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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

The only permission in that sentence is for non-falling back units. There's no permission (or compulsion) for falling back units.

In that sentence yes but in the first sentence of that paragraph falling back units are given permission.

Citation needed, because I do not see where falling back units are allowed...

Did that even make sense when you wrote it? Asking for a citation on a citation???

Read the first sentence of the paragraph or check on the numerous times it has already been quoted.

Basically at the moment your entire argument is based on taking half of an entirely irrelevant sentence out of context...

Let's for a minute assume that the sentence didn't mention falling back units so instead it read:

"A unit that is descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level, rather than making a Difficult Terrain test"

Would a falling back unit be able to use that rule? No because they never take difficult terrain tests and therefore would never be able to elect to avoid one. So the part about not falling back is functionally redundant in this sentence and thus this sentence is entirely irrelevant to the argument.

I've shown permission for falling back units I've shown your attempt at denial is irrelevant now state some actual relevant rules that deny a falling back unit the ability to jump down.

The first sentence of the paragraph is all well and good, but it does not say that [Falling back units may leap sown] No matter how much you think it does...

You have not shown permission for a falling back unit to leap down. If I missed it please quote it again.

The first sentence clear states: "If a unit is in the upper floors of a ruin and wants to get down, the model can ALWAYS jump down".

Emphasis mine. So we know from this ANY unit including fall back units can have their models jump down. Now find denial of that permission.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The first sentence clear states: "If a unit is in the upper floors of a ruin and wants to get down, the model can ALWAYS jump down".

Emphasis mine. So we know from this ANY unit including fall back units can have their models jump down. Now find denial of that permission.

And the second sentence clarifies that the unit must not be falling back.

It is really that simple.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The first sentence clear states: "If a unit is in the upper floors of a ruin and wants to get down, the model can ALWAYS jump down".

Emphasis mine. So we know from this ANY unit including fall back units can have their models jump down. Now find denial of that permission.

And the second sentence clarifies that the unit must not be falling back.

It is really that simple.

Where in the 2nd sentence does it deny permission? As you once again quote an entirely irrelevant rule that can not have anything to do with units falling back as I've illustrated. Unless you're claim units falling back can take difficult terrain tests. In which case I'll need a citation.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The first sentence clear states: "If a unit is in the upper floors of a ruin and wants to get down, the model can ALWAYS jump down".

Emphasis mine. So we know from this ANY unit including fall back units can have their models jump down. Now find denial of that permission.

And the second sentence clarifies that the unit must not be falling back.

It is really that simple.

Where in the 2nd sentence does it deny permission? As you once again quote an entirely irrelevant rule that can not have anything to do with units falling back as I've illustrated. Unless you're claim units falling back can take difficult terrain tests. In which case I'll need a citation.

1) it does not give permission for a unit that is falling back in the sentence you quoted.

2) "A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level" (99) There is the rule on who may elect to leap down.

How can you say that a unit that is falling back can leap down when the rule specifies that a unit can not leap if it is falling back?

Who can always elect to leap down?
Non-falling back units.

Do falling back units ever have permission? I haven't seen it cited and I don't see it in the rules.

1) So falling back units cease to be units now? Citation please.

2) That is an out right lie. Please rescind that statement that has been demonstrably proven false.

How can you say that a unit that is falling back can leap down when the rule specifies that a unit can not leap if it is falling back?

Citation as no such rule exists.

Do falling back units ever have permission? I haven't seen it cited and I don't see it in the rules.

Check the quotes provided on this page or go to page 99 you want the 1st sentence under the title "Jumping Down". Glad to clear that up for you.

they ignore diff terrain,

but there is still 3" of terrain to move through to get down, difficult or not, between ruins levels, and you have to move through that 3", so yes, you do take of 3" per ruin level, when falling back,

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) So falling back units cease to be units now? Citation please.

2) That is an out right lie. Please rescind that statement that has been demonstrably proven false.

1) it does not specifically...

2) How can you say that when I have provided evidence?

Are you trolling at this point? I really do not get it.

This: "A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level" (99) Is actually a rule on who may elect to leap down, all in black and white text. Not sure where you are going with this.

1) Falling back units are units so they are covered.

2) You're cropping an irrelevant sentence and trying to apply a blanket restriction from a restricted permission. Which I've already explained.

