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.

I'm with Time Wizard. If you Run, the FAQ forces you to Run the same way you would Fall Back- directly toward the table edge.

Any attempt to use a Run move in a different manner is going to fall afoul of the rules for units Falling Back.

The only way to save the unit is if terrain (or your other units- hint, hint) obstruct some of the models in the falling back unit, and they are forced to move at least somewhat laterally, thus allowing the trailing models to close the gap.

I agree. Nothing says all your models must Run the full distance rolled be they Falling Back or not. Mind you, they'd still have to move straight to their own edge, so if choherency loss was 'horizontal' you'd not be able to restore with running.

Brothererekose wrote:

time wizard wrote:When you make a fall back move, you move each model in the unit 2D6".
Nothing allows you to hold back the distance any model moves.

Would be the same for running.

You roll a D6 and that is the distance the unit will run towards their table edge.

Nothing allows them to move less than the full distance of for some models to move slower or faster than other one.

Here's your flaw, TW. In a 'Run', you *can* move all, some or none of the models, as much as the Run roll allows. The only thing that limits a Falling Back unit when using a 'Run' is the specifically stated constraint of its direction (towards the tabel edge). Unless, TW, I missed something on page 45 or 46.

"In their Shooting phase, units may choose to run instead of firing, immediately moving D6"..." Note the word "units".

"Units normally fall back 2D6"." Note again "units" fall back (move) 2D6".

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

You cannot choose to hold back the first model to allow the rest of the unit to catch up. Can't do it by moving, can't do it by running.

In your example, Bob can't join his battle brothers because they still have to all move.
But in your movement phase, you can move a rhino next to units 'x' forcing them to move sideways for a bit (Shortest possible route) giving Bob a chance to rejoin the group.
Difficult to do, but not impossible.

time wizard wrote:In your example, Bob can't join his battle brothers because they still have to all move.

Yes, in the Movement Phase, they all have to move the full Fall Back. But, not in the Shooting Phase as I pointed out, TW, nothing in the Run rules says that all have to Move.

TW, you're applying *all* the Fall Back rules to the Run and this is your mistake, IMHO. The only FB rule in the Run section is regarding the direction the models have to move. There is nothing in the Run section about Some, None or All of the models.

time wizard wrote:But in your movement phase, you can move a rhino next to units 'x' forcing them to move sideways for a bit (Shortest possible route) giving Bob a chance to rejoin the group.
Difficult to do, but not impossible.

Yep. Do-able.

Brothererekose wrote:

time wizard wrote:In your example, Bob can't join his battle brothers because they still have to all move.

Yes, in the Movement Phase, they all have to move the full Fall Back. But, not in the Shooting Phase as I pointed out, TW, nothing in the Run rules says that all have to Move.

TW, you're applying *all* the Fall Back rules to the Run and this is your mistake, IMHO. The only FB rule in the Run section is regarding the direction the models have to move. There is nothing in the Run section about Some, None or All of the models.

Except for this FAQ;

Q: Do units that choose to Run! in the Shooting phase
have to move the full distance rolled? (p16)
A: No they can move up to the distance rolled. Note
that once the dice have been rolled, they cannot shoot
even if they then elect not to use their movement.

So here we see that the "units" that choose to run do not have to move the full distance.

But the Fall Back! rule still says each model in the unit moves directly towards the table edge.

So you roll a '6' to run. You decide to only move the unit 1". No problem. But the unit moves the 1", meaning each and every model in the unit.

The big difference is that this is compulsory movement, and so the entire unit has to make this move.

time wizard wrote: But the unit moves the 1", meaning each and every model in the unit.

The big difference is that this is compulsory movement, and so the entire unit has to make this move.

That "unit" - "model" distinction is a bit much, I think, considering GW's looseness with terms. My often cited 2nd paragraph on page 46? -- the words used by GW are 'troops' and two pronoun uses of "they". Not 'unit' nor 'model'

Thank you GW, for clarity.


*Sigh* I can see your point about the individual models and the word 'units' being used, but I still disagree. The FAQ doesn't exactly counter my Run citations. The Q uses the word "units" and the A uses the pronoun, and really, TW, you and I are now in the silly territory of semantics, not *rules* but distinctions between, units, models, troops and they.

And you and I both know GW isn't that succinct with their terminology.

Cheers.

Brothererekose wrote:*Sigh* I can see your point about the individual models and the word 'units' being used, but I still disagree. The FAQ doesn't exactly counter my Run citations. The Q uses the word "units" and the A uses the pronoun, and really, TW, you and I are now in the silly territory of semantics, not *rules* but distinctions between, units, models, troops and they.

And you and I both know GW isn't that succinct with their terminology.

Cheers.

Agreed on both points!

