Calgar Rules Query?

[Legatus]

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.

And I say that if falling back was a possible outcome of the morale check the unit was called to make then there is no "No Retreat!".

 

"Never falls back" does not refer to it never ever being possible that the unit may fall back under completely different circumstances, but it does refer to it being absolutely impossible that the unit falls back from the morale check it is currently called to make.

 

A unit of Bersekrers cannot fall back from combat. They are not in danger of being overrun, or of running off the board, or of counting as fleeing at the end of the game.

 

A unit with Calgar can fall back.

[gil galed]

thus now that we have a good argument from both sides we close the topic?

[Giant Fossil Penguin]

Wouldn't RAW mean that there is no 'No Retreat' when using GoW? Nowhere in the description of the rule is the word automatic mentioned. I don't know if my thought is right or wrong, but seeing as 'automatic' is not used as part of the rule, and the unit isn't described as becoming 'Fearless' when using GoW, then 'No Retreat' is not invoked? That smells right, but no doubt someone can sink me!

 

GFP

[DevianID]

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.

While codex does override BRB, unless I am misremembering Calgar it does not say 'Choosing to pass or fail counts as taking the test,' thus buy passing the check without rolling you did not take the morale test. Passing the morale test and taking the morale test are kept seperate because many units may pass all morale tests for some reason, and the intention of 'No Retreat' is for such units to take 'No Retreat' because they did not actually take the test they passed.

Nowhere in the description of the rule is the word automatic mentioned. I don't know if my thought is right or wrong, but seeing as 'automatic' is not used as part of the rule, and the unit isn't described as becoming 'Fearless' when using GoW, then 'No Retreat' is not invoked?

You do not have to pass the test 'automaticly' to suffer 'No Retreat,' but units that do pass the test automaticly will take 'No Retreat.' Basicly, there is more to 'No Retreat' than an automaticly passing a morale check. Also, fearless units suffer 'No Retreat' because fearless units pass a morale check with no roll and do not fall back, they do not suffer 'No Retreat' because they are fearless. Fearless units are a really bad example for 'No Retreat' because people tend to think that you have to be fearless to suffer 'No Retreat' when many more things in the game take 'No Retreat' saves other than fearless units.

And I say that if falling back was a possible outcome of the morale check the unit was called to make then there is no "No Retreat!".

"Never falls back" does not refer to it never ever being possible that the unit may fall back under completely different circumstances, but it does refer to it being absolutely impossible that the unit falls back from the morale check it is currently called to make.

Again this is the crux of the problem. We agree on the defination of never, which is really good. So, we have the following example. A model is called upon to make a morale check. The model has a special rule that will allow him to pass the check with no roll if he wants to, or he can choose to take the test normally and be bound by those results. He chooses to use the special rule to pass the check automaticly to not have the possibility of running away. We now look at 'No Retreat.' 'No Retreat' says you will take 'No Retreat' saves if you 'do not take morale checks and will never fall back' -- and while using the special rule you will not take a morale check and will never fall back, thus the model that chooses to use his special rule now suffers 'No Retreat' BUT if he didnt choose to use the special rule, then he would not suffer no retreat.

 

And by the way, that example pertains to 3 seperate armies; I am not singling out GoW. Its just the 'no retreat' rule has been the same for a long time now, and Calgar is functionally the same as them and thus gets no special immunity to 'No Retreat.'

[Legatus]

Passing the morale test and taking the morale test are kept seperate because many units may pass all morale tests for some reason, and the intention of 'No Retreat' is for such units to take 'No Retreat' because they did not actually take the test they passed.

I still cannot get behind the notion that a penalty of suffering a number of wounds would be given to a unit merely because they passed a test without having to roll for it. I am instead quite certain that the penalty to suffer a number of wounds is intended to balance the fact that some units are never in danger of being completely wiped out by being overrun. Otherwise the "No Retreat!" penalty may as well have been given for passing morale tests from shooting, since those units would pass thast kind of morale tests without having to roll for it as well.