So we know from the first sentence that falling back units can always jump down if on a higher level of a ruin. And we know that the sentence that talks about units avoiding a difficult terrain test is not relevant for falling back units (as they never take difficult terrain tests). So where is your denial of the permission given?

 FlingitNow wrote:
2) You're cropping an irrelevant sentence and trying to apply a blanket restriction from a restricted permission. Which I've already explained

So we know from the first sentence that falling back units can always jump down if on a higher level of a ruin. And we know that the sentence that talks about units avoiding a difficult terrain test is not relevant for falling back units (as they never take difficult terrain tests). So where is your denial of the permission given?

The explanation does not override the fact that it restricts it to units that are not falling back.

It is a restriction.

"A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level, rather than making a Difficult Terrain test." (99)

A unit that is not falling back can... This means if you are falling back you can not.

It is also because units that fall back do not make DT tests and use a random distance for their movement.

As Rig said: "Who can always elect to leap down?
Non-falling back units."

The way we've alwayd played it was the unit must fallback usinh the vertical distance. But if the fallback distance is not enough to make it down a level, for instance they roll a 5 on a two level ruin, then they have to jump so they can finish thier whole fallback distance.

The explanation does not override the fact that it restricts it to units that are not falling back.

It is a restriction.

A unit that is not falling back can... This means if you are falling back you can not.

Correct a unit falling back can not avoid a dangerous terrain test by jumping down. What is your point. Since they never take dangerous terrain tests this is true regardless of that sentence. And again is irrelevant. Stop talking about units avoiding difficult terrain tests talk about jumping down.

Show denial of permission to make a jump down move.

As Rig said: "Who can always elect to leap down?
Non-falling back units."

That doesn't make it true though because that is not what the rules say.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The explanation does not override the fact that it restricts it to units that are not falling back.

It is a restriction.

A unit that is not falling back can... This means if you are falling back you can not.

Correct a unit falling back can not avoid a dangerous terrain test by jumping down.

No, it means that units that are not falling back can not jump down...

 FlingitNow wrote:

As Rig said: "Who can always elect to leap down?
Non-falling back units."

That doesn't make it true though because that is not what the rules say.

It really is what the rules say, as the evidence that you are ignoring shows.

No, it means that units that are not falling back can not jump down...

So the rulebook is lying now? It says 1 thing but that means something completely different?

It really is what the rules say, as the evidence that you are ignoring shows.

I'm not the one ignoring rules here. My argument in this instance is based purely on what's written. Your argument is based on ignoring 1 sentence entirely (for no reason) then cropping another sentence to change its meaning. You're just trolling now.

I've proven permission. So prove that falling back units aren't units. Or proven that there is denial of permission for falling back units to jump down. Or concede. If you post an irrelevant rule about avoiding dangerous terrain tests that will illustrate that we both know you've lost and I'll take that ad you conceding.

Your argument is based on reading the rules wrong. How much more clear can that sentence be ? We should be great full when GW makes clear wording.

A unit that is not falling back,

Is the unit falling back?

What can it not do ?

A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level,

A unit that is falling back, does not have permission to leap down. Its that simple.

Stormbreed wrote:
Your argument is based on reading the rules wrong. How much more clear can that sentence be ? We should be great full when GW makes clear wording.

A unit that is not falling back,

Is the unit falling back?Yes

What can it not do ?choose to avoid a difficult terrain test by jumping down

It is still not a blanket denial of permission for falling back units to jump down. It is permission for non-falling back units to avoid difficult terrain tests by jumping down.

You ask the very questions that destroy your argument. Not a great plan unless you're trolling.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Your argument is based on reading the rules wrong. How much more clear can that sentence be ? We should be great full when GW makes clear wording.

A unit that is not falling back,

Is the unit falling back?Yes

What can it not do ?choose to avoid a difficult terrain test by jumping down

It is still not a blanket denial of permission for falling back units to jump down. It is permission for non-falling back units to avoid difficult terrain tests by jumping down.

You ask the very questions that destroy your argument. Not a great plan unless you're trolling.

Just show permission to jump down while falling back, I don't see it.

Fragile wrote:

A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level,

A unit that is falling back, does not have permission to leap down. Its that simple.

Not from that sentence. But the first sentence does give them permission and that sentence does not deny that permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Your argument is based on reading the rules wrong. How much more clear can that sentence be ? We should be great full when GW makes clear wording.

A unit that is not falling back,

Is the unit falling back?Yes

What can it not do ?choose to avoid a difficult terrain test by jumping down

It is still not a blanket denial of permission for falling back units to jump down. It is permission for non-falling back units to avoid difficult terrain tests by jumping down.

You ask the very questions that destroy your argument. Not a great plan unless you're trolling.

Just show permission to jump down while falling back, I don't see it.

Read the first sentence: "A unit that is descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level, rather than making a Difficult Terrain test"

Units that are falling back are units.

That is not the first sentence.

If your unit is in the upper floors of a ruin and wants to get down in a hurry, the models can always jump down

That is the first sentence. Which is an explanation of what "Gravity-- Nature's Downward Express" means.

Now you get into how the rule works, which says.

A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level, rather than making a Difficult Terrain test. however, all descending models in the unit must take an Impact test (

This is the rule that tells you what you can and cannot do. If you are not falling back, you can Leap down to avoid a DT test. This allows you to guarantee that you can get to the bottom of the ruin if you are on the second or higher floor without having to roll. In order to do this however, you have to take an Impact test, which is then explained.

You are trying to skip the first part of the rule sentence.

 Bausk wrote:
The way we've alwayd played it was the unit must fallback usinh the vertical distance. But if the fallback distance is not enough to make it down a level, for instance they roll a 5 on a two level ruin, then they have to jump so they can finish thier whole fallback distance.

I feel like this makes sense, but now suppose you're on the 6th floor of a ruin and must leap down to continue falling back your 2 inches. Now you have to make a dangerous terrain test you automatically fail because of how far down you had to go to continue moving horizontally.

Also, let's look at "Trapped!" on page 30 -

"If the unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."

So if a unit is on the second level of ruin, rolls 5 inches for a ball back move, moves 3 inches back to the edge of the level, and then has 2 inches left to move which isn't enough to go down a level, wouldn't that unit by definition be Trapped! and removed entirely?

We based it on that fallback is not a voluntary form of movment. If they can safely decend then they do, if they don't have the distance to get down a level then they jump to move the full distance.

I agree with the argument that the falling back rule requires the unit to jump down as that is the shortest possible route since it requires no movement to fallt to the ground, but paying the movement to go down elevation increases the distance to the table edge, so that is not the shortest route.

Hmm, after rereading the leap down rules I realize everyone in my group has been making an assumption that it doesn't cost movement to travel the distance, just negates the difficult terrain role to determine how far they move. Upon rereading the Leaping Down in the battlements section it sounds like it costs you all your movement to use the rule, and you get 3 inches of vertical movement, assuming you survive, no matter how far down you jumped. Seems kind of poor choice to have to pay the movement and make an impact test on purpose.

Although with that 3 inches of vertical movement, if that brings the falling back unit closer to the table edge then normal movement through the ruins I think they would still have to take the Leap Down choice.

 RobPro wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The way we've alwayd played it was the unit must fallback usinh the vertical distance. But if the fallback distance is not enough to make it down a level, for instance they roll a 5 on a two level ruin, then they have to jump so they can finish thier whole fallback distance.

I feel like this makes sense, but now suppose you're on the 6th floor of a ruin and must leap down to continue falling back your 2 inches. Now you have to make a dangerous terrain test you automatically fail because of how far down you had to go to continue moving horizontally.

Also, let's look at "Trapped!" on page 30 -

"If the unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."

So if a unit is on the second level of ruin, rolls 5 inches for a ball back move, moves 3 inches back to the edge of the level, and then has 2 inches left to move which isn't enough to go down a level, wouldn't that unit by definition be Trapped! and removed entirely?

No, because you could move down a level first then move laterally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Fragile wrote:

A unit that is not falling back and descending through a building can always elect to Leap Down to a lower level,

A unit that is falling back, does not have permission to leap down. Its that simple.

Not from that sentence. But the first sentence does give them permission and that sentence does not deny that permission.

Citation needed for where it allows a Unit that is falling back to leap down. I still a not seeing it, a quote with underscore or some kind of highlight would help.

Oh god, more of this "I need a direct quote, specific to the word, regarding the rule" arguing.

Falling back requires you to move as directly to the table edge as possible.

