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.

What defines a trapped model?

Certain players in my FLGS are under the impression that if a unit is behind you, you are trapped and destroyed.
Their veiw is that "falling back towards your board edge via the shortest possible route" means going through enemy units if they are behind you and getting wiped out. As long as you do not move forwards, only back/sideways then you can get around this.

The other group are claiming "shortest possible route" implies you may fall back in whatever direction you see fit, as long as it is the shortest possible route. Falling back into an enemy or impasable terrain would be an impossible route, therefore allowing you to make it to your board edge by whatever means neccasary. Which may mean advancing X", going left for X" and then moving X" towards your edge.

What is the correct way to play this, as it caused quite a fuss earlier today.
Also could i ask for a clear, precise answer that could settle the discussion without a long and arduous debate.

dayve110 wrote:What defines a trapped model?

Certain players in my FLGS are under the impression that if a unit is behind you, you are trapped and destroyed.
Their veiw is that "falling back towards your board edge via the shortest possible route" means going through enemy units if they are behind you and getting wiped out. As long as you do not move forwards, only back/sideways then you can get around this.

The other group are claiming "shortest possible route" implies you may fall back in whatever direction you see fit, as long as it is the shortest possible route. Falling back into an enemy or impasable terrain would be an impossible route, therefore allowing you to make it to your board edge by whatever means neccasary. Which may mean advancing X", going left for X" and then moving X" towards your edge.

What is the correct way to play this, as it caused quite a fuss earlier today.
Also could i ask for a clear, precise answer that could settle the discussion without a long and arduous debate.

The red group is correct.

The "Trapped" diagram on pg 45 pretty much explains it. If you are boxed in with no way out then you are toast.

It's worth mentioning that I have never seen this happen. There's always some way to finagle an inch of clearance between terrain, around enemy models, etc. to allow you to continue to fall back towards your table edge. Because that rule is so lenient, it's rare you'll actually be genuinely trapped. You'd basically have to be forced to move towards the opposite table edge (in other words, surrounded on the full 180 degrees that can be qualified as "towards your own table edge") in order to truly be trapped.

The only instance where i had caused a unit to be trapped is when i wanted to kill an IC that had fallen back from combat. I did not want to charge this beast, allowing it to potentially rally, neither could i follow it off the board as the loss on a single model from its shooting could have lost me the game at this point. I decided to completely surround it 360 degrees, remaining over 1" away of course, leaving it literally nowhere to run.

Which may mean advancing X", going left for X" and then moving X" towards your edge.

Gwar said this was correct. Meaning that even if you were surrounded 180 degrees or more, as long there is a route of escape then you take that route, as you fall back "towards your edge by the shortest possible route" The shortest route could indeed be very long.

You'd basically have to be forced to move towards the opposite table edge (in other words, surrounded on the full 180 degrees that can be qualified as "towards your own table edge") in order to truly be trapped.

Sainthazard on the other hand is saying you only need to be 180 degrees surrounded, Any move away from your board edge causes you to be wiped out.

The scenario in question was along the lines of the following...

..0..0.....xx....oooooo
0..0..0....xx...ooooooo
..0..0.uuuuuu.oooooo
..........uuuu

The x unit failed the test and begins to fall back. There are 3 freindly units to the left, the right and behind. There is no space to fit the bases through and the only way to reach the table edge (ie, the shortest route) would be to move forwards, to the side and then when clear of the units head towards the board edge.

If they are destroyed, then what if the unit could have moved to the side? But only one model had to move forwards as he was slightly behind the rest. Would that also count as destroyed because of that one model?

Also, does assault let you ignore models in combat when retreating? It never occured to me until now... but if you had this example...

---------(unit x table edge)
oooooooo
ooxxxxxoo

Unit x looses combat, can it simply move through the enemy models in an effort to break away or must the unit move around? thereby moving away from their own board edge.

If you cannot ignore enemy models then what happens here...

oooooo
ooxoo
ooooo

Unit x falls back... to where?

Thanks for the replies to far ^.^

Sorry saint, you are wrong. You need to be 360 degrees surrounded.

dayve110 wrote:
The scenario in question was along the lines of the following...