By RAW I still think the unit includes all the models and they all have to move as required, but I don't want to get into a semantics territory either!

If GW were succint with their terminology, we wouldn't be discussing it on YMTC, so at least something good comes from their loose rules!

Cheers to you as well Brother!

I'vwe never played anyone who has thought all models must run the same distance.

Brothererekose wrote:That "unit" - "model" distinction is a bit much, I think, considering GW's looseness with terms.

And yet nobody has a problem with making that distinction for, say, Assault Grenades...

While you may consider it sloppy rules writing, that unit vs model distinction is generally made very deliberately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Artemo wrote:I'vwe never played anyone who has thought all models must run the same distance.

How often have you played people who Ran with a Falling Back unit?

insaniak wrote:While you may consider it sloppy rules writing, that unit vs model distinction is generally made very deliberately.

Yes, Insaniak, in many cases, model vs. unit is quite disparate. Like Assault Grenades vs Defensive Grenades.

For the point TW was making, I felt he was reaching.

So after all that, what call would you make on someone using a Run to bring a lagging model up to his buddies?

Personally, I would allow it, so long as the movement is still directly towards the table edge. Falling Back units aren't completely routed... they're still allowed some discretionary thought, as evidenced by the fact that they aren't forced to run, and can still choose to shoot as they fall back.

The coherency rule is still used in the fall back movement.
The only changes from normal movement are direction, distance, and no difficult terrain tests.

BRB pg.45 shows we still follow the impassable terrain rules, we still can't come within 1" of enemy models.
"...may move around these obstrustions in such a way to get back to their table edge by the shortest route, maintaining unit coherency."

The unit 'must' regain coherency by falling back the shortest 'possible ' route.

Well it says maintaining unit coherency, if they're out of coherency there is nothing to maintain, only correct. Maintain is keeping something that already is, once it's out of coherency for whatever reason it's too late.

Essentially if Unit A is in coherency and falling back but there is a piece of Impassable Terrain in the way of half the unit, they cannot break coherency to get around it.

If Unit B is already broken and non coherent, there is nothing to maintain, and must fall back accordingly to max distance

The coherency rules on page 12 BRB don't say anything limiting the "Must move in such a way that they restore coherency" to a normal move. Actually it says "In their next movement phase. So unless the fallback move is outside of the movement phase. It must follow the rules for coherency.

So in your enemies shooting phase you suffer enough un-saved wounds to cause a moral check. And you fail the moral check with your unit out of coherency. The unit will fallback out of coherency (page 45 BRB). Provided you are unable to finess your unit back into coherency before they move. The unit willl be unable to regroup (page 46 BRB) and must fall back again. In this movement phase the rules for moving into coherency take effect and the "Shortest possible route" will be the route that moves the model the closest to the table edge and restores unit coherency (page 12 BRB).

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Well it says maintaining unit coherency, if they're out of coherency there is nothing to maintain, only correct. Maintain is keeping something that already is, once it's out of coherency for whatever reason it's too late.

Essentially if Unit A is in coherency and falling back but there is a piece of Impassable Terrain in the way of half the unit, they cannot break coherency to get around it.

If Unit B is already broken and non coherent, there is nothing to maintain, and must fall back accordingly to max distance

The point is this shows that the coherency rule is not ignored when making a fall back move.

Stonerhino wrote:The unit willl be unable to regroup (page 46 BRB) and must fall back again. In this movement phase the rules for moving into coherency take effect and the "Shortest possible route" will be the route that moves the model the closest to the table edge and restores unit coherency (page 12 BRB).

The specific rule of how to move while falling back (directly towards table edge) overrides the general rule that you need to restore coherency during the movement phase. The fall back rules clearly explain under which circumstances a model does not fall back directly to the table edge, and restoring coherency is not one of those circumstances.

kmdl1066 wrote:. The fall back rules clearly explain under which circumstances a model does not fall back directly to the table edge, and restoring coherency is not one of those circumstances.



Seems reasonable to me

kmdl1066 wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:The unit willl be unable to regroup (page 46 BRB) and must fall back again. In this movement phase the rules for moving into coherency take effect and the "Shortest possible route" will be the route that moves the model the closest to the table edge and restores unit coherency (page 12 BRB).

The specific rule of how to move while falling back (directly towards table edge) overrides the general rule that you need to restore coherency during the movement phase. The fall back rules clearly explain under which circumstances a model does not fall back directly to the table edge, and restoring coherency is not one of those circumstances.

Quite the opposite, the rules in the Trapped section show us that the coherency rules have not been ignored and must be followed.

Yes, they show that you have to maintain coherency. But if you were never in coherency to begin with you still have to move directly towards your table edge and thus remain out of coherency.

Baring impassable terrain, enemy units, etc.

