I made a squad of orks fall back from combat yesterday, and on their turn they regrouped and did their 3" consolidation move. It was enough to get them all within 2" of a battlewagon, and my opponent wanted to hop in and speed off. Thus began the rules argument:
Page....I wanna say 80? Says that to embark in a transport, all you need to do is move (normal move? consolidation move? fallback move? any kind of move?) so that everyone from the squad is within 2" of an access point. Then they get in.
So, RAW that paragraph says that you can consolidate and then get into a vehicle. It also says you can FALL BACK and get in a vehicle while you're still running away, thus becoming fearless and automatically regrouping. Funny how that works. Granted you'd have to be in the exact right position, but you could.
My arguments against:
Regrouping says a unit can MOVE NO FURTHER that turn after regrouping and doing their consolidation move. MY opinion is that embarking is, in itself, a move. If you were to stand next to a tank and get in, your heavy weapons would count as moving even if you didn't go anywhere in the movement phase. You moved! Getting into a vehicle is moving. Therefore, I believe that after consolidating following a regroup (I'm not debating consolidating after assault, as all of this is strictly talking about the movement phase), you cannot then get into a vehicle, as that would be further movement, which you are not allowed to do.
A straw man argument against is that if you can embark after a consolidation following a regroup, then there's actually nothing preventing you, provided the fall back distance works out, from getting into a tank after failing to regroup and falling back at the start of your turn. Since models have to go around vehicles in their way, it's not that hard to park a tank a turn early and make the fastest runners have to go around while the slowest ones end up in front of the door.
My opponent also, after getting in, said that the tank could move since it didn't move before they embarked.
Alright, according to transport rules that works. But since regrouping says they can move no further, couldn't the tank not move?
Argument for: Moving the tank moves the unit. It puts it from one spot on the board to another, ergo the unit is moving.
Argument against: The unit is no longer on the table and isn't doing anything. The tank is moving. The fact that the squad can't move doesn't prevent the tank from moving.
That doesn't answer the question at all. I know we're in the movement phase. I know you can't consolidate after combat and get in.
The question was, if you regroup, can you use the 3" consolidation move from regrouping to embark in a transport? The rules don't seem to forbid you doing it, but if they allow that, they'll also allow falling back into a transport.
Can the vehicle move further? That could go either way, but I'd agree with you that it probably shouldn't. As the results of transports can have an effect on passengers even if they disembark, I'd assume the opposite would be true.
Spellbound wrote: So then falling back and hopping in a tank is also acceptable?
Yes. And as I am reading transport movement, the transport would then be able to move. I'll keep reading until I find something stating that it cannot.
Spellbound wrote: So then falling back and hopping in a tank is also acceptable?
Theoretically sure, if they can meet the requirement to embark. But as all models should be falling back in a straight line towards the table edge, the odds of them getting the right roll on the 2d6 to put them all within 2" of a access point are really slim.
Depends on the size of the unit and the kind of transport. A large transport with lots of room like a landraider or something open-topped like a battlewagon has a LOT of space on the board that it can cover. I'd bet that if a unit started with everyone within 4" or so, you would be fine with any fall back move of 10" or less, when you consider some models having to actually walk around the tank, losing direct backward movement to do it.
Spellbound wrote: Depends on the size of the unit and the kind of transport. A large transport with lots of room like a landraider or something open-topped like a battlewagon has a LOT of space on the board that it can cover. I'd bet that if a unit started with everyone within 4" or so, you would be fine with any fall back move of 10" or less, when you consider some models having to actually walk around the tank, losing direct backward movement to do it.
Ok, it could actually be easier than I thought. you could move the transport first, then roll to regroup the unit falling back.
Spellbound wrote: That doesn't answer the question at all. I know we're in the movement phase. I know you can't consolidate after combat and get in.
The question was, if you regroup, can you use the 3" consolidation move from regrouping to embark in a transport? The rules don't seem to forbid you doing it, but if they allow that, they'll also allow falling back into a transport.
It answered it just fine.
Was the consolidation move in the movement phase? were all of the models in the unit within 2 inches of an access point? If yes to both you can embark, as the rules I pointed to tell us.
It's kind of weird. Since normally you must move each model towards the access point so they are all within 2" of the access point. If you discover that a model can't make it then you don't embark.
I would really RAW this kind of scenario and argue that you must be able to move in order to embark. It isn't enough to simply be within range of it, but I'm really unsure about it since obviously you can interpret the regroup move as movement...
