God of War special rule

[simberti]

To quote one guy : Plus, the fact there is no roll, no actual morale check, makes the condition in the rules 'These units will not take morale checks and will never fall back' apply to GoW units that choose to pass with no morale check. This is different for units that roll a morale check and pass it, because while you can truthfully say 'A unit that passes it's morale roll on 2d6 will never fall back,' these units do not hit the condition required for 'no retreat,' due to the all important morale 2d6 die roll that clearly seperates GoW from a regular morale test.

 

calgar rule says: can chose to pass or fail any morale check he is called upon to make. that means and he still have to take the test and then decide what he does??? he doesnt skip any step you guys created. he lose the fight then he takes a moral check. but guess what?? he passes it.. or fails it.. the fact you have an option definitly makes the test non automatic..... the fact you decide if you pass/fail replaces the dices. calgar doesnt transform your units in immune to morale check bunches, just that you decide what to do when you take em.

 

example p.44 : after all blows are stuck, a fearless( or immune to morale) unit has lost the fight by a difference of 3. the fearless(immune to moral) unit does not take a morale test(Calgar still have to take it!!! he is called upon to make it) ........

 

no retreat stipulate that the unit must be immune to morale check(which is not the case with calgar, you still take the test. you just decide the outcome of the said test, cause you are still called upon to make the test)

 

anyway, i think you dont take additional casualties.

[I AM THE AWESOME]

It all lies in the definition of the word automatic.

 

au⋅to⋅mat⋅ic  [aw-tuh-mat-ik]

–adjective

1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently: an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.

2. Physiology. occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; involuntary.

3. done unconsciously or from force of habit; mechanical: an automatic application of the brakes.

4. occurring spontaneously: automatic enthusiasm.

5. (of a firearm, pistol, etc.) utilizing the recoil or part of the force of the explosive to eject the spent cartridge shell, introduce a new cartridge, cock the arm, and fire it repeatedly.

 

Obviously (5) doesn't apply. Yet all the other definitons point toward the fact that there must be NO choice, ABSOLUTELY NONE INVOLVED, for the unit to suffer No Retreat! wounds. Since the unit may take Morale Checks, it HAS the option, therefore "never taking morale checks" excludes the unit as suffering No Retreat! wounds. Consider this. A unit of Devastators sits in cover, in plain line of sight. The controlling player never shoots them. However, that doesn't make them incapable of shooting; the Devastators still have the option of shooting. There is a distinct difference between "never ever" and "never in this game/turn because I don't want it to happen."

[angry man]

To quote one guy : Plus, the fact there is no roll, no actual morale check, makes the condition in the rules 'These units will not take morale checks and will never fall back' apply to GoW units that choose to pass with no morale check. This is different for units that roll a morale check and pass it, because while you can truthfully say 'A unit that passes it's morale roll on 2d6 will never fall back,' these units do not hit the condition required for 'no retreat,' due to the all important morale 2d6 die roll that clearly seperates GoW from a regular morale test.

 

calgar rule says: can chose to pass or fail any morale check he is called upon to make. that means and he still have to take the test and then decide what he does??? he doesnt skip any step you guys created. he lose the fight then he takes a moral check. but guess what?? he passes it.. or fails it.. the fact you have an option definitly makes the test non automatic..... the fact you decide if you pass/fail replaces the dices. calgar doesnt transform your units in immune to morale check bunches, just that you decide what to do when you take em.

 

example p.44 : after all blows are stuck, a fearless( or immune to morale) unit has lost the fight by a difference of 3. the fearless(immune to moral) unit does not take a morale test(Calgar still have to take it!!! he is called upon to make it) ........

 

no retreat stipulate that the unit must be immune to morale check(which is not the case with calgar, you still take the test. you just decide the outcome of the said test, cause you are still called upon to make the test)

 

anyway, i think you dont take additional casualties.

 

It all lies in the definition of the word automatic.

 

au⋅to⋅mat⋅ic  [aw-tuh-mat-ik]

–adjective

1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently: an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.

2. Physiology. occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; involuntary.

3. done unconsciously or from force of habit; mechanical: an automatic application of the brakes.

4. occurring spontaneously: automatic enthusiasm.

