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.

Your arguement would be stronger if the BTB defined a specific term called "Fall Back Move", but it doesn't, it only defines "Fall back!"

You are correct, but the Deciever's rule specifically says that it may make a "Fall Back move", not just that he may "Fall Back" in any direction.

You continue along a logical fallacy that just because a model makes a fall back move it follows all the rules for Falling Back, which is factually incorrect.

The Deciever only follows the portion of the Fall Back rules that pertain to making a Fall Back move; nothing else can be assumed.

Remember: just because all apples are fruit doesn't make all fruit apples!!!

Yak, which portions of the Fall back section are concerning "Fall Back move" and which part aren't? It's not defined. Is a unit making a "Fall Back move" allowed to pass through units it is locked in an assault with? Or is a unit "Falling Back" allowed to pass through units it is locked in an assault with? It is near impossible to separate "Fall Back move" and "Falling Back" and "Fall Back" as distinct terms based on the rules as written. The only thing that is defined "Fall Back", everything in the Fall Back section is part of the Fall Back rules.

Thus if he a Deceiver is making a Fall Back move it has to follow the fall back rules, all of them, unless his own rules specify else wise.

If it isn?t making a Fall Back move then he doesn?t get to use the rules of the fall back section, including those that are to it?s advantage.

Remember: just because all apples are fruit doesn't make all fruit apples!!!

That is not the situation. All that has been defined is the fruit, sadly the apple is not defined and you are claiming some of the fruits are apples and the others aren't.

Thus if he a Deceiver is making a Fall Back move it has to follow the fall back rules, all of them, unless his own rules specify else wise.

And this is the flaw in your logic. A Fall Back move is only part of Falling Back!
Falling Back! has several parts (BGB page 48):
1) Unit in CC fails its Morale Test.
2) Unit makes a Fall Back move
o Unit Moves 2D6" directly twoard edge of table (or such)
3) Units Falling Back! may shoot but are concider moving.
4) A Falling Back! unit that is assaulted must pass an unmodified LD test or be destroyed.
5) A Falling Back! unit that cannot complete its Fall Back move without doubling back is destroyed.

The Deceiver's Misdirect is not subject to Falling Back! since the Deciever did not meet the entry criteria: fail a Morale Test while in CC. The Deceiver is free to make a Falling Back move but is not subject to the rest of the Falling Back! including Trapped!

It is described as a 2D6" move twoard the closed point of the player's table edge and such. The Falling Back! section/rule doesn't state a unit making a Fall Back move is Falling Back! It DOES state a unit Falling Back! must make a Falling Back move. Part of Falling Back! includes provisions for being Trapped! In this case A implies B but B does not imply B.

The Deceiver make a Falling Back move but is not Falling Back!.

Ok thats fine, so you believe it is only 2d6 move in any direction and not subject to Falling Back rules. That's cool with me, so If I can surround the Deceiver you are ok with him not being able to make a 2d6 move?

Ok thats fine, so you believe it is only 2d6 move in any direction and not subject to Falling Back rules. That's cool with me, so If I can surround the Deceiver you are ok with him not being able to make a 2d6 move?

I think that he's saying that The deciever isn't subject to all of the fall back rules as some of them simply do not apply.
You can / will pass through a unit that you're engaged with when you make a fall back move so I don't see why that would be any different as it is a fall back move not a full on Fall Back!.

I think that he's saying that The deciever isn't subject to all of the fall back rules as some of them simply do not apply.

On what basis do you make the call which portions of the rules you want to apply and which one you don't want to apply?

You can / will pass through a unit that you're engaged with when you make a fall back move so I don't see why that would be any different as it is a fall back move not a full on Fall Back!.

The rules do not say that, so called "fall back move" term is not mentioned in the section concerning ignoring units that have fought in close combat against each.

Now that I look at the rules, something else has caught my eye, concerning the so called fall back move.

"Ignoring units enemy models that have fought in close combat against the unit this turn", the Deceiver's misdirect move is made before the assault begins, he hasn't fought yet that turn . Thus he can't ignore the unit he is engaged in for movement purposes even if we pick and choose the aspects of the fall back rules to use, if he gets surrounded, he is screwed.

Where in the rule book is the only mention of a fall back move? Show me the section title..... it would be under "Falling Back", wouldn't it? So if the only mention of a "Fall back move" is in the section "Falling Back", then making a "fall back move" would be the same as "Falling Back". If they wanted to give him hit and run, they'd have said "The deciever has hit and run", as we already have a title for that rule.