I like the idea of being able to flee into the back of a vehicle, fluff-wise. I would like to play it where you can regroup and fall-back into a transport, but I wouldn't want to try to spring that on an opponent who may not agree with me. It isn't something I think would occur often enough to want to clarify before every game you play either. So I would likely play it where you cannot do either, just to avoid conflict.
If you state that embarking is in itself a move, then you could not move and then embark ever - as a unit may only move once during each movement phase (barring specific exceptions, like falling back from tank shocks)
Given you are explicitly told you can do so, that argument is in error. As such conolidation move into transport is perfectly fine.
The vehicle is the unit moving, not the unit inside. So again the vehicle can move as normal.
I disagree. I think that in the case of vehicle embarking, embarking in a vehicle allows you to make that "extra move".
However, since regrouping specifically says you may move no further that turn (including running, assaulting, jetbike moves, etc), unlike normal movement which doesn't specify that restriction, I think you can't embark after regrouping.
In either case, you wouldn't be able to move the vehicle in their way before they regrouped, as you test to regroup at the start of the movement phase, before anything else moves. So this is something you have to set up in advance.
Spellbound wrote: I disagree. I think that in the case of vehicle embarking, embarking in a vehicle allows you to make that "extra move".
However, since regrouping specifically says you may move no further that turn (including running, assaulting, jetbike moves, etc), unlike normal movement which doesn't specify that restriction, I think you can't embark after regrouping.
In either case, you wouldn't be able to move the vehicle in their way before they regrouped, as you test to regroup at the start of the movement phase, before anything else moves. So this is something you have to set up in advance.
Where does it say the start of the movement phase?
Spellbound wrote: I disagree. I think that in the case of vehicle embarking, embarking in a vehicle allows you to make that "extra move".
Disagreement based on any rules? The rules state you can embark, and this does indeed count as moving for the purposes of firing etc, but you are not moving any further. Again, a unit that moved CAN embark a vehicle, and it is not an additional move otherwise they would not be able to do this.
You must find a prohibition on this, page and para.
Spellbound wrote:However, since regrouping specifically says you may move no further that turn (including running, assaulting, jetbike moves, etc), unlike normal movement which doesn't specify that restriction, I think you can't embark after regrouping.
Is embarking listed in the restrictions? No? then you may perform it, as it is not an additional / furher move.
Spellbound wrote:In either case, you wouldn't be able to move the vehicle in their way before they regrouped, as you test to regroup at the start of the movement phase, before anything else moves. So this is something you have to set up in advance.
Rules quote? Last I checked you test for regroup, and if fail you fall back, before you go to move THAT unit. It hasnt been start of turn since, I believe, 4th edition.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Rules quote? Last I checked you test for regroup, and if fail you fall back, before you go to move THAT unit. It hasnt been start of turn since, I believe, 4th edition.
So you can test to regroup and Fall back after you've moved every other unit?
I did not know that. Will have to remember it in future.
Knowledge Acquired!
Movement for that unit. You have to move that unit, as it is falling back so WILL make a fallback move. Prior to making that move you have to test - if you pass you consolidate instead of making that fall back move.
I agree RAI, but technically you could just opt not to move them. Nothing says they have to move, it just says make a test before you move them.
As long as we're being super literal on RAW, then this whole scenario with regrouping and embarking etc. etc. breaks wide open. At some point we're going to have to go to RAI, and I don't think you're supposed to be allowed to hop in a tank and go zooming off after regrouping, unless you're a space marine.
Spellbound wrote: I agree RAI, but technically you could just opt not to move them. Nothing says they have to move, it just says make a test before you move them.
As long as we're being super literal on RAW, then this whole scenario with regrouping and embarking etc. etc. breaks wide open. At some point we're going to have to go to RAI, and I don't think you're supposed to be allowed to hop in a tank and go zooming off after regrouping, unless you're a space marine.
In each subsequent Movement phase, they will make further Fall Back moves instead of moving normally, until the unit Regroups, is destroyed or leaves the table.
IF you opt to not move them, they did not make a Fall Back move. That breaks the quoted rule from the Morale section of the rulebook.
So a falling back unit can't embark on a transport, because those rules say a unit falling back continues to fall back until it is destroyed, regroups, or leaves the table and embarking would make them unable to move?
Or does embarking count as being removed from the table?
BlackTalos wrote: Which would lead to "fearless" and a tactic i'd then call "Rhino catching".
Rhino Rally sounds better :-)
Spellbound wrote: So a falling back unit can't embark on a transport, because those rules say a unit falling back continues to fall back until it is destroyed, regroups, or leaves the table and embarking would make them unable to move?
Or does embarking count as being removed from the table?
