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.

If a unit is falling back and are out of coherency can they run in the shooting phase to get back into coherency? As I know the reg rules say if you are out of coherency you have to use all your movement to get back - even running.


Thanks,

Kezzman wrote:If a unit is falling back and are out of coherency can they run in the shooting phase to get back into coherency? As I know the reg rules say if you are out of coherency you have to use all your movement to get back - even running.

Run moves when falling back must be made towards your table edge.

Correct, but if you could move backwards (at full speed) while getting into coherency, that would be legal.

so if I have a unit that is out of coherency and have to fall back, do they go in a straight line back to the table edge or can they join coherency as they are falling back?

Yes you have to run straight back, but there are things you can do. For example, you can't run through your own, or an enemy unit. Or impassible terrain.

Bearing this in mind, you can "block" the unit that's retreating with one of your own, so that the front guys have to move around them in order to continue running. This will mean they move less towards the table edge, and give the stragglers a chance to catch up with the unit.

You don't have to move in a straight line towards your table edge when falling back, you just have to take the shortest route.
This might mean moving away from your table edge to go around impassable terrain.
And falling back units may choose to run, but it will be towards their own table edge as normal.
Refer to pages 45 and 46 BRB.

A unit that was falling back could move closer together by angling their movement. That's about as good as you can get in terms of satisfying the need to move back into coherency and and move as far as possible towards your table edge.

Page 46 just says that any Run moves made by a unit which is Falling Back must be made toward your own table edge; it doesn't say "as far as possible".

If it did, angling the Run would also be illegal (unless there was something blocking the straight move), as any deviation from a straight line wouldn't be as far as possible.

So as long as the Run move takes you closer to your table edge, there should be no problem using it to restore coherency.

Interesting.....I over looked that note on running in the BRB.....

pg. 45 says "fall back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route." So isn't angling the Run illegal?

Edit. upgraded my reading skills and I see where it says "or run" on pg 46

kmdl1066 wrote:pg. 45 says "fall back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route." So isn't angling the Run illegal?

Now look under 'Trapped!' which gives models falling back permission to move around obstructions like impassable terrain or friendly or enemy models.
The shortest possible route may not be the straightest, just has to be the shortest 'possible'.

Agree with you totally.

Mannahnin said:

Mannahnin wrote:If it did, angling the Run would also be illegal (unless there was something blocking the straight move), as any deviation from a straight line wouldn't be as far as possible.

Which is what i was trying to understand. His statement implies that you can angle your run even if there is nothing blocking the straight move.

What I'm asking is if the rule about units running while falling back on pg 46 supersedes the more prescriptive rule that says fall back movement must be directly towards the table edge.

forkbanger wrote:A unit that was falling back could move closer together by angling their movement. That's about as good as you can get in terms of satisfying the need to move back into coherency and and move as far as possible towards your table edge.

This is probably the way to play it. P. 45 says "fall back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route."


It says the shortest possible route. You would still have to try and restore unit coherency on your fall back move right?

Because under unit coherency it says ' the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase.' P.12

So you would have to still follow the rules for unit coherency, and you would have to, in your fall back move, try to restore unit coherency?

That is the way it seems to read to me.

Here's a follow up question - could you choose to run some models in the unit and not others? If your forced to move each model the full run movement, then it won't help you get back into coherency, as they will still be the same distance apart.

Further question: Say you had two space marines broken, with a distance of 4" between then. They would never be able to regroup, because they can't ever get within 2". What if you moved the back model the full 6", and then in the interest of not breaking coherency only move the front model 4", leaving them 2" apart?

I brought the rule up with my play group and here is there response;

"Its a weird rule, but I believe its pretty clear. Since the newest FAQ in which it references that it follows the normal rules for "Falling Back" as per the main rulebook. So that being the case, the models would need to move towards the table edge taking only the shortest route possible, which is strait back. Moving models closer towards each other would be shaving a half or maybe a quarter inch from whatever roll you made and thus not the shortest route.

If that were not the case, technically you could run d6 inches directly to the left or right and only moving towards the table edge by a mere 1/8th of an inch and still technically be closer to the table edge. This run move could also place you say in front of terrain such as a vehicle, in which case would slow your fallback move even more in your next movement phase. This tactic seems just seems like a rule bending way to stay on the board as long as possible, and doesn't fit how the rule should be used.

Its a silly rule, but referencing "Fall Back" (page 45) makes it pretty clear in my mind for RAW, so no regroup would be my judgment call."

Seems to go against what most were saying on here. Any help to keep the argument alive is appreciated as I think they should be able to run into coherency.

The FAQ references jump pack infantry which are not specifically mentioned in the Fall Back section. So that type of movement would have to be directly towards the table edge.

But running is specifically detailed in the Fall Back section, and the only restriction mentioned for running is "must be towards their own table edge." And if I understand Mannahnin correctly, this replaces the restriction on pg 45.

So by that reading you could RUN d6 left or right and only move 1/8th of an inch towards your table edge and be okay by RAW. While any other type of non-movement phase movement would still have to obey the "direct" restriction.

I retract my previous position, and I'm going to agree with Kezzman's group.

The rule for running while falling back (on p.46) is nonspecific, which MIGHT mean that you could Run in a direction that's not directly toward your table edge, thus allowing you to restore unit coherency or pull shenanigans like Kezzman described, moving 1/8th of an inch toward your edge while moving 6" laterally to be blocked by another unit, thus keeping the unit on the table longer.

On further reflection, I don't think that's the intent, and I agree that the FAQ ruling on page 2 of the main rulebook FAQ makes it clear- it tells us that movement outside the movement phase by a unit which is Falling Back must obey the Fallback rules for direction. So that restricts running, just as it restricts Jetpack jumps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

forkbanger wrote:A unit that was falling back could move closer together by angling their movement. That's about as good as you can get in terms of satisfying the need to move back into coherency and and move as far as possible towards your table edge.

This is probably the way to play it. P. 45 says "fall back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route."


It says the shortest possible route. You would still have to try and restore unit coherency on your fall back move right?

Because under unit coherency it says ' the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement phase.' P.12

So you would have to still follow the rules for unit coherency, and you would have to, in your fall back move, try to restore unit coherency?

That is the way it seems to read to me.

I don't think that works, though, because the Fall Back rules (p.45) specify that "each model falls back directly toward their table edge by the shortest possible route." Since the Fallback move requires each and every model to fall back the rolled distance, units out of coherency are screwed; unless you can interpose another unit in the way to force them to move around in such a manner that they necessarily bunch back up.