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.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Ok i'll just put this matter to rest with Rule quotes as i am with a book right now:
Emphasis mine.

P57: "the only move they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they regroup."
and "In each subsequent Movement phase, they will make further Fall Back moves instead of moving normally, until the unit Regroups, is destroyed or leaves the table."

p59: "must attempt to Regroup (...) just before they move"
and "it cannot otherwise move"

From this, i do believe most people here agree that "Embarking"(p80) is not a "move", even though it is in the movement phase? (RaI they should have included "Embarking move")
RaW is quite clear: "Can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" "
It does not say *how* you move them so falling back is accepted?

Rhino Rally will be the new 7th Ed - thing -

Accept how is a Fall Back move leading to an embarkation. Think we can agree it does not state Embarkation is a move, but I have no problem of calling it one for arguments case. How are you then going from a Fall Back move to an Embarkation move, when you are only allowed to Fall Back move until you regroup, thus preventing you from making an Embark move?

Then how are you able to do an embark move after consolidating, when the rules for regrouping and consolidating explicitly say you cannot move any further in the turn, even to run?

If you're going to say the only restriction is that you have to move, then a unit falling back could hop in as well - making them immediately regroup.

 Spellbound wrote:
Then how are you able to do an embark move after consolidating, when the rules for regrouping and consolidating explicitly say you cannot move any further in the turn, even to run?

If you're going to say the only restriction is that you have to move, then a unit falling back could hop in as well - making them immediately regroup.

My statement was considering an embarkation as a movement purely for arguments sake. Personally, embarkation is not a movement and thus if you regroup you can definitely embark,

And if you're falling back, too.

 Spellbound wrote:
And if you're falling back, too.

No. If you are falling back, the BRB specifically states that you can only continue falling back until you regroup, so how then are you to perform an embarkation if you have yet to regroup?

BRB first line under Embarking and Disembarking...

Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.

This rules out any embarkation shenanigans during the assault phase. The could be forced to disembark involuntarily during an assault phase though.

Tenacio wrote:
BRB first line under Embarking and Disembarking...

Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.

This rules out any embarkation shenanigans during the assault phase. The could be forced to disembark involuntarily during an assault phase though.

We've established that, but it never states when in the movement phase or whether embarkation is itself a movement. Hence the discussion.

I think what needs to be established then is whether a unit may make any voluntary actions when they are falling back. Seeing how Overwatch is a voluntary action, I would argue that they can in fact make rational decisions even while scared out of their wits. The decision to get back into the Rhino even sounds like a smart call from someone looking to run away. The rules specify the things that cannot be done, such as going to ground. Embarking appears to not be one of them, so like Overwatch or Assault Rallies, it's an exception to the usual "flee for your lives" movement.

Also Zodiark:

"BRB > Codex > FAQ > GW > Hobby Shops > Players > YMDC.

The hierarchy of rule interpretation."

-- Updated your sig for you. Important to differentiate those who play the game from this who merely argue about it.

Kyutaru wrote:
I think what needs to be established then is whether a unit may make any voluntary actions when they are falling back. Seeing how Overwatch is a voluntary action, I would argue that they can in fact make rational decisions even while scared out of their wits. The decision to get back into the Rhino even sounds like a smart call from someone looking to run away. The rules specify the things that cannot be done, such as going to ground. Embarking appears to not be one of them, so like Overwatch or Assault Rallies, it's an exception to the usual "flee for your lives" movement.

Also Zodiark:

"BRB > Codex > FAQ > GW > Hobby Shops > Players > YMDC.

The hierarchy of rule interpretation."

-- Updated your sig for you. Important to differentiate those who play the game from this who merely argue about it.

well if you want a proper hiearchy it should go:
Players>FAQ>Codex>BRB>game store> YMDC

Because it really is up to the two people playing to decide how they want to play the game.

Kyutaru wrote:
Important to differentiate those who play the game from this who merely argue about it.

It's cute that you think people who argue in YMDC are not players.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:
Important to differentiate those who play the game from this who merely argue about it.

It's cute that you think people who argue in YMDC are not players.

No they are, but its hilarious that people think people in YMDC are an authority on the rules, but back on topic please.