Leaping down does not state falling back units may not leap down, it merely gives the option of leaping down, or not leaping down to units that are not falling back.

If a unit has to move towards the table edge by the most direct means possible, and leaping down moves them closer to the table edge, I would have to say they have to leap down.

Its a really strange idea that a unit would calmly choose to jump down and break their necks, but a panicked fleeing unit wouldn't do it out of desperation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 RobPro wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The way we've alwayd played it was the unit must fallback usinh the vertical distance. But if the fallback distance is not enough to make it down a level, for instance they roll a 5 on a two level ruin, then they have to jump so they can finish thier whole fallback distance.

I feel like this makes sense, but now suppose you're on the 6th floor of a ruin and must leap down to continue falling back your 2 inches. Now you have to make a dangerous terrain test you automatically fail because of how far down you had to go to continue moving horizontally.

Also, let's look at "Trapped!" on page 30 -

"If the unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."

So if a unit is on the second level of ruin, rolls 5 inches for a ball back move, moves 3 inches back to the edge of the level, and then has 2 inches left to move which isn't enough to go down a level, wouldn't that unit by definition be Trapped! and removed entirely?

No, because you could move down a level first then move laterally.

What happens if the unit is already as lateral as possible and must continue descending?

Rumbleguts wrote:
Oh god, more of this "I need a direct quote, specific to the word, regarding the rule" arguing.

It's almost like the actual rules matter...

Leaping down does not state falling back units may not leap down, it merely gives the option of leaping down, or not leaping down to units that are not falling back.

Correct! Meaning the option to jump down has not been given to units that are falling back...

If a unit has to move towards the table edge by the most direct means possible, and leaping down moves them closer to the table edge, I would have to say they have to leap down.

Despite any rule allowing it?

Its a really strange idea that a unit would calmly choose to jump down and break their necks, but a panicked fleeing unit wouldn't do it out of desperation.

Applying real world logic to 40k will fail every time you attempt it.
It's really a strange idea that a marine watching his buddy get his soul sucked out can't reach over and pick up that melta gun.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Oh god, more of this "I need a direct quote, specific to the word regarding the rule" arguing.

Well it is important that people that are discussion the rules back up their claims with rules citations.

If you do not understand why then let me help.

Anyone can make a claim that a rule book says something. However more weight is given to the person that back up their claims with rules citations.

If I said "You do not get first blood for killing a Gun Emplacement" this holds no weight in a rules discussion because I have not backed it up with anything.

If I said "You do not get first blood for killing a Gun Emplacement, Checkout the rules on Page 122 (Gun Emplacements) and Page 3 (Units) for more information. This holds a little more weight because people can read the rules for what I am referencing. Giving Direct Quites complete with a conclusion drawn from those quotes is the best way to back a position.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Leaping down does not state falling back units may not leap down

It does not need to say falling back units may not leap down The permissive ruleset tells us this already. If the rules do not say you can, then you can not. Unless you think that I can bring my models back on the table after they have been removed as a casualty because the rules do not say that I can not do this...

It needs to state they can and because there is no option given for units that are falling back to leap down, therefore they can not leap down. (P.99)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RobPro wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 RobPro wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The way we've alwayd played it was the unit must fallback usinh the vertical distance. But if the fallback distance is not enough to make it down a level, for instance they roll a 5 on a two level ruin, then they have to jump so they can finish thier whole fallback distance.

I feel like this makes sense, but now suppose you're on the 6th floor of a ruin and must leap down to continue falling back your 2 inches. Now you have to make a dangerous terrain test you automatically fail because of how far down you had to go to continue moving horizontally.

Also, let's look at "Trapped!" on page 30 -

"If the unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed."

So if a unit is on the second level of ruin, rolls 5 inches for a ball back move, moves 3 inches back to the edge of the level, and then has 2 inches left to move which isn't enough to go down a level, wouldn't that unit by definition be Trapped! and removed entirely?

No, because you could move down a level first then move laterally.

What happens if the unit is already as lateral as possible and must continue descending?

then you would have to move them parallel to the table edge that 2 inches.

If the Enemy is in a U shape around a falling back unit, that falling back unit must first move away from the table edge to try and get around the enemy. This is not being trapped as the rules have laid out. so the same would apply to a unit that rolls a 2 for its fall back distance and can not descend.