Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



The 'Trapped!' rules (pg 45) say: "Sometimes a unit will find its fall back move blocked by impassable terrain, friendly models or enemy models (remember they have to stay 1" away from enemy models). The models in the falling back unit may move around these obstructions in such a way as to get back to their table edge by the shortest route, maintaining unit coherency.

If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."


The definition of the term "doubling back" (according to dictionary.com) is:

"verb
retrace one's course; "The hikers got into a storm and had to turn back" [syn: backtrack]"

and:

"Reverse one's course, go back the way one has come. For example, The officer lost the suspect, who had doubled back on him. This term, at first put simply as to double, is used largely to describe a way of evading pursuit. [Late 1500s]"




QUESTION: When a unit Falls Back if the only available path around obstacles will take the unit away from the board edge they are supposed to be falling back towards does this constitute "doubling back" and therefore they are 'Trapped!' and destroyed? Or must the unit literally be surrounded on all sides and unable to make their full fall back move in any direction (including away from their board edge) in order for them to be 'Trapped!' and destroyed?


Example: The Ork mob has failed a morale check from losing 25% casualties from shooting and must fall back 7". It is partially surrounded by impassable terrain and enemy units meaning the only available path to fall back is away from its own board edge. Are the Orks in this situation considered 'Trapped!' and destroyed?



OPTION A. Yes, the Ork mob is destroyed as moving away from their board edge means they will have to "double back" to get to their board edge and therefore they are 'Trapped!' and destroyed.



OPTION B. No, in this case the Ork mob can make its full fall back move in a direction and it is therefore not 'Trapped!'. The only time a unit is 'Trapped!' is when it literally has to "double back" in the same area because there isn't enough distance in any direction (including moving away from their table edge) to complete its fall back move.



OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

B.

"may move around these obstructions"

"full fall back move in any direction"

I think if you CAN move around an obstruction AND you can take your entire fall back move...you can literally go anywhere to satisfy the requirements.

Both RAI and RAW imo.

Like the picture. Bonus points for that.

Since you have to get a dictionary out to show that it is, actually, B, plus the fact that I strongly believe A was their intent of the rule, I chose to play option A and I will dislike it if someone said otherwise during a game.

onlainari wrote:Since you have to get a dictionary out to show that it is, actually, B,

So you believe that knowing the meaning of the word they are using in a rule, skews the rule? Would you mind explaining this one for me?

i'd say B, a unit will not be trapped as such if there is a way out (if the gap was smaller then yes)

forgot where i heard this part, but doesent a unit fall back to the nearest edge, or away from an enemy?
if so the once again, B

"B" clearly, and why in the hell are those Orks running away from kroot??

i know
on the carge those orks get 20 attacks. more than enough to kill a few kroot or tau

The "in any direction" does it for me. I choose "B".

BTW. Please, don't go off topic, JD21290, especially in threads like this one.

B.

THats the way i have played it and have seen it hapen once... surrounded a unit with vehicles and assaulted it..

fall back was only 5 inches but it could not go even that far... in any direction...thus it had to walk over ground previously moved to make up 5 inches of movement thus destroyed..

B.

The rules are pretty clear that the initial fallback move SHOULD be towards the board edge but MAY be in any direction if you have to go around obsticles

does not change the fact that they would have to continue to fall back towards their board edge in following turns.

could result in a yo-yo effect. I fall away from you on your turn. I fall towards you on my turn, etc etc.

NaZ

B: The only way to destroy someone by "trapping" them is to encircle them totally with units (and maybe impassable terrain). Otherwise the "move in any direction" allows them to go anywhere.

p 45


"Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route."

The shortest possible route takes them in the wrong direction but it is valid.


They must avoid getting within 1" of enemy models AND they can't walk through a line of friendly models that do not have enough space between them for the retreating units to move through.

p.11

" A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)"

The most likely example of death by your own is going to be the squad that disembarks from it's transport and in the opponent's turn
gets assaulted, loses and tries to flee. The enemy has another unit behind it so you have no place to run through and your own transport is impassible for your retreat. You die."

