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:

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).

The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.

Yes, they do. Read what the conditions are for embarking.

The movement rules don't have a list of "the only things a unit can do in the movement phase", they just talk about moving. IF there is a transport, that gives a moving unit more options. Any moving unit. Even a falling back moving unit, because the transport rules list no special exclusion

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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).

The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.

You're being incredibly imprecise, which is clouding your ability to recognise your error

The only MOVE they can make is to fall back. Embarking is NOT a move. Ergo they can embark. Same as they can shoot, further proving your statement incorrect.

Parian - incorrect, try again

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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).

The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.

Please quote the rule that says "The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back" (Or similar language) I do not see that anywhere.

I have shown rules support for them being able to embark. Where is the restriction, I am just not finding it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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).

The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.

Please quote the rule that says "The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back" (Or similar language) I do not see that anywhere.

I have shown rules support for them being able to embark. Where is the restriction, I am just not finding it.

Falling back units cannot shoot, Nosferatu. They fall back until they regroup.

As for you Death, you did not shown support that stats that they can embark. You have only used a tactic i used in other discussions, that being, since it does not say I cannot Embark, than I can.

Now you cannot support this style of decision making in one thread and argue against it in another as you have in two previous ones. So if units falling back can embark because nothing in the rules states that they cannot, then Psyker units in a mixed unit count as a Psyker units for the purposes of powers, WC, then multiple stacks of Terrify do indeed stack and, most importantly, you must roll one dice for Psychic Shriek to hit as you need to roll to hit for all Psyker spells.

You have answered against in all 3 of the examples, yet you have answered positive for embarkation and you are doing so using the exact argument I made in all three of those discussions.

Zodiark wrote:
Falling back units cannot shoot, Nosferatu. They fall back until they regroup.

Re-read the actual rules please.

Units that are Falling Back can only fire Snap Shots and cannot Run or Turbo-boost. Units that are Falling Back cannot Go to Ground and automatically pass Pinning tests.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Falling back units cannot shoot, Nosferatu. They fall back until they regroup.

Re-read the actual rules please.

Units that are Falling Back can only fire Snap Shots and cannot Run or Turbo-boost. Units that are Falling Back cannot Go to Ground and automatically pass Pinning tests.

My mistake on this point, Snap Shots are a type of shooting attack, I was thinking of an actual shooting attack, where you actually stop and shoot.

Units falling back are shooting on the run

Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"

Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark

In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do

Your argument is fully rebutted

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"

Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark

In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do

Your argument is fully rebutted

Except it is not.

Nowhere under the section for units falling back does it state that they can embark, it lists clearly what they can do.

As it does not say they can embark then they cannot. If the absence of this statement allows them to embark then he, by default supports the original position I had in every one of those earlier discussions as he was one of those who disagreed.

You are looking at it strictly for the rules of embarkation. I am looking at the rules for units falling back which takes precedence as falling back is a state of being, a condition that the unit is suffering. The unit has strict guidelines in what they can do if you go by RAW and none of them are embarkation.

The Embarkation section simply lists how to embark, it does not list every state the unit needs to be in and I will grant this, but you must then refer to Falling Back to see what those units are allowed to do.

Your argument = done

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"

Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark

In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do

Your argument is fully rebutted

Except it is not.

Nowhere under the section for units falling back does it state that they can embark, it lists clearly what they can do.

As it does not say they can embark then they cannot. If the absence of this statement allows them to embark then he, by default supports the original position I had in every one of those earlier discussions as he was one of those who disagreed.

You are looking at it strictly for the rules of embarkation. I am looking at the rules for units falling back which takes precedence as falling back is a state of being, a condition that the unit is suffering. The unit has strict guidelines in what they can do if you go by RAW and none of them are embarkation.

The Embarkation section simply lists how to embark, it does not list every state the unit needs to be in and I will grant this, but you must then refer to Falling Back to see what those units are allowed to do.

Your argument = done

The rules for falling back list restrictions, not permissions. None of them prevent us from embarking, which we have general permission to do. Therefore, we can embark.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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).

The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back, dude I would like for them to be able to embark while running away, it's logical, the rules simply do not support this.

Please quote the rule that says "The only thing they can do unless something triggers something different is fall back" (Or similar language) I do not see that anywhere.

I have shown rules support for them being able to embark. Where is the restriction, I am just not finding it.

So I ask you Reaper.