Kyutaru wrote:
I think what needs to be established then is whether a unit may make any voluntary actions when they are falling back. Seeing how Overwatch is a voluntary action, I would argue that they can in fact make rational decisions even while scared out of their wits. The decision to get back into the Rhino even sounds like a smart call from someone looking to run away. The rules specify the things that cannot be done, such as going to ground. Embarking appears to not be one of them, so like Overwatch or Assault Rallies, it's an exception to the usual "flee for your lives" movement.

If you notice, it gives specific examples of what they can do, extrapolating from this we have limitations for units that are falling back. One "could" argue that they could embark while running away and are free to house rule such an instance, but the BRB does not support this conclusion.

I've done more arguing then playing of 7th edition games to date!
Stupid work....

Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.

This was also possible in 6th.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.

This was also possible in 6th.

So then you can perform an embarkation while falling back? Though the wording in the text lists no possibility of such a move?

This is kinda cool and offers some really fun tactics

Except from what I see in the BRB, nothing supports this concept


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I've done more arguing then playing of 7th edition games to date!
Stupid work....

Same. I would have been done painting my models twice over by now lol

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.

This was also possible in 6th.

So then you can perform an embarkation while falling back? Though the wording in the text lists no possibility of such a move?

Embarking is not a move. It is performed when you move in the movement phase, but it is not a move, it is a rule you invoke when you meet said conditions. That is all.

So yes you can embark after making a fall back move as long as all models are within 2 inches of an access point.

This is kinda cool and offers some really fun tactics

Except from what I see in the BRB, nothing supports this concept

The rules actually do support embarking when falling back as long as you meet the requirements of the Embarking rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Embarkation is not a move. You count as having moved, it is not itself a move. Thus you can fall back into a rhino, potentially, and then automatically regroup.

This was also possible in 6th.

So then you can perform an embarkation while falling back? Though the wording in the text lists no possibility of such a move?

Embarking is not a move. It is performed when you move in the movement phase, but it is not a move, it is a rule you invoke when you meet said conditions. That is all.

So yes you can embark after making a fall back move as long as all models are within 2 inches of an access point.

This is kinda cool and offers some really fun tactics

Except from what I see in the BRB, nothing supports this concept

The rules actually do support embarking when falling back as long as you meet the requirements of the Embarking rules.

I'm fine playing it this way, but can you provide anything from the text supporting this conclusion. It makes logical sense to me, but in case of issues in the future, something in the text would help.

The rules for embarking are the supporting rules.

You can embark onto an empty transport if you meet the requirements correct?

The requirements are that every model in the unit needs to be within 2 inches of an access point to embark correct?

It does not restrict falling back units from embarking correct?

Therefore we have permission to embark and no restrictions about the unit being one that is falling back, so this is a legal action.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You count as having moved, it is not itself a move.

So what? You have moved, and it wasn't the fall back move. Illegal. Throwing "Count as" in front doesn't change that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for embarking are the supporting rules.

You can embark onto an empty transport if you meet the requirements correct?

The requirements are that every model in the unit needs to be within 2 inches of an access point to embark correct?

It does not restrict falling back units from embarking correct?

Therefore we have permission to embark and no restrictions about the unit being one that is falling back, so this is a legal action.

Except Falling Back units have a list of things that, as you put it, have "permission" to do and none of there are Embarkations.

Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.

Zodiark wrote:
Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.

It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.

Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.

It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.

Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.

Not acknowledging fallacies. This game does not use a permissive ruleset, as has been declared numerous times, this is a player driven concept and not a Games Workshop concept.


Thus, all you can prove is that players here, on THIS forum in YMDC only, do people play by this mythological "permissive ruleset."

Back on topic please.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.

It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.

Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.

Not acknowledging fallacies. This game does not use a permissive ruleset, as has been declared numerous times, this is a player driven concept and not a Games Workshop concept.


Thus, all you can prove is that players here, on THIS forum in YMDC only, do people play by this mythological "permissive ruleset."

Back on topic please.

It's on topic. You challenged a fundamental understanding of how the game works. Refusing to discuss it doesn't make it off topic.
And it's not a fallacy - please answer my question or start dancing.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Also, the mindset where you need permission or the concept of permissive ruleset is no longer a valid standpoint for an argument as the BRB uses neither of these concepts, try and refrain from using them unless you have BRB citations allowing you too.

It actually does use that concept - and I can prove it.

Assuming it's not using the concept of a permissive rule set, please prove why I'm not allowed, using the rules, to force a dance-off to decide the winner of the game.

