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.

yet another example of poorly written rules

GW needs to hire a proofreader already

NaZ

I don't see anything poorly written about it. If you find a unit in the situation like the diagram they've provided, where its fall back move is blocked, then that unit is destroyed. The Orks in Yakface's diagram do no have their fall back move blocked, as shown by that handy arrow.

Except that handy arrow has them doubling back in the opposite direction they're supposed to be heading in.

the question to me is do they want to go back to the way it was in 3rd? It was highly abusive. I voted B. The part about making a full fall back in any direction makes me think they want you surronded.

Doubling back is reversing one's course, going back the way you came, and if you go far enough you'll end up where you start if you double back. The doubling back clause prevents the kind of Skimmers Moving Fast dickery that happened in the 3rd edition and the Falling Back dickery in 4th edition that was argued for on this very forum (won't name names...).

In Yakface's example (at least my version of it) A ≠ B, and if A ≠ B then Yakface's example is not doubling back.

The shortest possible route to the closest table edge does, in Yakface's example move away from the closest table edge during that fall back move.

During the next fall back move the unit might move in the opposite direction of its first fall back move, and in doing so move towards the closest table edge.

This is not doubling back. Doubling back is something that cannot be done during a fall back move, not something that cannot be done over the course of several fall back moves.

If it was just a matter of the fall back not being the same direction as the 'own table edge', then all that talk of shortest possible routes and moving around obstacles would be superfluous.

the rule explicitly states that if a unit cannot make a full back move in any direction without doubling back they are destroyed. Doubling back means to move in the direction you came from. It's quite clear and I see no need to refer to older editions for clarification. What the rule does not say is that you can simply fall back in any direction. We know that 5th edition assaults are more brutal now and this follows that line of reasoning.

G

I see the rules saying that you have to start by moving back towards your table edge by the shortest route possible. If that route is obscured by enemies, that doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily choose not to move towards them. You have to move towards them until you are 1" away, and then you have to double back, as per the trapped rules.

That's being a cheater if you just say "well, I don't like that direction, there's bad guys there....I'm gonna go this away around these safe-looking rocks".

If you're not an inch away then you have space to move that you HAVE to move, since it is towards your table edge by the quickest route. Once you get within an inch, you can't move that direction anymore, and then you have to double back.

Option A.

RogalDorn wrote:I see the rules saying that you have to start by moving back towards your table edge by the shortest route possible. If that route is obscured by enemies, that doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily choose not to move towards them. You have to move towards them until you are 1" away, and then you have to double back, as per the trapped rules.

That's being a cheater if you just say "well, I don't like that direction, there's bad guys there....I'm gonna go this away around these safe-looking rocks".

If you're not an inch away then you have space to move that you HAVE to move, since it is towards your table edge by the quickest route. Once you get within an inch, you can't move that direction anymore, and then you have to double back.

Option A.

QFT

Green Blow Fly:

What if it's your initial move after you lose the assault? How are you doubling back if you lose an assault, and have to flee opposite your board edge? How are you doubling back if you never moved - what direction did you come from?! Seriously, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it doesn't make sense in all cases, especially the initial lost combat fall back move. Doubling back means going back over the way you came - look at nurglitch's diagram for an explantaion of how other people are reading "doubling back".

One question is whether or not, once you roll your fall back move, if you:

1) move towards your board edge as far as you can, and if you run into someone and then end up trapped, you are destroyed, since you can't double back

2) check to see if you can actually go the distance you rolled in the default direction, and then if you can't, go in a different direction.

If the answer to that is 1, then you end up with more situations where units are destroyed doubling back. If the answer is 2 then you don't.

This is a seperate question as to whether or not you can ever go away from a board edge in the first place, but something that needs to be answered if people go with B as their main answer

I think the biggest problem is that "doubling back" is not defined.

I believe that the unit in the picture is destroyed. If you move away from the table edge, and then back towards it, you have, in my vocabulary, doubled back.

That, plus what RogalDorn said above.

How does one "double" back without going the other direction in the first place?

Redbeard wrote:
If you move away from the table edge, and then back towards it, you have, in my vocabulary, doubled back.

Agreed.

G

Redbeard:

Suppose that I start off in my house and I want to go into the backyard. But the back door is blocked by a heavy filing cabinet. So I go out the front door, and walk around to the backyard. Once I have arrived in the back yard, by leaving my house from the front door and walking around the house, have I doubled back?

Suppose, differently, that we were riding in a car looking for a house in a neighborhood that was unknown to either of us, and the last familiar landmark was a gas station we passed a few miles back. Would we be doubling back if we took a different route back, or if we took the same route back?

Edit: Spelling

Lambadamy - Check the rules in the Assault Section


During the Assault phase is the only time during the game that you can be within 1" of an enemy model if you're in combat, PERIOD. Any enemy model, anywhere, within 1". Says so in the rules.

So you can move around them and it's not doubling back since you can be within an inch. The only way you double back is if there is no possible way to get between their base sizes. And in that instance, yes, you are destroyed.

You can essentially congo line down the way during fall back and squeeze through a small space that's just large enough for one base and then everyone can go that one direction, one model at a time.

Fall Back is done in the Assault Phase if you lost combat.

No I understand. I'm just saying that there are situations where you lose combat, and haven't moved, and can only go away from your table edge. Since you haven't moved before, and you can't move in any way towards your table edge, you aren't "doubling back" by any of the definitons provided here.

