Falling back inside ruins - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1
    Member qajorgenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Age
    38
    Posts
    225
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    19 (x1)

    Falling back inside ruins

    Sorry if this has been covered previously. I have a squad of three in ruins. One model on the first floor off the ground, and two on the second floor off the ground. They have failed a morale check, and are falling back 9 inches. Does the single model on the first floor go down one level (3 inches) and fall back 6 inches, thus leaving the two upper models going down two levels (6 inches) and falling back only 3 inches, therefore no longer in coherency. Or does the entire unit fall back at the rate of the slowest models and maintain coherency?

    Thanks.


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    9 (x1)

    Falling back is odd because you can usually move FASTER than if you ran... But I would say "rate of slowest model" wins out. As far as I know, there's no clear ruling, so agree a result with your opponent, or roll a dice
    Battlecries: Sorbr'and Tau force: For the Greater Good!
    Ordo Corvus Witch Hunters: Only in our flames will the heretic find peace!

  4. #3
    Senior Member SkyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    604
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    74 (x2)

    In a situation like this I'd say move the models on the top 9" and just move the others as far as you can without breaking coherency.
    For example, the models on top moves the 6" down to the grown level then a further 3". The other model moves down 3" then moves a further 5".

    This model will still be within 2" coherency and will have comlpied with the 'fall back' roll as best he can.

  5. #4
    Member qajorgenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Age
    38
    Posts
    225
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    19 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyDog View Post
    In a situation like this I'd say move the models on the top 9" and just move the others as far as you can without breaking coherency.
    For example, the models on top moves the 6" down to the grown level then a further 3". The other model moves down 3" then moves a further 5".

    This model will still be within 2" coherency and will have comlpied with the 'fall back' roll as best he can.
    ok, this is what we did in the game. just wanted to make sure.

  6. #5
    The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss eiglepulper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Age
    57
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    596 (x8)

    The rule for the movement being done "at the rate of the slowest model" only refers to units where the permitted movement allowances are different. In this case, the models were all apparently the same so there would have been no cause to instigate this rule.

    qajorgenson
    P.45 BRB says that each model has to move the fall back distance (left picture entitled "Falling back"). Looks like your unit might actually have had to give up their coherency.

    There is also a reference to completing a full fallback move under the paragraph headed "Trapped". I know that this paragraph is dealing with particular reference to being unable to complete the full distance in any direction without doubling back, but the point is that it requires the *unit* as a whole to perform the full move, not just some of the models.

    E.
    Last edited by eiglepulper; October 26th, 2010 at 20:49.
    "Tau Commandment #226: Participants who use Velocity Trackers in the Tau Clay Pigeon Tournament will be disqualified"

  7. #6
    Senior Member SkyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    604
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    74 (x2)

    Quote Originally Posted by eiglepulper View Post
    The rule for the movement being done "at the rate of the slowest model" only refers to units where the permitted movement allowances are different. In this case, the models were all apparently the same so there would have been no cause to instigate this rule.

    P.45 BRB says that each model has to move the fall back distance (left picture entitled "Falling back"). Looks like your unit might actually have had to give up their coherency.
    That's a good catch, it does say each model. There are multiple entrys through out the BRB saying units can't break coherency so I think this might be a case of "at the rate of the fastest model", a 2D6 roll can give a result twice a models normal movement so I don't think they would be limited in the distsnce they can travel like they would be with a normal move.

    Maybe in this case the fastest model would move the 9" then the others would move the minimum required to stay in coherency.

    This is the best way I can think of to follow one rule without stepping on another rule, what do you think?

  8. #7
    Dark Eldar Zealot Wicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Menai Sydney Australia
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,699
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    434 (x8)

    Oh this is a good one!

    But I would say that coherency must trump all here regardless of the movement restrictions or allowances and as such the model on the ground must wait for those above to catch up.

    The movement rules for Fall Back are for ‘Units’ and then refine the route for models.

    Units must act in coherency or else they are not a unit at all and that core understanding should be reflected at all times in the game.

    Cheers.
    In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

  9. #8
    The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss eiglepulper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Age
    57
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    596 (x8)

    Actually, as far as a unit having to act in coherency is concerned, I think P.12 BRB covers this one, Wicky. The second paragraph says that there are cases in-game where a unit can actually end up out of coherency. Although the reason is given as "usually because it takes casualties", the word 'usually' suggests that there are indeed other possible occasions where the unit coherency cannot be maintained.

    I believe that in the case under discussion here, this is another example of where this might occur. The Fall Back rule requires every model to fall back the rolled distance. That's a given. If it's possible for the unit to retain coherency while falling back then happy days, but in our example in the OP's post this isn't the case. The models have to move 9", and therefore will be out of coherency at the end of this fall back move. Because of that, they will be obliged to fall back the next turn as well.

    It could be quite difficult to regain coherency at all, unless some method can be found - like using terrain/vehicles etc to force the unit to go a certain way and thereby have some of the models perform a forward dog-leg or something (ref the left-most Marine in the picture on P.45) which could assist the unit regaining its coherency.

    E.
    "Tau Commandment #226: Participants who use Velocity Trackers in the Tau Clay Pigeon Tournament will be disqualified"

  10. #9
    Senior Member SkyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    604
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    74 (x2)

    I've been thinking about this one, when trying to figure out how to apply a rule it can be dificult to avoid stepping on other rules in the process.
    This situation seems to involve three rule sets.
    1, The fall back rule (in this case the unit must fall back 9")
    2, Unit coherency (there are exceptions where a unit can be forced out of cohesion but in general a unit can not move out of their coherency)
    3, Movement (the limitations on how far a unit can move)

    In this situation, 1 of the 3 will have to get steped on, we just have to figure out which one. I say no.3
    The 'Fall Back' rule says units fall back 2D6", each model falls back towards their table edge.
    The 'Coherency' rule mentions possible exceptions but says a unit can not move out of coherency.
    The 'Movement' rules say a normal infantry unit can only move 6" in the movement phase.

    The 'Fall Back' rule overrules the normal movement rules by saying they move 2D6". It doesn't list any exceptions to the coherency rules so I think the best option would be to move the required D6" then move extra to get back into cohesion if needed.

    In the example given by the OP, all models would make a 9" move to comply with the 'Fall Back' rule, then the slower models would move a further 1" into cohesion to comply with the 'Coherency' rules and the movement rules have already been overruled by the Fall Back so they can get stuffed.

    Does this sound right to anyone else or does it only make sense in my head?

  11. #10
    Member qajorgenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Age
    38
    Posts
    225
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    19 (x1)

    I think the way we did it as well as Skydog's solution make the most sense. Not that I have any evidence to refute Eigle's answer, I guess I just like that one the least. It would be a really cheap way to completely remove a unit from the game. Having absolutely no shot at regrouping, or even firing while falling back, seems exceptionally harsh to me.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts