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 did a quick search and didn't find anything like this. Sorry if this has been asked before.

So i was playing a game the other day , Eldar vs Tau. My banishes had his Commander suit pinned against the edge of the board in close combat. The other guy wanted to fall back by moving to the left and putting him on the other side on my banishes. I didn't let him since as far as we could tell falling back has to be straight back and this includes flyers. He argued that since his commander has the flyer rule that he should be able to move over my units.

So basically, do flyers use there movement rule during falling back in such a way as to move over enemy units.

Flyers can move normally during fall back and there is no 'straight back' to consider. Models can go in any direction as long as they would be able to move that way in the movement phase. Including needing a place to land legally.

There is no requirement for Falling Back to actually be "backwards."

On many occasions I've seen units "fall forward" when able to do so, including running little circles around enemy models and terrain to get free or running a little squiggly between enemy models if they don't have a way to go over them (e.g. fly!)

Falling back is simply a regular move that has to end outside of 1'' of any enemy unit. Flyers in general may ignore models as long as they end up not being on top of another model once their move finishes.

*edit* The only limitation when it comes to moving is that you can't Advance when you're falling back.

There is much Irony that Games Workshop have created a game in which 'Falling Back' often involves aggressively going forward, and 'Advancing' does not ever have to involve any actual advancing and [At least if you're playing Tallarn AM] is often Falling back...

WOW! Thanks guys for the response. And for how quick they where.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
There is much Irony that Games Workshop have created a game in which 'Falling Back' often involves aggressively going forward, and 'Advancing' does not ever have to involve any actual advancing and [At least if you're playing Tallarn AM] is often Falling back...

Alternatively:

There is much irony in people reading too much into the names of rules rather than what they actually abstract, including Falling Back being a shorter way of saying "Disengaging from Close-Quarters Engagement To Continue the Battle, Including Perhaps Advancing Towards the Enemy" or Advancing instead of "Moving Faster In A Direction of Your Choice Than Would Be Allowed By A Normal Walking Speed"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
There is much Irony that Games Workshop have created a game in which 'Falling Back' often involves aggressively going forward, and 'Advancing' does not ever have to involve any actual advancing and [At least if you're playing Tallarn AM] is often Falling back...

Alternatively:

There is much irony in people reading too much into the names of rules rather than what they actually abstract, including Falling Back being a shorter way of saying "Disengaging from Close-Quarters Engagement To Continue the Battle, Including Perhaps Advancing Towards the Enemy" or Advancing instead of "Moving Faster In A Direction of Your Choice Than Would Be Allowed By A Normal Walking Speed"

*cough* Who remembers the Grinding Advance rule discussion?

nekooni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
There is much Irony that Games Workshop have created a game in which 'Falling Back' often involves aggressively going forward, and 'Advancing' does not ever have to involve any actual advancing and [At least if you're playing Tallarn AM] is often Falling back...

Alternatively:

There is much irony in people reading too much into the names of rules rather than what they actually abstract, including Falling Back being a shorter way of saying "Disengaging from Close-Quarters Engagement To Continue the Battle, Including Perhaps Advancing Towards the Enemy" or Advancing instead of "Moving Faster In A Direction of Your Choice Than Would Be Allowed By A Normal Walking Speed"

*cough* Who remembers the Grinding Advance rule discussion?

There needs to be a facepalm emote, but yeah.

GW could do a better naming of their abstractions, and people could understand that sometimes an abstraction does more than just what the name implies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There needs to be a facepalm emote, but yeah.

GW could do a better naming of their abstractions, and people could understand that sometimes an abstraction does more than just what the name implies.

You mean that one?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
There is much Irony that Games Workshop have created a game in which 'Falling Back' often involves aggressively going forward, and 'Advancing' does not ever have to involve any actual advancing and [At least if you're playing Tallarn AM] is often Falling back...

Alternatively:

There is much irony in people reading too much into the names of rules rather than what they actually abstract, including Falling Back being a shorter way of saying "Disengaging from Close-Quarters Engagement To Continue the Battle, Including Perhaps Advancing Towards the Enemy" or Advancing instead of "Moving Faster In A Direction of Your Choice Than Would Be Allowed By A Normal Walking Speed"

*cough* Who remembers the Grinding Advance rule discussion?

There needs to be a facepalm emote, but yeah.

GW could do a better naming of their abstractions, and people could understand that sometimes an abstraction does more than just what the name implies.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There needs to be a facepalm emote, but yeah.

GW could do a better naming of their abstractions, and people could understand that sometimes an abstraction does more than just what the name implies.

You mean that one?

I don't even see it in the little bar next to me because of the ninja emote being so distracting.

me

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There needs to be a facepalm emote, but yeah.

GW could do a better naming of their abstractions, and people could understand that sometimes an abstraction does more than just what the name implies.

You mean that one?

I don't even see it in the little bar next to me because of the ninja emote being so distracting.

me

Sounds like the ninja emote is a really bad ninja then

nekooni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There needs to be a facepalm emote, but yeah.

GW could do a better naming of their abstractions, and people could understand that sometimes an abstraction does more than just what the name implies.

You mean that one?

I don't even see it in the little bar next to me because of the ninja emote being so distracting.

me

Sounds like the ninja emote is a really bad ninja then

Quite so...

These game rules are a near-complete CF.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
These game rules are a near-complete CF.

M.

They're not. They're really not. Don't let internet hyperbole tell you they are.

You don't have to fall back in any specific direction anymore, you just have to disengage from enemy models. It's more like a hit and run than a fall back.