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/23/2006 11:05 PM

You can / will pass through a unit that you're engaged with when you make a fall back move so I don't see why that would be any different as it is a fall back move not a full on Fall Back!.

The rules do not say that, so called "fall back move" term is not mentioned in the section concerning ignoring units that have fought in close combat against each.

Now that I look at the rules, something else has caught my eye, concerning the so called fall back move.

"Ignoring units enemy models that have fought in close combat against the unit this turn", the Deceiver's misdirect move is made before the assault begins, he hasn't fought yet that turn . Thus he can't ignore the unit he is engaged in for movement purposes even if we pick and choose the aspects of the fall back rules to use, if he gets surrounded, he is screwed.

You have a funny definition of 'screwed' when it comes to a unit numerous enough to surround a 40 mm base, that has to remained locked in combat with a WS5, T8, S9 5 wound, 4 attack special character...  Don't forget that the fallback move is voluntary.

Posted By Angron on 07/24/2006 12:00 AM
Where in the rule book is the only mention of a fall back move? Show me the section title..... it would be under "Falling Back", wouldn't it? So if the only mention of a "Fall back move" is in the section "Falling Back", then making a "fall back move" would be the same as "Falling Back". If they wanted to give him hit and run, they'd have said "The deciever has hit and run", as we already have a title for that rule.

And yet the Deciever isn't 'falling back,' he's making a 'fall back move.'  It's the same definition that allows the Infernus shell to send even Fearless units scrambling, because it makes units take 'a fall back move.'

This is ridiculous.

No one has yet to prove that making a Fall Back move is the same thing as the same thing as (the state of) Falling Back.

Units can obviously be in the state of Falling Back as there are rules for Falling Back units shooting and/or getting assaulted, two actions that clearly don't occur at the same time the unit is physically making a Fall Back move. In fact, the only reason a unit need regroup once it enters the state of Falling Back is because of this rule on page 48:

"Units make a Fall Back move upon failing a Morale test, and in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table."


This obviously does not apply to the Deciever in this circumstance as he hasn't failed a Morale check, he has just made a Fall Back move. So I say again: The Deceiver is just making a Fall Back move, but he is not in the state of Falling Back. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he would need to regroup after making this movement.

Well, according to your ruling, if units MAY ONLY make a fall back move upon failing a Morale test, then the Deciever MAY NOT make a fall back move, as he did not fail a morale test.

Now, if you're saying his special rule is an exception to the "Units make a Fall back move upon failing a Morale test", then I say your arguement is irrelevant, proven by your own testimony, and that the deciever is still subject to regrouping rules, as the "in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table" applies to the fall back move, not the failed morale test.

Therefor, the rule including the decievers special rule, would say "Units make a fall back move upon failing a Morale test, or if they have a special rule, and in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table."

A fall back move= falling back.... falling back= a fall back move, and nowhere in the decievers description state that he auto rallies at the end of his fall back move

Let?s look at this in gameply: necrons vs some marines<?

 

Example 1: Necron turn, the deceiver uses?misdirect?, makes a ?fall back move? of 5? and stops. The marines can only consolidate 3?

 

Now the marine turn starts, the deceiver cannot move, and so is assaulted.

 

Seems fine to me. (why the deceiver would leave combat, I don?t know, but it?s the necron players choice.)

 

Actually, rules state that the deciever may only use misdirect in the enemies assault phase. So it's basically a flee reaction like in fantasy, in which case the fleeing models still hafta regroup

You have a funny definition of 'screwed' when it comes to a unit numerous enough to surround a 40 mm base, that has to remained locked in combat with a WS5, T8, S9 5 wound,

He'll last about 2 game turns against 2 squads of marines if he can't flee. Ahh the wonders of hidden powerfists.  If the marines have furious charge, there is pretty good chance they can kill the deceiver in 2 assault phases.

So do all "Falling Back" units make Fall Back moves? Absolutely.

