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.

The Deceiver has a special rule that allows it to fallback at the beginning of an opponents assault phase.

 

Question 1:  Is the Deceiver destroyed if it is "Trapped!" and forced to double back during it's fall back.

Question 2: Does the Deceiver need to regroup if it is falling back (I know he is fearless, but the falling back and regrouping seem to imply that all units falling back need to regroup).  If so, can one prevent it from rallying by keeping models within 6" of it? 

 

Question 3: Assuming the Deceiver regroups (or auto regroups) after the fall back, is it prevented from moving and assaulting the turn after it uses it's "fallback" move?

If he's fearless he'll never fall back. Ever.

Um, Zubbie, it's not a fallback caused by some enemy action, it's a special rule where he takes a fallback move to avoid getting assaulted.  I can't see any reason why he wouldn't be subject to all the normal fallback rules unless they fixed it in a FAQ.

Uhh, this is ugly... I think 3rd edition rules have run smack into the wall of 4th edition.

I'd summon Yakface if I could...

The Deciever's rules specify that his fall back may be made in any direction. However, if he were subject to being trapped, I would also think he would be destroyed. But at that rate, it would be smarter for the Necron player just to leave the Deciever in combat and not make the fall back move.

But, if the Deciever makes the fall back move without being trapped, there is nothing that indicates that he wouldn't be subject to the normal restricitons for regrouping. So if he falls back 6" and the enemy consolidates 3", I'd think he'd remain broken and have to move up to 6" in order to regroup, effectively preventing him from regrouping. At this point, have the 58 point Rhino escort him off the board. If the Deciever was assaulted he would regroup, but short of that, I don't see why he would.

So, if this is the case, I can't ever imagine why you would want to make this fall back. I don't see anything in the v.4.01 FAQ that would make me think otherwise.

Which makes me think that there's a rule wording problem here. The Deciever's fall back rule reminds me more of the Jump Back rule that Callidus assassins have, or Hit and Run for Seraphim, but the wording of the rule doesn't make this distinction. I am having a hard time imagining that the writers intended for the Decieiver not to be able to regroup and be escorted off the board in this manner, but unfortunately, I must concede that RAW seems to indicate that this could happen under the present ruleset.

The Deciever may: "make a fall back move in any direction".

That is quite a different concept than actually falling back. I don't see any reason why he would have to regroup as he is not actually falling back, he's just making a fall back move.

However I would indeed concur that the Deciever could be "Trapped!" if he couldn't complete his fall back movement in any direction without doubling back. However, that situation should be pretty easy to spot, so why would the owning player choose to fall back in such a circumstance?

Posted By yakface on 07/20/2006 8:50 AM

The Deciever may: "make a fall back move in any direction".

That is quite a different concept than actually falling back. I don't see any reason why he would have to regroup as he is not actually falling back, he's just making a fall back move.

However I would indeed concur that the Deciever could be "Trapped!" if he couldn't complete his fall back movement in any direction without doubling back. However, that situation should be pretty easy to spot, so why would the owning player choose to fall back in such a circumstance?

 

That makes more sense.  Since there's no leadership check needed as specified for on page 48 of the BGB to make the fall back, it would seem that the Fall Back section of page 48 of the BGB would also not apply. So assault away? 

"I'd summon Yakface if I could..."

you're good!

If a Deceiver uses it's fall back move is it falling back? Assuming the the answer is yes.

Other than the fact that it can be any direction, I see little in the rules to indicate that the Deceivers fallback is not subject to all the other rules in the BTB,

Then on page 49, under regrouping, which only occurs if a unit is falling back. A unit falling back can attempt to regroup...

So as far as I can tell the deceiver is falling back and can attempt to regroup if the conditions are met. If the Deceiver can't meet the conditions he can't regroup and must continue the fall back.

Assuming the the Deceiver is elligible to regroup, he will autopass the leadership test as he is fearless and get to make a conslidation move only.

If we can agree with the wording on the bottom of page 48 that deceiver is "falling back" and can be trapped.

Then it is a bit harder to argue that a unit "falling back" doesn't have to rally as per the bottom of page 49.

D'oh! I stand corrected.
Stupid Deciever tricked me again!
I'll get him next time... next time.

"Make a fall back move in any direction..."

