Calgar Rules Query?

[gil galed]

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!

 

this is irrelevant, thats like me saying, owing to the fact you have space marines, you shouldn't mind me forcing you to reroll saves just 'because' they have good saves.

 

 

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.

 

No thats simply wrong and you're misunderstanding the rule, the whole point of the rule is that it is used to both pass and fail, not to pass and when you 'stop using it' you fail.

[Trekari]

Legatus is correct on this one.

 

No Retreat! units automatically pass the check. There is no other option, there is no game mechanic step involved. The use of "immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason" clearly demonstrates the intent of the meaning of "automatically" as something that gets skipped over.

 

i.e. Morale Checks with units that are Fearless, for instance, are simply ignored entirely. They are immune to such things, and automatically pass. ^ Using GoW is not an automatic, mechanic-skipping step, as there is a decision that requires player involvement.

 

It is automatic upon decision, but that in and of itself does not make the entire step automatic as No Retreat! requires.

[DevianID]

As I said before, hanging on the 'Fearless' special rule is a bad example of no retreat, as many units that are not fearless can suffer no retreat. I can go over a few points, perhaps clarify my stance, as to why passing a check with no roll incurs 'No Retreat.'.

RE: Brother Gothard's additional conditions for 'No Retreat' to happen

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

The problem with this statement is that 'never' fall back can not mean 'never in the entire game from start to finish' only 'never fall back from this particular check you are supposed to take when a particular rule is in effect.' If 'never fall back' actually ment never in the entire game, then no unit would take 'No Retreat' wounds, as anything in the game can be made to fall back, regardless of special rules--even fearless or synapse creatures. The same logic about passing all morale checks applies, namely because nothing in the game can pass all morale checks without a roll, the rule for 'passing all morale checks' obviously means 'passing all morale checks while a particular rule is in effect.'

 

So in the case of Calgar, ONE of his many special rules is that he may pass a morale check with no roll. Yes, he has more special rules, for example he can also fail a morale check with no roll. But the only thing that matters to no retreat is what special ability is being used at the time the morale check is supposed to be rolled. So, when Calgar uses the ability to pass a morale check with no roll, he meets the conditions set for 'No Retreat' (and no retreat has nothing to do with a unit being fearless) because Calgar passed the required morale check without a roll (thus without actually taking a morale check) AND Calgar will never fall back from the morale check he just passed with no roll. Remember choosing to pass or fail a required morale check does not count as TAKING a morale check, the actual act of TAKING a morale check is rolling 2d6 and comparing them to the (modified) leadership score. IE fearless units are not immune to morale checks, they can be forced to take them just like anyone else, but fearless units will pass a morale check with no roll. And whenever a unit passes a morale check with no roll, that is when 'No Retreat' kicks in.

[Legatus]

And whenever a unit passes a morale check with no roll, that is when 'No Retreat' kicks in.

But that not what the rules say. The rule says that it affects units that do not take morale checks and never fall back. And I do agree that "never fall back" refers specifically to the moment the unit is called to make a morale test. What I do not agree with is that this refers to "units that roll no dice", but instead to "units that are incapable to fall back due to the required test".

 

If a fearless unit is called to make a morale test, it can not fail that test and it is not possible that it falls back. Same for units with a Chaplain, within Synapse Range or with a similar rule.

 

If Calgar or a unit in his army are called to make a morale test, they can fail that test and fall back. That is the big difference. And no, saying that after it has been determined that they will not fail but instead pass the test they therefor are not able to fail the test is still a nonsensical statement.

[DevianID]

If a fearless unit is called to make a morale test, it can not fail that test and it is not possible that it falls back. Same for units with a Chaplain, within Synapse Range or with a similar rule.

If Calgar or a unit in his army are called to make a morale test, they can fail that test and fall back. That is the big difference. And no, saying that after it has been determined that they will not fail but instead pass the test they therefor are not able to fail the test is still a nonsensical statement.

 

If a fearless unit is called to make a morale test, it can fail that test and fall back if the opponent has a special rule that says so. Currently, I know that at the very least the Deciever can do this, there might be others as well (maybe something in dark eldar, they are pretty tricksy). So, if the random ability to fall back is present in every unit BEFORE the specific test is called for, it doesnt matter what could happen before hand, what matters is what happens and what rules are present when the test is rolled (or not rolled).