..0..0.....xx....oooooo
0..0..0....xx...ooooooo
..0..0.uuuuuu.oooooo
..........uuuu

The x unit failed the test and begins to fall back. There are 3 freindly units to the left, the right and behind. There is no space to fit the bases through and the only way to reach the table edge (ie, the shortest route) would be to move forwards, to the side and then when clear of the units head towards the board edge.

If they are destroyed, then what if the unit could have moved to the side? But only one model had to move forwards as he was slightly behind the rest. Would that also count as destroyed because of that one model?

Yes, it falls back "Upwards" and around the enemy units.

Also, does assault let you ignore models in combat when retreating? It never occured to me until now... but if you had this example...

---------(unit x table edge)
oooooooo
ooxxxxxoo

Unit x looses combat, can it simply move through the enemy models in an effort to break away or must the unit move around? thereby moving away from their own board edge.

Yes, the rules explicitly say you ignore the unit you are falling back from, so you can move "though" them.

Except that as soon as you're moving towards your opponent's table edge, you're no longer moving towards YOUR table edge, which is an explicit requirement of a fall back move, and therefore moving illegally.

That's how I interpreted it.

Now if you somehow could move 2.999999999" backwards, and 3.00000000001" towards your table edge, and technically end your move .00000000001" closer to your table edge, and only if you were forced to by intervening models/terrain/etc, it'd be a legal move. But if you can't manage that, then it's an illegal move, and therefore destroys the unit.

SaintHazard wrote:Except that as soon as you're moving towards your opponent's table edge, you're no longer moving towards YOUR table edge, which is an explicit requirement of a fall back move, and therefore moving illegally.

That's how I interpreted it.

Now if you somehow could move 2.999999999" backwards, and 3.00000000001" towards your table edge, and technically end your move .00000000001" closer to your table edge, it'd be a legal move. But if you can't manage that, then it's an illegal move, and therefore destroys the unit.

That is not what the rules say though. The rules in this case add a qualifier (remember them? ).

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

If the shortest possible route means going towards the enemies table edge, so be it. The trapped rules simply say "Doubling back", which means retracing your steps exactly, not just moving in the same direction. See the picture on page 45 as well, which shows that the unit is 100% surrounded.

So, here are two nice images as examples.

In the first Image, the silly Girly Marines have lost and are running away. However, the Kunnin' Grots have surrounded them, leaving less than 1" between them (They are 1" range circles).

In this case, the Marines are Trapped and wiped out.


In this second image, one of the grots got lost on the way to the battle. As a result, there is a gap greater than 1". This means the Marines can fall back (ignoring the Ard Boyz, as per the rules for falling back), though that gap and then take the shortest route possible to their board edge.

I understand what you're saying, you're not really addressing my point.

My point revolves around this portion right here:

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

Emphasis mine.

Now, your emphasis is placed on the phrase immediately following the one I'm emphasizing, but I'd like to take a second and focus on the bolded bit.

A single "fall back" move is a single instance of movement, correct? So if you begin moving, and end your move no closer to your table edge than where you started, this particular instance of movement has failed to meet the requirements of "directly towards their own table edge," regardless of whether or not you're taking the shortest route. Therefore, I see it as an illegal move.

You seem to be interpreting the entire act of falling back over the course of several turns to be a whole "fall back" move, during which as long as you're attempting to move towards your own table edge, you're good to go. However, I see a single "fall back" move as an isolated instance of movement, where you must have moved, during that instance of movement alone, towards your own table edge by the shortest route possible. If you end your move further from your table edge than when you started, regardless of the shortness of the route, you have failed to move towards your table edge, and therefore it is an illegal move.

The thing is, if the most shortest, most direct route to your table edge means temporarily moving towards your enemies table edge, then by NOT doing that, you are breaking the rules!

No, I agree, but what that leaves you with is no way to do both. In some situations you cannot both move towards your own table edge AND move by the shortest route possible... no matter what you do, there is no legal move.

Therefore, the unit is destroyed - and that's why the rule works!

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?

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.

SaintHazard wrote:No, I agree, but what that leaves you with is no way to do both. In some situations you cannot both move towards your own table edge AND move by the shortest route possible... no matter what you do, there is no legal move.

Therefore, the unit is destroyed - and that's why the rule works!

That's not really true. That English sentence can be parsed such that "directly towards" refers to "shortest possible route" and not "their own table edge".

