God of War special rule

[Akaiyou]

This issue came up today while playing a game.

 

I was fielding Marneus Calgar in my list and I was fighting tyranids. The way I interpret the God of War rule if you choose to pass the morale check when losing combat there are no 'no retreat' penalties as you don't 'automaticlally pass all morale checks' and the marines aren't fearless.

 

It makes no sense to me to be penalized for no retreat regardless of wether you choose to pass or fail. It makes the special rule pointless IMO if you always take the penalty regardless.

 

My opponent questioned this 'auto pass' as being subject to no retreat. We asked around the store and it seemed like everyone agreed that anyone with combat tactics simply chooses to pass and because it's not an 'auto pass all morale checks' and they aren't fearless that they take no penalty on no retreat when losing a combat.

 

So just to be clear I wanted to ask other space marines players online that may know more about how Calgar's rules work in 5th Edition.

 

Is there or is there no penalty for choosing to pass a morale check when losing combat? And what is the reasoning behind it?

[Grey Mage]

Did you roll to pass the test? Nope. You decided to, and it happened "Automatically".

 

That sounds like an auto-pass to me.

[evil_tendencies]

Based on the letter of the rules, I would rule that the statement "choose to pass or fail" implies a passed or failed die roll, albeit an imaginary one. Accordingly, the no retreat rule would not be in effect.

 

Looking at the spirit of the rules, I see the No Retreat rule as describing soldiers who are incapable of considering retreat, even when faced with a hopeless battle. Perfect examples of this principle are units like Khorne berzerkers (I think, I'm a bit rusty on the current edition), Blood Angels Death Company, Tyranid rippers, etc. The men fighting under Calgar don't seem like mindless or crazed minions; from what I've read, they are rather the opposite - hence the ability to retreat if they so choose.

[Sigismund Himself]

This has been debated in the Official Rules subforum (here), with no general consensus being found. One more thing for GW to add to a FAQ. The best idea would be to dice off for the ruling, if you can't agree on it. Or get a staff member to decide on a ruling.

 

This is a summary of the two arguments by nighthawks.

Argument for NO RETREAT!

• 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" per BRB P. 44, NO RETREAT!) the choice to pass DOES incur NO RETREAT! and relevant saves

 

Arguments against NO RETREAT!

• 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.

 

Hope this helps.

[Akaiyou]

Based on the letter of the rules, I would rule that the statement "choose to pass or fail" implies a passed or failed die roll, albeit an imaginary one. Accordingly, the no retreat rule would not be in effect.

 

Looking at the spirit of the rules, I see the No Retreat rule as describing soldiers who are incapable of considering retreat, even when faced with a hopeless battle. Perfect examples of this principle are units like Khorne berzerkers (I think, I'm a bit rusty on the current edition), Blood Angels Death Company, Tyranid rippers, etc. The men fighting under Calgar don't seem like mindless or crazed minions; from what I've read, they are rather the opposite - hence the ability to retreat if they so choose.

 

that is EXACTLY my opinion. The spirit of the rule is to penalize those who NEVER fall back as implied in the no retreat rule itself and this is most definetly NOT what the Ultramarines are about. Retreat is always an option for them as is staying in combat.

 

Like someone said it's a 'imaginary' roll in which they CHOOSE pass. It is never automatic like it is for fearless units and creatures under synapse effect.

 

I read that thread u linked me to and I'm shocked no one pointed this out to everyone who keeps INSISTING and pointing fingers at the Orks and Tyranids to support that Calgar must take no retreat rules when using GoW.

 

Being that I'm mainly a tyranid player and I also play Orks I must say, you are supporting that argument on a completely 100% MISINTERPRETATION.

 

The Ork Codex's Ghazghkull's Waagh rule says: "All non-fleeing friendly units become FEARLESS for the duration of the Waagh"

 

- Every single example that tried to imply that Ghazghkull's rule is ANYTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER akin to Calgar is thus invalid. The wording couldn't be any more different. They become FEARLESS period! For that one turn no ands ifs or buts about it.