Are units falling back allowed to Embark because there is no ruling saying that they cannot or are they not allowed to embark because it does not say that they can. Falling Back rules supercede the rules for Embarkation because those rules in embarkation are based on the assumption that you meet the criteria to embark, which, according to falling back rules, you do not as you continue running to the EDGE OF YOUR TABLE until you regroup, going around or through anything that gets in your way. That is per rules for falling back. Under the section of falling back. It tell you specifically to go around any units in your way in an effort to get to the table edge in as straight a line as you can. It does not say anywhere that you stop and embark in a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 erick99 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong. Page 58, under the heading "falling back and shooting"

Dr was absolutely not making the fallacy you committed previously. He has shown that you have general permission to embark. Falling back places no restrction on embarking -just moving, not "do" as you incorrectly stated and have yet to correct despite being shown your error- therefore you may still embark

In other words, for your position to be correct, you have to show embarking is a move, which you cannot do, or you gave to show falling back has restricted you from embarking, which you also cannot do

Your argument is fully rebutted

Except it is not.

Nowhere under the section for units falling back does it state that they can embark, it lists clearly what they can do.

As it does not say they can embark then they cannot. If the absence of this statement allows them to embark then he, by default supports the original position I had in every one of those earlier discussions as he was one of those who disagreed.

You are looking at it strictly for the rules of embarkation. I am looking at the rules for units falling back which takes precedence as falling back is a state of being, a condition that the unit is suffering. The unit has strict guidelines in what they can do if you go by RAW and none of them are embarkation.

The Embarkation section simply lists how to embark, it does not list every state the unit needs to be in and I will grant this, but you must then refer to Falling Back to see what those units are allowed to do.

Your argument = done

The rules for falling back list restrictions, not permissions. None of them prevent us from embarking, which we have general permission to do. Therefore, we can embark.

This is exactly what I wanted to here, both for this debate and all three of the other ones.

By this premise, everything I stated in every discussion this weekend works because there is no restriction saying that they cannot happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This victory feels tainted. I had to trick you guys into taking up my argument in order to get the answer, so not fair for you guys, sorry.

Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.

So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?

In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.

Sigh. Trying again.

You are told you can do a), in general.

Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)

This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"

That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads. To think this a victory is delusional, at best.

 Spellbound wrote:
Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.

So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?

In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.

No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.

Zodiark wrote:
Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.

Only because there's a base permission in the embarking rules.
It's not "We have nothing, so we can."
It's "We have a yes and no no's, so we can."

Zodiark wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.

So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?

In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.

No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.

No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. Trying again.

You are told you can do a), in general.

Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)

This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"

That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads

No it doesn't.

You have Embarkation rules.

You have Falling Back rules.

One lists what needs to happen to embark.

The other lists specifically what you can do to Fall Back.

I am totally okay with units embarking while falling back, as I have said, this fits logic. There is no rule to support this so you then go to the absence of a restriction.

The rules for Embarkation only require you to be within a certain distance, not how you got there which again supports that Falling Back units can go there, again, I knew this already, I just wanted to see how you guys answered something you wanted in your favor and I got my answer.

When it is something you guys want, you are all for it, when it is something you feel is imbalanced or you don't want it, you are against it as is evidenced in the other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 erick99 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.

So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?

In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.

No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.

No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.

No you don't.

Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.

Zodiark wrote:
No you don't.

Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.

Do units have a general permission to embark if all models are within 2" of a transport?
Yes or no please. Simple question.

Give it up, guys. They seem to have convinced themselves of some sort of "victory", despite misunderstanding som core concepts. This will just end in warnings, and they're not worth it.

Zodiark wrote:

Spoiler:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. Trying again.

You are told you can do a), in general.

Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)

This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"

That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads

No it doesn't.

You have Embarkation rules.

You have Falling Back rules.

One lists what needs to happen to embark.

The other lists specifically what you can do to Fall Back.

I am totally okay with units embarking while falling back, as I have said, this fits logic. There is no rule to support this so you then go to the absence of a restriction.

The rules for Embarkation only require you to be within a certain distance, not how you got there which again supports that Falling Back units can go there, again, I knew this already, I just wanted to see how you guys answered something you wanted in your favor and I got my answer.

When it is something you guys want, you are all for it, when it is something you feel is imbalanced or you don't want it, you are against it as is evidenced in the other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 erick99 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.

So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?

In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.

No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.

No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.

No you don't.

Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.

Again, the rules for falling back units are listing restrictions, not permissions.
We have permission to embark if the criteria are met. Falling back does not restrict this, so we retain that permission.

Zodiark - so you claim falling back is an exhaustive list of everything you may do? Interesting claim, gak, but interesting.

Do not insinuate bias due to "overpowered" , isn't is rude . Reported, rule one.

Wow you guys argue a lot.

What is the end result, are we allowed to embark while falling back, cause this sounds awesome but a little cheap?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another question. Say we can embark units that are falling back, do they then cease to be falling back if they embark or do they continue falling back in the vehicle?

I can't find any instance besides rolling to regroup or being assaulted that stops a unit from falling back.

Yes, as you have permission to embark, and nothing removes that permission.

If you become fearless while falling back, you immediately regroup. Units inside vehicles are fearless

Don't let him tell you that like it is some sort of definitive answer. If you try this in a tourney you'll likely get a card.