Embarking makes them fearless, fearless units automatically regroup.
Spellbound wrote: So a falling back unit can't embark on a transport, because those rules say a unit falling back continues to fall back until it is destroyed, regroups, or leaves the table and embarking would make them unable to move?
Or does embarking count as being removed from the table?
Dude they have answered this question for you at least a dozen times now.
The units that have fallen back have regrouped, they get a 3" move and if this puts them into range of embarking into a Rhino, then they can. Nothing in the rules states that once embarked on a transport the transport cannot move.
If the units are falling back and have failed to regroup, you cannot fall back into a Rhino because you must first regroup before doing anything but continuing to fall back, the rules are quite clear on all circumstances that stop a unit from falling back.
Embarking does not count as being removed from the table, as the units are still on the table.
Ok i'll just put this matter to rest with Rule quotes as i am with a book right now:
Emphasis mine.
P57: "the only move they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they regroup."
and "In each subsequent Movement phase, they will make further Fall Back moves instead of moving normally, until the unit Regroups, is destroyed or leaves the table."
p59: "must attempt to Regroup (...) just before they move"
and "it cannot otherwise move"
From this, i do believe most people here agree that "Embarking"(p80) is not a "move", even though it is in the movement phase? (RaI they should have included "Embarking move")
RaW is quite clear: "Can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" "
It does not say *how* you move them so falling back is accepted?
BlackTalos wrote: Ok i'll just put this matter to rest with Rule quotes as i am with a book right now:
Emphasis mine.
P57: "the only move they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they regroup."
and "In each subsequent Movement phase, they will make further Fall Back moves instead of moving normally, until the unit Regroups, is destroyed or leaves the table."
p59: "must attempt to Regroup (...) just before they move"
and "it cannot otherwise move"
From this, i do believe most people here agree that "Embarking"(p80) is not a "move", even though it is in the movement phase? (RaI they should have included "Embarking move")
RaW is quite clear: "Can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" "
It does not say *how* you move them so falling back is accepted?
Rhino Rally will be the new 7th Ed - thing -
Accept how is a Fall Back move leading to an embarkation. Think we can agree it does not state Embarkation is a move, but I have no problem of calling it one for arguments case. How are you then going from a Fall Back move to an Embarkation move, when you are only allowed to Fall Back move until you regroup, thus preventing you from making an Embark move?
Then how are you able to do an embark move after consolidating, when the rules for regrouping and consolidating explicitly say you cannot move any further in the turn, even to run?
If you're going to say the only restriction is that you have to move, then a unit falling back could hop in as well - making them immediately regroup.
Spellbound wrote: Then how are you able to do an embark move after consolidating, when the rules for regrouping and consolidating explicitly say you cannot move any further in the turn, even to run?
If you're going to say the only restriction is that you have to move, then a unit falling back could hop in as well - making them immediately regroup.
My statement was considering an embarkation as a movement purely for arguments sake. Personally, embarkation is not a movement and thus if you regroup you can definitely embark,
No. If you are falling back, the BRB specifically states that you can only continue falling back until you regroup, so how then are you to perform an embarkation if you have yet to regroup?
I think what needs to be established then is whether a unit may make any voluntary actions when they are falling back. Seeing how Overwatch is a voluntary action, I would argue that they can in fact make rational decisions even while scared out of their wits. The decision to get back into the Rhino even sounds like a smart call from someone looking to run away. The rules specify the things that cannot be done, such as going to ground. Embarking appears to not be one of them, so like Overwatch or Assault Rallies, it's an exception to the usual "flee for your lives" movement.
Kyutaru wrote: I think what needs to be established then is whether a unit may make any voluntary actions when they are falling back. Seeing how Overwatch is a voluntary action, I would argue that they can in fact make rational decisions even while scared out of their wits. The decision to get back into the Rhino even sounds like a smart call from someone looking to run away. The rules specify the things that cannot be done, such as going to ground. Embarking appears to not be one of them, so like Overwatch or Assault Rallies, it's an exception to the usual "flee for your lives" movement.
Kyutaru wrote: Important to differentiate those who play the game from this who merely argue about it.
It's cute that you think people who argue in YMDC are not players.
No they are, but its hilarious that people think people in YMDC are an authority on the rules, but back on topic please.
Kyutaru wrote: I think what needs to be established then is whether a unit may make any voluntary actions when they are falling back. Seeing how Overwatch is a voluntary action, I would argue that they can in fact make rational decisions even while scared out of their wits. The decision to get back into the Rhino even sounds like a smart call from someone looking to run away. The rules specify the things that cannot be done, such as going to ground. Embarking appears to not be one of them, so like Overwatch or Assault Rallies, it's an exception to the usual "flee for your lives" movement.