Since that reading of the sentence creates no contradictions, it's the one that should be used.

DarknessEternal wrote:
That's not really true. That English sentence can be parsed such that "directly towards" refers to "shortest possible route" and not "their own table edge".

Since that reading of the sentence creates no contradictions, it's the one that should be used.

Try looking up the dictionary definition of "direct" sometime.

There's the contradiction in YOUR interpretation. Moving away is not moving directly towards.

Its the "one-way street' problem.
You live in a neighborhood where every street is one-way. You friend lives just north of you on the same street which is one-way north. What is the fastest route to drive to get from your friends house to yours?
North then east, then south, then west, then north. This is the shortest route and fastest (in the US) due to all right turns.

helgrenze wrote:Its the "one-way street' problem.
You live in a neighborhood where every street is one-way. You friend lives just north of you on the same street which is one-way north. What is the fastest route to drive to get from your friends house to yours?
North then east, then south, then west, then north. This is the shortest route and fastest (in the US) due to all right turns.

That analogy isn't really applicable. We're not talking about one-way streets here. If you wanted, you could go the wrong way on a one-way street. Technically, doing so would be more direct. However, tabletops don't have local laws and law enforcement officers to keep you from doing things like that. So it's kind of a bad example.

SaintHazard wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Its the "one-way street' problem.
You live in a neighborhood where every street is one-way. You friend lives just north of you on the same street which is one-way north. What is the fastest route to drive to get from your friends house to yours?
North then east, then south, then west, then north. This is the shortest route and fastest (in the US) due to all right turns.

That analogy isn't really applicable. We're not talking about one-way streets here. If you wanted, you could go the wrong way on a one-way street. Technically, doing so would be more direct. However, tabletops don't have local laws and law enforcement officers to keep you from doing things like that. So it's kind of a bad example.

No, tabletops simply have the unwritten agreement that both players will follow the rules...

Gwar! wrote:No, tabletops simply have the unwritten agreement that both players will follow the rules...

And, as I said above, the rules do not say "you may end your move further from your table edge than where you started."

Again, you have to satisfy both requirements. The route you take must be the most direct route possible, and you must move towards your opponent's table edge. If you cannot fulfill both requirements with your "fall back" move, the unit is destroyed.

The "one way street" example is a bad example because there are no one-way streets, unless you and your opponent decide you have one. If you can legally move through an area, you can. Like I said, the example simply doesn't fit.

It depends on how you define how far away you are. Your models can't fly, so why would you measure "as the crow flies" rather than along the path they can actually travel? Shouldn't you calculate how far you are from your table edge using the shortest possible route by measuring the shortest possible route your models can take?

And, in that sense, they would always end up further along that route than when they started.

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.

Grakmar wrote:It depends on how you define how far away you are. Your models can't fly, so why would you measure "as the crow flies" rather than along the path they can actually travel? Shouldn't you calculate how far you are from your table edge using the shortest possible route by measuring the shortest possible route your models can take?

And, in that sense, they would always end up further along that route than when they started.

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.

That would work if the entire fall back move over the course of three or four turns was considered for meeting the criteria, but it's not. Each individual "fall back" move has to be treated differently - if it wasn't, you could never regroup. Each "fall back" move is a seperate instance of "falling back." At the end of each "fall back" move, you must be closer to your own table edge than you started, and you must take the shortest route possible to get there. If you cannot get closer to your table edge than when you started your move, you have failed in moving towards your table edge. There is no legal move, and the unit is destroyed.

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.

Gwar! wrote:Yes, the rules explicitly say you ignore the unit you are falling back from, so you can move "though" them.

Missed that bit

Regarding the main bit... i can see both sides points. Although Gwar's pretty pictures are compelling so are Saint's posts.

However, Direct definition is essentially "straight line or shortest course"
If possible, you head in a direct line towards your table edge, however if they is something in the way, you take the shortest course. The shortest course could end up being in the opposite direction, there is nowhere in that rule stating you must be closer to the edge from where you started (that i recall) but anyway, taking into account the distance the model has to physically travel rather than distance "as the stormboy flies" you are closer to your edge than when you originally started.

Another lame picture!

