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.

Rymafyr wrote:Part of the problem, or so I guess, is just using the limited info provided at the start of the post by Yak. This is hard to do when there is little 'context' to draw from.

For some reason I thought we were limited at using just the info provided, I've re-read the post and deduce that I was hallucinating.

Taking things in 'context', with the other rules surrounding it, makes things clearer for me. So I'll stick w/ my choice.

Lambadomy, you give a great example, so does Yak's first picture. However, units falling back from assaults can move through the unit they were just in close combat with. Without being destroyed and despite not having a 1" space to move through.

Now if it's falling back from shooting, we still have the discussion open I think.

The diagram wasn't supposed to represent models locked in combat, hence none of the models were in base contact with each other. I've revised the wording in the original post to make it clear that they have failed a morale check from suffering shooting casualties.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface:

What about the diagram provided with the rule? That seems quite clear. Surrounded on all sides? Yes? Then the unit is destroyed. Otherwise, run for it.

No doubt that the diagram provided in the rulebook clearly shows a situation in which the falling back unit is completely surrounded. What it does not do is help to show exactly what the authors mean by "doubling back" which is the most vague part of the rule. I know this because I've run into game situations where people's understanding of exactly what is meant by the term differs, as we can see from the split vote in this thread.

"Double back" is a general idea. It can mean to retrace one's steps exactly, or it can mean to head back the same direction one just traveled. Exactly how that concept applies to making a fall back move is ambiguous, at best.

Therefore, the author should have included two diagrams, one showing a unit completely surrounded (as they did) and another diagram similar to the one I made which would have clearly explained what they meant by doubling back in this case.

Does anyone have Alessio's home phone number? That would solve this quick!

Nurglitch's diagram is wildly inaccurate, so I have corrected it. The units has to fall back towards the table edge first, until it reaches 1" from the enemy models, then it has to stop and start heading back the way it came. That is why it meets the requirements for doubling back.

Thanks for the clarifications Yak, I've changed my mind. B is RAW since they can make their fallback move completely. I hate when it takes me so long to see something so obvious :/

Yakface:

To double back is to retrace one's path. A unit could, if they could double back, be completely surrounded and survive by doubling back constantly to use up their fall back movement and not actually change position via movement.

As party of my diagram shows, a unit that returns to its original position has doubled back.

But units that are falling back are not only prohibited from doubling back, but they are also permitted to move indirectly towards their own table edge.

Hence Doctor Thunder's mangling of my diagram thoroughly misreads the rules. A unit that is falling back is specifically prohibited from engaging in moving towards their own table edge, doubling back, and then taking the shortest indirect route to their own table edge.

This combination of permission to move away from their own table edge where conditions apply, where they must take the shortest possible route and not double back, means that the diagram provided shows the necessary and sufficient conditions for such a unit to be destroyed.

This combination specifying the shortest possible route means that doubling back, in the context, should not be ambiguous to anyone with an education in basic geometry, the 12+ age group that the game is directed at.

That is also why the diagram provided in the book is clear, because it agrees exactly with the text. There is no shortest route to their own table edge, direct or indirect, because all routes are cut off. They cannot use up their fall back movement doubling back. They are destroyed.

In your own diagram, Yakface, there is a route that the Orks can follow that they can fall back along, and that route, the shortest possible route, is indicated by the arrow in each diagram. They do not move directly towards their own board edge, they cannot double back, and hence they are not destroyed.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface:

To double back is to retrace one's path. A unit could, if they could double back, be completely surrounded and survive by doubling back constantly to use up their fall back movement and not actually change position via movement.

As party of my diagram shows, a unit that returns to its original position has doubled back.

First off, I want to say that I agree with your interpretation and that is how I choose to play.

However, to double back doesn't always mean to literally retrace one's steps. I can also mean to reverse direction, even when taking a different path. Often in stories and movies (mainly westerns) people who have been traveling North across a mountain will say stuff like:

"We'll double back through the canyon and ambush 'em."