 

And also from the Tyranid Codex, for those unaware this is what the Synapse rule actually says: "Any brood with a model within 12" of a Synapse Creature never fall back are assumed to automatically pass any leadership-based test they are called upon to make"

 

- So once more the tyranid rule COMPLETELY as a matter of fact WORD FOR WORD fits the bill of what No Retreat affects. it mentions that they 'never fall back' and has the word AUTOMATIC right in there. They have absolutely no choice in the matter. Thus every single argument supported on synapse is also invalid and I saw a LOT of those.

 

Look these rules up yourself if you like to disagree and i challenge anyone disagreeing to show me another rule that is the same as Calgars and yet is affected by No Retreat. Without the need to bend or distort the wording to their favor.

 

Just for completion I want to quote the FEARLESS special rule:

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

 

Can this be any clearer? It is written nearly EXACTLY like the synapse rule. It has ALL the keywords. As does every other rule that is affected by no retreat. GoW is NOT the same. Come on Calgar is worth over 250 points!! What else can he do for your army that is worth THAT many points????? Every other special character in the codex gives everyone in the army a CRAZY and unique special ability. And Calgar like it or not is the greatest of chapter masters currently so what makes people think (other than their possible disdain for Ultramarines) that he wouldn't also have a awesome ability to justify his ridiculous point cost?

 

Sorry if I sound rude but I was just completely apalled at the way people would throw out "TYRANIDS SYNAPSE THIS! GHAZGHKULL THAT!" without actually playing those armies and knowing at the actual rules. Which if they had done so, they'd see that they are written to completely embrace No Retreat, unlike Calgar which makes key omissions.

[TheDarkApostle]

I recall there being some FAQ ruling on Inquisitors taking the extra hits when they used their "Iron Will" to auto-pass tests as if they were simply fearless.

 

Can't tell how relevant that is since I'm almost certain it was in the old edition but it might work as a guideline.

 

After all, the "God of War" ability basically gives you the option of choosing whether to be Fearless or auto lose your test.

 

To me it's obvious that Calgar would suffer the extra hits from the "No Retreat" rule then.

 

EDIT:

 

It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason

 

Bolding on my part. If you autopass, you're subject to the No Retreat! rule.

 

TDA

[Grand Master Tyrak]

TheDarkApostle Posted Today, 11:33 AM

I recall there being some FAQ ruling on Inquisitors taking the extra hits when they used their "Iron Will" to auto-pass tests as if they were simply fearless.

 

Can't tell how relevant that is since I'm almost certain it was in the old edition but it might work as a guideline.

 

That's interesting, since the wording for Iron Will means Inquisitor Lords can "choose to pass or fail any Morale check or Pinning test he is called upon to make . . . even if failure is normally automatic." C: DH p. 22, C: WH p.26.

[Brother Gothard]

I think everyone wishing to discuss this now should go up and FULLY reread Sigismund's post, and also read the entire link to the thread he posted. This issue has been discussed at length in that thread, and the quoted bit in Sigismund's post is more or less the outcome - we did not reach consensus on either side.

[Akaiyou]

I'm completely disagree against using outdated rules as a 'guideline' for current rules.

 

Things that are no longer in use shouldn't matter because rulings change over time. Take force weapons as an example. To bring up what they used to be like in the past doesn't matter whatsoever because they work differently now. At least that's my opinion of it.

 

Any how I just wanted to point out the Ork and Tyranid thing because I read that old thread and there was an awful amount of supporters of No Retreat incorrectly referencing these armies to support their point. My work here is done.

 

This does infact need an FAQ

[DevianID]

If you read the official rules post, then you should know my position. Namely, you dont have to be fearless to suffer no retreat-- Units that pass a morale check with no roll and will not fall back are subject to no retreat. One example of which is a fearless unit, but they are not the only units, and a special rule does not have to be labeled 'fearless' or identical to fearless in order to take no retreat wounds.

 

While using one part of GoW, you meet the condition that you will pass a morale check with no roll and will not fall back--this is a fact. Before you use the special rule, yes, you could have taken a morale check. But after you decided to use your rule, you are bound by that decision--and the fact that you could have decided to do something else doesnt change your actions. Plus, it is only for the duration that you choose to use your optional special rule that you will suffer no retreat--if you dont want to suffer no retreat, you are not forced to use that rule; that in and of itself makes god of war better than fearless, despite both taking no retreat saves if they pass with no roll--at least with GoW the choice is in your hands.