XX..............XX
XX.....ooo....XX
XXX...........XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

---------------------------(table edge)

X = impassable terrain
o = unit

The unit takes a casualty from (random long range projectile) and fails a morale test.
The unit falls back but rolls low.
The unit cannot fall back(down) as that is not a possible route, there is impassable terrain in the way.
The unit must fall back... forwards(up) and do around the terrain to reach the board edge.
Since the unit rolled low, they do not reach the edge of the terrain.

Either... A) The unit is now destroyed. They finished their move further away from the board edge than when they started.
or........ B) The unit is fine. Going forwards in this scenario is moving directly (straight line, shortest course) towards their table edge.

B is correct.

A. Because like I said, even though it did take the shortest route possible, it did NOT end its move closer to its table edge than it started.

You have to satisfy both conditions.

Did you end your move closer to your table edge than you started? Did you take the shortest route possible to get there? If the answer to either of these is no, it's an illegal move. If there are no available legal moves, the unit is destroyed. However, if you can say "yes" to BOTH of these, then you're good to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:B is correct.

B only fulfills one of the criteria, not both. You're ignoring that first criterion.

SaintHazard wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:
That's not really true. That English sentence can be parsed such that "directly towards" refers to "shortest possible route" and not "their own table edge".

Since that reading of the sentence creates no contradictions, it's the one that should be used.

Try looking up the dictionary definition of "direct" sometime.

There's the contradiction in YOUR interpretation. Moving away is not moving directly towards.

Yes it is. It's moving directly towards the shortest possible route. You keep thinking directly refers to the table edge, when it doesn't have to.

DarknessEternal wrote:Yes it is. It's moving directly towards the shortest possible route. You keep thinking directly refers to the table edge, when it doesn't have to.

By that logic, I can execute a "fall back" move in any direction I want.

I can run my units in circles around the table all day long until they finally regroup or, if they can't regroup, I'll keep running them around your units and using them to restrict your movement. They're a KP anyway, I may as well bend the rules to make them useful! Right?

You have to actually move towards your table edge. If you're not moving towards your table edge, you're not executing a legal "fall back" move.

That's why it says "towards their table edge."

SaintHazard wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Yes it is. It's moving directly towards the shortest possible route. You keep thinking directly refers to the table edge, when it doesn't have to.

By that logic, I can execute a "fall back" move in any direction I want.

I can run my units in circles around the table all day long until they finally regroup or, if they can't regroup, I'll keep running them around your units and using them to restrict your movement.

You have to actually move towards your table edge. If you're not moving towards your table edge, you're not executing a legal "fall back" move.

That's why it says "towards their table edge."

Wrong, because you are not taking the most shortest, most direct possible route.

The thing is, you ARE moving towards your own table edge, because that is the only possible way for you to do it.

Gwar! wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Yes it is. It's moving directly towards the shortest possible route. You keep thinking directly refers to the table edge, when it doesn't have to.

By that logic, I can execute a "fall back" move in any direction I want.

I can run my units in circles around the table all day long until they finally regroup or, if they can't regroup, I'll keep running them around your units and using them to restrict your movement.

You have to actually move towards your table edge. If you're not moving towards your table edge, you're not executing a legal "fall back" move.

That's why it says "towards their table edge."

Wrong, because you are not taking the most shortest, most direct possible route.

The thing is, you ARE moving towards your own table edge, because that is the only possible way for you to do it.

That's what I said.

Do I need to put "<sarcasm></>" tags around the sarcastic bits to make it more obvious?

For what it's worth, I agree with Gwar! The rule never defines "directly" as "must end closer to your board edge than you started" - only that you can't double back. The picture example of "trapped" given in the rulebook is pretty extreme - and while it doesn't explicitly state that you have to be surrounded to be trapped - neither does it clarify with any further conditions (like the ending closer to your board edge you are alluding to).

I don't think of falling back over multiple turns to agree with this view either - troop positions can change turn to turn, changing the "shortest route to your table edge" each turn.

I guess I see/play it as:
1) Is there a clear route (in any direction) to your table edge? If no, your are trapped - destroyed!
2) Determine the shortest route, and follow this for your fall back move (regardless of direction/ending point).
3) Repeat each turn until you rally, leave the table, or are destroyed (at step 1, or otherwise)

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...)