5. (of a firearm, pistol, etc.) utilizing the recoil or part of the force of the explosive to eject the spent cartridge shell, introduce a new cartridge, cock the arm, and fire it repeatedly.

 

Obviously (5) doesn't apply. Yet all the other definitons point toward the fact that there must be NO choice, ABSOLUTELY NONE INVOLVED, for the unit to suffer No Retreat! wounds. Since the unit may take Morale Checks, it HAS the option, therefore "never taking morale checks" excludes the unit as suffering No Retreat! wounds. Consider this. A unit of Devastators sits in cover, in plain line of sight. The controlling player never shoots them. However, that doesn't make them incapable of shooting; the Devastators still have the option of shooting. There is a distinct difference between "never ever" and "never in this game/turn because I don't want it to happen."

 

well said those men! exactly what i was trying to say only put much better

 

AM

[SeattleDV8]

you gentlemen seen to be mistaking automatic for involuntarily (to quote Ghaz)

You can choose to fail a test automatically as per Combat Tactic's.

Therefore the choice has no bearing ,the fact that the test was passed without dice rolls meets the criteria of No Retreat.

A unit does not have to be Fearless BRB pg44 "(they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule)"

When a player chooses to pass the Ld test they will indeed 'never fall back'.

May units may fall back at some point in a game but still be subject to No Retreat.

'Nid's in synapse, Sisters and acts of Faith, Marines with a Chaplain or Eldar with an Avatar.

Do you claim that because in some phase of the game they could fall back they are not affected by No Retreat?

[I AM THE AWESOME]

you gentlemen seen to be mistaking automatic for involuntarily (to quote Ghaz)

You can choose to fail a test automatically as per Combat Tactic's.

Therefore the choice has no bearing ,the fact that the test was passed without dice rolls meets the criteria of No Retreat.

A unit does not have to be Fearless BRB pg44 "(they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule)"

When a player chooses to pass the Ld test they will indeed 'never fall back'.

May units may fall back at some point in a game but still be subject to No Retreat.

'Nid's in synapse, Sisters and acts of Faith, Marines with a Chaplain or Eldar with an Avatar.

Do you claim that because in some phase of the game they could fall back they are not affected by No Retreat?

 

2. Physiology. occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; involuntary.

 

 

 

Not mistaking anything for anything. It's right there.

[Legatus]

When a player chooses to pass the Ld test they will indeed 'never fall back'.

May units may fall back at some point in a game but still be subject to No Retreat.

The important point is whether you check at the moment the unit is posed with a morale test whether it is possible to fail that test, or whether you look at the moment after it has been determined that they pass it whether it is possible to fail that test.

 

Fearless Berserkers, Tyranid Broods within Synapse Range, Sisters of Battle under the effect of "Light of the Emperor". They all have in common that at the point where the test is posed it is already decided that they will not fail it and not fall back. Falling back is not a possible outcome of the test they are posed with.

[DevianID]

you gentlemen seen to be mistaking automatic for involuntarily (to quote Ghaz)

Not mistaking anything for anything. It's right there.

 

What he ment was, if you look at combat tactics, a unit with combat tactics can choose to fail automaticlly. But the definations of automaticly you quoted lead toward 'automatic' meaning involuntary, yet GW mixes voluntary choice with an automatic action. Thus, we need to look at what the context of automatic is per GW, and indeed to us in a real world example.

 

In combat tactics, what 'automatic' means in context is that the morale check which determines whether the unit will stay in combat or fall back is resolved automaticly, based on the decision to use a special rule. Kind of like how an automatic pencil sharpener will automaticly sharpen your pencil after you decide to put your pencil in it.

 

The automatic pencil sharpener will not sharpen your pencil if you do not wish it too, just like GOW will not automaticly pass your morale roll if you dont wish it too.

 

Thus with GOW, you make a decision to use something... in this case, you make a decision to use a rule which says you will pass a morale check. No roll is involved. Per the context in the space marine codex, based on the wording of combat tactics, that makes the choice to pass the morale check make the required morale roll resolve automaticly.

 

Thus, you decide to use GOW's special ability to pass a morale check with no roll, and the required roll itself is passed automaticly thanks to GoW.