No, you 'must' regain coherency, the rule is not overturned or ignored.
It is still a part of the Fall Back rules
Just like the case of impassable terrain, the shortest possible path may not be the actual shortest path.
You 'must' regain coherency by falling back the shortest 'possible' path.

kmdl1066 wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:The unit willl be unable to regroup (page 46 BRB) and must fall back again. In this movement phase the rules for moving into coherency take effect and the "Shortest possible route" will be the route that moves the model the closest to the table edge and restores unit coherency (page 12 BRB).

The specific rule of how to move while falling back (directly towards table edge) overrides the general rule that you need to restore coherency during the movement phase. The fall back rules clearly explain under which circumstances a model does not fall back directly to the table edge, and restoring coherency is not one of those circumstances.

Sure if you ignore the next part of the rule on page 45 that says "By the shortest route possible". The possible means that under some circumstances the unit can be forced to not take the most direct route. And since the fall back rules do not tell you to ignore the coherency rules. You must follow them, so if you are falling back during your movement phase, then the falling back unit "Must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency".

I am not ignoring rules. Quite the opposite.

I am pointing out that the only time you are given permission to move "by the shortest route possible" is when you are told that "The models in the falling back unit may move around these obstruction in such a way as to get back to their table edge by the shortest route, maintaining unit coherency."

Not to restore unit coherency, just to go around obstacles.

As always, the specific overrides the general. The general rule is that the unit must move to restore coherency in its movement phase. The specific is that when falling back models move directly towards the table edge. And in fact specific mention is made that if a unit is out of coherency it may not try to regroup but must continue to fall back.

"Sometimes a unit will find its fall back move blocked by" examples given. and may move around them while maintaining coherency.

The rules in the "Trapped" section are for times that a unit finds their fall back moved block. Just as the rule states. It in no way limits what can affect a fall back move to items that block the path of a unit falling back.

Since the coherency rules never block a unit's fall back move I would not expect to see them listed in a rule dealing with such situations.

The fall back rules never specifically mention that you ignore the coherency rules. As such you don't have a specific>general situation. You have two rules that work together and both must be adhered to.

You were the one who raised "by the shortest route possible" as an allowance for not moving directly towards the table edge. But this only appears when falling back around obstacles.

Of course the fall back rules don't tell you to ignore coherency. In fact they go out of their way to tell you that you need to maintain coherency when moving around obstacles.

But what they do give you is very clear, unambiguous, directions on how models must be moved when making a fall back move.

Models must fall back directly towards the table edge, unless to deviate by the minimum to get around obstacle. How can they be falling back directly towards the table edge if they're also moving at an angle to restore coherency? Hint: they can't.

And then we have that a unit must attempt to restore coherency during the movement phase.

You have two contradictory rules. Once has to take precedence. The specific fall back move takes precedence over the general movement.

How is 'must' less specific than 'possible'?
The coherncy rules have no choice.
The fall back rules do, the shortest 'possible' path.

kmdl1066 wrote:You were the one who raised "by the shortest route possible" as an allowance for not moving directly towards the table edge. But this only appears when falling back around obstacles.

Wrong that's what the rest of the sentence that says.

BRB page 45 wrote:Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route.

Quoted since it was missed the first time it was read.

kmdl1066 wrote:Of course the fall back rules don't tell you to ignore coherency. In fact they go out of their way to tell you that you need to maintain coherency when moving around obstacles.

You're finally getting it... And in fact they go out of their way to tell you how objects in the way of a falling back unit cannot move the unit out of coherency and cannot be trap the unit unless the unit is actually trapped. Go figure that they would put this in the section titled "Trapped".

kmdl1066 wrote:But what they do give you is very clear, unambiguous, directions on how models must be moved when making a fall back move.

True and they allow the coherency rules to force you to angle the fall back to restore coherency.

kmdl1066 wrote:Models must fall back directly towards the table edge, unless to deviate by the minimum to get around obstacle. How can they be falling back directly towards the table edge if they're also moving at an angle to restore coherency? Hint: they can't.

If the shortest possible legal move the models can make is to be "Moved in such a way that they restore coherency" then that is the route they must take. Hint: Notice how the coherency rules use the word "Must" and the fall back rules don't. Maybe they're more important.

kmdl1066 wrote:And then we have that a unit must attempt to restore coherency during the movement phase.

Pretty sure the rule never stopped working. But hey when your arguement against it is "Nuh uh, the rules for fall back don't say you must use the coherency rules... Wait, ya they do, but not in the way suggest even if the rule never gives you permission to ignore them".

kmdl1066 wrote:You have two contradictory rules. Once has to take precedence. The specific fall back move takes precedence over the general movement.

What contadiction??? The shortest possible route is the one that moves the models closest to the table edge while moving in such a way that they restore coherency. If the fall back move is done in the movement phase.