 

If the penalty for murdering someone is the death sentence, and you murder someone, you suffer the death sentence. The concept that you should not suffer the death sentence after you murder someone, because circumstances could have played out differently if you made a different decision in life, doesnt change what actually happened or the penalty for what actually happened.

 

If the penalty for passing your break check with no roll and no fall back is 'no retreat', and you do just that, you suffer 'no retreat'. The fact that circumstances could have played out differently, leading to a situation where you didnt pass your check with no roll or you did fall back, does not change what actually happened or the penalty for what actually happened.

[Grey Mage]

Based on the letter of the rules, I would rule that the statement "choose to pass or fail" implies a passed or failed die roll, albeit an imaginary one. Accordingly, the no retreat rule would not be in effect.

 

Looking at the spirit of the rules, I see the No Retreat rule as describing soldiers who are incapable of considering retreat, even when faced with a hopeless battle. Perfect examples of this principle are units like Khorne berzerkers (I think, I'm a bit rusty on the current edition), Blood Angels Death Company, Tyranid rippers, etc. The men fighting under Calgar don't seem like mindless or crazed minions; from what I've read, they are rather the opposite - hence the ability to retreat if they so choose.

 

that is EXACTLY my opinion. The spirit of the rule is to penalize those who NEVER fall back as implied in the no retreat rule itself and this is most definetly NOT what the Ultramarines are about. Retreat is always an option for them as is staying in combat.

 

Like someone said it's a 'imaginary' roll in which they CHOOSE pass. It is never automatic like it is for fearless units and creatures under synapse effect.

 

I read that thread u linked me to and I'm shocked no one pointed this out to everyone who keeps INSISTING and pointing fingers at the Orks and Tyranids to support that Calgar must take no retreat rules when using GoW.

So you feel that you should get all the benefits of fearless but none of the drawbacks because you have a version of fearless- autopassing morale checks that has an additional rule; you can automatically fail morale checks- that makes it better.

 

No. sorry. There is no rules covering the use of imaginairy dice. Can you also roll them for shooting? Do you just remember where the pips are? Theres no mention of any rolling... because there isnt.

 

You automatically pass it with god of war- you suffer from no retreat. You automatically fail with god of war- then you must have had a good reason to.

 

Its already a powerful ability, suck it up and take the good with the bad.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Akaiyou Posted Today, 08:11 PM

I'm completely disagree against using outdated rules as a 'guideline' for current rules.

 

Things that are no longer in use shouldn't matter because rulings change over time. Take force weapons as an example. To bring up what they used to be like in the past doesn't matter whatsoever because they work differently now. At least that's my opinion of it.

 

Unfortunately not all of us have been lucky enough to get updated rules, and so our older rules, whilst 'outdated', are still current. None of the examples cited (in this thread at least) are from the past.

[Brother Sigurd]

The way I see it, any unit with Calgar's aid losing an assault, they can automatically choose to just make the Ld-check, and remain in combat. They are not Fearless, per se, they just roll two non-existing dies that ALWAYS land on an imaginary double one, regardless of the combar result.

 

Also, units with the Combat Tactics are not, in my opinion, subject to "No Retreat!"-rule only when caught by a Sweeping advance (i.e. failing the initiative check vs the enemy). The wording of the codex supports this point of view.

 

C:SM pp 51: If Space marines are caught by a sweeping advance (i.e. losing the initiative) they are not destroyed and will instead continue to fight normally. If this happens then the unit is subject to the No Retreat! rule in this round of close combat and might therefore suffer additional casualties.

 

my two cents, at least

[Akaiyou]

If you read the official rules post, then you should know my position. Namely, you dont have to be fearless to suffer no retreat-- Units that pass a morale check with no roll and will not fall back are subject to no retreat. One example of which is a fearless unit, but they are not the only units, and a special rule does not have to be labeled 'fearless' or identical to fearless in order to take no retreat wounds.