As the rule for "No Retreat!" states, it affects units that "do not take morale tests and never fall back". That is why Calgars ability to fall back from any morale test he will be called to make prevents "No Retreat!" for him. That he falls back and is caught by the enemy is a possibility every time he has to make a morale check in combat.

 

And by the way, that example pertains to 3 seperate armies; I am not singling out GoW. Its just the 'no retreat' rule has been the same for a long time now, and Calgar is functionally the same as them and thus gets no special immunity to 'No Retreat.'

Well for one thing, "No Retreat!" was slightly different in 4th Edition (the whole "these units do not take morale tests and never fall back" specification was missing, it only had the more vague first part), and I guess Calgar is a little more popular around these parts than Inquisitor Lords. He might even be seen more frequently in games...

[DevianID]

That he falls back and is caught by the enemy is a possibility every time he has to make a morale check in combat.

I guess my point is that it is NOT possible every time Calgar has to make a morale check for him to fall back--it is specificly NOT possible for him to fall back when he chooses to pass the morale check with no roll.

 

You agree Calgar will NEVER fall back when he passes a morale check with no roll, correct?

 

And you agree that units that 'do not take a morale check and will never fall back' suffer 'No Retreat', correct?

[Legatus]

You agree Calgar will NEVER fall back when he passes a morale check with no roll, correct?

Just like any other unit that passes it's morale test will NEVER fall back. Every time Calgar is called to make a morale check it is possible to fail it.

 

And you agree that units that 'do not take a morale check and will never fall back' suffer 'No Retreat', correct?

That's what the rule says. But we specified the "never fall back".

 

The difference is that I look at the point where the morale check is required, and I see that Calgar can fail that test. You instead look at the point where it has been decided that Calgar will not fail but pass the test, and you see that Calgar can then not fail the test. I am trying to tell you that that line of reasoning is nonsensical.

[Trekari]

Except that it isn't a nonsensical argument, given that unless you are ROLLING the dice for a random result, using GoW can make it impossible to fail. Let's look at the 4 options available upon being called to take a Morale Check with Calgar's ability:

 

1) Roll the dice, pass. No problem here.

2) Roll the dice, fail. Again no problem.

3) Choose to use GoW and pass. Is there a potential with this choice to fall back? Never. Did you take a Morale Check? Not according to the rulebook.

4) Choose to use GoW and fail.

 

Tests made against the Leadership characteristic (like

Morale checks) are different from other tests. In the

case of a Leadership test, roll 2D6 (two dice added

together, as explained earlier).

 

Options 3 and 4 do not qualify as having taken a Morale Check because you didn't roll 2D6 and apply that result. Thus, option 3 falls under No Retreat!

[Legatus]

Except that "No Retreat!" is not a penalty for not having to roll dice, it is a penalty for it not being possible to fall back.

 

Edit:

Now a, for giggles, take a look at the options of a unit of Berserkers or a unit of Gaunts within synapse range. What options would they have? How many of those you listed above for Calgar?

[Trekari]

And the circle continues.

 

I could quote "or to automatically pass them for some reason" from the No Retreat section as well as quoting "These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back." from the No Retreat! section and point out that with option 3, they automatically passed through the use of GoW, as well as not officially having taken a Morale Check because they didn't roll 2D6 as the rulebook tells you to do so, thus they will never fall back when choosing option 3.

 

Between automatically passing for some reason (using GoW), not taking a Morale Check because they didn't roll 2D6, and never falling back because they simply choose to pass, they trigger No Retreat! and it's consequences.

 

You'll argue it is possible for them to fall back if they choose to fail. Conveniently enough, that is not the result that triggers No Retreat!

 

Myself or Devian will come in and point that out, and the argument will begin anew.

 

Use GoW to automatically pass= No Retreat! Rolling the dice and applying the result, or choosing to fail will not.