[Grey Mage]

or am i being naive and people dont think its that simple - id be interested to hear if anybody can find another unit in the game that has the ability to both pass and fail (by any means, 'automatic' (whatever) or otherwise) a morale check in any one given situation (marines dont count as that is a detailed and perfectly clear and understood part of their ATSKNF special rule as per C:SM). Good Sirs; i challenge you

 

AM

 

I sincerely believe its not that simple. I believe No Retreat is a drawback normally inherent to the abilty to pass morale checks without having to roll. I will look through the the codices to find such a unit as you ask, but I dont think Ill find one- Nor do I think it is relevant that such a unit exist.

 

*comes back a moment later* The Ordo Malleus Inquisitor lord may choose to pass or fail any morale check... Ill be back when I find more.

[GTang]

That's your interpretation of RAI using Combat Tactics. Another is that the choice is so not automatic when there is a choice, Combat Tactics needed to specify it was automatic so that it would have the intended game effect. God of War doesn't say automatic because it's not intended to be treated as if it is.

 

Regardless of what we may or may not wish or desire, the God of War rule does not specify that it's providing an automatic result. If it was meant to be automatic (or unmodified, etc.) it would say so.

 

----

 

Both WH and DH Inquisitor Lords have had this ability - a stronger one that God of War, in fact. For one, it works on Pinning checks, too.

[simberti]

if they wanted the word automatic to be included in the Gow rule, dont you think they would have put it that way?? i mean combat tactics uses the word automatically in its wording. calgar doesnt. same codex. seriously, why invents words that are not in the rule??

 

as far as: No Retreat is a drawback normally inherent to the abilty to pass morale checks without having to roll. where does this say that anywhere??

 

and as far as: When a player chooses to pass the Ld test they will indeed 'never fall back'. would that also mean that a unit that rolls and pass also never falls back so it is subject to the no retreat rule, now that it cant fall back???

 

and: 'Nid's in synapse, Sisters and acts of Faith, Marines with a Chaplain(they become fearless btw, they dont have to chose to pass or fail they dont have a test!!) or Eldar with an Avatar. these guys are immune. they dont take the test. you skip that part. you can be gone for the moment after the fight(as a player) and we know whats gonna happen.we can take casualties out for you. you dont have a choice at all. more are gonna die. not with calgar. someone has to chose whats gonna happen. hence the fact it aint auto!

[DevianID]

When a player chooses to pass the Ld test they will indeed 'never fall back'. would that also mean that a unit that rolls and pass also never falls back so it is subject to the no retreat rule, now that it cant fall back

This has been addressed, but no, they dont suffer 'no retreat,' because they rolled 2d6. The rolling or not rolling is a very important step in determining if you suffer 'no retreat'

if they wanted the word automatic to be included in the Gow rule, dont you think they would have put it that way??

As for automatic, please see my post on an automatic pencil sharpener. Just because the word automatic isnt in GoW, does not mean that it can not be described as 'automatic.'

1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc.[verb], independently: an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.

Instead of rolling the dice to determine whether I passed or failed the morale check, I decided to use GoW's capability to pass [verb] independently of the required die roll--succeding automaticly.

***resorting to semantics for the loss, but it shows how GoW is automatic, for all the people basing their argument that because GoW does not say automatic then it can not thusly be described that way***

[I AM THE AWESOME]

you gentlemen seen to be mistaking automatic for involuntarily (to quote Ghaz)

Not mistaking anything for anything. It's right there.

 

What he ment was, if you look at combat tactics, a unit with combat tactics can choose to fail automaticlly. But the definations of automaticly you quoted lead toward 'automatic' meaning involuntary, yet GW mixes voluntary choice with an automatic action. Thus, we need to look at what the context of automatic is per GW, and indeed to us in a real world example.

 

In combat tactics, what 'automatic' means in context is that the morale check which determines whether the unit will stay in combat or fall back is resolved automaticly, based on the decision to use a special rule. Kind of like how an automatic pencil sharpener will automaticly sharpen your pencil after you decide to put your pencil in it.

 

The automatic pencil sharpener will not sharpen your pencil if you do not wish it too, just like GOW will not automaticly pass your morale roll if you dont wish it too.

