Switch Theme:

Falling back and Trapped.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

Arakasi wrote:The rule never defines "directly" as "must end closer to your board edge than you started"

And I never said it did.

Please answer the following question with a "yes" or "no."

If you begin your move 36 inches from your table edge, and end your move 37 inches from your table edge, have you moved towards your table edge?

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Chicago

Arakasi wrote:I'm surprised, given my small time in 5th, how often I see it played as - is my direct/shortest route cut-off? Yes - destroyed! (When even a sideways move would have been possible - ie a single unit between them and their board edge...)


Well, that is how the old rules worked (I forget exactly which edition). As you get older, your memory starts fading and we get easily confused...

...

Eh? What was I saying?

...

GET OFF MY LAWN!

6000pts

DS:80S++G++M-B-I+Pw40k98-D++A++/areWD-R+T(D)DM+

What do Humans know of our pain? We have sung songs of lament since before your ancestors crawled on their bellies from the sea.

Join the fight against the zombie horde! 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







SaintHazard wrote:
Arakasi wrote:The rule never defines "directly" as "must end closer to your board edge than you started"

And I never said it did.

Please answer the following question with a "yes" or "no."

If you begin your move 36 inches from your table edge, and end your move 37 inches from your table edge, have you moved towards your table edge?
If you followed the most direct and shortest route, then yes.

If you didn't, you broke the rules.

So, in short, Yes (provided you followed all the rules).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/24 20:15:09


Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

What you're saying is that the models in the unit that is falling back can move in any direction at all, as long as it's the shortest route...

...where?

If they move backwards, and do not end up closer to their table edge, I could very easily argue they're taking the shortest route to MY table edge - or whatever edge they end up closer to. And that absolutely is an illegal move.

You see where I'm coming from?

Intent does not overshadow actions. If you move towards my table edge, because it's the only place you can move, you have not moved towards your table edge. You've moved towards mine. And that's not what you're allowed to do.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





California

Ignore. My example came out terrible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/24 20:20:36


 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker




California

If the only criteria to be met is simply to move directly toward your table edge there would be no need to add "by the shortest poosible route". The direct route would simply be a straight line, and you would be destroyed by any obstruction to that straight line. By adding "the shortest possible route" it clarifies that only legal moves are allowed but they may not necessaarily be in a straight line. If you are allowed to move around obstacles than you are allowed to go around them as long as it's the shortest route to your table edge. Beyond this what limits have been placed to how you must move around them?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/24 21:50:22


 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

Interestingly enough, Saint is missing an important line from the "Trapped" entry.....
"If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in ANY direction ......"
That clearly states that a fall back move can be made "in any direction".
That is RAW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/25 02:28:45


Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

Hazard.

But the fact still remains that you have to ultimately be moving towards your own table edge.

Yeah, you can move in any direction. Woohoo. But you still have to end up closer to your table edge than your were before you started your move. Being able to begin by moving in any direction doesn't change that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/25 03:38:16


DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







SaintHazard wrote:Hazard.

But the fact still remains that you have to ultimately be moving towards your own table edge.

Yeah, you can move in any direction. Woohoo. But you still have to end up closer to your table edge than your were before you started your move. Being able to begin by moving in any direction doesn't change that.
There is nothing in the rules that say that.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

Care to quote the page number for that tidbit, SaintHazard? Scoured my BGB for hours and still haven't found where it says that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/25 03:43:38


Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

Gwar! wrote:There is nothing in the rules that say that.

The "towards their table edge" line in the rules for falling back seem to say that.

At this point, let me go ahead and say that I have no issue with someone wanting to fall back towards my table edge (temporarily), as long as in the grand scheme of things they're headed towards their own table edge.

Neither of us are going to budge, so I'd be satisfied to agree to disagree and end this debate with "ask your TO." I'd be happy with either ruling - the bottom line is, that particular line is unclear regarding what it means by "towards your table edge." We're interpreting the same line two different ways.

Yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote:Care to quote the page number for that tidbit, SaintHazard? Scoured my BGB for hours and still haven't found where it says that.

I quoted it word-for-word earlier. Read the rest of the thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/25 03:47:11


DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Small Rule Book wrote: p.45.

TRAPPED!
If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in an direction without doubling back, it is destroyed (see useless diagram below).


You can argue about the meaning of doubling back if you like. I think most people would take it that if you end your move farther from your destination than at the start, you have doubled back on yourself.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in ca
Focused Fire Warrior




The problem saint is your reading the rule wrong. Your reading it as "Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge, by the shortest possible route"

The that is not the way it's in the book. The book says

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

There is no comma. This is not two requirements but only one. You must find the shortest route possible to your table edge and follow that route. The only time it talks about you being destroyed if "...if the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."

Away from your own side is still a direction


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Small Rule Book wrote: p.45.

TRAPPED!
If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in an direction without doubling back, it is destroyed (see useless diagram below).


You can argue about the meaning of doubling back if you like. I think most people would take it that if you end your move farther from your destination than at the start, you have doubled back on yourself.


Maybe but the dictionary doesn't take it that way

Verb 1. double back - retrace one's course; "The hikers got into a storm and had to turn back"

to turn and go back in the direction that you have come from

(fyi these are actually Thesaurus definitions since it's a phrase and not a word)

Synonyms are backtrack, turn back

I don't see anywhere that going the opposite direction that you intend to end up is doubling back.

Now if the first turn there is no obstruction and you Fall back straight toward your own edge and then a bunch of jump troops jump around you in a tight U formation forcing you back the way you came...that would be doubling back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:PS. Gwar, in your 2nd diagram, wouldn't they still be destroyed? That's an exact 2"+base gap, but even in the center, you're 1" from either model.
No, you can move to within exactly 1" of other models outside of an assault move.


and just so i can have a hatrick and piss everyone off tonight...the marines base is 1" (it's actually 15/16th of an inch). Therefore you need to have a 3 inch gap between models to fit said marine through without it's own base coming within 1"

So now that I've said everyone's wrong...i'm just going to bed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/25 07:50:07


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

It doesn't really matter what the dictionary says or what the rules say.

What matters is that if you play a game and your unit falls back towards the other player's side of the table, he is going to want to see it destroyed, and if you disagree you won't get another game with him.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in se
Wicked Warp Spider






Ios

SaintHazard wrote:
kirsanth wrote:A) "Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their
own table edge by the shortest possible route"

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

I think?

Actually, both. Option AB. You have to satisfy both requirements. If you cannot, you cannot make a legal move, and the unit is destroyed.


I could use Vassal to make nice graphics the way Gwar! did, but ASCII is faster (although sometimes browser dependent). If AB is true, then.

M = Space Wolf Marines. Y = Yriel who've decided to leg it. L = Lukas. E = Yriel's table edge

---MMM---
-----Y------
-------------
-----L-------
-------------
EEEEEEEE

Since Yriel must veer around Lukas in order to flee, he's not following the most direct path. AB means that unless the most direct path is the shortest possible, then you are trapped.

What the rules say is that the falling back units must directly follow the closest path, not directly move towards the table edge by the shortest path. Should directly moving towards table edge be required, then "shortest path" would be a waste of ink. Directly following a given path means you don't go gallivanting off into the woods to pick mushrooms. The "directly" portion is to make it clear that you may:
* Not snake around difficult terrain
* Not move off the path to delay touching the table edge
* Not opt for a slightly longer path where your unit would tactically be less in the way for other units, or run a lower risk of being boxed in
* Not otherwise choose a more beneficial path

It's almost like a herd-mentality when they're fleeing.

I really need to stay away from the 40K forums. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

Not exactly, you're ignoring the word "possible" in there.

"Shortest possible route."

Not "shortest route."