Does that mean any unit making a Fall Back movement is automatically considered to be "Falling Back" (in the state of "Falling Back")? Nope. A unit must fail a morale check as described on page 48 in order to continually Fall Back each turn. In special circumstances (such as with the Deciever), a unit would make a Fall Back move and then be done with it

Really, where does it say that the Deciever is done with it? Show me in the codex exactly where it says that you can make a fall back move and not be considered falling back. Show me that and I'll agree with you. Heck, show me where in the rule book that is says you can make a fall back move without falling back? Without being considered as falling back, show me the page number, the section title, anything and everything that has to do with falling back. The fact is that is says that a unit makes a fall back move after failing a morale test, so either the deciever doesn't make a fall back move, as it did not fail a morale test, and thus, the rule "misdirect" is useless, cannot be used, and we are argueing over nothing, or you admit that it's an exeception of the "fail a morale test", which implies that it still follows all the other rules, as models making a fall back move are subject to regrouping, no matter what, no matter how.

Does that mean any unit making a Fall Back movement is automatically considered to be "Falling Back" (in the state of "Falling Back")? Nope

This based on what?

A unit must fail a morale check as described on page 48 in order to continually Fall Back each turn.

No this is not what the rules say. A unit must pass a morale check to stop falling back. Big difference, especially if you are prevented from making that check by conditions mentioned in the rule.

I say that a Fall Back move is not Falling Back, and my interpretation is just as valid and proveable as yours (as shown in other poster's previous arguements).  Like I said, it's the same things as the Infernus Shell.  It can make Fearless units take a Fall Back move.  But Fearless units never fall back yadda yadda yadda ding ding ding.

Just another one for the FAQ, I suppose, since it's impossible for either side to clearly prove their point.

No one has proven anything, Fall back move is an undefined term. Necron players are just taking all advantagous aspects of the Fall Back rule and applying them to the Fall back move.

But it doesn't matter, the "fought" arguement pretty much lets one trap the Deceiver by surrounding him if they want.

.... Let's just play the game.... if this happens, and you have a problem with how the other person deals with it, the great thing about the game is that you can choose never to play the person again...

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/24/2006 12:32 AM
>>No one has proven anything, Fall back move is an undefined term.

 

Unit moves 2d6 towards the board edge?

>>But it doesn't matter, the "fought" arguement pretty much lets one trap the Deceiver by >>surrounding him if they want.

Since it's used in the enemy's turn, that means the Deciever has already fought one round of CC that turn.  How does your arguement prevent him from making a Fall back Move again?

I couldn't care less about it in a friendly game. I am sure my opponent and I could easily come to an agreed upon interpetation.

Since it's used in the enemy's turn, that means the Deciever has already fought one round of CC that turn. How does your arguement prevent him from making a Fall back Move again?

You really need to open the book and actually look at rules.

1) It's irrelevant what happened last turn, it says fought in close combat this turn.

2) If the deceiver gets assaulted, people are using the misdirect rule to pull him out of combat right away.

If you surrond him (or atleast reduce the gaps around him to less than his base size), he can't use misdirect to get away. He hasn't fought the unit this turn yet, and thus can't ignore their bases for movement purposes.

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/24/2006 1:15 AM

Since it's used in the enemy's turn, that means the Deciever has already fought one round of CC that turn. How does your arguement prevent him from making a Fall back Move again?

You really need to open the book and actually look at rules.

Yeah, I did that, and it just makes the whole argument even less clear because no differentiation is made in this usage between _game_ turns, and _player_ turns. Of course, you can only fight one CC a _player_ turn anyway (iirc), so it'd seem like they;re taking _game_turns but I can't make an irrefutable argument to that fact.

The rules do not say that, so called "fall back move" term is not mentioned in the section concerning ignoring units that have fought in close combat against each.

Now that I look at the rules, something else has caught my eye, concerning the so called fall back move.

"Ignoring units enemy models that have fought in close combat against the unit this turn", the Deceiver's misdirect move is made before the assault begins, he hasn't fought yet that turn . Thus he can't ignore the unit he is engaged in for movement purposes even if we pick and choose the aspects of the fall back rules to use, if he gets surrounded, he is screwed.

That is a very interesting interperation of the word fought.  First, you made an assumption the Deceiver has not already engaged the enemy unit(s).  Second, once a unit is engaged it is fighting.  See page 38 for definitions of locked and engaged units and who can fight.

Where in the rule book is the only mention of a fall back move? Show me the section title..... it would be under "Falling Back", wouldn't it? So if the only mention of a "Fall back move" is in the section "Falling Back", then making a "fall back move" would be the same as "Falling Back". If they wanted to give him hit and run, they'd have said "The deciever has hit and run", as we already have a title for that rule.