 

You are trying to say that when you use Calgars ability to pass the morale check that does not mean, at the same time, that Calgar will never fall back? Is it possible for Calgar to pass the check with his special rule and fall back? If not, then when Calgar uses his ability to pass a morale check without a roll he will also, simultaneously, never fall back.

 

The fact that he could choose to not use the rule and thus be able to fall back doesnt matter, that is the same thing as saying a fearless unit could be hit by the diecever and thus be able to fall back. Thus, your argument is based of saying he could choose to do something else before the actual event resolution; but that has the same logic as saying that a tac squad with attached chaplin does not take no retreat because before the morale check is called for (the amount of time before doesnt matter) you could choose to detach the chaplin and thus not pass the check with no roll with the tac squad. Yes, Calgar's rule is more immediate, but when you use the special rule, you apply the effect and it doesnt matter what other effects COULD, but DIDNT happen.

 

A funny thing occured to me (this is ment to be a joke)

Judge: 'You committed premeditated murder, those who commit premeditated murder are put to death'

Defendant: 'In the end I did murder him, yes, and I knew going there I had the option to murder him, but it doesnt count as premeditated because I could have decided to NOT murder him, thus it cant be a REAL premeditated murder.'

Judge: 'Hmm... you got me there, I guess you could have decided NOT to murder him, and then it wouldnt have been premeditated murder at all!'

[Legatus]

If a fearless unit is called to make a morale test, it can fail that test and fall back if the opponent has a special rule that says so. Currently, I know that at the very least the Deciever can do this, there might be others as well (maybe something in dark eldar, they are pretty tricksy). So, if the random ability to fall back is present in every unit BEFORE the specific test is called for, it doesnt matter what could happen before hand, what matters is what happens and what rules are present when the test is rolled (or not rolled).

I adressed that in my previous post, and it is not different from a unit having a Chaplain at one point and then not having it at a later point, or a unit being within or later not within synapse range. At the point where the unit is called to make a morale test you either know that it cannot possibly fail that test, or they instead can fail that test.

 

You are trying to say that when you use Calgars ability to pass the morale check that does not mean, at the same time, that Calgar will never fall back? Is it possible for Calgar to pass the check with his special rule and fall back?

Is it possible for any other unit to pass their morale check and then fall back? Do you see why that makes no sense?

 

It is really very, very simple. Calgar is beaten in combat and now has to make a morale test. Can he fail that morale test and fall back?

[DevianID]

Is it possible for any other unit to pass their morale check and then fall back? Do you see why that makes no sense?

If a unit passes their morale check, no they will not fall back. HOWEVER, if they pass said morale check WITHOUT rolling it, then they are subject to no retreat. Units that PHYSICALLY roll a morale check are not subject to no retreat, despite the fact that they will not fall back ever on a successful morale roll.

It is really very, very simple. Calgar is beaten in combat and now has to make a morale test. Can he fail that morale test and fall back?

Can Calgar win the combat? Can Calgar fly? What Calgar can or can not do doesnt matter. What did Calgar actually do? Did he roll a morale check? Did he pass a morale check with no roll? Did he fail a morale check with no roll?

It doesnt matter what can or cant happen, as the list of possible things that can or cant happen in a game is nearly infinite. We only care about what actually happens.

[Legatus]

HOWEVER, if they pass said morale check WITHOUT rolling it, then they are subject to no retreat.

Except that's not what the 'No Retreat!' rule says. I think I may have mentioned that before, as have other posters.

 

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

 

"Fearless troops automatically pass all Morale and Pinning tests they are required to take, and will never fall back."

 

"Any Tyranid broods with a model within 12" of a Synapse Creature (...) never fall back and are assumed to automatically pass any Leadership-based test they are called upon to make."

 

Does Calgar pass all morale tests he is required to take, or can he fail such a morale test?

[DevianID]

Except that's not what the 'No Retreat!' rule says. I think I may have mentioned that before, as have other posters.

 

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

And I have been saying, when units uses the GOW ability to pass morale checks, then "These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back."

 

Thus, no retreat is conditional, like I have been saying. But its conditional for a gaunt brood, too! Are gaunts always using the synapse effect that passes all their morale checks? Are tac squads always using GOW's ability to pass all their morale checks? Nope!! But, when they ARE using the particular rule that passes their morale checks for them, with no roll, they they hit the condition for 'No Retreat.'

 

Basicly, the argument for GoW to not be affected by 'No Retreat' is that they CAN take morale checks if they wanted too, thus the part in no retreat where it says 'These units do not take morale checks' is not compatible. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, the rule is not 'These units CAN not take morale checks,' it is 'These units DO not take morale checks.'

 

So, if you use GoW to pass a check with no roll, did you actually TAKE a morale test, or did you simply PASS a morale test?

[Legatus]

And I have been saying, when units uses the GOW ability to pass morale checks, then "These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back."

But they only passed the test because they decided to pass it instead of failing it. They did not pass the test because it was the only possible outcome of them being required to take that morale test. They could have not passed the test. When the unit was required to make the test, passing it and not retreating was not the only possible outcome. They could either have failed the test and fallen back, or passed it.

 

Are gaunts always using the synapse effect that passes all their morale checks?

Gaunts either are within synapse range at the time they are required to take the morale test, or they are not. If they are within synapse range there cannot be another outcome other than that they pass the morale test and not falling back. You know that at the point where the unit is called to make the test.

[Trekari]

After sleeping on the issue, I believe I've reversed my position.

 

I think the No Retreat! additional saves are meant as a balancing game-mechanic to offset the idea that, somehow, a unit was able to guarantee a passed Morale Check. In other words, because you don't even have to roll the dice, the saves are meant to offset that ability and not make it overpowered.

 

Thus my position is now that, indeed, GoW forces units to make additional saves if used to automatically pass.

[Legatus]

I would rather say that it is the missing danger of having to fall back, being potentially overrun and completely destroyed or running off the board, that the additional wounds for never retreating units are supposed to balance out. It is not the "guarantee to stay" but the lack of "dangers of fall back". Calgar can fall back, though it is up to the player to decide when he wants to take that risk, and Calgar will then suffer all the consequences (which are still a bit dampened by ATSKNF of course, but that is beside the point).

[DevianID]

But they only passed the test because they decided to pass it instead of failing it

Ill restate: The rule is not 'These units CAN not take morale checks,' it is 'These units DO not take morale checks.'

 

So, if you use GoW to pass a check with no roll, do you actually TAKE a morale test, or do you simply PASS a morale test?

[Legatus]

The morale test is passed.

 

...or failed.

[Race Bannon]

The power of GoW, and one reason why Calgar is an expensive, is the ability to choose the outcome of a Morale check.

 

So, as I see it, the ability works like this:

A unit must take a Morale check. The Calgar player says, "Hmm, I think they will pass the check." Done. The unit has passed the Morale check as if the roll was made and the roll was successful.

 

OR

 

A unit must take a Morale check. The Calgar player says, "Hmm, I think they will fail the check." Done. The unit has failed the Morale check as if the roll was made and the roll was unsuccessful and the outcome after the check is what happens.

 

It would seem to me to be that simple. GoW is a powerful ability as applied above. It's simple and effective. The player chooses the outcome of the Morale check. Just as the rule, God of War, says.

[Trekari]

as if?

 

Fearless units pass Morale checks as if the roll was made and the roll was successful, yet they are subject to No Retreat! rules.

 

Same thing with GoW.

[Brother Gothard]

as if?

 

Fearless units pass Morale checks as if the roll was made and the roll was successful, yet they are subject to No Retreat! rules.

 

Same thing with GoW.

No no no. Stop talking about "as ifs" or anything else. The wording of the rules is not ambiguous. Is the outcome of a "morale check action" automatic in such a way as that the unit will never fall back?

 

If a unit has GoW, then the answer is NO!

 

You can talk about the mechanic being automatic, in such a way as that the "check" is automatically resolved as a pass or fail regardless of dice rolling. However, it is not automatic in the sense that No Retreat! requires it to be, that is, automatic in that the outcome is fixed as always pass.

 

If you conceive of it the other way, then units that just happen to roll and pass morale checks will also suffer no retreat, since they wont ever fall back either, so long as they continue to pass their saves.

[Trekari]

Don't insult 3+ pages of discussion by stating "The wording of the rules is not ambiguous."

 

If you pay attention to the wording of No Retreat, and pay attention to ALL of the text, rather than one sentence...

 

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).

 

Did they automatically pass for some reason if you use GoW? Yup. Would GoW fall under the "or some other special rule?" Yep.

[Legatus]

And after the very broad reference to "units with some kind of special rule", they are then further specified as "units that do not take morale tests and never fall back".