 

While using one part of GoW, you meet the condition that you will pass a morale check with no roll and will not fall back--this is a fact. Before you use the special rule, yes, you could have taken a morale check. But after you decided to use your rule, you are bound by that decision--and the fact that you could have decided to do something else doesnt change your actions. Plus, it is only for the duration that you choose to use your optional special rule that you will suffer no retreat--if you dont want to suffer no retreat, you are not forced to use that rule; that in and of itself makes god of war better than fearless, despite both taking no retreat saves if they pass with no roll--at least with GoW the choice is in your hands.

 

If the penalty for murdering someone is the death sentence, and you murder someone, you suffer the death sentence. The concept that you should not suffer the death sentence after you murder someone, because circumstances could have played out differently if you made a different decision in life, doesnt change what actually happened or the penalty for what actually happened.

 

If the penalty for passing your break check with no roll and no fall back is 'no retreat', and you do just that, you suffer 'no retreat'. The fact that circumstances could have played out differently, leading to a situation where you didnt pass your check with no roll or you did fall back, does not change what actually happened or the penalty for what actually happened.

 

I'm glad you pointed out the example of the death penalty for killing someone. Because I can prove you wrong easily with your own example I'm afraid.

 

This is your position:

 

Killing Someone = Death Penalty

Any time you Kill Someone = You will get the Death Penalty.

 

Right?

 

So this is my position and how things actually work in real life.

 

Killing Someone = You will go to court

At this courthouse you will have a trial to determine wether you killed someone or not.

During said trial you can plead GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. However you can also plead....SELF-DEFENCE!

 

Thus you CAN kill someone (in self defense) and NOT get the Death Penalty.

 

Thus your analogy falls apart right then and there. You wish to view this as being white and black with no shades of grey in between. The rules in 40k are mostly intended to be white/grey/black. You can look at special rules as being the shade of grey.

 

I already pointed out other rules that ARE subject to no retreat and how they all have the key wording of 'these units never fall back' and they 'automatically pass' right there crystal clear. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus GoW provides us with more than reasonable doubt by omitting all of that.

 

Based on the letter of the rules, I would rule that the statement "choose to pass or fail" implies a passed or failed die roll, albeit an imaginary one. Accordingly, the no retreat rule would not be in effect.

 

Looking at the spirit of the rules, I see the No Retreat rule as describing soldiers who are incapable of considering retreat, even when faced with a hopeless battle. Perfect examples of this principle are units like Khorne berzerkers (I think, I'm a bit rusty on the current edition), Blood Angels Death Company, Tyranid rippers, etc. The men fighting under Calgar don't seem like mindless or crazed minions; from what I've read, they are rather the opposite - hence the ability to retreat if they so choose.

 

that is EXACTLY my opinion. The spirit of the rule is to penalize those who NEVER fall back as implied in the no retreat rule itself and this is most definetly NOT what the Ultramarines are about. Retreat is always an option for them as is staying in combat.

 

Like someone said it's a 'imaginary' roll in which they CHOOSE pass. It is never automatic like it is for fearless units and creatures under synapse effect.

 

I read that thread u linked me to and I'm shocked no one pointed this out to everyone who keeps INSISTING and pointing fingers at the Orks and Tyranids to support that Calgar must take no retreat rules when using GoW.

So you feel that you should get all the benefits of fearless but none of the drawbacks because you have a version of fearless- autopassing morale checks that has an additional rule; you can automatically fail morale checks- that makes it better.

 

No. sorry. There is no rules covering the use of imaginairy dice. Can you also roll them for shooting? Do you just remember where the pips are? Theres no mention of any rolling... because there isnt.

 

You automatically pass it with god of war- you suffer from no retreat. You automatically fail with god of war- then you must have had a good reason to.

 

Its already a powerful ability, suck it up and take the good with the bad.

 

- I get the feeling that you arent an ultramarine player. What chapter do you play if I may ask?

 

Do we really have all the benefits of being Fearless with GoW? I think NOT. We still must take Pinning Tests! And that is a HUGE benefit of being fearless. So now I'm the one asking YOU.

 

Do you think it fair to give us ALL THE DOWNSIDES to being fearless and not ALL the benefits?