 

Thus with GOW, you make a decision to use something... in this case, you make a decision to use a rule which says you will pass a morale check. No roll is involved. Per the context in the space marine codex, based on the wording of combat tactics, that makes the choice to pass the morale check make the required morale roll resolve automaticly.

 

Thus, you decide to use GOW's special ability to pass a morale check with no roll, and the required roll itself is passed automaticly thanks to GoW.

 

Okay, fine, now I bring up the GoW wording:

 

Marneus Calgar can choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check he is called upon to make. Whilst Calgar is on the table, all units with the Combat Tactics special rule can also choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check they are called upon to take.

 

That is the rule verbatim. Note the rather blatant lacking of the word 'automatically.' Yet 'choose' is used. This doesn't sound very 'automatic' at all.

[angry man]

as shown above, the GoW rule clearly applies when a morale check is called upon to be made.

 

this is different to other units, such as those that are fearless as they are never called to make a check.

 

surely there is a quite obvious difference in the proceedings that differentiates the two

-> not being called to take morale checks (ignoring them if you will - fearless, orks, nids) = no retreat rule applies

-> being called to take a morale check (and passing it by any means - rolling dice, GoW, with help from 'Stubborn') = no retreat rule does not apply

 

AM

[Grey Mage]

Regardless of what we may or may not wish or desire, the God of War rule does not specify that it's providing an automatic result. If it was meant to be automatic (or unmodified, etc.) it would say so.

That is the rule verbatim. Note the rather blatant lacking of the word 'automatically.' Yet 'choose' is used. This doesn't sound very 'automatic' at all.

 

It never says I have to read the top of my die to see what I rolled either.... that doesnt mean its not the case. The ability to choose to use an ability that works automatically doesnt make it any less gauranteed. It happens simply because you decided it, when normally a roll is required... hence, it happened automatically.

 

You choose to do something that normally requires a roll to see if you can do it, but instead of rolling it happens automatically. Thus you take all the penalties for getting to do it automatically as well as all the benefits.

 

If you dont want the penalties you can always choose to roll normally... wich is itself quite the boon.

[Legatus]

The word "automatic" is really rather inconsequential for "No Retreat", so maybe we can stop discussing the semantic meaning of it. It is neither very interresting to this matter, nor can we find a definitive solution, since the word could indeed be used for both instances, one where no participation or choice by the player is involved, and one where there is no random die roll involved.

 

The units that suffer "No Retreat" are units that:

 

- do not take morale tests

 

AND

 

- will never fall back

 

And even those criteria are not definitive, as we all know that there are units that are fearless some of the time, but could very well fall back next turn, when the are out of Synapse range, when the Chaplain is gone, or when the Act of Faith has ended. If you insist on 100% RAW then that would apply to no unit in the game, certainly not Tyranid Broods, or Space Marines with a Chaplain, but the mere fact that the Necron Deceiver has a unique Special rule that can even make genuinely "Fearless" units fall back, means they would not meet the criteria either.

 

If we agree that Space Marines with a Chaplain or Tyranids within Synapse range take the "No Retreat" damage, then that is because we agree on the consensus that "never falls back" is not taken literally, but is taken into account only for the current morale test. We are interpreting the rule according to "intent".

 

So how does this "intent" apply to 'God of War'? Some say that if a unit cann pass morale tests without a roll, so if upon their decision the chance of falling back is eliminated, then they should be subject to "No Retreat". I say that passing without a roll is not as important as is at no point being in danger of being run over by the victorious enemy, which is what "No Retreat" compensates for, and while with GoW that decision can be made by the player, it is still also a possibility to fall back instead. It is not up to chance, but it is possible.

 

A unit with LD 7 will fail a lot of morale tests, especially in combat where they will roll with negative modifiers. Even LD 9 units will fail a lot of tests when they take it with those modifiers. Stubborn units will fail less tests, and even fewer if they have a Standard around. Space Marines and Imperial Guard can have certain units with LD 10 that can re-roll morale tests. They will allmost never fall back from combat. But they suffer no penalty to compensate for that, as opposed to the measely LD 7 units. It is still possible for them to fail the test and fall back, it will just be very rare (1 in 144).