This is basically hit and run except the Deceiver only uses 2 dice. He is fearless so he cannot actually fall back. Heres a question. A Chaos unit falling back comes within 6 inches of a dirge caster mounted on a vehicle. The unit becomes fearless, do they stop running? It looks like a new errata is being made. We might have the answers very soon.

Actually fearless units can fall back. The rules for fearless state only that they never have to. I never have to eat peas that doesn't mean I can't eat peas.

The Deceiver is not hit and running, hit and run happens at the end of the assault phase, and no where is it described as fall back move.

The real question is, if a unit makes a fall back move, is it falling back? If so such a unit is subjected to all the fall back rules unless otherwise stated. Fearless only allows such a unit to auto pass leadership checks, but if such a unit is not elligible to take a leadership check it can't auto pass it.

Being a necron player myself, I have never had this come up,  but it is interesting. I don't believe that the Deceiver is falling back.

Yes, it is making a "fall back move", but in the BGB is this is defined as a 2d6 move.

The Deceiver is not usinng "hit and run", it is using the "misdirect" power. That has not been mentioned here.

I don't "feel a fall back move" is "falling back" because a " fall back move" has a specific definition (moving 2d6) while "falling back" has another

The deceiver also makes this " fall back move" in any direction it likes, further breaking the "falling back" rule (towards a certain deployment zone).

The words "fall back move" are being used out of context in this case by picking them out of the "misdirect" rule.

Just my opinion.

When is the only time you make a "fall back move"? When you're "falling back". All this rule does is make it so that the move is made in a direction chosen by the controlling player. The rest of the rules still apply.

I don't believe it is a fall back move either, but the text of the Necron codex, at least as we have it, seems to indicate that the Deciever is making a fall back move.  And I suppose that the act of the fall back move could also be termed falling back.

I believe the Deciever's fall back move is intended to work more like Jump Back for the Callidus assasin, but because the entry uses the words fall back and because fall back is defined in the BGB on page 48, I feel that that without more, you'd have a hard time arguing that the Deceiver is not bound by the rules for Fall Back on page 48 simply because the Codex rules say you are making a fall back move and the only apparent modification to that fall back is that you can make it in any direction while the BGB specifies that it must be towards the closest point of the player's board edge.

If we buy into RAW, I think that at that you'd also have to be subject to rules for regrouping (page 49), because we don't have any rule that I'm aware of that gives the Deciever the ability to regroup after making a fall back move when there is an enemy unit within 6 inches of the Deciever after he has made a fall back move. 

And at this point, I think that if you actually had a Deciever who did this, rolled low on 2d6, by the rules we have, that once he fell back, if the unit he was fighting consolidated towards him, and stayed within 6" of the Deciever, they could then escort him right off of the board just like any other unit that was subject to regrouping.  So Deciever would need at least a 9 or better on 2d6 to get far enough away so that the enemy couldn't move within 6".

Which if this is all true, makes Fall Back a useless ability.  And I don't believe that GW would intentionally write a rule for a unit only to make it useless.  I guess that's really more an assumption made on faith more than anything else.  I do believe that GW could certainly write such a useless rule through incompetence or lazyness.

And that's why I think it's an example of 3rd edition language that's messed up by 4th edition rules and or Dakka style RAW interpretation.

*******

So what would I do?

If I were a tournament judge, I'd say that it works like Jump Back.  You couldn't jump into any position that's occupied by another model, and you'd be able to jump back and then move/assault in the next Necron phase.

And it's pretty sweet to see A.J. from Mad-Town on the boards.  Go Bucky's chef!

A unit can make an 'assault move' without actually assaulting, as it may roll too low to assault through difficult terrain.  In the same context, I think the deceiver can make a fallback move without falling back.

- Oaka

This is ridiculous.

No one has yet to prove that making a Fall Back move is the same thing as the same thing as (the state of) Falling Back.

Units can obviously be in the state of Falling Back as there are rules for Falling Back units shooting and/or getting assaulted, two actions that clearly don't occur at the same time the unit is physically making a Fall Back move. In fact, the only reason a unit need regroup once it enters the state of Falling Back is because of this rule on page 48:

"Units make a Fall Back move upon failing a Morale test, and in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table."


This obviously does not apply to the Deciever in this circumstance as he hasn't failed a Morale check, he has just made a Fall Back move. So I say again: The Deceiver is just making a Fall Back move, but he is not in the state of Falling Back. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he would need to regroup after making this movement.

Posted By yakface on 07/21/2006 8:46 AM

This is ridiculous.

