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.

Great Avatar if you want to play the rule differently amongst you friends, go right ahead, your private game, your rules. But if you try it at GT or Tourney, you are cheating, and if your opponent actually knows his rules you are in for a rude awakening.

I'll address this just one more time since you insist on making this personal now.....

You are mixing up how the terms are to be used. By the RAW, MODELS are engaged in combat while UNITS are locked in close combat (page 38, top half of the, BGB). The lower half of page 38 described what models are eligiable to fight. It also states units that do not have models engaged in combat (due to initiative assaults) are still locked in close combat. Page 38 also describes close combat as fighting. As I previously pointed out, once two units have models engaged in combat, the rules state they are fighting. There is nothing in the rules that states models have to actually assault to have be fighting. I can't find it anywhere in the BGB particularly page 38. The only reference you have given me is "read page 38" "it's stated on page 38" etc.

Page 39 does detail which models strike first. Remember, these are models previously defined as fighting. Well, when a unit is engaged in combat with the Deceiver (fighting) and uses Misdirect, the Deceiver gets to go first and his first action is ... make a Fall Back move. If you continue reading page 39 you will find the following:

A model will only fight if it is still engaged when its Initiative rank is call.

Well, there ya go. The rules state the Deceiver can disengage from an enaged combat (fighting) by making a Fall Back move through the unit it was fighting (fought) with. I don't see how I'm cheating since this appears how the rules are written. Remember, the Deceiver is not Falling Back! just making a Falling Back move, thus is not subject to the Trapped! rule anyway.

In the future, if you have a problem with me personally, please PM me instead of blasting me in public. I play by the rules to the best of my ability. Do I make some mistakes, sure. But I don't appreciate being called a cheater when I provide all the references to the interpertation of the rules as I understand them.

tga.

Units which fail to complete a Fall Back move are Trapped, (it's nothing to do with Falling Back, it's to do with not completing a Fall Back move) BUT, the Deceiver isn't making a Fall Back move since a Fall Back move is towards your home table edge and the Deceiver can move in any direction.

Where this leaves us I don't know. Could GW have screwed it all up by bad definitions again?

Let's face it, the rules are fku'dup, as the Tau would say.

Do you have clue what a tense is? Specifically what past tense is?

Fighting, can fight, etc are not the same as fought. Fought signifies that they have already done the act of fighting. Fighting is distinct from engaging, you engage as soon as you are in BtoB. The rulebook tells you which units can fight pg 38, but that is not relevant, what is relevant is when they fight, this is covered on page pg 39. Your unit has not fought (completed the act of fighting) until its initiative rank comes up, no if and or buts about it. It is a single sentence in the rulebook, there is no way in hell you can interpret it differently. (This is what leads me to be suspicious of your motivations)

When the units initiative rank comes up it can choose to pick its nose for all that matters, but after that point it has fought (completed the act of fighting).

The line on page 39 clearly says that a unit fights at initiative order. I guess you believe the unit that has already fought (completed the act of fighting) fights (does the act of fighting) yet again when its initiative rank comes up? There is absolutely nothing on page 38 that indicates when a unit has fought(completed the act of fighting); all it states is who can fight (can do the act of fighting). The WHEN part is the relevant issue and it is cover on pg 39.

Page 39 does detail which models strike first. Remember, these are models previously defined as fighting.

No it tells you when a unit fights. You are replacing the word fight with strike in the second paragraph. These types of shenanigans do not help your argument. The text says FIGHT. They are not already fighting; the text tells you when they fight.

Well, there ya go. The rules state the Deceiver can disengage from an enaged combat (fighting) by making a Fall Back move through the unit it was fighting (fought) with

Again, pg 38 tells you who can fight, this not the same as fought, engaged is not the same as fought(completed the act of fighting). When a unit fights is on page 39. Also it does not say he can move through a unit that it was fighting, but instead it says fought (completed the act of fighting). Either you don't know what a tense is, or you choose to ignore it, which is it? I know what I suspect.

We have been going back and forth about this for many posts, are you actually going to counter any of these points or simply refer to the can fight reference on pg 38 again? I addressed the arguments you have made, you have not done the same.

I did not call you a cheater, I did say that if you knowingly miss-play a rule you will be cheating. See that tense thing mentioned at the start of the post comes up again.

A=B, and B=A if the only mention of B is in A. B is not described anywhere else besides A. B is not described in C, so A doesn't = C, and B doesn't =C. Therefor.... using logic, falling back= making a fall back move, making a fall back move= falling back,  making making a fallback move doesn't equal moving normally and neither does making a fall back move. A unit must test for regrouping if making a fall back move, otherwise, the writers of the codex would have said, the deciever has hit and run, but they didn't, and the way yall are reading the rule, the deciever has hit and run, which he doesn't.