If you notice, it gives specific examples of what they can do, extrapolating from this we have limitations for units that are falling back. One "could" argue that they could embark while running away and are free to house rule such an instance, but the BRB does not support this conclusion.
Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.
This was also possible in 6th.
So then you can perform an embarkation while falling back? Though the wording in the text lists no possibility of such a move?
This is kinda cool and offers some really fun tactics
Except from what I see in the BRB, nothing supports this concept
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: I've done more arguing then playing of 7th edition games to date!
Stupid work....
Same. I would have been done painting my models twice over by now lol
nosferatu1001 wrote: Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.
This was also possible in 6th.
So then you can perform an embarkation while falling back? Though the wording in the text lists no possibility of such a move?
Embarking is not a move. It is performed when you move in the movement phase, but it is not a move, it is a rule you invoke when you meet said conditions. That is all.
So yes you can embark after making a fall back move as long as all models are within 2 inches of an access point.
This is kinda cool and offers some really fun tactics
Except from what I see in the BRB, nothing supports this concept
The rules actually do support embarking when falling back as long as you meet the requirements of the Embarking rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.
This was also possible in 6th.
So then you can perform an embarkation while falling back? Though the wording in the text lists no possibility of such a move?
Embarking is not a move. It is performed when you move in the movement phase, but it is not a move, it is a rule you invoke when you meet said conditions. That is all.
So yes you can embark after making a fall back move as long as all models are within 2 inches of an access point.
This is kinda cool and offers some really fun tactics
Except from what I see in the BRB, nothing supports this concept
The rules actually do support embarking when falling back as long as you meet the requirements of the Embarking rules.
I'm fine playing it this way, but can you provide anything from the text supporting this conclusion. It makes logical sense to me, but in case of issues in the future, something in the text would help.
You can embark onto an empty transport if you meet the requirements correct?
The requirements are that every model in the unit needs to be within 2 inches of an access point to embark correct?
It does not restrict falling back units from embarking correct?
Therefore we have permission to embark and no restrictions about the unit being one that is falling back, so this is a legal action.
Except Falling Back units have a list of things that, as you put it, have "permission" to do and none of there are Embarkations.
Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.
Zodiark wrote: Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.
It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.
Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.
Zodiark wrote: Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.
It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.
Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.
Not acknowledging fallacies. This game does not use a permissive ruleset, as has been declared numerous times, this is a player driven concept and not a Games Workshop concept.
Thus, all you can prove is that players here, on THIS forum in YMDC only, do people play by this mythological "permissive ruleset."
Zodiark wrote: Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.
It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.
Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.
Not acknowledging fallacies. This game does not use a permissive ruleset, as has been declared numerous times, this is a player driven concept and not a Games Workshop concept.
Thus, all you can prove is that players here, on THIS forum in YMDC only, do people play by this mythological "permissive ruleset."
Back on topic please.
It's on topic. You challenged a fundamental understanding of how the game works. Refusing to discuss it doesn't make it off topic.
And it's not a fallacy - please answer my question or start dancing.
Zodiark wrote: Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.
It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.
Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.
Not acknowledging fallacies. This game does not use a permissive ruleset, as has been declared numerous times, this is a player driven concept and not a Games Workshop concept.
Thus, all you can prove is that players here, on THIS forum in YMDC only, do people play by this mythological "permissive ruleset."
Back on topic please.
It's on topic. You challenged a fundamental understanding of how the game works. Refusing to discuss it doesn't make it off topic.
And it's not a fallacy - please answer my question or start dancing.
I challenged a flawed mindset that certain players have when playing the game. It is not supported by the rules of the game, therefore you cannot claim that it is.
Back on the subject of this thread. Make a new one if you wanna debate the mythological "permissive" ruleset.
You can embark onto an empty transport if you meet the requirements correct?
The requirements are that every model in the unit needs to be within 2 inches of an access point to embark correct?
It does not restrict falling back units from embarking correct?
Therefore we have permission to embark and no restrictions about the unit being one that is falling back, so this is a legal action.
Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
Zodiark, Should the Game fail to follow the normal format of all Table Top Games, being permission based systems, then the Rulebook is meaningless and we might as well not bother purchasing it. Given that the Studio wishes to make money, it stands to reason they would only produce a Rulebook that requires us to obey the writing inside in order to play their game properly. Had they actually produced a Rulebook which embraced the concept that it was a restriction based system, not only would it be ten times as long but they would need to go into great detail explaining why the argument "the rule book doesn't say I can't" would prevent people like myself from declaring ourselves the undefeated king of the Warhammer 40K universe as soon as I deploy my forces onto the table.