 

And I also think you must be reading a different rulebook from what I'm reading because I keep looking at the No Retreat rule and I just can't seem to find the following:

 

"Units that roll no dice for morale are subject to No Retreat"

 

This is your WHOLE argument. And that is quite a questionable one. I think you should be the one to 'suck it up' and read the ENTIRE entry rather than make up your own 1 sentence fits all 'house rule'. Either that or get a 5th edition rulebook.

[TheDarkApostle]

Speaking of nothing I'm sending this over to the OR.

 

Funny how I didn't think of that earlier.

 

TDA

[Grey Mage]

Based on the letter of the rules, I would rule that the statement "choose to pass or fail" implies a passed or failed die roll, albeit an imaginary one. Accordingly, the no retreat rule would not be in effect.

 

Looking at the spirit of the rules, I see the No Retreat rule as describing soldiers who are incapable of considering retreat, even when faced with a hopeless battle. Perfect examples of this principle are units like Khorne berzerkers (I think, I'm a bit rusty on the current edition), Blood Angels Death Company, Tyranid rippers, etc. The men fighting under Calgar don't seem like mindless or crazed minions; from what I've read, they are rather the opposite - hence the ability to retreat if they so choose.

 

that is EXACTLY my opinion. The spirit of the rule is to penalize those who NEVER fall back as implied in the no retreat rule itself and this is most definetly NOT what the Ultramarines are about. Retreat is always an option for them as is staying in combat.

 

Like someone said it's a 'imaginary' roll in which they CHOOSE pass. It is never automatic like it is for fearless units and creatures under synapse effect.

 

I read that thread u linked me to and I'm shocked no one pointed this out to everyone who keeps INSISTING and pointing fingers at the Orks and Tyranids to support that Calgar must take no retreat rules when using GoW.

So you feel that you should get all the benefits of fearless but none of the drawbacks because you have a version of fearless- autopassing morale checks that has an additional rule; you can automatically fail morale checks- that makes it better.

 

No. sorry. There is no rules covering the use of imaginairy dice. Can you also roll them for shooting? Do you just remember where the pips are? Theres no mention of any rolling... because there isnt.

 

You automatically pass it with god of war- you suffer from no retreat. You automatically fail with god of war- then you must have had a good reason to.

 

Its already a powerful ability, suck it up and take the good with the bad.

 

- I get the feeling that you arent an ultramarine player. What chapter do you play if I may ask?

 

Do we really have all the benefits of being Fearless with GoW? I think NOT. We still must take Pinning Tests! And that is a HUGE benefit of being fearless. So now I'm the one asking YOU.

 

Do you think it fair to give us ALL THE DOWNSIDES to being fearless and not ALL the benefits?

 

And I also think you must be reading a different rulebook from what I'm reading because I keep looking at the No Retreat rule and I just can't seem to find the following:

 

"Units that roll no dice for morale are subject to No Retreat"

 

This is your WHOLE argument. And that is quite a questionable one. I think you should be the one to 'suck it up' and read the ENTIRE entry rather than make up your own 1 sentence fits all 'house rule'. Either that or get a 5th edition rulebook.

Marines played: Space Wolves, Salamanders, and occaisionally templars.

 

Now, moving on the rule states:

"Its 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 combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on."

 

You choose to use the rule, you choose to take its drawbacks. You get to automatically pass the test, by your choice, and so are immune to morale checks for losing that assault. Thus, you take no retreat saves because you got the benefit of this rule.

 

Further support of this can be found in the "ATSKNF" rule as an exchange for not being destroyed when your caught after losing combat and running we are subject to no retreat wounds.

[Legatus]

If the penalty for murdering someone is the death sentence, and you murder someone, you suffer the death sentence. The concept that you should not suffer the death sentence after you murder someone, because circumstances could have played out differently if you made a different decision in life, doesnt change what actually happened or the penalty for what actually happened.

I am not satisfied with that analogy, because I feel the "No Retreat" rule is based more on the inability to do something (falling back) rather than the result of doing something.

 

So you feel that you should get all the benefits of fearless but none of the drawbacks because you have a version of fearless- autopassing morale checks that has an additional rule; you can automatically fail morale checks- that makes it better.