Option A

The orks begin by falling back an inch or two towards their board edge, but then have to double back away from the pathfinders, meeting the qualifications for trapped.

Option C:
If this is the first turn of the orcs falling back, it's perfectly okay to go away from the board edge if there's another route open.
But, if the orcs had previously been coming from the direction of the fallback arrow, that would be doubling back and not a valid route.

Doctor Thunder wrote:Option A

The orks begin by falling back an inch or two towards their board edge, but then have to double back away from the pathfinders, meeting the qualifications for trapped.

I may be wrong but that is how I saw it as well.

solkan wrote:Option C:
If this is the first turn of the orcs falling back, it's perfectly okay to go away from the board edge if there's another route open.
But, if the orcs had previously been coming from the direction of the fallback arrow, that would be doubling back and not a valid route.

I'd be interested to see what the Option B people would feel about this, is doubling back a 1 turn only thing or is it from when you break to when you regroup?

Also, what if instead of kroot there was another set of impassable rocks, and there was 18" between the pathfinders and the orks, would the orks still be entitled to cut around the rocks to find a new route since the most direct one is blocked, despite them being able to make a full fall back move in that direction?

Stelek wrote:B.

"may move around these obstructions"

"full fall back move in any direction"

I think if you CAN move around an obstruction AND you can take your entire fall back move...you can literally go anywhere to satisfy the requirements.

Both RAI and RAW imo.

Like the picture. Bonus points for that.

Ditto.

IMHO, the doubling back is put in there to prevent Rules Lawyers moving 1" away, 1" back and repeating, thus technically using the full movement, but not actually going anywhere.

You are allowed to 'sweep' round intervening units and terrain features, as long as you end up as close to your Table Edge as possible, even if, as with your example, end up further away from it than you started.

Option B. "Trapped" should be rare and hard to achieve.

it's B. and I find it interesting that one would think that the definition was provided to show a justification for B. To me it feels like the definition was provided to give a (weak) justification for A.

The rules are very clear that you can go in any direction to fall back, as stelek pointed out. "Doubling back" here only seems to refer to the current move (similar to 4e where they would tell you that you can't move your skimmer left 3" and then right 4" to count as "moving fast". The definiton is provided to say "well, if they were already moving towards the board edge, but then have to move back the other way due to being blocked, is that doubling back?". And the answer is no.

Drunkspleen wrote:

solkan wrote:Option C:
If this is the first turn of the orcs falling back, it's perfectly okay to go away from the board edge if there's another route open.
But, if the orcs had previously been coming from the direction of the fallback arrow, that would be doubling back and not a valid route.

I'd be interested to see what the Option B people would feel about this, is doubling back a 1 turn only thing or is it from when you break to when you regroup?

Also, what if instead of kroot there was another set of impassable rocks, and there was 18" between the pathfinders and the orks, would the orks still be entitled to cut around the rocks to find a new route since the most direct one is blocked, despite them being able to make a full fall back move in that direction?

I think either route would be fair game given the inability to double back. If you fell back towards the pathfinders, you'd have to be gambling on intervention before reaching them, and if you chose the other route, you'd be gambling on no enemy units showing up to block that path.

I'd be more concerned about what if there was an enemy unit on the other side of that hill or rock in Yakface's diagram. Without the multi-turn interpretation of doubling back, the orcs could run back and forth for the whole game.

More importantly, what if that was an 18" rock wall instead of that 3 or 4" rock wall so that you couldn't possibly end up closer to the target table edge for several turns?

Doctor Thunder wrote:Option A

The orks begin by falling back an inch or two towards their board edge, but then have to double back away from the pathfinders, meeting the qualifications for trapped.

Agreed.
Let's not forget that the rules also say (quoting DAaddict's post):

"Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route."