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Which, just happens to (coincidently perhaps?) be nearly an exact re-stating of what Fearless units 'do'. Odd, that. :\

[gil galed]

Dear God, this is just getting stupid,

 

@Devian please please please stop making all these analogies to how fearless units might sometimes fall back and so this invalidates the argument that GoW bypasses No retreat! rules. Fearless is a main rule book power and thus yes it can be overidden by certain things (i.e if you claim the deceiver can do this), obviously in this case fearless units will lose their rule and thus suffer from usual moral testing or whatever. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT! This argument revolves around the mechanics which take place in the game at the exact moment the test if called for. In this case

 

1. Event Occurs that triggers moral test

2. Squad is called upon to make moral test

3. At this precise moment in the game does the unit automatically pass their test

> Yes - They take no retreat saves

> No - Squad takes their morale test

 

In this case GoW is effecting the No answer to stage 3, in that they are called upon to take a moral test (as they are not fearless) however the rules of GoW mean that instead of rolling to work out if you pass or fail the controlling player may instead choose whether you pass of fail.

 

Please stop equating a choice to pass as an automatic pass, it isn't, if you think GoW should force no retreat for game balance reasons fine by i see no RaW reasons why it should.

 

After sleeping on the issue, I believe I've reversed my position.

 

I think the No Retreat! additional saves are meant as a balancing game-mechanic to offset the idea that, somehow, a unit was able to guarantee a passed Morale Check. In other words, because you don't even have to roll the dice, the saves are meant to offset that ability and not make it overpowered.

 

Thus my position is now that, indeed, GoW forces units to make additional saves if used to automatically pass.

 

This is irrelevant to the current argument, this addresses whether GoW 'should' (in a philosophical sense) force no retreat saves not whether it does or not. 40k works on Raw and we don't interpret rules purposively

 

A funny thing occured to me (this is ment to be a joke)

Judge: 'You committed premeditated murder, those who commit premeditated murder are put to death'

Defendant: 'In the end I did murder him, yes, and I knew going there I had the option to murder him, but it doesnt count as premeditated because I could have decided to NOT murder him, thus it cant be a REAL premeditated murder.'

Judge: 'Hmm... you got me there, I guess you could have decided NOT to murder him, and then it wouldnt have been premeditated murder at all!'

 

I realize you said this was a joke but it makes NO SENSE!!!, premeditated murder means you planned to kill someone and carried it out, if you then carry it out you get charged with premeditated murder, the fact that you could of chosen not to go through with your plan has no bearing on the two principle factors - You planned it - You killed him. If you premeditate a murder then don't do it you haven't committed a crime. AAARRRGGHHHHH. :D

[Mal]

I think this is one of 'those' discussions that noe everyone will ever agree to one way or the other...

 

i't probally best to either house rule it, agree before hand or if your like me and have a group that doesn't run a calgar... sit back and not worry about it.

[gil galed]

I think this is one of 'those' discussions that noe everyone will ever agree to one way or the other...

 

i't probally best to either house rule it, agree before hand or if your like me and have a group that doesn't run a calgar... sit back and not worry about it.

 

 

Concurred and seconded :lol:

[DevianID]

If you conceive of it the other way, then units that just happen to roll and pass morale checks will also suffer no retreat, since they wont ever fall back either, so long as they continue to pass their saves.

This is false because they made a check by rolling 2d6, therefore are not subject to 'No Retreat'

 

The revelant rule, as quoted, is "These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back." So what is taking a morale check? "Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leaderhip value."

 

So, for the umpteenth time, if a unit passes a morale check with no roll (AKA it did not take the test it was required to) and does not fall back, then it takes 'No Retreat' armor saves. I really don't care what rule allows the unit to both not take a morale check and not fall back from a combat it lost--and neither should you. If a unit does not take a check, and does not fall back, then it suffers 'No Retreat.' If a unit takes a check, or if a unit falls back, then they do not suffer 'No Retreat.'

 

If people want to leave it alone, I understand. But the logic above is sound. The argument against the logic above is found in the poorly placed word 'never;' however as my other posts demonstrate the duration of 'never' is specific to the single required morale test that the player did not roll, not the entire game in every possible permutation.

[gil galed]

The revelant rule, as quoted, is "These units do not take morale checks and will never fall back." So what is taking a morale check? "Morale checks are taken by rolling 2d6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leaderhip value."

 

Yes but the codexs allow you to overide rules in the big book, in this case Calgars GoW modifies the moral check from a 2d6 roll to a personal choice. This doesn't invalidate the morale check just changes how it is taken.