They mean that since they've been traveling North they will now head into the canyon and reverse direction (go back South) to get behind the people that are tailing them. In this case they aren't literally retracing their steps but simply changing direction.

Again, to 'double back' is very loosely defined and its usage in this situation causes honest confusion as shown by the large split in the voting.

Regarding the "Trapped!" diagram on p. 45 of the rulebook, do people actually think that GW has added superfluous units to the diagram in question? Because if they haven't, they're showing a picture of the minimum conditions required to trap a unit.
And if you think there are unneeded units in the diagram, why do you think GW decided to add them there? After flicking through the rest of the rules, I haven't spotted any other instances of extra units in the clarifying diagrams.

I think B is the correct ruling.

Hi.
I play option B.
The movement you may not 'double back' in is limited to the 'fall back ' movment .As this ONLY applies to this particular fall back movment, due to the structure of the rule layout IMO.
If it applied to the 'general direction' of all movment then most units falling back would be 'doubling back' on previous turns movment directions and count as trapped -doubling back -destroyed!

As 'fall back' movment IS allowed to manouver around terrain and other units ( friendly and enemy), ONLY if the unit falling back cannot move the full distance in ANY direction.(Not necissarily towards its own table edge /deployment zone.) Would it count as
trapped-doubling back -destroyed.(Maintaining unit coherancy and obeying other movment restrictions during this fall back movment obviously.)

@ Nurglitch

So, you are saying that as long as you don't travel exactly the same line in one direction as you did the other, that you are not doubling back.

Following your logic, if there is a route that my unit can take to run in a circle around an enemy unit, and end up in exactly the same position that they started in, that's fine, that's a valid fall-back move. What if my unit can move along a line at a 30 degree angle to the table edge for 3 inches, and then head in the other direction, although at a 32 degree angle to the table edge? That's not the same line as they took going forwards, so it's not doubling back?

I don't buy it. Going back to where you started, even via a slightly different route, is doubling back. You are required to fall back towards your own table edge. If you're forced to move away from your table edge, then you're going to have to double back as soon as you head back towards it.

I play (and voted) B for two simple reasons:

The "any direction" clearly means you can move contrary to a normal fallback move if your way is blocked. I measure the movement rolled to see if they could move in their normal fallback direction without encountering impassible terrain or friendly models, or coming within 1" of enemy models, if they cannot they must move their full move in any direction to avoid being "Trapped".

The diagram clearly shows that the Grots are destroyed because they are literally "Trapped" by several enemy units and some terrain (who the hell uses that many resources to kill off 5 Grots?!).

How are you trapped with an open escape route?!!!

What the rule does not say:

You can fall back in any direction

What the rule does say:

If you can't make the full fall back move in any direction without doubling back you are destroyed.

G

Exactly, so the Orks can mae their full fallback in the direction shown by the arrow.

Yup. As I said, the only proviso I could see is that the move has to finish with them as close to their table edge as possible. Ergo, in the illustration, they have to sweep round the terrain, rather than just leg it into the open.

doc I hadn't looked at it from the way you explained.

if they were exactly 1" away from the firewarriors, I think B would apply. but since they have to start their move towards the board edge and have room to do so, their direction is set. once they start moving in that direction they cannot make a U turn so are wiped out

NaZ

the grots in yak's picture cannot move through the enemy unit since they failed their check in the shooting phase... they are destroyed.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:double back simply means to head away from the intended direction (i.e., your own table edge) so from which direction you last came has nothing to do with it really. I know it's tough way to lose a unit but those are the rules as they stand now.

G

Sorry. Definition fail.

"To head away from the intended direction" is to detour. Doubleback is to go back the way you came.

EDIT: Spelling correction.

B all the way.

I think the intention of the rule is to avoid a situation where a unit must fall back 6", and they only have 2" room to retreat, so they go 2", then retrace their steps 2", then 2" back again (or the aforementioned circular route back to their start point). You must move your full fall-back amount, in as direct a line as possible.