Nope.  See my previous post on page two.  Making a Fall Back move does NOT equate to Falling Back!  Yes, part of Falling Back! requires the Falling Back! unit to perform a Fall Back move but the rules do not equate:  A implies B but B does not imply A.

Well, according to your ruling, if units MAY ONLY make a fall back move upon failing a Morale test, then the Deciever MAY NOT make a fall back move, as he did not fail a morale test.

Now, if you're saying his special rule is an exception to the "Units make a Fall back move upon failing a Morale test", then I say your arguement is irrelevant, proven by your own testimony, and that the deciever is still subject to regrouping rules, as the "in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table" applies to the fall back move, not the failed morale test.

Therefor, the rule including the decievers special rule, would say "Units make a fall back move upon failing a Morale test, or if they have a special rule, and in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table."

A fall back move= falling back.... falling back= a fall back move, and nowhere in the decievers description state that he auto rallies at the end of his fall back move

Again, a Fall Back move does not equate to Falling Back!  Also, the rules on page 48 make no mention that only units that have failed a Morale Test perform a Fall Back move.  The rules only state a unit that fails a Morale Test is Falling Back!  Two seperate and distinct activities.

Actually, rules state that the deciever may only use misdirect in the enemies assault phase. So it's basically a flee reaction like in fantasy, in which case the fleeing models still hafta regroup

The Deceiver's special rule, Misdirect, is not basicly a flee reaction.  It is a Special Rule allowing the Deceiver to disengage from HTH.  Don't read more into the rule then what is already printed.

Really, where does it say that the Deciever is done with it? Show me in the codex exactly where it says that you can make a fall back move and not be considered falling back.

Page 30 of the Codex: Necron.  See the Special Rule Misdirect under the description of the Deceiver.

Heck, show me where in the rule book that is says you can make a fall back move without falling back? Without being considered as falling back, show me the page number, the section title, anything and everything that has to do with falling back. The fact is that is says that a unit makes a fall back move after failing a morale test, so either the deciever doesn't make a fall back move, as it did not fail a morale test, and thus, the rule "misdirect" is useless, cannot be used, and we are argueing over nothing, or you admit that it's an exeception of the "fail a morale test", which implies that it still follows all the other rules, as models making a fall back move are subject to regrouping, no matter what, no matter how.

You keep insisting making a Fall Back move is the same as Falling Back!  And I have shown it is not.  Reread my post on page 2.  I described the steps for Falling Back! which includes making a Fall Back move.  Nowhere in the Falling Back! rules does it state a unit making a Fall Back move is deemed Falling Back!

The Deceiver is permitted by the rules to make a Fall Back move (as described on page 30 of the Codex: Necron book) as described on page 48 of the BGB.  The Deceiver is not Falling Back! or fleeing or whatever; he is just moving out of close combat.

That is a very interesting interperation of the word fought. First, you made an assumption the Deceiver has not already engaged the enemy unit(s). Second, once a unit is engaged it is fighting. See page 38 for definitions of locked and engaged units and who can fight.

You must be kidding, right? A guy that claims "fall back move" doesn't equal "falling back", is now claiming "engaged" equals "fought"? I am laughing so hard my insides hurt. 

Just because you can fight, doesn't mean you have fought yet.

At the end of the assault phase, units have fought (blows have been exchanged), misdirect happens before the fight, they haven't fought yet.

Also it doesn't matter if Deceiver fought the unit the previous turn, all that matters is the current  turn, and that misdirect has to be used at the beginning of the enemies assault phase, before anyone has fought a close combat.

You don't valid arguement against the "fought" portion of the rules.  The Deceiver can be trapped and pervented from using misdirect by surrounding it in close combat.  

 

 

Uh, what's the past tense of fight....yep, fought. The models engaged in CC are fighting. After they fight they have fought. By the rules, blows don't have to be exchanged. Again, I refer you to page 38 on what an engaged model is, a locked unit is, and who can fight. Pay particular attention to the narraitive used to describe what CC is since your fixated on this.

So the Deceiver is surrounded by a unit and that unit engages the C'Tan. The two units are now locked in CC (the models in the unit and the Deceiver model are engaged in combat). The Deceiver, in close combat, decides to make a Falling Back move and proceeds to move past the previous fighting models. It doesn't matter if the Deceiver cannot complete its Falling Back move since the C'Tan is not Falling Back!.

BTW, where does it state in the BGB that making a Falling Back move equates to Falling Back!?

