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.

A situation came up in a tournament recently that in hindsight seems like it should have been handled differently, but time was short and fast thinking lead to me accepting what I think was an improper interpretation of the rules. The rule in question is that if the Deceiver is assaulted by a unit, he may use his Misdirect ability to leave combat via a fall-back move in any direction.

Here is the text of the rule:
Misdirect - If in close combat during the enemy Assault phase the Deceiver may choose to leave close combat before blows are struck. Make a fall back move in any direction; the enemy may only consolidate. The Deceiver will leave an illusion in its wake to occupy and frustrate its enemies.

The situation:

I had two units holding an objective in the center of the board, and the Deceiver was about 5-6" away from the objective with 1 wound remaining. One unit assaulted the Deceiver with furious charge in hopes of either destroying him (and likely them in the process) or holding him away from the objective. The controlling player instead chose to use Misdirect to get out of combat. He rolled a 2 for his fallback distance, but moved directly toward the objective. He didn't have enough movement to get clear of combat in that direction so he cited that in the rulebook it says to increase the distance until the model falling back can be placed more than 1" away from all enemy models.

My beef is that he had a clear path to retreat in another direction. He was not completely surrounded, and could easily have moved backward 2" and been out of combat. The player chose to move toward the objective, thus requiring that the distance be increased. It just seems a little shady that he can choose to move in a direction where the distance is insufficient to allow him to clear combat when another direction is possible.

It looked something like this:

D = Deceiver
A = Assaulting Unit
B = Defending Unit
O = Objective
Arrow = Direction of fallback move

..DD
..DD
AA|AAA
AA|AAA
...\|/
..OO
..OO
BBBBB
BBBBB

With a 2" move, the Deceiver could not advance toward the objective without needing to increase the distance a significant amount. He could move away from the objective in almost any direction and make it out of combat with the 2" move.

So I guess the question is this: Does the wording of the Deceiver's Misdirect ability (...in any direction) allow him to choose a direction where the distance rolled would not let him leave combat without increasing that distance per the fallback rules in the rulebook? If yes, then why? If no, then why? If it falls into a gray area, how would you call it as a TO and why?

That move resulted in a loss instead of a draw or a potential win, so I just want to make sure it was on the up-and-up and see how people feel about it.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Isn't a fall back move typically in the direction of your board edge though?

Not for the Deciever- He has an exception to the rule under his Misdirect ability

Kevin949 wrote:Isn't a fall back move typically in the direction of your board edge though?

typically yes, however the Deciever has the rule where he can fall back in any direction, not just in the direction of his board edge.

The fall back move in any direction is just that, a 2D6 fallback move in any direction.

So he rolls his 2D6 moves in a straight line any direction he wishes, but not through impassible terrain etc. and he is done.

The Sisters of Battle Seraphim squad have a similar ability they can fall back in any direction after combat.

Yes, he can choose to fall back "through" enemy models, and if he doesnt roll high enough would, as per the BRB, increase the distance required. Enemy models are the exception to "not through impassable terrain" as well.

Yep as Che-Vito said it is legal, on pg45 of BRB under 'falling back from close combat' it does state if he would end up within an inch of your men he can extend the fall back move until his unit is clear and since the Deceiver can fall back in any direction he can choose to go over your men and place him further to be an inch away.

Ya, I glanced over that part in his post apparently. What I get for reading late at night.

Yeah the general opinion seems to be as I though, that it's legal. It still seems really shady though, and almost like an exploit of a loophole in the rules that needs errata. Oh well.

The Necrons Codex is in dire need of an update or errata.
Misdirect is the least of its troubles :(

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:The Necrons Codex is in dire need of an update or errata.
Misdirect is the least of its troubles :(

+1 to that