(Emphasis mine)

The way Yak has them going does not meet the criteria set forth here. They're not heading DIRECTLY towards their table edge. They're heading INdirectly for it. Therefore, they do not meet the criteria for falling back.

As I read it, the text quoted by Yak is to support SIDEWAYS movement to get around impassable terrain, not to allow movement in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION of their table edge.

Opposite direction =/= Direct


Eric

Actually, MM, I think the rules yak quoted are the EXCEPTION to the rules YOU quoted.

Else, why have them?

To muddy the waters?

Some grand social experiment?

Well ok both of those are real possibilities but I think they're just an exception.

if voters who chose option B did so purely because they don't want to lose units due to this situation that is rules lawyering 101. It's obvious by the definition of the term double back that option A is correct.

G

if voters who chose option A did so purely because they want their opponents to lose uints due to this situation that is rules lawyering 101. It's obvious by the words "in any direction" in the rules and the definiton of the term double back that option B is correct.

If voters who chose either option A or B did so purely because they either want their opponents to lose units due to this situation, or don't want to lose units themselves due to this situation, then they are rules-lawyering.

It's obvious that the words "in any direction" in the rules and the definition of the term 'double back' that option C is correct.

Nurglitch,

Are you referring to Solkan's Option C or did you have yet another option C in mind?

Or was it merely a bit of humour?

Steel, sorry for going off topic

i think the only real way to possibly trap a unit would be for a solid peice of terran behind (cliff face for example) and then a solid wall all around the enemy of troops, so its pretty much impossible for a unit of marines to trap a unit, where as orks and nids would pull this of easily due to the high ammount of troops per unit.

Option A is what I feel was RAI, and is how I voted. I have never seen option B occur in any game I've ever played. (over 8 years for those wondering)
Given the RAW, " in any direction ", option B is more than viable, though it completely goes against what is intended to be accomplished, which is for a unit to 'Fallback' toward their own table edge.

Disclaimer: RAI is nothing more than personal opinion unless you work for GW or specifically know the people who penned the rules and what they, hmm...'intended'.

EDIT: Just for curiosity sake, I opened up the 3rd and 4th edition RB's to see what they had said on this issue. They are both very specific on their wording that falling back is heading directly towards one own table edge. Granted, these are rules no longer used and have zero validity or influence on 5th edition rules. For those who are stuck on always using RAI, I personally feel this would be a reasonable way of justifying RAI, instead of one's own opinion. With that said, I still hold that option A is RAI, but I can not discout the argument for option B because of the RAW. Honestly, it's just another example to me of how 'appended' the 5th ed rules seem.

This is one of those times where GW fails us by giving us a diagram that shows the simplest, most obvious case.

Personally, I can't tell what the RAI is at all If it's a fighting withdrawal, I can see plenty of in-game situations where it would make perfect sense to fall back away from your board edge, as you'd still be fleeing away from the combat you lost. Say your table edge is south, you get charged from the west and have to move only slightly north-east for an inch or so before you can start heading south. Why would it make sense that you just got destroyed?

Or, for another example, say you're charged from the south (say by Snikrot or some SW scouts) and you lose and fall back. They and some obstical are positioned so you have to fall back away from them before you can head to your deployment zone. Are you just trapped because you were surprised? Too dumb to figure out well we can't fall back that way, but this other way is wide open...screw it, lets just surrender or something.

None of these situations seem common to say the least, but I just don't feel it's so obvious that they intended you to not be able to withdraw to an obvious open location but in the "wrong" direction.

I certainly agree that the occurence of this type of situation is a rare thing. As crazy as it seems, my last game involved this situation but fortunately I didn't fail my morale test and have to fall back. Literally I had a squad of CSM troops with a cliff on the left and the right. My opponent used a drop pod and sealed off the North entrance completely. He then brought in scouts from my board edge and blocked off the path South. Yeah, I was sweating for a bit.