With God of War it is also very unlikely that the unit falls back, as it is not up to chance at all. But it is still possible. The unit can decide to fall back, and will then be treated accordingly. That is why in my opinion, the reason for the compensating "No Retreat" wounds is not there. But some think that it is, and we cannot effectively deduce the definitive meaning from the written rule.

 

We did not reach a conclusion before, and I don't think we will do now. Let me refer again to the Grey Area Thread and advise you to discuss this with your opponent before you use Calgar or an Inquisitor Lord. Since Calgar is a Special Character and should only be used for special games, hopefully you will not have a lot of trouble with the issue.

[DevianID]

I applaud your last post Legatus... I hate using semantics too, but once people but up a definition of a word I feel compelled to show how the definition can be applied both ways.

 

With God of War it is also very unlikely that the unit falls back, as it is not up to chance at all

As you know, this is where you and I differ--if a special rule in play makes passing a morale check something not up to chance, then it is not likely at all they will ever fall back when they use that rule. We agree that 'never fall back' is based on the particular circumstances at hand, and not 'NEVER EVER' as some might think (due to the reasons you posted, such as even fearless units running from the deceiver).

 

So basically its a priority thing. Once you choose to use GoW to pass a check with no roll, then you satisfy the condition that you 'do not take morale tests' and 'will never fall back (from this particular morale test).' So, I apply GoW before the morale test, and before the determination of whether or not a unit will suffer 'no retreat;' It seems you apply GoW before the morale test, but after the determination of whether the unit will suffer 'no retreat.'

 

Obviously, I crusade for my cause, because I believe that 'no retreat' is only established after the time the required morale test would have been taken, as you must first not roll dice to pass a morale test to then suffer 'no retreat.' The idea that you can figure out if you take 'no retreat' wounds before you would have to roll your morale check makes no sense at all... if a fearless unit wins combat, it doesn't have to take 'no retreat,' a fearless unit only takes 'no retreat' after it loses a combat, and subsequently passes a morale check with no roll. Same with GoW units... you don't have to do 'no retreat' until you lose a combat and pass a morale check with no roll.

 

The notion that you could have choosen not to pass with GoW thus you dont suffer 'No Retreat' holds as much chronological logic to me as choosing not to attach that chaplain in the prior movement phase, as you are not going in order.

 

I see the order as:

(lose combat)

(be called upon to make a morale check)

(pass/fail required morale check, using GoW/Fearless/Synapse if available)

(fall back/sweeping advance)

(determine if unit falls under 'No Retreat' for having not taken a morale check and also not falling back)

 

Even Fearless units are called upon to make morale checks, they just then use their special rule to pass them automatically, fitting my chronological logic chart.

[Legatus]

The way I see it, losing combat has the following sequence:

 

- lose

- test is posed

- test is passed or failed

- unit either a ) stays in combat or b ) falls back

 

For units that are fearless or within Synapse range it is changed to this

 

- lose

- test is posed

- test is passed

- unit stays in combat

 

But for units that have God of War available, the original structure is still the same. The point where the outcome is determined is there, only that it is not not a die roll but a matter of choice. The two results are still both possible, and either path can be taken.

 

Edit: Even looking back after the test you can still say that failing was a possible option. It was just not up to bad luck.

[angry man]

i have to say i disagree with you DevianID. although i do have to commend you on the fact that you are not using your view of a word's meaning to base your arguement.

 

i, however, feel that the chronological order is in fact this:

 

(lose combat)

(ignore failure due to Fearless/Synapse)

(be called upon to make a morale check)

(pass/fail required morale check, using dice roll/GoW(/Iron will?))

(fall back/sweeping advance)

(determine if unit falls under 'No Retreat' for having not taken a morale check and also not falling back)

 

The GoW rule clearly states that the morale check is called to be taken and therefore should fall under the same chronological stage as the dice rolling to pass or fail a morale check (my view, just to make it clear is that the rule substitutes the rolling of dice but is the equivalent of) and therefore does not require the effects of No retreat to be taken into account

 

AM

[Grey Mage]

Legatus, your post above makes no sense. You state that we should consider the the "never falls back" part of the rule as a "soft" rule, and then go on to say that because a marine squad with the God of War rule could fall back its not subject to no retreat?