[Legatus]

I could quote "or to automatically pass them for some reason" from the No Retreat section as well as quoting "These units do not take Morale checks and will never fall back." from the No Retreat! section and point out that with option 3, they automatically passed through the use of GoW, as well as not officially having taken a Morale Check because they didn't roll 2D6 as the rulebook tells you to do so, thus they will never fall back when choosing option 3.

I guess if you did that then I would point out that the unit would never fall back with Option 1 either, which is still the flaw in your line of thinking, and I would again emphasize the point that other units that are subject to "No Retreat!" only have one single option, and only one, and it is the lack of any kind of option to fall back that causes "No Retreat!".

 

A unit that passes it's morale test by rolling 2D6 will not fall back, but it could have.

 

Calgar chosing to pass his morale test will not fall back, but he could have.

 

Berserkers or Gaunts within Synapse range will not fall back. Period.

 

That Calgars action is decided by the owning player instead of a dice roll is incidental. The important point is that it is possible for him to fall back, and if he does so he will suffer the normal consequences. "No Retreat!" is supposed to balance out the fact that certain units will never fall back and thus never suffer the consequences associated with it. Because of the choice involved it will be rare that he does, but so is it for a LD10 unit that can reroll it's saves.

Simply speaking, when the possibility that a unit falls back from a given morale test exists, it does not sufer "No Retreat!".

 

Can a unit fall back from the current morale test?

 

No it cannot --> "No Retreat!"

 

Yes it can --> nothing

[Trekari]

blah blah, same argument over and over again. This is going nowhere and thus will be the last time I post in this thread.

 

If the controlling player chooses to use GoW to pass, they will NEVER fall back. They did not take a morale check, and they automatically passed via a special rule.

 

3 descriptions for No Retreat!, 3 descriptions met.

 

Rolling the dice and passing doesn't even come close to that litmus test, as it was possible upon rolling for the result to have failed.

 

The procedure for a Morale Check is to roll 2D6 with applicable modifiers, and determine the result. If you instead choose to Pass or Fail without following the procedure, then you have automatically passed or failed. Automatic Pass= No Retreat!

 

Your addition that "the lack of any kind of option" as a condition required for No Retreat! is imagined criteria you've made up to support your position, as nowhere in the rules does it say that.

 

Your comment that other units that suffer from No Retreat! have only one option available is using your own argument as proof that your argument is correct. Logical fallacy ftw?

[Legatus]

Your addition that "the lack of any kind of option" as a condition required for No Retreat! is imagined criteria you've made up to support your position, as nowhere in the rules does it say that.

It is based on the "never falling back" part. It affects units that "do not take morale tests and never fall back", i.e. where falling back is not a possible outcome of a required morale test. It is not the "lack of options" so much, as mor the "lack of falling back as a possible outcome". If a unit cannot possibly fall back from a morale test --> "No Retreat!".

[gil galed]

blah blah, same argument over and over again. This is going nowhere and thus will be the last time I post in this thread.

 

Good, don't be so arrogant as to disregard what leg. is saying as the same everytime because your arguments are exactly the same everytime as well, ultimately it will have to be faq'ed as there is to much evidence on both sides to provide a definitive answer one way or the other

 

p.s if codex's over rule BBB why can't choosing to pass or fail a morale test be considered as a morale test? (as choosing overrides the usual rolling)

[nighthawks]

This topic has gone through at least 2 cycles now and it is not the first time it has come up. This is a topic to be added to the grey areas thread, once RL settles down enough to allow us more time to do it.

 

Question - does the use of Calgar's God of War rule incur NO RETREAT?

 

yes - as the test may be passed without "rolling" a morale check, and thus the decision to pass the test will always be succesful (i.e. NEVER fall back) the choice to pass DOES incur NO RETREAT!

 

no - GoW allows a test to be passed or failed as desired, but is not the same as "always passing" as the option, thus possibility, to fail is always available and therefore the unit using GoW is not included in the rule's "will never fall back" language.

 

for now though - TOPIC CLOSED