Yet, from the Rules as they are Written, in order for such a declaration to be 'legal' it would need the opponents consent as permission to change the Rules exists but requires both parties to agree to the new Rules.
Where in the movement phase rules does it say a unit can embark in a transport?
Anyone? Anyone? It doesn't. The rules for embarking are spelled out under transports. Therefore, it sets the guidelines for what has to happen.
My only argument against embarking after regrouping is that "counts as" or not, embarking is another movement, a special kind of movement granted by being in proximity to a transport. Since a unit that's regrouped cannot do that, then they can't embark.
However that depends on calling embarking a move, or moving further.
The rules for embarking on a transport are found on page 80. Nowhere else does it mention it, that I can recall. Therefore the unit falling back doesn't NEED special permission. It, like every other unit in the game that ever wants to get in a transport, is told how to do it by the transport embark/disembark rules.
JinxDragon wrote: Zodiark,
Should the Game fail to follow the normal format of all Table Top Games, being permission based systems, then the Rulebook is meaningless and we might as well not bother purchasing it. Given that the Studio wishes to make money, it stands to reason they would only produce a Rulebook that requires us to obey the writing inside in order to play their game properly. Had they actually produced a Rulebook which embraced the concept that it was a restriction based system, not only would it be ten times as long but they would need to go into great detail explaining why the argument "the rule book doesn't say I can't" would prevent people like myself from declaring ourselves the undefeated king of the Warhammer 40K universe as soon as I deploy my forces onto the table.
Yet, from the Rules as they are Written, in order for such a declaration to be 'legal' it would need the opponents consent as permission to change the Rules exists but requires both parties to agree to the new Rules.
Except the game is not a permissive ruleset, its a combination of permissive/restrictive.
Zodiark wrote: Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
The RAW is not a house rule.
We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)
They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.
If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).
Zodiark wrote: Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
The RAW is not a house rule.
We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)
They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.
If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).
The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.
Yes, they do. Read what the conditions are for embarking.
The movement rules don't have a list of "the only things a unit can do in the movement phase", they just talk about moving. IF there is a transport, that gives a moving unit more options. Any moving unit. Even a falling back moving unit, because the transport rules list no special exclusion
Zodiark wrote: Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
The RAW is not a house rule.
We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)
They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.
If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).
The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.
You're being incredibly imprecise, which is clouding your ability to recognise your error
The only MOVE they can make is to fall back. Embarking is NOT a move. Ergo they can embark. Same as they can shoot, further proving your statement incorrect.
Zodiark wrote: Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
The RAW is not a house rule.
We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)
They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.
If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).
The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.
Please quote the rule that says "The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back" (Or similar language) I do not see that anywhere.
I have shown rules support for them being able to embark. Where is the restriction, I am just not finding it.
Zodiark wrote: Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
The RAW is not a house rule.
We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)
They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.
If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).
The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.
Please quote the rule that says "The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back" (Or similar language) I do not see that anywhere.
I have shown rules support for them being able to embark. Where is the restriction, I am just not finding it.
Falling back units cannot shoot, Nosferatu. They fall back until they regroup.
As for you Death, you did not shown support that stats that they can embark. You have only used a tactic i used in other discussions, that being, since it does not say I cannot Embark, than I can.
Now you cannot support this style of decision making in one thread and argue against it in another as you have in two previous ones. So if units falling back can embark because nothing in the rules states that they cannot, then Psyker units in a mixed unit count as a Psyker units for the purposes of powers, WC, then multiple stacks of Terrify do indeed stack and, most importantly, you must roll one dice for Psychic Shriek to hit as you need to roll to hit for all Psyker spells.
You have answered against in all 3 of the examples, yet you have answered positive for embarkation and you are doing so using the exact argument I made in all three of those discussions.
Zodiark wrote: Falling back units cannot shoot, Nosferatu. They fall back until they regroup.
Re-read the actual rules please.
Units that are Falling Back can only fire Snap Shots and cannot Run or Turbo-boost. Units that are Falling Back cannot Go to Ground and automatically pass Pinning tests.
Zodiark wrote: Falling back units cannot shoot, Nosferatu. They fall back until they regroup.
Re-read the actual rules please.
Units that are Falling Back can only fire Snap Shots and cannot Run or Turbo-boost. Units that are Falling Back cannot Go to Ground and automatically pass Pinning tests.