No one has yet to prove that making a Fall Back move is the same thing as the same thing as (the state of) Falling Back.

Units can obviously be in the state of Falling Back as there are rules for Falling Back units shooting and/or getting assaulted, two actions that clearly don't occur at the same time the unit is physically making a Fall Back move. In fact, the only reason a unit need regroup once it enters the state of Falling Back is because of this rule on page 48:

"Units make a Fall Back move upon failing a Morale test, and in each subsequent Movement phase until the unit regroups or leaves the table."


This obviously does not apply to the Deciever in this circumstance as he hasn't failed a Morale check, he has just made a Fall Back move. So I say again: The Deceiver is just making a Fall Back move, but he is not in the state of Falling Back. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he would need to regroup after making this movement.

I buy your interpretation. I also think this should be in your FAQ project.

The way I see it most Necron players take advantage of positive aspects of a fall back move, such as being able to move thru the unit assaulting the deceiver but not the negative aspects such have to regroup or only being able to consolidate in the following round.

If the Deceiver?s ?fall back move? is just a 2d6 movement in any direction and not a true fall back, then I should be able to prevent it by just surrounding the Deceiver as rules for falling back don?t apply. Regular movement does not allow him to pass through my unit.

If it is a fall back, than all default rules for fall back that are not superseded by the Deceivers special rules should be followed. The Deceiver needs to regroup; if he can regroup he only consolidates.

I think that the key here is that the regroup tests are not a condition of the fall back move itself, but of the previously failed morale test.

Failing a moral check makes a unit fall back. Regroup doesn't apply to failing a moral check but to falling back.

How you reach the falling back condition isn't really relevant to the regroup portion of the rules, all that matters is that a unit is falling back.

From Lord_sutekh: When is the only time you make a "fall back move"? When you're "falling back". <?

 

Another time you make a ?fall back move? is when you ?Misdirect? as in this case.

 

A ?fall back move? is a 2d6 move, that is all.

 

Let?s look at this in gameply: necrons vs some marines

 

Example 1: Necron turn, the deceiver uses?misdirect?, makes a ?fall back move? of 5? and stops. The marines can only consolidate 3?

 

Now the marine turn starts, the deceiver cannot move, and so is assaulted.

 

Seems fine to me. (why the deceiver would leave combat, I don?t know, but it?s the necron players choice.)

 

Example 2: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:place>Inn</st1:place> the marine turn the deceiver uses ?misdirect? and makes a ?fall back move? 5?. The marines can only consolidate 3?

So by the logic of some arguments here the deceiver would then have to regroup?(regrouping happens at the beginning of the turn, even if automatic) Now it can?t move because regrouping counts as movement.

 

Why would GW even publish this rule if the deceiver could never do anything after it uses ?misdirect? It becomes quite useless.

 

?Misdirect? is a rule printed in the necron codex with it?s own definitions

 

?Fall Back!? is a rule in the BGB with it?s own definition.

 

Just because two words are the same in the DESCRIPTION of ?misdirect? as an actual rule in the BGB why are the two rules suddenly combined?

 

Both these rules provide different concepts used in gameplay.

 

It?s like saying that space marine scouts benefit from the ?scout? USR  just because they are called scouts. When in fact, only space marine scouts on bikes benefit from the ?scout? rule.

 

I still feel this is a case of picking two words out of contexrt from the ?misdirect? rule and using them to add additional restrictions onto a fearless god.

 

From brother Tiberius - So what would I do?

If I were a tournament judge, I'd say that it works like Jump Back.  You couldn't jump into any position that's occupied by another model, and you'd be able to jump back and then move/assault in the next Necron phase.

And it's pretty sweet to see A.J. from Mad-Town on the boards.  Go Bucky's chef!

 

Thanks man, I don?t post on these boards too often , but I just had to defend my necrons

 

From Brother Tiberius-And that's why I think it's an example of 3rd edition language that's messed up by 4th edition rules and or Dakka style RAW interpretation.

 

From yakface-This is ridiculous.

No one has yet to prove that making a Fall Back move is the same thing as the same thing as (the state of) Falling Back.

 

I agree.

Example 1: Necron turn, the deceiver uses?misdirect?, makes a ?fall back move? of 5? and stops. The marines can only consolidate 3?

You can only use the misdirect ability during the beginning of your opponents assault phase.