Maybe that's why the rule is only available with a special character and not distributed to various units of the army list like "Fearless" is. I see not reason why such a rule should not be better than the generic universal special rule.

[Akaiyou]

Marines played: Space Wolves, Salamanders, and occaisionally templars.

 

- Well just as I figured you don't play Ultramarines. Those 3 armies you play all have their own specific fighting style as I am very aware. For example the Salamanders believe in using all sorts of fire-based weaponry as their main arsenal.

 

Have you read up on Ultramarines and are you aware of what their fighting style is like? Read the Combat Tactics entry it tells you right there. And after reading that there's no way you can tell me that, it sounds to you like the type of army that would find itself subject to No Retreat (that's assuming that you read the ENTIRE No Retreat entry as well).

 

Further support of this can be found in the "ATSKNF" rule as an exchange for not being destroyed when your caught after losing combat and running we are subject to no retreat wounds.

 

- Except that in your opinion Ultramarines should be penalized wether they choose to pass or fail! Either way we'd be subject to No Retreat!!! Does this seriously make sense in your head?

 

It's like having 2 paths to take they both lead to the same exact thing. What is the point??

[TheDarkApostle]

It is what it is because it gives you an extremely good choice.

 

Say for instance that the game will be a draw instead of a win for you if your squad breaks next to that objective? Use Calgar's God of War, and the squad stays in the fight, (assuming of course that they don't get wiped out by the No Retreat! rule).

 

Or say that you get charged by that really dangerous squad. Simply auto-lose and fall back, and thanks to the ATSKNF you don't get destroyed if they catch up. Assuming they don't however, and you're all free to rapid fire them to death instead of fighting a hopeless close combat.

 

The second example is something already possible without Calgar of course, but the first example is the really keeper part of his rule. Especially when you're able to do it with your entire army.

 

TDA

[VariableBob]

Would it be correct to say that the argument in favour of taking No Retreat wounds is that you do not roll dice, or are there additional reasons?

[DevianID]

This is your position:

Killing Someone = Death Penalty

Any time you Kill Someone = You will get the Death Penalty.

Right?

Akaiyou, that is not my position... I never mentioned 'killing' i mentioned murder... that aside, I used the murder example to make a point, you changing the meaning (murder in my example to self defence) and timing (determend action: murder to questionable action yet to be determined: case in court)

 

Maybe its my fault for using an example that people could misinterpret (well the meaning was changed, but whatever)

 

However, my point still stands and the logic is not flawed. The game doesnt care about possibilities... the action is what matters. If the action you take results in not taking a morale check, passing said required check, and not falling back, then you suffer no retreat. Whether its due to GoW, fearless, synapse, or whatever, doesnt matter.

[TheDarkApostle]

"Its not uncommon for units to be immune to morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason"

 

From the first paragraph of the No Retreat! rule, in regard to what units it applies to.

 

TDA

[Legatus]

It does not stop there though, does it?

 

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

- BRB, p. 44

 

That is the part after the fluffy introduction, where actual rules are discussed. ;)

 

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

- C:SM, p. 84

 

So, Case closed? Well, I guess not, I was there the last time, so I wont get my hopes up.

[VariableBob]

"Its not uncommon for units to be immune to morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason"

 

From the first paragraph of the No Retreat! rule, in regard to what units it applies to.

 

TDA

There are two possible outcomes to a morale test, pass or fail. "Automatically pass" reduces that to one possible outcome: pass. This is so because it happens automatically, with no input of any kind.

If a dice roll is made there are two possible outcomes, pass or fail. If you pass you do not suffer no retreat, as there was still the possibility of failure.

If God of War is in play there are two possible outcomes, pass or fail. If you pass you do not suffer no retreat, as there was still the possibility of failure.

 

God of War does not alter the outcome of the morale test, as "automatically pass" does. It alters the method for determining the outcome.

[SeattleDV8]

With GoW you have three choices; roll the Ld test normally (chance of pass or fail) , Automatic failure or automatic success.

The choice is made before the test.

After the test you determine if the test meets the rules for No Retreat.

If you picked the auto -pass you are subject to no retreat.