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.

So the rules say that you must restore unit coherency as soon as possible in the movement phase.

So if I am falling back towards my table edge and i am out of coherency ,I must try first to restore my coherency and then move toward the table edge with the rest of my movement ( example 3 marines are falling back one is 5 " away behind them,I roll 8" to fallback/Must I move them in coherency and then move 3-5" to my table edge,or they can not restore unit coherency when they are falling back)

I'm going to allow my opponent to attempt to restore coherency, but I'm also going to say that the model closest to the table edge has to move the full distance towards the tablle edge. Use the second and third etc models to bridge that chain between the two elements of the unit. Seems the best compromisee between the two requirements to me.

The faq does not mention anything


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So...someone else? opinions? Faq,other debates,it's a big deal,really

If you're out of coherency when you fall back, you're going to remain out of coherency unless some obstruction forces the models back together as they move.

Basically, the Fall Back rules over-ride the normal movement rules, and require each model in the unit to move directly back towards the table edge by the shortest possible route. So the only way the models can legally do anything other than move directly back towards the table edge is if they have to go around something in the way.

usa_supersonic wrote:Must I move them in coherency and then move 3-5" to my table edge,or they can not restore unit coherency when they are falling back)

No, you must move them directly to their table edge by the shortest possible route.

They do not need to move to restore coherency.

In fact, if they are falling back and are out of coherency, that is one of the conditions that will prevent a falling back unit from attempting to regroup. (page 46 main rules)

@usa_supersonic:

Page 46, 2nd paragraph. It says, troops that are falling back can Run. I've used the Run to gain coherency in those 'stretched' situations to gain the last bullet item (coherency) to be able to Regroup.

BRB pg. 12 "....the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore coherency..."
The models 'must' move back into coherency.
Models falling back move as shortest 'possible' route.
The Coherency rules are more specific in this case.
The only rules changed by fall back are the direction, the distance and no difficult terrain test.

SeattleDV8 wrote:The only rules changed by fall back are the direction,...

Which is the whole point.

Fall Back over-rides the normal movement rules. You can't move back into coherency, because you are required instead to move directly back towards your table edge.

Also, you roll 2D6 for the unit, then you move each model that distance.

So if the models in the unit started out of coherency, after each was moved the same distance towards the table edge, they would still be out of coherency and therefore unable to attempt to regroup.

Remember, the unit makes a fall back move "instead of moving normally", so you folllow the rules for the fall back move.

It is not normal, or regular movement.

Brothererekose wrote:@usa_supersonic:

Page 46, 2nd paragraph. It says, troops that are falling back can Run. I've used the Run to gain coherency in those 'stretched' situations to gain the last bullet item (coherency) to be able to Regroup.

Q: When a model that can move outside of the
Movement phase, for example jet pack infantry, is
falling back, can it use this move? (page 45)
A: Yes, though it must follow the Fall Back! rules to
determine the direction it will move in.

Does this FAQ not mean that movement outside the movement phase must still be directly towards the table edge? Or are you saying that the slightly looser language used to talk about running while falling back still provides a loophole?

Once you start to fall back and are out of coherency, you will always be out of coherency. You are unable to move any direction except straight back barring an obstacle, so you are unable to get back into coherency.

-cgmckenzie

You can, however, use your own units to force the falling back unit back into coherency.

kmdl1066 wrote:
Does this FAQ not mean that movement outside the movement phase must still be directly towards the table edge? Or are you saying that the slightly looser language used to talk about running while falling back still provides a loophole?

Last sentence under 'Firing While Falling Back' top left of page 46 main rulebook, "They may of course choose to run instead of firing, but if they do so it must be towards their own table edge."

So the direction is still set by rule.

"They may of course choose to run instead of firing, but if they do so it must be towards their own edge."

Note it does not say that you have to run directly towards the table edge. Which is what I presume Brothererekose is using as a loophole to regroup by running while falling back.

I read the FAQ as saying that movement outside the movement phase should be directly towards the table edge. But I could see an argument that all it says to use the fall back rules for movement outside the movement phase. And the fall back rules say that running must be "towards" not "directly towards."

Edit: Super Ninja'd by Timewizard answering the question while I was still asking it!

cgmckenzie wrote:Once you start to fall back and are out of coherency, you will always be out of coherency.

Unless you use 'Run' to have the trailing models catch up to the leads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kmdl1066 wrote: ... Which is what I presume Brothererekose is using as a loophole to regroup by running while falling back.

This part is correct, although I wouldn't call it a 'loophole', so much as a rule that provides extra movement, which a smart player uses to regain coherency.

When you make a fall back move, you move each model in the unit 2D6".
Nothing allows you to hold back the distance any model moves.

Would be the same for running.

You roll a D6 and that is the distance the unit will run towards their table edge.

Nothing allows them to move less than the full distance of for some models to move slower or faster than other one.

Right, but if I don't have to run directly toward the table edge I can run each model at a different angle as they run towards the table edge. And that way I can change the distance between the models.