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Swift Swooping Hawk




It still comes down in either case that the models have to fall back towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route. There is no need to wieght any portion of that phrase...when the models have to fall back you determine the shortest route and move them along that route.

There is no requirement that they actually end up close to the table edge in a "crows fly" sense, they merely need to have moved along the shortest possible route for THEM. This may indeed mean that they move away from their table edge in a strict linear measurement, they arent at all concerned with this sort of measurement.

Gwar laid it out quite clearly and cleanly, the models arent involved with any sort of measurement except as far as their own route is concerned.



Sliggoth

Why does my eldar army run three fire prisms? Because the rules wont let me use four in (regular 40k). 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

Which becomes moot in a case of CC when the winner out rolls the loser for the sweep.

Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer






Sorry Saint, I have to side with Gwar! an the others on this one. A unit is not Trapped! unless it is fully encircled.

Here's an explanation of why I disagree with your argument:



In the image, let us presume that blue is falling back (perhaps due to Red's shooting). Clearly, the shortest route to his table edge is going around on the left, ergo, he must fall back that direction. So if he rolls a 4 for his Fall Back move, he can't get all the way around. Therefore, he cannot by any means get closer to his table edge. At best (assuming my drawing is perfect) he can be 0" closer to his table edge. Is he Trapped?

As others have said, "directly" does not mean "ending closer to". Technically, "directly" means "straight" or "without deviation." So the Fall Back rules say: "...must move without deviation (in a straight line) towards their table edge, by the shortest possible route." Here, "shortest route possible" (arguably) means "the route that is both legal, and whose magnitude is the shortest of all legal routes." A move that ends away from your table edge, but but follows these criteria, is still following the rules, with the following argument in play:

"Towards" does indicate that the unit should be moving in a manner that will take them closer to their table edge. However, I argue that "towards" is with regard to the overall Fall Back move, or rather the path that the units are following. How far they get along that path doesn't matter (as long as they move the full number of inches and satisfy the other restrictions). As long as the Fall Back move is taking them towards their table edge (and not some other destination), it doesn't matter how much of the path they cover (and therefore even if the path deviates away from the table edge at some point in order to remain legal, they may follow it without being destroyed).

Ask Not, Fear Not - (Gallery), ,

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yeah! Who needs balanced rules when everyone can take giant stompy robots! Balanced rules are just for TFG WAAC players, and everyone hates them.

- This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia: 'Cause winning is for losers!
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

So taking your example above, the next turn the red player moves his troops a few inches to the left. The shortest route home for the blue figure is now to move to the right and go between the reds and the rock.

This is doubling back, so he is destroyed.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

Or next turn the red player just shoots the blue dot out of existance.

Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Khorne Rhino Driver with Destroyer





Do you know what I am stopping this argument right now by stating this clearly as is RAI....

"Gwar Is Right"

 
   
Made in gb
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




Scotland

Think of it as total journey not one turn move.

If you have to take 2 turns to go up and round and enemy then so be it, you are still heading towards your side.

~You can sleep when you're dead.~
 
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer






Kilkrazy wrote:So taking your example above, the next turn the red player moves his troops a few inches to the left. The shortest route home for the blue figure is now to move to the right and go between the reds and the rock.

This is doubling back, so he is destroyed.


So, you would also say that a unit that falls back 6" to the left (running parallel to the board edge) and then regroups, fails its check again some turns later (and having not moved while it was regrouped), and moves back 6" the other way due to random happenstance (based on unit positions), it is therefore doubling back and is destroyed?

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/25 18:58:17


Ask Not, Fear Not - (Gallery), ,

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yeah! Who needs balanced rules when everyone can take giant stompy robots! Balanced rules are just for TFG WAAC players, and everyone hates them.

- This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia: 'Cause winning is for losers!
 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker




California

Kilkrazy wrote:So taking your example above, the next turn the red player moves his troops a few inches to the left. The shortest route home for the blue figure is now to move to the right and go between the reds and the rock.