 

Your reasoning would seem to side with the opposite argument more- for that test, where one chose them to pass without a roll they were in no danger of being overrun by the enemy wich, as you said, is what no retreat compensates for. Thus they would be subject to No Retreat wounds.

[Legatus]

I am saying that it matters if at the moment the test is posed it is possible to pass or fail the test, and not at the moment after it has been determined that it will be passed.

 

Marines with a Chaplain may be without the Chaplain later, or the Chaplain may have only recently joined the squad, but for a morale test that is posed while the Chaplain is part of the squad, failing that test is never an option. There is no other outcome from the very moment on the test occurs.

 

For units that are currently fearless or similar, every time the test is taken you proceed to pass it and stay in combat. For units that do not have such a special rule, or units that are able to use god of war, every time they are required to make a test it is determined whether they pass or fail, though the method of determining is a different one, the important thing is that it is determined, and failing is a possible option for the test.

 

A unit that used God of War to pass a morale test could have failed that same morale test. That is all that maters. The same cannot be said of fearless units.

[nighthawks]

Just for the record, I want to say thank you to all of you who have thus far managed to remain very civil in this thread. having hashed it out previously and closing it based on the circular nature of the arguments, I expected a lot less.

 

as of now, I don't think this needs to be closed, but I would hope that we can all either come to a concensus or just agree to grey-rule it (which was the reult last time and will remain posted regardless of the outcome of this thread).

 

for what it's worth, I agree completely with Legatus' position: A unit that passes a moral check without question or option passes it automatically. this must be determined on a per-test basis as the unit's condition could change (synapse, chaplain, all of the things Legatus already mentioned and maybe more). if the unit has an ability to pass or fail on a whim, that is not automatic, as it does nto have a fixed outcome or reaction. even by the use of the word automatic as a game mechanic, the No Retreat rule is still clear that it applies to units that are unable to fall back, not those that have the ability to choose (nor those that pass a random test on the dice). An important note, which someone brought up previously, is that a morale test is "usually" made by rolling dice. the roll itself is not necessary in all cases.

[SeattleDV8]

Another point to consider is game balance.

If you can use GoW as Fearless without penalty, why would you ever roll for a test?

Choosing to fail could be a good tactic but rolling the test would never make sense.

Granted Calgar is expensive , but not enough to be worth no penalty Fearless.

[Legatus]

Another point to consider is game balance.

If you can use GoW as Fearless without penalty, why would you ever roll for a test?

Choosing to fail could be a good tactic but rolling the test would never make sense.

Granted Calgar is expensive , but not enough to be worth no penalty Fearless.

Back when being fearless did not include taking extra hits, Azrael of the Dark Angels made the whole army fearless. Granted, that was also still a time where Special Characters were only playable with the opponent's permission.

Taking Calgar, Chapter Master of the Ultramarines, and a Special Character, gives your units a benefit. It does not have to be balanced with regular morale tests or fearless units. It is simply better, and that's it.

[Grey Mage]

I am saying that it matters if at the moment the test is posed it is possible to pass or fail the test, and not at the moment after it has been determined that it will be passed.

 

Marines with a Chaplain may be without the Chaplain later, or the Chaplain may have only recently joined the squad, but for a morale test that is posed while the Chaplain is part of the squad, failing that test is never an option. There is no other outcome from the very moment on the test occurs.

 

For units that are currently fearless or similar, every time the test is taken you proceed to pass it and stay in combat. For units that do not have such a special rule, or units that are able to use god of war, every time they are required to make a test it is determined whether they pass or fail, though the method of determining is a different one, the important thing is that it is determined, and failing is a possible option for the test.

 

A unit that used God of War to pass a morale test could have failed that same morale test. That is all that maters. The same cannot be said of fearless units.

I see what your saying, but I find it counter-intuitive. You have some well thought arguments and I know I wont be able to convince you otherwise... so I can only hope we dont play at a time when this would come up.

 

I still feel that if you pass the test without a roll that you have fulfilled the requirements for no retreat wounds to be handed out. The fact that most every unit must be checked for on a near constant basis seems only to reinforce this opinion. But Ill leave this alone for now, or atleast until I can come up with something that hasnt bee said before.

 

Goodnight all.