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.

I have been debating this with actual rules, therefore according to you my position is not moot. I have provided my side of the argument with a direct word for word interpretation that you actually helped support by answering a question earlier. How is my position absurd if it follows the letter of the rules when your position doesn't follow the letter? Spirit maybe but not letter.

Mine follows the exact letter, as has been pointed out many times now.

Your position ends up requiring taking a definition of "full fall back" and making it a mandatory addition to the rule.

If you cannot move, you cannot complete a full fall back move. You're dead.

Again you are forgetting 3 words in the rule. If the rule was written the way you are saying it works it would be written more like this "If the unit cannot move the full fallback distance, and it may not double back to do this" but that is not how it is written. It is written in such a way that an argument such as mine can be made and be completely accurate with the letter of the rule. I agree that the spirit of the rule matches more to what you are saying but the letter of it is a different matter. In regards to the being mounted though I still believe that one should involuntarily disembark and maybe even be forced to make a pinning test at the end of that move because of it basically being a emergency disembark but as I have said there exist no rules that actually cover this issue.

Saiisil wrote:Again you are forgetting 3 words in the rule. If the rule was written the way you are saying it works it would be written more like this "If the unit cannot move the full fallback distance, and it may not double back to do this" but that is not how it is written..

Why write it like that when they can save some space and write it out as something like "If the unit cannot perform a full fallback move in any direction without doubling back"?

Happyjew wrote:Why write it like that when they can save some space and write it out as something like "If the unit cannot perform a full fallback move in any direction without doubling back"?

Write it the way I suggest to reduce the amount of player interpretation and reduce the chance of two different interpretations that both can be claimed to be right in the RAW but are completely different from each other but equally correct.

Why the way it is written is perfectly clear. If you cannot make a full fallback move, you die. They added in without doubling back so people wouldn't go, "I move 2 inches forward, 2 inches back" and claim they've "fallen back". If you can't move, you're destroyed as you can't make a full fallback move without doubling back.

Yet they only separate with a comma which creates a clause and that clause is without doubling back, because of that it isn't as clear cut as you and nos are saying it is.

Also consider this, when in multi-level ruins or buildings if a unit fails it's test and only rolls a 2 they are unable to move down a level, according to what you are saying they would then be destroyed.

Yes it IS that clear cut. Without doubling back requires that you still make the full fall back move, they are both requirements on not dying. Not fulfilling the first kills you as surely as the second does.

Yes, of course they are destroyed - they cannot make a full fall back move, so are destroyed. Not difficult is it.

It is not 2 separate requirements the way it is written as I have stated more then once. Therefore not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Can the unit make a full fallback move without doubling back? No. If you cannot move more than 0" you are not making a full fallback move without doubling back.

No, it is that clear cut, you just stubbornly cling to an interpretation that treats a secondary requirement that defines what "makoing a full fall back move" means as a separate condition, such that if you dont fulfill both you are somehow safe

Absurd position to take based on a complete twisting of the language to read something entirely different to reality.

Yet you are not doubling back either which is a part of that whole not a separate part of it. I can agree to disagree on this but the apparent disrespect that nos is providing has me wanting to quite this discussion.

You are not required to ALSO have doubled back. Thats where your argument is just plain wrong.

Theres only so many ways to say it.

So you're saying that if I surround your unit with all my models 1.0000000...01" away you're unit is not destroyed as they cannot move?

Yes, that was the exact situaiton I posited and apparently Salisil does think that such an absurd position is correct.

@Saiisil.
Let's create another rules:
You have to speak specific sentence without staggering or you don't get a cookie.
If you don't say anything what is the result?

You have to hit a tree with a ball without hitting nearby car or you will get penalty.
If you don't throw the ball what is going to happen?

You get into Guinness book of records if you juggle for an hour without dropping anything.
If you sit an hour on the couch drinking beer will you get your prise?

Every time second condition is not even needed. It's restriction to the first condition.