Why would GW even publish this rule if the deceiver could never do anything after it uses ?misdirect? It becomes quite useless.

The unit assaulting the Deceiver is no longer locked in combat and can be shot at by the rest of the army.

Just because two words are the same in the DESCRIPTION of ?misdirect? as an actual rule in the BGB why are the two rules suddenly combined?

No one has yet to prove that making a Fall Back move is the same thing as the same thing as (the state of) Falling Back.
I agree

I am not definitively saying the Fall Back move and ?Fall Back? is the same thing. Although one can argue that they are.

But if they are different, then the rules for Fall Back don't apply to "misdirect" as such the deceiver can't pass through any of enemy units during the misdirect move. As such if a unit surrounds the Deceiver, he can't misdirect as he has no clear path to move along.

You can't pick and choose the aspects of the Fall Back rules that are to your advantage. Either it must be played as 2d6 movement in any direct with all the relevant rules and restrictions or a 2d6 Fall Back in any direction with all relevant rules and restrictions.

Either way, it is still a good ability, just not the uber ability that it is being played as currently.

Anytime a "fall back move" happens, you can pass through enemy models involved in the combat. That's what a "fall back move" is.

Otherwise anytime a group of models that had to fall back when they were surrounded by enemies involved in a combat would be destroyed. Then there would be no sweeping advance in those situations? Is that what you are saying?

"You can't pick and choose the aspects of the Fall Back rules that are to your advantage. Either it must be played as 2d6 movement in any direct with all the relevant rules and restrictions or a 2d6 Fall Back in any direction with all relevant rules and restrictions"

Perhaps I need English lessons, but this just doesn't make sense to me....

I am not picking and choosing aspects of different rules. I am using the "misdirect" rule. This rule includes a "fall back move" which is defined in the BGB.

 

Now I don't have the necron codex in front of me, but I beleive that the Deceiver can use midirect in any assault phase.

Wouldn't the Immune to Natural Law ability allow the C'tan to walk over the enemy models involved in the combat? So if you just use the fact that you get a 2d6 move in any direction i guess all the other rules of fall back can be ignored.

GW rules are unnatural laws.

This rule includes a "fall back move" which is defined in the BGB.

Care to quote the definition of "fall back move" as oppose to falling back from the BGB. On page 48 they seem to be used interchangeably. If you end up agreeing that they are the same then look at regrouping rules which require a falling back unit to regroup before it can do anything.

Wouldn't the Immune to Natural Law ability allow the C'tan to walk over the enemy models involved in the combat

I don't think so, I thought all it did was allow the ctan to ignore terran.

Care to quote the definition of "fall back move" as oppose to falling back from the BGB. On page 48 they seem to be used interchangeably. If you end up agreeing that they are the same then look at regrouping rules which require a falling back unit to regroup before it can do anything.

Do you concede that there is both "falling back" in terms of movement (typically 2D6") and "falling back" in terms of the status of a unit? Because those have to be two different things. Even though it isn't defined in the rules a unit has to be considered "falling back" even when it isn't physically being moved 2D6" (otherwise there is no way to assault a unit that is "falling back" or no reason to have rules for units that are "falling back" being able to shoot).

If you can grasp the difference between the two, then you can understand that a Fall Back move is a move that is made by units that are "Falling Back".

So do all "Falling Back" units make Fall Back moves? Absolutely.

Does that mean any unit making a Fall Back movement is automatically considered to be "Falling Back" (in the state of "Falling Back")? Nope. A unit must fail a morale check as described on page 48 in order to continually Fall Back each turn. In special circumstances (such as with the Deciever), a unit would make a Fall Back move and then be done with it.

Even though it isn't defined in the rules

I can agree with this portion of your sentence.

So do all "Falling Back" units make Fall Back moves? Absolutely.

Or a unit that makes a Fall Back move is "Falling Back".

Neither "Falling Back" nor "Fall Back move" is fully defined in the BTB. "Fall Back!" has it's own section, if a unit is "Falling Back" or making a "Fall Back move" the only defined rules that can be followed are all the rules of "Fall Back!" section (unless a more specific rule over rides specific portions of those rules).

Your arguement would be stronger if the BTB defined a specific term called "Fall Back Move", but it doesn't, it only defines "Fall back!"

If a unit is Falling Back it needs to regroup, the rules don't say if a unit fails it's moral check and is falling back it needs to regroup, the only condition is that a unit must be falling back.