Not acknowledging fallacies. This game does not use a permissive ruleset, as has been declared numerous times, this is a player driven concept and not a Games Workshop concept.


Thus, all you can prove is that players here, on THIS forum in YMDC only, do people play by this mythological "permissive ruleset."

Back on topic please.

It's on topic. You challenged a fundamental understanding of how the game works. Refusing to discuss it doesn't make it off topic.
And it's not a fallacy - please answer my question or start dancing.

I challenged a flawed mindset that certain players have when playing the game. It is not supported by the rules of the game, therefore you cannot claim that it is.

Back on the subject of this thread. Make a new one if you wanna debate the mythological "permissive" ruleset.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599722.page

Done. Not that you'll post in it because it'll prove you wrong, but just to keep you from whinging more.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for embarking are the supporting rules.

You can embark onto an empty transport if you meet the requirements correct?

The requirements are that every model in the unit needs to be within 2 inches of an access point to embark correct?

It does not restrict falling back units from embarking correct?

Therefore we have permission to embark and no restrictions about the unit being one that is falling back, so this is a legal action.

Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.

Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC

Zodiark,
Should the Game fail to follow the normal format of all Table Top Games, being permission based systems, then the Rulebook is meaningless and we might as well not bother purchasing it. Given that the Studio wishes to make money, it stands to reason they would only produce a Rulebook that requires us to obey the writing inside in order to play their game properly. Had they actually produced a Rulebook which embraced the concept that it was a restriction based system, not only would it be ten times as long but they would need to go into great detail explaining why the argument "the rule book doesn't say I can't" would prevent people like myself from declaring ourselves the undefeated king of the Warhammer 40K universe as soon as I deploy my forces onto the table.

Yet, from the Rules as they are Written, in order for such a declaration to be 'legal' it would need the opponents consent as permission to change the Rules exists but requires both parties to agree to the new Rules.

Where in the movement phase rules does it say a unit can embark in a transport?

Anyone? Anyone? It doesn't. The rules for embarking are spelled out under transports. Therefore, it sets the guidelines for what has to happen.

My only argument against embarking after regrouping is that "counts as" or not, embarking is another movement, a special kind of movement granted by being in proximity to a transport. Since a unit that's regrouped cannot do that, then they can't embark.

However that depends on calling embarking a move, or moving further.

The rules for embarking on a transport are found on page 80. Nowhere else does it mention it, that I can recall. Therefore the unit falling back doesn't NEED special permission. It, like every other unit in the game that ever wants to get in a transport, is told how to do it by the transport embark/disembark rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
Zodiark,
Should the Game fail to follow the normal format of all Table Top Games, being permission based systems, then the Rulebook is meaningless and we might as well not bother purchasing it. Given that the Studio wishes to make money, it stands to reason they would only produce a Rulebook that requires us to obey the writing inside in order to play their game properly. Had they actually produced a Rulebook which embraced the concept that it was a restriction based system, not only would it be ten times as long but they would need to go into great detail explaining why the argument "the rule book doesn't say I can't" would prevent people like myself from declaring ourselves the undefeated king of the Warhammer 40K universe as soon as I deploy my forces onto the table.

Yet, from the Rules as they are Written, in order for such a declaration to be 'legal' it would need the opponents consent as permission to change the Rules exists but requires both parties to agree to the new Rules.

Except the game is not a permissive ruleset, its a combination of permissive/restrictive.

Zodiark wrote:
Except the game is not a permissive ruleset, its a combination of permissive/restrictive.

Off topic, take it to the thread where that's being discussed.

Zodiark wrote:
Seeing as units that are Falling Back have specific actions they can perform, and embarking is not listed as one of them, they cannot Fall Back into a transport.

Until something states otherwise, it boils down to a house rule and not YMDC

The RAW is not a house rule.

We are told that "Units make a Fall Back move immediately upon failing a Morale check – the only moves they can make in subsequent phases are Fall Back moves until they Regroup." (Morale section, Fall back sub-section)

They have a restriction on what type of move they are allowed to make, but that is it. Everything in that section deals with them only being allowed to make fall back moves.

If they end up within 2 inches of an access point of a vehicle they can embark, as they are given permission to do so by the embarking rules, and nothing restricts this embarkation. (Embarking is not ever called a move).