You really need to read the rules.

I?ll help you out, go to page 39 and read the second paragraph. The two important points are -
1) In close combat, a model?s Initiative characteristics determine who fights first.
2) A model will only fight if it is still engaged when its Initiative rank is called.

Point 2 clearly shows a distinction between engaged and fight, they are not the same thing. So your ?engaged? = ?fought? argument is bunk.

And point 1 and 2 show a unit has not fought as soon as it has engaged. A unit fights when it initiative rank is called, after it strikes it has fought. So your fought as soon as engaged argument is bunk.

Now open the book to page 48, looked under the heading ?Trapped!?. Here it specifies that unit can ignore enemy models that have fought in close combat against the unit this turn for movement purposes when falling back.

Guess what, misdirect rule occurs before the fight has occurred, thus althought you can move 2d6 in any direction you can?t violate any of the other rules in the BTB. You can?t move thru opposing bases. So if your Deceiver gets surrounded, you are trapped and can?t use misdirect.

I think I will continue playing the deceiver in the same way I was before. I beleive enough of a case has been made that 

1- The deceiver can leave a combat at the start of the enemy assault phase with no reprocussions

2-  he can assault right away again in his turn

3 -Misdirect rule takes precedence over two words taken out of the fall back rule

Tau-cnet, I think the majority opinion is against you here, but I am always interested in hearing more opinions on the subject.

Tau-Cent:
The Deceiver using Misdirect is NOT Falling Back! so it does not have to follow the rules of Falling Back! The Deceiver is making a Falling Back move. Yes, this is detailed in the section Falling Back! but it does not by itself defing what units are Falling Back!.

If you can provide some rules to back up your claim that making a Falling Back move equates to Falling Back! I'll entertain your arguement but as of right now all your doing is saying you're right and I'm wrong. Not much of a debate there.....

Based on what rule would you be moving through the bases of the units the Deceiver is engaged with? Provide a page number, paragraph number and line number.

When you find the rule, it will say, in the very same sentence, that you have to have fought the opposing units this turn to ignore their bases for movement purposes.

There is no need for me to prove Fall Back move equates to Falling Back. Fall Back move has not been explicitly defined in the rulebook, this has been acknowledged by other posters in this thread. At the end of the day, it becomes irrelevant, as I don?t need the Deceiver to be Falling Back anyways, although I still believe he is falling back when he makes a fall back move.

You have been provided with a reference that shows when a unit is considered to have fought.

You have been provided with a reference that shows you can only ignore the bases of units that you have fought this turn when making a fall back move (whether it is falling back or not).

It is clear that the Deceiver has not fought yet this turn when he uses the misdirect special rule.

This means that he can be prevented from fleeing by surronding him in close combat.

I can only suspect why you would choose to ignore these points.

Your only retort to these arguments was ?engaged? is the same as ?fought?, and it has clearly been pointed out that they are not the same thing.

It is ok to have been playing incorrectly if you had misinterpreted the rules, but once something has been pointed out to you as being incorrect, you have no excuse.

Your entire arguement know is hanging on the word "fought". Units that are locked in CC are deemed to be fighting and page 38 details this. No where in the rules does it say a model can only have been deemed as "fought" if it uses its attacks (reread page 38 to see this may not only be "blows"). If two units are fighting and then one unit pulls away such they are no longer fighting then the two units have fought. Can you provide specific rules detailing how an engaged model in a locked unit is not fighting?

< img]  yes[ mso-spacerun:>That is completely incorrect, you are purposely misinterpreting the word engaged to be equivalent as fought, despite the fact that you have been present evidence to the contrary.  Infact the clearly says that just because a unit is engaged, doesn?t necessarily mean it has fought.  A unit that is engaged in combat may not even get to fight (present tense of fought) if it is no longer engaged when its initiative rank comes up.   It is crystal clear when a unit fights, and when it has fought.  A unit that is engaged in combat may not even get to fight (present tense of fought) if it is no longer engaged when its initiative rank comes up.  A unit that is engaged in combat may not even get to fight (present tense of fought) if it is no longer engaged when its initiative rank comes up.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />  

No where in the rules does it say a model can only have been deemed as "fought" if it uses its attacks

Yes it does. On a page 39 it tells you when a unit fights, before this event it has not fought, after this event it has fought.  "Engaged" is not "fought" the rules make that clear.

I have given you the reference, you are choosing to ignore it. I can't help you any further.