This is doubling back, so he is destroyed.
I always took that to mean doubling back as in going one direction and then going back toward where you started in the same turn. Just as you can't move forward and then back to where you started with, say, a Land Speeder in order to get the cover save.

So a unit who had to fall back 6" couldn't go 3" toward an enemy and then 3" back in order to eat up the distance.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

Xca|iber wrote:Sorry Saint Hazard, I have to side with Gwar! an the others on this one. A unit is not Trapped! unless it is fully encircled.

Here's an explanation of why I disagree with your argument:

(a nice diagram)

In the image, let us presume that blue is falling back (perhaps due to Red's shooting). Clearly, the shortest route to his table edge is going around on the left, ergo, he must fall back that direction. So if he rolls a 4 for his Fall Back move, he can't get all the way around. Therefore, he cannot by any means get closer to his table edge. At best (assuming my drawing is perfect) he can be 0" closer to his table edge. Is he Trapped?

As others have said, "directly" does not mean "ending closer to". Technically, "directly" means "straight" or "without deviation." So the Fall Back rules say: "...must move without deviation (in a straight line) towards their table edge, by the shortest possible route." Here, "shortest route possible" (arguably) means "the route that is both legal, and whose magnitude is the shortest of all legal routes." A move that ends away from your table edge, but but follows these criteria, is still following the rules, with the following argument in play:

"Towards" does indicate that the unit should be moving in a manner that will take them closer to their table edge. However, I argue that "towards" is with regard to the overall Fall Back move, or rather the path that the units are following. How far they get along that path doesn't matter (as long as they move the full number of inches and satisfy the other restrictions). As long as the Fall Back move is taking them towards their table edge (and not some other destination), it doesn't matter how much of the path they cover (and therefore even if the path deviates away from the table edge at some point in order to remain legal, they may follow it without being destroyed).

I can see the alternate interpretation, but still don't agree with it.

Hence my earlier comment regarding accepting either ruling.

"Directly" or not, if you have not ended your "fall back" move closer to your table edge than you started it, you have failed to fall back towards your table edge. It's that simple. You have, instead, fallen back towards your opponent's table edge, which you may not do.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







SaintHazard wrote:You have, instead, fallen back towards your opponent's table edge, which you may not do.
Nowhere do the rules say this. They say you must fallback towards your edge by the shortest route possible. If that rule means you end up closer to your opponents edge, it doesn't matter because you are forced to go that way.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

Gwar! wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:You have, instead, fallen back towards your opponent's table edge, which you may not do.
Nowhere do the rules say this. They say you must fallback towards your edge by the shortest route possible. If that rule means you end up closer to your opponents edge, it doesn't matter because you are forced to go that way.

You just said exactly what you've been insisting you haven't been saying.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime







SaintHazard wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:You have, instead, fallen back towards your opponent's table edge, which you may not do.
Nowhere do the rules say this. They say you must fallback towards your edge by the shortest route possible. If that rule means you end up closer to your opponents edge, it doesn't matter because you are forced to go that way.

You just said exactly what you've been insisting you haven't been saying.
No, What I am saying that if you end up further away by taking the most direct route, then you are still falling back towards your own edge.

Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!)
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Louisville, KY

And as I said before, I understand that interpretation of "falling back" (i.e. the entire "fall back" move over the course of X turns, X being a number greater than 1, is the qualifier for whether or not you're falling back towards the proper edge) but do not agree with it. I have my own interpretation (a single "fall back" move in a single player turn is all you look at for your criteria).

As I said, I would accept either ruling.

Since the rule is clear as mud on which interpretation is correct, RAW does not answer this one fully. From a RAI standpoint, I have more precedents on my side, i.e. things affecting a single shooting phase, a single movement phase, etc. versus all the moving that's been done over the course of the game.

DQ:80+S+++G++M+B+I+Pw40k10#+D++A++/areWD-R+++T(D)DM+ 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: