to stop using that ability.

Again, that is like saying "a unit that just passed it's morale test will never ever fall back". And that ability can just as well be used to fail morale tests. The unit can pass or fail morale tests. Something that fearless units or units that pass all tests and never fall back cannot.

 

Also, even Fearless units could potentially fall back. There is at least 1 power I know of that can make a fearless unit fall back on a failed morale check, despite normally being able to pass any morale check. Thus the 'possibility' that the unit can fall back under a circumstance does not mean that the unit is suddenly immune to 'No Retreat' when that circumstance is not present.

Hm, I cannot think what power that might be (very old hellhound rules or super heavy tank rules are going through my head, but I am not sure how they worked). Would that power make a unit fall back from combat?

[DevianID]

When using that ability? No, they will never, ever fall back, until they choose to stop using that ability

Again, that is like saying "a unit that just passed it's morale test will never ever fall back"

 

Its a little different, because remember we dont care what happens before or after the morale test would be required, only the time of the check itself matters. Thus, at the time of the check, if you use an ability which says you pass the check with no roll, then you will suffer 'No retreat,' as you did not take a Morale check and will never fall back when using that ability in that way.

 

If you take the check and pass it, then the question of not taking Morale checks does not apply; there are no more morale checks for you to be required to make, you rolled it and applied the result of the test.

 

IE, here is my example using 2 versions of a rule that do the same thing in the end. In the moment of truth, Calgar/Ghazghull is charged by the enemy, and thanks to a bunch of 1's to hit, the enemy wins combat by 1. Because Calgar/Ghazghull lost the combat, Calgar/Ghazghull is required to make a morale check or fall back. Calgar/Ghazghull has a special rule which would allow them to pass the morale check with no roll being needed, and obviously when they use this ability, they will not fall back. If Calgar/Ghazghull decide to use this ability to pass their required check, then they will suffer 'No Retreat,' but if they decide to not use this ability, then they must take their required check, and potentially fall back, but will not suffer 'No Retreat.'

[Brother Gothard]

I have been watching you and Legatus exchange back and forth, and I guess I am not smart enough for this, because I dont see how any of it actually applies to the rules at hand.

 

IE, here is my example using 2 versions of a rule that do the same thing in the end. In the moment of truth, Calgar/Ghazghull is charged by the enemy, and thanks to a bunch of 1's to hit, the enemy wins combat by 1. Because Calgar/Ghazghull lost the combat, Calgar/Ghazghull is required to make a morale check or fall back. Calgar/Ghazghull has a special rule which would allow them to pass the morale check with no roll being needed, and obviously when they use this ability, they will not fall back. If Calgar/Ghazghull decide to use this ability to pass their required check, then they will suffer 'No Retreat,' but if they decide to not use this ability, then they must take their required check, and potentially fall back, but will not suffer 'No Retreat.'

You talk as though No Retreat! only requires that units pass a morale check without having to roll, and that on that basis alone does No Retreat! cause saves. So the example you are using obviously fulfills the requirements of your incorrect conception of No Retreat! but as the rules state, No Retreat! does not merely require that units pass a morale check without having to roll. There are other requirements that describe a unit that suffers from No Retreat!

 

Also, just because Ghazghull has a similar mechanic to Calgar's (even if it was EXACTLY THE SAME) and people play as though Ghazghull suffers No Retreat! is really, in the context of this discussion, only evidence that people play Ghazghull improperly ...

 

... in short evidence that others are making the same mistake as you is not evidence that you and them are right, rather that you and them are wrong.

[DevianID]

There are other requirements that describe a unit that suffers from No Retreat!

Which one in particular are you referring to?

[Legatus]

Its a little different, because remember we dont care what happens before or after the morale test would be required, only the time of the check itself matters. Thus, at the time of the check, if you use an ability which says you pass the check with no roll, then you will suffer 'No retreat,' as you did not take a Morale check and will never fall back when using that ability in that way.

A regular unit that is called upon to take a morale test could either pass or fail that test.

 

A unit in Calgar's army that is called upon to take a morale test could either pass or fail that test. (By using his special rule, not by not deciding to use it and then failing the roll)

 

A unit with a Chaplain or within synapse range that is called upon to make a morale test could NOT fail that test.

 

Being able to fail the morale test it is called upon to make and then falling back is what distinguishes units in Calgar's army from "fearless" or similar units. And it is cruicial to the 'No Retreat!' rule.

 

IE, here is my example using 2 versions of a rule that do the same thing in the end. In the moment of truth, Calgar/Ghazghull is charged by the enemy, and thanks to a bunch of 1's to hit, the enemy wins combat by 1. Because Calgar/Ghazghull lost the combat, Calgar/Ghazghull is required to make a morale check or fall back. Calgar/Ghazghull has a special rule which would allow them to pass the morale check with no roll being needed, and obviously when they use this ability, they will not fall back. If Calgar/Ghazghull decide to use this ability to pass their required check, then they will suffer 'No Retreat,' but if they decide to not use this ability, then they must take their required check, and potentially fall back, but will not suffer 'No Retreat.'

Here is the difference: Calgar could use his ability to fail the test voluntarily instead of chosing to pass it. A reason for him to do that may be that the enemy he is fighting is a nasty Hive Tyrant with implant attack, who has just won combat so probably already has taken half of calgars wounds, leaving him one wound away from death (one implant attack wound anyway). The Hive Tyranit is faster than Calgar, and could potentially kill him next turn before he can even hit back. But there is a Devastator squad with four laser cannons nearby, so calgar decides to try to get away from combat. So Calgar fails the test, using his special rule (not by not using it and failing a dice roll), and then has to fall back, which could lead to him taking additional wounds or being run off the board if things don't work out well.

 

Calgars ability can be used to pass or fail a required morale test. Units using that rule can fall back and suffer the consequences. The decision to pass morale tests is not out of the player's hands. It is allways a possibility, with every test a unit has to take. The difference is that not a dice roll decides whether a unit stays or falls back, but the owning player. The 'No Retreat!' rule does not concern itself with dice rolls, however, but with the absolute inability of certain units to ever fall back and thus never suffering the negative effects or falling back. Units in calgars army are not unable to fall back and can potentially suffer the negative consequences. They are not units that do not take morale tests and will never fall back.

 

Saying that such a unit will never fall back due to a failed morale teste once they have decided not to fail that specific morale test is nonsensical and the same as saying a unit that just rolled and passed it's morale test will never fall back due to a failed morale test. Whether the morale test is passed or failed had just been determined. It could have been failed or passed, and it was passed.

[Brother Gothard]

Which one in particular are you referring to?

Namely that they never fall back, though I have made the case elsewhere that they must also always pass all morale checks.

 

This rule is so stupid in its wording and effect ... I mean, what's the material difference between a unit that is fearless and a unit that just passed its morale check against overwhelming statistical odds? There isn't one ... both have stuck around against overwhelming physical odds of them winning the combat, so why are only fearless units subject to taking extra wounds? Its so stupid. GOD I just wish GW would write a cohesive ruleset, like the PP sets, where ALL abilities and activities are defined clearly, and their relations to other rules are also clearly defined, using coherent language.

 

Anyway, I'm tossing in the towel on this one; its very clear to me that GoW != No Retreat, and also clear that arguments to the contrary are starting to devolve into the meaning of words, and sentence structures, etc.

[JamesI]

Which one in particular are you referring to?

Namely that they never fall back, though I have made the case elsewhere that they must also always pass all morale checks.

 

This rule is so stupid in its wording and effect ... I mean, what's the material difference between a unit that is fearless and a unit that just passed its morale check against overwhelming statistical odds? There isn't one ... both have stuck around against overwhelming physical odds of them winning the combat, so why are only fearless units subject to taking extra wounds? Its so stupid. GOD I just wish GW would write a cohesive ruleset, like the PP sets, where ALL abilities and activities are defined clearly, and their relations to other rules are also clearly defined, using coherent language.

 

Anyway, I'm tossing in the towel on this one; its very clear to me that GoW != No Retreat, and also clear that arguments to the contrary are starting to devolve into the meaning of words, and sentence structures, etc.

I never understoodw hy fearless units don't get to take a leadership test, if they fail then no retreat hits. The current way make Fearless a disadvantage too often.