If you run in any direction other than dierectly towards your table edge, then you are not running towards it.

When you make a fall back move, you are permitted to move around obstructions.

These could be impassable terrain, friendly units and enemy units.

So you could choose to run seeing that there are these types of obstructions to try to get your models back into coherency.

But if there were no obstructions, nothing gives you permission to move individual models different distances when falling back.

time wizard wrote:If you run in any direction other than dierectly towards your table edge, then you are not running towards it.

That's a weak argument.

If i move at a diagonal towards the table edge I am clearly heading towards the table edge and at no point in my move am I heading further away from the table edge or even remaining the same distance from the table edge. I am just not heading towards the closest point on the table edge.

I think it's firmly in the loophole territory and I wouldn't do it. But I don't yet see how it would be against RAW.

Move straight back. The only way to change that it to have something in the way. Otherwise you are breaking the rules

-cgmckenzie

How? For running it doesn't say that you have to run straight back or directly towards or by the shortest move or anything like that. It just says run towards the table edge.

You're going to have to convince me that towards = directly towards. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so considering that in both common language and geometry they are not the same thing.

I don't have my BGB with me(at work) but you have to fall straight back. Running is still falling back, so straight to the board edge, not at an angle.

-cgmckenzie

"They may of course choose to run instead of firing, but if they do so it must be towards their own edge."

See the loophole?

kmdl1066 wrote:"They may of course choose to run instead of firing, but if they do so it must be towards their own edge."

See the loophole?

"Troops who are falling back may continue to shoot..."

So the unit may shoot, but it is still covered by making fall back moves.

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

Loophole closed.

Fall back move =/= run move.

Fall back must be made "directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route."

Run only has to be "towards their own edge."

Notice the difference?

Ah, okay. I see how the FAQ closes the loophole.

"In each subsequent Movement phase, they will make further fall back moves instead of moving normally.."

Then running is not during the Movement phase, so it's not a fall back move.

But then the FAQ says that movement outside the movement phase must still follow the Fall Back! rules, which makes running a fall back move and so must be directly towards the table edge.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmmm. The FAQ does not distinguish between the over all Fall Back! section and the smaller subsection immediately under the Fall Back! header . So technically the allowance for running to be "towards their own table edge" instead of the more restrictive "directly towards" is within the Fall Back! section.

I think the intent is clear, but I'm still unconvinced that I have a RAW argument against someone who wants to run at angles while falling back.

As you said, the FAQ is the last proof.

Q: When a model that can move outside of the
Movement phase, for example jet pack infantry, is
falling back, can it use this move? (page 45)
A: Yes, though it must follow the Fall Back! rules to
determine the direction it will move in.

Is running a move outside of the Movement phase? Yes, it's in the Shooting phase.

Does the unit that runs still have to follow the Fall Back! rule to determine direction? Yes.

And that direction would be "...directly towards their own table edge..."

I would say that the Loophole in the run-can provide some argument,but everybody knows it's cheese .
But i have to admit that the Loophole it's not against RAW,but we all know there should be an errata or a FAQ about this

time wizard wrote:As you said, the FAQ is the last proof.

Q: When a model that can move outside of the
Movement phase, for example jet pack infantry, is
falling back, can it use this move? (page 45)
A: Yes, though it must follow the Fall Back! rules to
determine the direction it will move in.

Is running a move outside of the Movement phase? Yes, it's in the Shooting phase.

Does the unit that runs still have to follow the Fall Back! rule to determine direction? Yes.

And that direction would be "...directly towards their own table edge..."

It seems I missed that FaQ.

So you can not run to restore coherency.

time wizard wrote:When you make a fall back move, you move each model in the unit 2D6".
Nothing allows you to hold back the distance any model moves.

Would be the same for running.

You roll a D6 and that is the distance the unit will run towards their table edge.

Nothing allows them to move less than the full distance of for some models to move slower or faster than other one.

Here's your flaw, TW. In a 'Run', you *can* move all, some or none of the models, as much as the Run roll allows. The only thing that limits a Falling Back unit when using a 'Run' is the specifically stated constraint of its direction (towards the tabel edge). Unless, TW, I missed something on page 45 or 46.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:So you can not run to restore coherency.

You can, but it is situation specific.

Brother Bob, lugging his plasma cannon, ended up far away from his two battle brothers after some wyches schooled 'em in h2h. The boys retreated. Bob is the "B" and the other SMs are the "X"s.

..B..............X..X

Given this scenario, with the table edge being the bottom of our webpage, Bob is screwed, as the Run won't allow for lateral movement, needing a rhino or something else to cause some angularity to Bob's route.

Same orientation, different layout, with Bob's brothers *ahead* of him by about 6 inches.
...B
.
.
.
.
.
X...X

Now, roll the "run". Get a 3. Bob heads toward the table edge, the bottom of our webpage. His fellow SMs don't need to move at all.
...B
.
.
X...X

Not in coherency yet. Maybe next turn. So, it can be done, but it's gotta be like the second situation.