Oh, and page 30 of the Codex: Necron, under the rules for Misdirect, never says that the deciever auto regroups and is done making fall back moves.

@Angron:
Uh, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to explain. I've already stated Falling Back! requires the unit to make a Falling Back move. However, the Falling Back! rule does not state a unit making a Falling Back move is Falling Back!. A unit is only Falling Back! if it fails to make a Morale test. The Deceive is Fearless and the Misdirect special ability doesn't require a Morale test so how can the C'Tan ever be Falling Back!?

The Falling Back! section includes rules to determine when a unit is Falling Back! (failing a Morale test) and what to do when Falling Back! (perform a Fall Back move). In addition, the Falling Back! section details what happens if a Falling Back! unit cannot complete its Falling Back move. The Codex: Necron is just using the defintion of a Fall Back move to indicate the type movement the C'Tan can use. That's it. Anything else is reading way to much into it.

OK, I think I finally have this figured out.....

 

Using the misdirect rule, the deceiver makes a "fall back move".

A " fall back move " has a specific definition in the BGB, which is 2d6, and disengaging from the current combat. It doesn't say anywhere that because a model makes a "fall back move" this imbues the condition of "fall back!"

The deceiver is fearless, which also lends a hand to the equation.

The deceiver can only use the misdirect rule in the enemy assault phase.

OK, after reading the fearless rule, models which have this USR do not HAVE to fall back, ever.

So let's look at this in a game turn.

It's  the enemy assault phase, and some marines assault the deceiver.

The deciver, using misdirect, makes a fall back move and rolls 2d6 for a 7" move.

Now this is where, technically, the deceiver could be "trapped!" and destroyed. If there was no way for the deceiver to travel it's 7" fall back move (this would only by being surrounded by enemy models, C'tan can float above impassable terrain) then I do beleive a deceiver could be destroyed. But it would have to be somthing like this(pardon my sloppy graphic):

                                          
              0 0 0
             0     0
            0    m  0
           0  mDm 0
            0    m  0
             0      0
              0   0
               000

 m=marines, D=deceiver, 0=other enemy models 

            Therefore, the deceiver would be trapped if the "other enemy models" had the combat including the deceiver and marines completely surrounded, but that is the ONLY way it would be destroyed.

So then you say "well the deceiver made a fall back move and has to continue to fall back until it regroups"

wrong, the deceiver is fearless, so once it make it's initial " fall back move" it doesn't have to fall back any more, because it is fearless. It never has to make a check to regroup. It doesn't suddenly become permanently affected with the condition of "falling back", because it is fearless.

To me, it seems to be clear at this point. Tau-cent, I hope I have changed your mind on this (note that I am agreeing on the "trapped" aspect of your argument), But if I havn't, and we were ever to meet at a tournament, and this situation just happened to come up, I am VERY confident a judge would rule in my favor.

It is unfortunate I had to very carefully read through two seperate rules areas in the BGB just to use a C'tan special ability, but after thinking about it, i guess that's just typical these days when you play 40k.

 

 

 

 

@Wretched_Malediction
If the Deceiver is not Falling Back! then how can he be Trapped!? There is nothing in the rule book about a unit that cannot complete its Falling Back move that is not Falling Back! Granted, the Deceiver in your example is completely surrounded twice over but, as you detailed, the Deceiver is not Falling Back! so if he doesn't complete the Falling Back move so what?

@TheGreatAvatar

Being "trapped" occurs when a "fall back move" cannot be completed. If a deceiver decides to exercise the option of using a "fall back move" when another full unit surrounds his combat, then he may have to suffer the consequences.

Personally, I don't believe that anything from "fall back!" applies to the deceiver or his "misdirect" power. But my whole argument was to stop Tau-cent from using the "fall back!" rule to say the deceiver could be run off the table, had to continue falling back, etc.

By following a strict RAW approach, I had to concede that the deceiver could techncally be "trapped!" and destroyed, but ONLY if the combat he was involved with was surrounded by another enemy unit.

Frankly the situations where this would actually arise would be very rare. But, if I was in a very competitive situation(like a big tournament), I might have to make my case to a judge or an opposing player.

This is where, by RAW, that someone could get me on a technicality. I personally do not appreciate when people abuse RAW, I also refer to it as "rules lawyering". In the end, I guess it's not against the rules, but it seems a shady way to play the game(dirty pool, old man).But rules lawyering is a subject for another thread, another time.

I really only responded to this thread because I play necrons and enjoy using the deceiver so much. It has been implied in this thread that necron players are abusing the "misdirect" rule, so I felt a response was warranted.