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.

Interestingly, the Falling Back rules grant the ability to break unit coherency.

The qualifier "by the shortest possible route" clears it up. If you can't move in one direction due to terrain or enemies, it ceases to be a possible route. Therefore, the shortest possible route could indeed be towards your opponents table edge.

Um.. isn't there a SM chapter that actually has a rule that forces them to "fall back" towards the enemy?

Kilkrazy wrote:So taking your example above, the next turn the red player moves his troops a few inches to the left. The shortest route home for the blue figure is now to move to the right and go between the reds and the rock.

This is doubling back, so he is destroyed.

Yes...if your troop have to move back to their original position then it's doubling back and they are destroyed. Are you saying that's not true?

helgrenze wrote:Um.. isn't there a SM chapter that actually has a rule that forces them to "fall back" towards the enemy?

Not quite. You're probably thinking of Templars. Just trust me when I tell you the rules in question there are different.

The rules for doubling back is naturally given per turn, although I will grant that it's not 100% clear.

Also, a unit that is boxed in in a very large box is hinted at that it's not destroyed, provided it doesn't need to double back - even if it doesn't have a route to the table edge. This is another point where the rules fail us.

Kilkrazy wrote:Interestingly, the Falling Back rules grant the ability to break unit coherency.

Page 45, right column, Trapped!, this section states that units falling back may move around obstacles by the shortest route and that they need to maintain coherency.

Also, a unit out of coherency can never regroup.

Wow, this took me forever to find for some reason. It's the YMDC poll which contributed to RB.45C.01 in the Adepticon FAQ about 'Trapped!' and falling back: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/219001.page

So, apparently, a shortest path move which happens to move away from the board edge is so abominable and counter to reason that it's listed as a permitted by way of 'clarrification' in the Adepticon FAQ.

Mahtamori wrote:The rules for doubling back is naturally given per turn, although I will grant that it's not 100% clear.

Also, a unit that is boxed in in a very large box is hinted at that it's not destroyed, provided it doesn't need to double back - even if it doesn't have a route to the table edge. This is another point where the rules fail us.

Kilkrazy wrote:Interestingly, the Falling Back rules grant the ability to break unit coherency.

Page 45, right column, Trapped!, this section states that units falling back may move around obstacles by the shortest route and that they need to maintain coherency.

Another part of the rule (I think it's p.45, left column) says that models (individually) must take the shortest route. With larger units being potentially spread out over a lot of territory, that clearly can lead to situations in which the shortest route would be different depending on a model's position. This would probably lead to breaking coherency.

Well, strictly speaking, a unit can't by itself go out of coherence when each model moves the most direct path and each model has the same move distance as the next, but the unit is under no obligation to maintain coherency unless they are forced to move around an obstacle. Additionally, if the table has no own table edge or if the owning player has a table edge that also contains one or more corners, then the unit may find that several models must move in one direction and several others in a different direction.

Take for instance a scenario where the defending player has no table edge. You've got a unit of 8 standing in a circle around the table's middle. 4 models are destroyed in shooting, every other model is taken as a casualty. The unit fails it's fall back, and each "models fall back towards the closest table edge instead". One model goes north, the other goes south, the third west and the last east. If either model must move around an obstacle, you've got a serious problem with the rules.

I think I have to disagree on whether it's possible for a unit to go out of coherency, or move to restore coherency as soon as possible.

The rules for unit coherency state that the unit must maintain coherency. A path which violates the rules for coherency is no more 'possible' than a path which would travel through impassible terrain.

Mahtamori, your scenerio seems to suggest that the remaining models are equidistant to their respective table edge. Given that most games are played on a 4x6 table, this would suggest that the unit was already out of coherency for the two models moving to the sides to be closer to those short edges than the twenty-four inches to the long edges.

The Saint is correct.

This is true, as falling back is not something permanent, and that lasts for the entire game. If the unit rallies the next turn, further from their own table edge, then they were not travelling towards their own table edge, and may have gained an advantage from something that was supposed to be a hindrance.

Tactically, you could use this to gain extra movement, especially with marines ATSKNF



It would also defeat the purpose and intent of the rule.

mulkers wrote:The Saint is correct.

This is true, as falling back is not something permanent, and that lasts for the entire game. If the unit rallies the next turn, further from their own table edge, then they were not travelling towards their own table edge, and may have gained an advantage from something that was supposed to be a hindrance.

Tactically, you could use this to gain extra movement, especially with marines ATSKNF



It would also defeat the purpose and intent of the rule.

With all due respect, I totally disagree.

Using it for a tactical advantage to move forward would mean that you'd have to be set up in such a way so that you're surrounded completely on 3 sides, leaving only the direction towards your opponents board edge. That is not all that likely to happen in a real game, and very difficult to intentionally set up.

Also, why do you measure distance from the board edge as a straight line? You can't travel that path, so why are you measuring it that way. It's like if I ask you how far you are from the nearest large city. You don't pull out a map and draw a straight line, you put it into Google which returns a value traveling along roads, i.e. avoiding impassible terrain.

I don't think it defeats the purpose and intent of the rule. The old rules were very clear in how a unit falling back got destroyed. All you had to do was have a unit between them and the board edge in a straight line. GW intentionally changed that rule so that the unit falling back moves around any enemy unit. This must mean their intent was to make "trapped" results much more difficult to achieve compared to old rules. Personally, I prefer the old rules, but that's not the issue here.