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.

This question came up tonight while some friends of mine were playing. Since you can shoot while falling back, do you get a fleet of foot move? We could find nothing to say otherwise, but to me it just doesn't seem right. Are we missing something or is he right?

You can fleet while falling back.

Not to takea posistion, but what is your source for the answer?

The rules.

The only requirement to use fleet is that a unit does it instead of shooting. Since falling back units can still shoot, they may choose to fleet instead.

I have long thought they should restrict fleet so it cannot be used when falling back, but as of now it is completely legal.

Would that cause the fleet move to be towards your closest board edge, or in the case of Nids toward synapse? 

If the unit is broken, it can only move along its 'fallback corridor', or whatever it might be for that unit.  I wouldn't think that fleet would allow you to double back while broken...

That's why most of us think it's stupid that GW left units able to fleet. You have to fall back within your corridor, but you can fleet wherever you want to.

Note that this is based on the interpretation of the phrase "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor..." to mean 'during the fall back move, the unit must move within a coridor.' If they wanted all of the movement to be bound in the corridor they should have worded it "A unit that is falling back must move within a corridor..."

As it stands a broken unit can fall back, then fleet forward, fall back, then fleet forward... and so on. This is whether the players believe the corridor still applies or not.  I think it was yak who origionally used the term falling back cha cha or something like that.

Note that this is based on the interpretation of the phrase "A unit that falls back must move within a corridor..." to mean 'during the fall back move, the unit must move within a coridor.' If they wanted all of the movement to be bound in the corridor they should have worded it "A unit that is falling back must move within a corridor..."

Does it really matter what this exact wording is? The phrase clearly states the unit should move within the corridor, but it doesn't state in wich direction it should move. Sure you can't go left or right, but you can fleet back, since it is still in the corridor (the corridor seems to be defined as an infinitly long strip, with orientation towards the nearest point on the table edge).

Seems to me you can very legally fleet back, as long as it is an 180 degree turn.

That table edge being the player's table edge, ofcourse.

Well, the wording actually does make a difference. "A unit that falls back..." means to me that it pertains to a unit making a fall back move. A fallback move only happens in the movement or assault phase and only after certain events have occured.

"A unit that IS falling back..." would encompass the entire time the unit failed it's morale check to the time it regrouped or fell off table.

Like I said, whatever interpretation you use the unit can fleet forward. There's no argument there. Wether the unit can fleet wherever it wants to is probably left open for debate.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 06/06/2006 10:10 AM
Well, the wording actually does make a difference. "A unit that falls back..." means to me that it pertains to a unit making a fall back move. A fallback move only happens in the movement or assault phase and only after certain events have occured.

"A unit that IS falling back..." would encompass the entire time the unit failed it's morale check to the time it regrouped or fell off table.

Like I said, whatever interpretation you use the unit can fleet forward. There's no argument there. Wether the unit can fleet wherever it wants to is probably left open for debate.

You've read it backwards. A unit that is falling back is a unit making the fall back move. Of course once a unit starts falling back, until it regroups is still considered falling back, so either wording would work equally well for meaning that it must remain in the corridor until it has either regrouped or fallen off of the table.

In regards to the fleet move, doesn't a unit falling back fall back towards the table edge, meaning if you could fleet the only direction you would be able to go is towards the table edge? I know there's no wording that says you can't fleet or that you can't do blah blah, but I'm fairly certain that the wording of falling back simply states that a unit that is falling back falls back towards the nearest board edge in the corridor. fleeting the opposite direction would be contradictory to this.

You've read it backwards. A unit that is falling back is a unit making the fall back move.

It's a tricky thing. It's certainly a poor choice of phrase on GW's part, but the way "Falling Back" is defined isn't by the fact that the unit made a "Fallback Move." Falling Back is defined by several things, mainly morale. So to explain it another way:

Falling back - is the time from when a unit fails it's morale check to when it rallies or falls off table

A Fall Back move is a distance rolled for toward the nearest edge within the corridor.

"A unit that falls back..." is refering to the actual movement like roll 2D6, remain in corridor, etc.

"A unit that is falling back..." is refering to the entire span of time from failed morale test to passed morale test (or destruction) . Unfortunately, the book doesn't use this phrase.

This probably isn't even worth arguing since I would never let my horsies do it, and I have never seen or even heard of anyone else trying to do it with their fleetable units. It's just another one of those strange rules inconsistencies that seems to come up every once in a while.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 06/06/2006 3:00 PM

You've read it backwards. A unit that is falling back is a unit making the fall back move.