My mistake on this point, Snap Shots are a type of shooting attack, I was thinking of an actual shooting attack, where you actually stop and shoot.
Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"
Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark
In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do
nosferatu1001 wrote: Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"
Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark
In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do
Your argument is fully rebutted
Except it is not.
Nowhere under the section for units falling back does it state that they can embark, it lists clearly what they can do.
As it does not say they can embark then they cannot. If the absence of this statement allows them to embark then he, by default supports the original position I had in every one of those earlier discussions as he was one of those who disagreed.
You are looking at it strictly for the rules of embarkation. I am looking at the rules for units falling back which takes precedence as falling back is a state of being, a condition that the unit is suffering. The unit has strict guidelines in what they can do if you go by RAW and none of them are embarkation.
The Embarkation section simply lists how to embark, it does not list every state the unit needs to be in and I will grant this, but you must then refer to Falling Back to see what those units are allowed to do.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"
Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark
In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do
Your argument is fully rebutted
Except it is not.
Nowhere under the section for units falling back does it state that they can embark, it lists clearly what they can do.
As it does not say they can embark then they cannot. If the absence of this statement allows them to embark then he, by default supports the original position I had in every one of those earlier discussions as he was one of those who disagreed.
You are looking at it strictly for the rules of embarkation. I am looking at the rules for units falling back which takes precedence as falling back is a state of being, a condition that the unit is suffering. The unit has strict guidelines in what they can do if you go by RAW and none of them are embarkation.
The Embarkation section simply lists how to embark, it does not list every state the unit needs to be in and I will grant this, but you must then refer to Falling Back to see what those units are allowed to do.
Your argument = done
The rules for falling back list restrictions, not permissions. None of them prevent us from embarking, which we have general permission to do. Therefore, we can embark.
Zodiark wrote: Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.
Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC
The RAW is not a house rule.
We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)
They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.
If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).
The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.
Please quote the rule that says "The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back" (Or similar language) I do not see that anywhere.
I have shown rules support for them being able to embark. Where is the restriction, I am just not finding it.
So I ask you Reaper.
Are units falling back allowed to Embark because there is no ruling saying that they cannot or are they not allowed to embark because it does not say that they can. Falling Back rules supercede the rules for Embarkation because those rules in embarkation are based on the assumption that you meet the criteria to embark, which, according to falling back rules, you do not as you continue running to the EDGE OF YOUR TABLE until you regroup, going around or through anything that gets in your way. That is per rules for falling back. Under the section of falling back. It tell you specifically to go around any units in your way in an effort to get to the table edge in as straight a line as you can. It does not say anywhere that you stop and embark in a transport.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"
Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark
In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do
Your argument is fully rebutted
Except it is not.
Nowhere under the section for units falling back does it state that they can embark, it lists clearly what they can do.
As it does not say they can embark then they cannot. If the absence of this statement allows them to embark then he, by default supports the original position I had in every one of those earlier discussions as he was one of those who disagreed.
You are looking at it strictly for the rules of embarkation. I am looking at the rules for units falling back which takes precedence as falling back is a state of being, a condition that the unit is suffering. The unit has strict guidelines in what they can do if you go by RAW and none of them are embarkation.
The Embarkation section simply lists how to embark, it does not list every state the unit needs to be in and I will grant this, but you must then refer to Falling Back to see what those units are allowed to do.
Your argument = done
The rules for falling back list restrictions, not permissions. None of them prevent us from embarking, which we have general permission to do. Therefore, we can embark.
This is exactly what I wanted to here, both for this debate and all three of the other ones.
By this premise, everything I stated in every discussion this weekend works because there is no restriction saying that they cannot happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This victory feels tainted. I had to trick you guys into taking up my argument in order to get the answer, so not fair for you guys, sorry.
Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.
So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?
In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.
Spellbound wrote: Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.
So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?
In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.
No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.
Spellbound wrote: Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.
So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?
In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.
No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.
No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.
Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)
This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"
That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads
No it doesn't.
You have Embarkation rules.
You have Falling Back rules.
One lists what needs to happen to embark.
The other lists specifically what you can do to Fall Back.
I am totally okay with units embarking while falling back, as I have said, this fits logic. There is no rule to support this so you then go to the absence of a restriction.
The rules for Embarkation only require you to be within a certain distance, not how you got there which again supports that Falling Back units can go there, again, I knew this already, I just wanted to see how you guys answered something you wanted in your favor and I got my answer.
When it is something you guys want, you are all for it, when it is something you feel is imbalanced or you don't want it, you are against it as is evidenced in the other threads.
Spellbound wrote: Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.
So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?
In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.