The rule saying that you "can't move other than to fall back" conflicts with "embarking counts as having moved." You could argue that it doesn't technically state that it counts *as a move*. But the verbiage is close enough that the only sort of people that would accept that interpretation, are 1. not running tournaments and 2. not the sort of casual gamers you'd have fun playing with.

All that said, I think they made a very strong case for being able to embark after regrouping.

Hiddukel wrote:
Wow you guys argue a lot.

What is the end result, are we allowed to embark while falling back, cause this sounds awesome but a little cheap?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another question. Say we can embark units that are falling back, do they then cease to be falling back if they embark or do they continue falling back in the vehicle?

I can't find any instance besides rolling to regroup or being assaulted that stops a unit from falling back.

Embarked units are Fearless. Fearless units auto-pass Regroup tests.

Zodiark wrote:
So I ask you Reaper.

Are units falling back allowed to Embark because there is no ruling saying that they cannot or are they not allowed to embark because it does not say that they can. Falling Back rules supercede the rules for Embarkation because those rules in embarkation are based on the assumption that you meet the criteria to embark, which, according to falling back rules, you do not as you continue running to the EDGE OF YOUR TABLE until you regroup, going around or through anything that gets in your way. That is per rules for falling back.

They are allowed to embark, and there are actual rules that say they can.

Units that are falling back can embark because they are given permission to embark via the Embarking rules, and there are not any restrictions on this in the falling back rules.

Also once you embark, you automatically regroup, so this fits the criteria as well.

Under the section of falling back. It tell you specifically to go around any units in your way in an effort to get to the table edge in as straight a line as you can. It does not say anywhere that you stop and embark in a transport.

I never said they stop an embark.

They make their full fall back move then, if they meet the criteria they can embark.

Why would they stop? (Or is that a fluff thing. if so fluff is not rules).

This victory feels tainted. I had to trick you guys into taking up my argument in order to get the answer, so not fair for you guys, sorry.

What victory, your statements are incorrect.

I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.

Anyways, enjoy your discussion.

 don_mondo wrote:
I have to ask. Is anyone really seriously considering this as a legal and viable option? Or is this just easter egg hunting for the purpose of easter egg hunting? We all know it's not supposed to be allowed, so why is it even being discussed? Just had to ask.

Anyways, enjoy your discussion.

Why is it "not supposed to be allowed"?

I see no indication of that in the rules.

As for the RAI, we have no idea what they intended, so we have to go by RAW.

Because they have shot it down before, and the rules haven't changed enough that I see it as acceptable now. But just my opinion, so carry on.

Zodiark wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. Trying again.

You are told you can do a), in general.

Falling back says you may not do b), c) or d). It is silent on a), therefore you may still do a)

This is not "it doesn't say I can't so I can". This is "I am told I can, and nothing has contradicted that"

That still shows you were wrong in the weekend threads

No it doesn't.

You have Embarkation rules.

You have Falling Back rules.

One lists what needs to happen to embark.

The other lists specifically what you can do to Fall Back.

I am totally okay with units embarking while falling back, as I have said, this fits logic. There is no rule to support this so you then go to the absence of a restriction.

The rules for Embarkation only require you to be within a certain distance, not how you got there which again supports that Falling Back units can go there, again, I knew this already, I just wanted to see how you guys answered something you wanted in your favor and I got my answer.

When it is something you guys want, you are all for it, when it is something you feel is imbalanced or you don't want it, you are against it as is evidenced in the other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 erick99 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
Ok, look, in the NORMAL movement rules, it also says nothing about embarking. It says everything you're able to do in the movement phase, but nothing about embarking.

So you're saying generally, in all cases, nobody can ever embark in a transport, ever? Because the movement rules don't say they can?

In order to see how units, any units, embark in transports we have to look at the transport rules. This is a case of specific overriding general. Generally, you keep falling back. But if you happen to end within embarkation range, you can get in a transport.

No I agree with this, as I have stated before. I just wanted a rule stating otherwise, which I knew doesn't exist, just like for the other discussions we had this weekend. Nothing states that we cannot do something, so we can.

No, nothing is stating that we cannot do something we already have permission to do, so we can. It's a big difference.

No you don't.

Falling Back units do not have permission to Embark. Falling Back rules lists what you have permission to do. What you are doing is overwriting Falling Back rules with Embarkation rules.

You have this all wrong. The rules for falling back are RESTRICTIONS, not a conclusive set of permissions. The basic rules for movement, shooting, EMBARKING ON A TRANSPORT, etc. give us permissions for what a unit can do. The rules for falling back place restrictions on these rules. Falling back places no restriction on our ability to embark.

It is not a case of, "The rules didn't say we couldn't, so we can!"
It is, "The rules for transports give us permission to embark providing we meet the requirements. Have the requirements been met? Yes. Does falling back place any restrictions on embarking? No. So, we can!"

We have general permission to embark in the movement phase. You must show specific denial of this permission.