It's a tricky thing. It's certainly a poor choice of phrase on GW's part, but the way "Falling Back" is defined isn't by the fact that the unit made a "Fallback Move." Falling Back is defined by several things, mainly morale. So to explain it another way:

Falling back - is the time from when a unit fails it's morale check to when it rallies or falls off table

A Fall Back move is a distance rolled for toward the nearest edge within the corridor.

"A unit that falls back..." is refering to the actual movement like roll 2D6, remain in corridor, etc.

"A unit that is falling back..." is refering to the entire span of time from failed morale test to passed morale test (or destruction) . Unfortunately, the book doesn't use this phrase.

This probably isn't even worth arguing since I would never let my horsies do it, and I have never seen or even heard of anyone else trying to do it with their fleetable units. It's just another one of those strange rules inconsistencies that seems to come up every once in a while.

"A unit that falls back.." is a condition that is met at the time that they fail the test, not when they make the move. I don't see how you are making that leap from the wording.

"A unit that is falling back.." would be a unit that is in the motion of falling back,and would be more limiting in the time frame, but still literally correct as you make multiple fall back distance rolls, but would be in the process of falling back the whole time so it would be the same thing either way.

In either case, saying you can move forward or sideways or any other fleet movement other that towards the table edge is a case of saying "the rules don't say I can't" since a unit that is in the process however it is worded, is still in the process of falling back, and would therefore still be limited on having to fall back down the corridor towards the table edge.

This probably isn't even worth arguing since I would never let my horsies do it, and I have never seen or even heard of anyone else trying to do it with their fleetable units. It's just another one of those strange rules inconsistencies that seems to come up every once in a while.

I've seen it used by Tyranids to create a refused flank with hormagaunts (having them fail their IB test and fallback 3d6" and fleet 1d6" towards the synapse creature on the other flank).

Well then let's argue the hell out of it! Get Some! If even one tyranid player out there has taken advantage of a rule loophole then no one will sleep tonight! I will burn this thread to the ground before I see a falling back hormagaunt move closer to synapse! ...and so on.

Here's the problem: This is a turn based game where things are supposed to be happening at the same time, but can't. You can never assault a unit of troops that is Falling back. You just can't. Why? Because you cannot move your troops into base contact with the falling back troops at the same time your opponent is moving his troops. You have to wait until your assault phase or consolidation move. So when you say,

"A unit that is falling back.." would be a unit that is in the motion of falling back,and would be more limiting in the time frame

That's not actually true. A unit that IS falling back is a unit that has failed a morale check, made a fallback move, and is yet to rally. This could take many turns. So, just because a unit is not currently in the process of making it's fall back move it is still falling back. That's why there is a difference between "A unit that falls back..." and "A unit that is falling back..."

Going with that interpretation leads to insanity anyways. After all, the rulebook says I CAN fire while falling back. So falling back units can fire in the movement phase since that is the only time they are actually in the process of falling back. Apparently the opposing player can declare charges against the falling back unit during it's movement as well. Certainly though the unit must make it's fallback moves within it's corridor and toward the board edge. These are all things the rulebook says I can do.

If a unit that is falling back makes a fleet move it must be within the units fall back corridor and must be toward the table edge. This is something the rulebook does NOT say I can do.

I have a question along the same lines, I deepstrike Raveners, I don't get a move, I can't assault, but I do get shooting...so can I fleet?

I think it's widely understood that since the quote from the book says "...may not move or assault on the turn they arrive." they cannot perform ANY move during the turn they arrive. Since Fleeting would be a move they can't do it. Even Tau suits can't make their non-assault assault move.

Thats what I was thinking but the assault move happens in the assault phase, not the shooting. I get what your saying but I'm just saying that it's not clear like most stuff. I'd say no they can't based on the not MOVE....part. It could go both ways, no move actions, a shooting action, no assault action, would mean that yes to fleet moves and no to Tau suit moves. I just wanted feed back, I'm not going to say it can Fleet as much as I'd like it to, the no move is because it's one of the only (if not the only) that has Deepstrike and Fleet and at the time of the Deepstrike re-write they didn't have it.

I just re-read Fleet and it says an additional D6" so that if it can't move it can have an additional move....So that's a big NO.

I agree that since the fleet move happens during shooting, a falling back unit can still fleet. I've done it.  Of course, if I do fleet I am still falling (or in my case) running towards the closest synapse creature.