No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.
No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.
No you don't.
Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.
Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.
Do units have a general permission to embark if all models are within 2" of a transport?
Yes or no please. Simple question.
Give it up, guys. They seem to have convinced themselves of some sort of "victory", despite misunderstanding som core concepts. This will just end in warnings, and they're not worth it.
Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)
This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"
That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads
No it doesn't.
You have Embarkation rules.
You have Falling Back rules.
One lists what needs to happen to embark.
The other lists specifically what you can do to Fall Back.
I am totally okay with units embarking while falling back, as I have said, this fits logic. There is no rule to support this so you then go to the absence of a restriction.
The rules for Embarkation only require you to be within a certain distance, not how you got there which again supports that Falling Back units can go there, again, I knew this already, I just wanted to see how you guys answered something you wanted in your favor and I got my answer.
When it is something you guys want, you are all for it, when it is something you feel is imbalanced or you don't want it, you are against it as is evidenced in the other threads.
Spellbound wrote: Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.
So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?
In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.
No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.
No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.
No you don't.
Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.
Again, the rules for falling back units are listing restrictions, not permissions. We have permission to embark if the criteria are met. Falling back does not restrict this, so we retain that permission.
What is the end result, are we allowed to embark while falling back, cause this sounds awesome but a little cheap?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another question. Say we can embark units that are falling back, do they then cease to be falling back if they embark or do they continue falling back in the vehicle?
I can't find any instance besides rolling to regroup or being assaulted that stops a unit from falling back.
Don't let him tell you that like it is some sort of definitive answer. If you try this in a tourney you'll likely get a card.
The rule saying that you "can't move other than to fall back" conflicts with "embarking counts as having moved." You could argue that it doesn't technically state that it counts *as a move*. But the verbiage is close enough that the only sort of people that would accept that interpretation, are 1. not running tournaments and 2. not the sort of casual gamers you'd have fun playing with.
All that said, I think they made a very strong case for being able to embark after regrouping.
What is the end result, are we allowed to embark while falling back, cause this sounds awesome but a little cheap?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another question. Say we can embark units that are falling back, do they then cease to be falling back if they embark or do they continue falling back in the vehicle?
I can't find any instance besides rolling to regroup or being assaulted that stops a unit from falling back.
Embarked units are Fearless. Fearless units auto-pass Regroup tests.
Are units falling back allowed to Embark because there is no ruling saying that they cannot or are they not allowed to embark because it does not say that they can. Falling Back rules supercede the rules for Embarkation because those rules in embarkation are based on the assumption that you meet the criteria to embark, which, according to falling back rules, you do not as you continue running to the EDGE OF YOUR TABLE until you regroup, going around or through anything that gets in your way. That is per rules for falling back.
They are allowed to embark, and there are actual rules that say they can.
Units that are falling back can embark because they are given permission to embark via the Embarking rules, and there are not any restrictions on this in the falling back rules.
Also once you embark, you automatically regroup, so this fits the criteria as well.
Under the section of falling back. It tell you specifically to go around any units in your way in an effort to get to the table edge in as straight a line as you can. It does not say anywhere that you stop and embark in a transport.
I never said they stop an embark.
They make their full fall back move then, if they meet the criteria they can embark.
Why would they stop? (Or is that a fluff thing. if so fluff is not rules).
This victory feels tainted. I had to trick you guys into taking up my argument in order to get the answer, so not fair for you guys, sorry.
I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.
don_mondo wrote: I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.
Anyways, enjoy your discussion.
Why is it "not supposed to be allowed"?
I see no indication of that in the rules.
As for the RAI, we have no idea what they intended, so we have to go by RAW.
Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)
This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"
That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads
No it doesn't.
You have Embarkation rules.
You have Falling Back rules.
One lists what needs to happen to embark.
The other lists specifically what you can do to Fall Back.
I am totally okay with units embarking while falling back, as I have said, this fits logic. There is no rule to support this so you then go to the absence of a restriction.
The rules for Embarkation only require you to be within a certain distance, not how you got there which again supports that Falling Back units can go there, again, I knew this already, I just wanted to see how you guys answered something you wanted in your favor and I got my answer.
When it is something you guys want, you are all for it, when it is something you feel is imbalanced or you don't want it, you are against it as is evidenced in the other threads.
Spellbound wrote: Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.
So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?
In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.
No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.
No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.
No you don't.
Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.
You have this all wrong. The rules for falling back are RESTRICTIONS, not a conclusive set of permissions. The basic rules for movement, shooting, EMBARKING ON A TRANSPORT, etc. give us permissions for what a unit can do. The rules for falling back place restrictions on these rules. Falling back places no restriction on our ability to embark.