To put it in an ugly Ascii drawing - the O squad has to fall back through squad X, who just won combat. they are in an alley between two walls (.... is open ground, for filler)


|................|
|................|
|XOOOOOX |
|XXXXXXX |

They have never moved. They can only go up. How are they "doubling back"? Do they move 2" away from the squad that broke them, then immediately turn around to try to go to the table edge?

You cannot double back if you have not moved before, by the very definition of doubling back presented by yak.

Aduro wrote:Except that handy arrow has them doubling back in the opposite direction they're supposed to be heading in.

Isn't that the very definition of doubling back?

G

Lambadmy- are you referring to unit has not moved since it's original deployment? It sounds your argument is based solely on a single unique situation.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Nope.

Dictionary.com, Worldnet 3.0 wrote:verb
retrace one's course; "The hikers got into a storm and had to turn back" [syn: backtrack]

Dictionary.com, American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms wrote: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]

Ok, well let's add fuel to the fire...Found this looking at something totally different. Pg. 53 under Jetbikes "...must alter the direction of their Fallback move as little as possible in order to avoid them, just as a normal unit would when falling back on foot."

I wouldn't have looked twice at it for this situation if it didn't also clarify so intently about units on foot.

??? I'm talking about a unit that has not moved since it lost combat. It could have moved anywhere before that.

If we counted all movement, assume the unit moved in off it's own table edge - then falling back towards the table edge would be doubling back! Almost no one could fall back! We have to base "double back" only on movement since combat was lost - the current move.

Since in my example the current move can only go ONE direction (away from the table edge) and they haven't taken even a single step towards their table edge, I don't see how they fit the definiton of doubling back. They don't actually ever move towards the table edge - that way is blocked. They have a free open cooridor the opposite way. They aren't doubling back.

double back simply means to head away from the intended direction (i.e., your own table edge) so from which direction you last came has nothing to do with it really. I know it's tough way to lose a unit but those are the rules as they stand now.

G

Nurglitch please be so kind as to can the semantics. Boy scouts getting lost in the rain has nothing to do with 40k amigo.

G

I admit my example is only a specific case in a more general question. I'm still on the fence as to how the more common case works:

You have an open cooridor away from your table edge

You have 3 inches of room to move towards your table edge

You rolled as your fallback distance.

Do you move the three towards, and then "double back" and get destroyed? or do you just move the obviously open 7" path? I don't know. I still feel it's obvious that they mean double back to only refer to circling in the current move, not as a reference to the direction they're supposed to go were they not blocked.

Interestingly, the wording has changed slightly since 4e, but only in their descriptive picture. In the 4e book, it says "The [unit] cannot perform their full fall back move of 11" in any direction..." while in the 5e book it says "The [unit] cannot fall back 8"...".

Anyway, GWs rules make my head hurt. I really don't care either way about how this gets FAQd, but it obviously needs something based on the split voting and the discussion.

It has plenty to do with 40k when it serves as an example used in a definition that you're getting wrong.

What? GBF, your definiton of double back is wrong.

We've been working off of a definiton provided by yak from the beginning, in the first post, which is what Nurglich quoted.

Double back means to go one direction, and turn around and go back. Retrace your steps. It has nothing to do with intention. It does NOT mean "be required to go in one direction, but have to go a different way because it's blocked". If you have taken no steps, you cannot, by definiton, double back. Period.

my definition came from the Oxford dictionary... It's the best dictionary for the English language PERIOD. I certainly respect yak but I would by no means take his definition as the best or what the developers intended.

G

Rymafyr wrote:Ok, well let's add fuel to the fire...Found this looking at something totally different. Pg. 53 under Jetbikes "...must alter the direction of their Fallback move as little as possible in order to avoid them, just as a normal unit would when falling back on foot."

I wouldn't have looked twice at it for this situation if it didn't also clarify so intently about units on foot.

That doesn't really add any fuel to any fire. That's already a basic rule for infantry falling back on page 45. They must normally fall back by the shortest route possible, but as clarified in the 'Trapped' section they are allowed to move in "any direction" (as long as they aren't doubling back) in order to avoid an obstacle.

The issue is that people's understanding of the term "doubling back" differ. There is no magic nugget to be found in the rules here that will suddenly clarify the situation. It simply comes down to a poor use of a general term without a very clear visual diagram showing exactly what the designer's meant by said term.

Please, provide the appropriate quotations from the OED.

Yakface:

What about the diagram provided with the rule? That seems quite clear. Surrounded on all sides? Yes? Then the unit is destroyed. Otherwise, run for it.

Part of the problem, or so I guess, is just using the limited info provided at the start of the post by Yak. This is hard to do when there is little 'context' to draw from.

For some reason I thought we were limited at using just the info provided, I've re-read the post and deduce that I was hallucinating.

Taking things in 'context', with the other rules surrounding it, makes things clearer for me. So I'll stick w/ my choice.

Lambadomy, you give a great example, so does Yak's first picture. However, units falling back from assaults can move through the unit they were just in close combat with. Without being destroyed and despite not having a 1" space to move through.

Now if it's falling back from shooting, we still have the discussion open I think.

EDIT: I concur w/ you post a few up from this Yak. Sorta got lost in the post, since really the issue is 'doubling back'.