Agreed with Lord Hat. My bad. Still I go with A.

G

I see I was quoted... but the operative words are "by the shortest POSSIBLE route."

The blocking unit makes the shortest possible route to go away from my board edge to get around the obstacle.

It is not POSSIBLE to go towards the blocking unit to get get to my board edge.


Before someone says," ahh you could head towards the blocking unit at least 1" then you would die because you doubled back."

Replace the blocking kroot with an impassible piece of terrain. Make the cliff a V or L shape and then tell me because the base of the hill has 1" that I can move toward my board edge I must take that and therefore die on the double back rule.

The only issue I have with the current argument for A - You have to move towards your table edge by the shortest possible route, interpreted to mean that you start moving towards table edge, encounter an opponent, and then have to turn around and are destroyed - Is that this is not the only definition of "shortest possible route". If I KNOW I have to move 8", and that 4" directly towards the table edge is as far as I can go without being blocked...I'm not going the shortest route. The shortest valid route is actually going around, since the other route doesn't get me anywhere. Movement (to me) is something that is done as a whole action - you move the distance you've moved. No different than the old circling rules or what it would take to have a vehicle count as "cruising" or "combat" speed. Nothing indicates that you have to break your movement into parts - it's one 8" move in the best legal direction.

To those who chose A because the unit falling back has to move first towards the table edge, then double back and are destroyed as a result.

I think this is the wrong interpretation for two reasons:

1) Directly towards does not necessarily mean "in a straight line" or "in the direction towards". It can also mean that one does not deviate from the path towards the intended target. Since the only possible path for the Orcs in yaks example begins by running away from their own table edge it can be thought of as directly towards. As an real life example, I can say that I will be heading directly towards a mountain in my car but the road leading there is by no means straight nor always taking me in the direction of the mountain.

2) The rules clearly state that the unit must head towards the table edge by the shortest possible rout. In the unit starts by running towards the table edge and then "doubling back" it is not traveling the shortest distance. A move of this kind is therefor illegal to begin with and can not be based as an argument in interpreting the rule.

Regarding the "Trapped!" diagram on p. 45 of the rulebook, do people actually thing that GW has added superfluous units to the diagram in question? Because if they haven't, they're showing a picture of the minimum conditions required to trap a unit.
And if you thing there are unneeded units in the diagram, why do you think GW decided to add them there? After flicking through the rest of the rules, I haven't spotted any other instances of extra units in the clarifying diagrams.

I have to agree with this point. Why would they show the most extreme possibility when trying to explain the rule? If the conditions for trapped could be met under easier circumstances surely they would have shown that as the example. It is similar to explaining multiple combat with a diagram of 10 units fighting instead of only 3.

Directly will always be a straight line unless something intervening blocks that route.

G

vote A

read a lot of comments about it not being a doubling back but thats not the point ...

RAW (and as i'd play it)
'Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their table edge by the shortest possible route.'

... so we're heading for the table edge...

'If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed'

models in the unit can move any way that is not away from their own table edge as this would be doubling back

So, what the "double back" argument leads to, the Kroot in Yak's example AND the terrain would be unecessary. All you would need would be the Fire Warriors. The Orks would fail their test, move to 1" away from the FWs and then change direction to get away from them "doubling back" since they already moved towards the table edge.

The only distinction is exactly how much of a change in direction would entail "doubling back".

This is obviously contrary to the RAW and RAI.

I still don't see why, if option A were the right answer, they would specifically state "in any direction". Seems to me that is says that so you can see if you can move your full fallback in any direction then mvoe them in that direction. If you can move your full fallback towards the table edge then you must abide by the fallback move rules.

B, forever B!

your candor is inspiring. By the vote it's still up in the air though. Probably this is a good one to discuss with an opponent before tossing any dice.

G

Glad to inspire you, GBF...a fellow BnBB.