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.

An opponent of mine used this particular interpretation of the rules and even though it ultimately didn't matter in our game, I thought I would bring it here to see what others thought.

Lets say there are 3 units, unit "A" is 12" from the board edge. Units "B" and "C" are 6" from the board edge. All three are deployed in straight lines parallel to the board edge with a gap between units B and C.

Unit A Fails a Moral test a runs, but not enough to come into contact with Units B and C. I place one of my own units within 6" of Unit A to ensure they continue to run. Next Turn Unit A will be a 4 to 5 inch distance from the board edge and annihilation.

My opponent starts his turn. As there is no rule that dictates his compulsory movement must occur before his other units move, he moves units B and C in a horseshoe pattern around unit A. Unit A now makes its compulsory move, but as there are friendly units in the way, the shortest distance is moving 5" away from the table edge to go around to a provided avenue of escape, essentially changing a 4 to 5 inch distance to an 11 or 12 inch distance.

Here is the rules of why compulsory moves don't necessarily need to happen before regular moves.

The only time Compulsary Moves are mentioned in the movement phase section of the rules:

Page 11

RANDOM AND COMPULSORY MOVEMENT
Sometimes, a unit may have to move a random
distance instead of the usual 6" or be forced to move
in a certain way (directly towards the closest enemy, for
example). Such situations are discussed later.

Page 45

Units make a fall back move immediately upon failing a
Morale test. 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.

No wording on timing, and that is really not what this thread is about.

The rule that I disagreed with was the "Trapped!" rule:

TRAPPED!
Sometimes a unit will find its fall back move
blocked by impassable terrain, friendly models or
enemy models (remember they have to stay 1" away
from enemy models). The models in the falling back
unit may move around these obstructions in such a
way as to get back to their table edge by the
shortest route, maintaining unit coherency.

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

In this situation, as the unit could not move directly towards it's table edge, my argument was that moving away from the table edge for any reason met the condition of said unit "doubling back".

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

If your move in any way shape or form causes you to increase the perpendicular distance between your models and the board edge, then the unit is destroyed. This means his horseshoe idea does not work, the unit is instead simply destroyed.

Doubling back == going back on yourself, which you have done if you move out of the horseshoe.

This means that when you approach an impassable object which "dips" inwards you need to move around it first, you cannot end up in the dip then try to move out.

The rules say any direction. Sometimes the unit needs to run forward to run backward. The unit would double back in the uncommon situation where it is blocked in every direction and would have to retrace it's steps/go in circles to go the full 2d6/3d6. So i argue falling forward is not doubling back.

The horseshoe wouldn't work because you have to determine the shortest route off the table before you fallback. Going in and out of a horseshoe would definitely not be the shortest.

Retracing your steps IS doubling back.

Going forward isn't retracing steps unless you just came from that direction.

Going in and out of a horseshoe is retracing though...

The horseshoe wouldn't work because you have to det3rmine the shortest route off the table before you fallback. Going in and out of a horseshoe would definitely not be the shortest.

The horseshoe is made around the falling back unit before it makes it's move.

Mahu wrote:

The horseshoe wouldn't work because you have to det3rmine the shortest route off the table before you fallback. Ging in and out of a horseshoe would definitely not be the shortest.

The horseshoe is made around the falling back unit before it makes it's move.

Ok. When you move the falling back unit, you have to determine the shortest distance. Which would be out and around more than likely.

Sorry for any misspellings. It's hard to type on this phone.

Marshal_Gus wrote:Going forward isn't retracing steps unless you just came from that direction.

Going in and out of a horseshoe is retracing though...

The interpretation I get out of the BRB i so long as the unit does not move 180 degrees... as in right back up the direction it approached from the previous round. It can continue moving. Thus the horseshoe can work, so long as it is done in a way that lets the unit move in lets say 145 degrees to the right, thus not "doubling back" but still taking the shortest route. Saying that, once it is around the last member of the blocking unit it must continue towards the table edge.

if the unit falling back retraces its steps it is destroyed, if it starts in a U and falls back to the table edge by the shortest route possible that is legal move.

The BRB really doesn't discuss whether you move closer or further from the table edge. All it discusses is doubling back, which is retracing your steps (distinctly different from taking a scenic route), which is essentially running on the spot.

See it like this: if the unit doesn't make progress towards freedom as the table looks like at the moment you start their movement, then it is destroyed.
Note how the diagram on page 45 does not denote where the table edge is, merely provides a situation where the gretchin can't flee since there's marines behind them, marines in front of them, to the right a rock and to the left a hard place. They've got a small space where they can run around flailing their arms for 8", but that means they have to double back.

Note: if simply the shortest route is moving away from a table edge slightly to later move back, then destroying enemies by trapping is a fair deal too easy and requires only two or three models to stand in front of them forming a very loose, but close, "cup".

Without delving an hour into the rules specifically, I'd say forming a horse-shoe around your own fleeing unit is allowed, but a TFG move.

I interpret it like this: Pretend there is no terrain or enemies or anything on the table. Its totally clear. If the unit in question does not make progress towards its board edge, its doubling back. Now put all the terrain back on. Same rule applies. If the unit does not move closer to its table edge than it was at the start of the turn, it is doubling back.

So, your (measured in a straight line) 12' from your board edge, and you have to move around something. You are now 13 from your board edge. DESTROYED.

If there is a massive wall that slopes towards your board edge, and your at the end furthest away (24' away from your board edge) and you run along the wall, and end up 23" away, you are not destroyed. You are just very very lucky that wall isnt parallel.

Am I doing it wrong?

Jaon wrote:I interpret it like this: Pretend there is no terrain or enemies or anything on the table. Its totally clear. If the unit in question does not make progress towards its board edge, its doubling back...

Actually, in this case you must move the shortest route possible towards your table edge. This isn't a matter of choice, but a compulsory movement.

...Now put all the terrain back on. Same rule applies. If the unit does not move closer to its table edge than it was at the start of the turn, it is doubling back.

So, your (measured in a straight line) 12' from your board edge, and you have to move around something. You are now 13 from your board edge. DESTROYED.

If there is a massive wall that slopes towards your board edge, and your at the end furthest away (24' away from your board edge) and you run along the wall, and end up 23" away, you are not destroyed. You are just very very lucky that wall isnt parallel.

Am I doing it wrong?

This is something I'll reserve myself against, although I'll let an official unofficial statement go to someone a lot more literal-minded than I am (Gwar! for instance)

Personally, I go with the interpretation that you do a quick pathfinding algorithm on the table and move the units the closest path (which mustn't necessarily be fastest). If there is no valid path to the edge, you move the unit as if the way was clear of any obstacles. If your path would have the unit move into contact with enemies, friendlies or terrain, the unit is destroyed.

Again, if you go with the interpretation that they must move closer and never away from the table edge, then you don't need to trap them, only block their passage.