It is not a case of, "The rules didn't say we couldn't, so we can!"
It is, "The rules for transports give us permission to embark providing we meet the requirements. Have the requirements been met? Yes. Does falling back place any restrictions on embarking? No. So, we can!"
We have general permission to embark in the movement phase. You must show specific denial of this permission.
don_mondo wrote: Because they have shot it down before, and the rules haven't changed enough that I see it as acceptable now. But just my opinion, so carry on.
They have? (By they I assume you mean GW).
I do not remember any FAQ that said you could not embark. not that it matters, that would have been in a previous edition anyway and has no bearing on the current rules.
don_mondo wrote: We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, ...
Do we?
Is it so different to Rage or Half a Scalpel Short in previous editions allowing models to embark in a transport so long as the transport moves towards the enemy?
don_mondo wrote: I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.
Anyways, enjoy your discussion.
Can you say when this was shot down before? It only really became settled in 6th, when units insidfe transports were (finally!) considered fearless, so we knew they could automatically regroup.
emmagine wrote: Don't let him tell you that like it is some sort of definitive answer. If you try this in a tourney you'll likely get a card.
The rule saying that you "can't move other than to fall back" conflicts with "embarking counts as having moved." You could argue that it doesn't technically state that it counts *as a move*. But the verbiage is close enough that the only sort of people that would accept that interpretation, are 1. not running tournaments and 2. not the sort of casual gamers you'd have fun playing with.
All that said, I think they made a very strong case for being able to embark after regrouping.
I don't have the BRB to hand so this post assume 'counts as having moved' is actually from the rules.
counts as = is, the embarking unit has moved.
There's 2 ways to take that.
Either
1. The rule imposing a state after an action is carried only forward from then rules wise. (EG, no conflict in those because they only count as having moved after.they embark).
Or
2. Regard the later imposed state to interfere with actions taken before it. (EG. The action of embarking is ''undone'' or never existed because having embarked is movement, and that breaks the rules of falling back).
I believe 1. The rules exist in a linear state and 'having' done something is creating a restriction or action from that particular point forward.
don_mondo wrote: I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.
Anyways, enjoy your discussion.
Can you say when this was shot down before? It only really became settled in 6th, when units insidfe transports were (finally!) considered fearless, so we knew they could automatically regroup.
Would have been back when Ork Speed Freaks were an army.
don_mondo wrote: I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.
Anyways, enjoy your discussion.
Can you say when this was shot down before? It only really became settled in 6th, when units insidfe transports were (finally!) considered fearless, so we knew they could automatically regroup.
Would have been back when Ork Speed Freaks were an army.
So 4th, prior to the current Ork codex?
It went through 6th without being FAQd, so I'm not sure it is that clearly going against "RAI"
It's easier than you think, especially with a unit that only has one or two guys left. You move the transport first in the way of the guys running at about a 45 degree angle with the rear toward your board edge. The unit has to run around it, so once the unit contacts the tank they move along its edge to round its rear, which is usually where the hatches are located and keeps them within 2" of the hatch for a while.
It's even easier for open topped vehicles that are long like Raiders and Trukks.
culsandar wrote: I've done this several times in 6th, to rally a unit that was below 25% and needed insane courage to pass.
It isn't "new", and it shouldn't be called "rhino rallying" because generally things that have rhinos have ATSKNF.
I play Mechanized Sisters of Battle, so no, i do not have ATSKNF but i do have A LOT of transports.
Thanks for the tactics though, will have to let my local meta know and start using this =)
Should wait until an FAQ or get some clarification. I know where I just played yesterday this isn't allowed but I doubt this is a universal decision by the shops. To me it seems that armies that use transports will prefer to use this and those who don't are going to disagree.
Also chaos marine and sisters and orks will want to use it, as well as DE, but eldar, IG, marines (who regroup anyway and could always get back in because they make normal moves), tyranids probably won't. Eldar and IG because their transports have one embarkation port in the back of their wide vehicles - if their models move to go around, most won't be within 2".
On the personal side i've chatted with a few Rules-mongers from my group, and it seems all were well aware that this is how it works.
They've been playing catch the Ork with Trukks for ages now (at least all through 6th Ed).
Considering the AV on the Rhinos/Trukks and the positioning you'd have to get right to pull this off, i don't actually see an issue...
Land Raider Scooping might seem worse, but then as pointed out before, most armies with LR will have ATSKNF. Also a waste of a LR if you have to drive back up field to rally 2 running Guardsmen
