Seahawk Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Say you fall back (the top or bottom of this post is the fall-back direction in this case), everyone's in coherency and sharing a joke: O...O...O...O...O...O <(s'up) ...when all of a sudden Brother Sergeant Bob in the middle of the unit bites it due to incoming fire: O...O...O...x...O...O <(aw no!) ...putting the unit out of coherency because they were all 1.5" from each other for some reason. Since fall back moves specify "each model must move toward the table edge using the shortest route," the shortest route being a straight line when possible, they cannot move back into coherency. Since the unit is out of coherency it cannot rally (3rd bullet point). Barring things like terrain and such that could shove them back together, is this correct? Seems so to me, in which case that could suck if it happens. One of those rare things I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 So, this is the Friday Conundrum. Good one! I'll take a crack at how I'd handle it: 1. Although I don't think it is written in the rules - casualties "should not be" taken in a way that gets a unit out of coherency as it is not a voluntary action. But it would be easy to cause in the case above if BS Bob took a wound, being unique and all. So yeah, you'd be out of coherency. 2. Space marines can always rally so long as no enemy unit is nearby. 3. The marines would rally and have to use their 3inch consolidation move to get back into coherency, then soldier on as normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 How about for those instances when the unit does not have the aegis of ATSKNF, like Guardsmen or Eldar punks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehoel Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 As I understand the Unit Coherency (page 12, 40k main book) and Fall Back! (page 45, same book) rules, the Fall Back movement after the loss of of coherency would have to restore it if possible. For example: O...O...O...x...O...O <(aw no!) to O...O...O....O...O <(see it?) thus each model moves 1/2 inch towards the others while still moving towards the table edge by the shortest route that obeys both rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglez Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 yes but by moving diagonally they are not moving towards the table edge by the shortest route, and thus they should have to move in a straight line unless terrain or a unit is in the way. I guess that this would stop units regrouping as they aren't in coherency, unless you used a vehicle or friendly squad to "herd" them back into coherency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 My take: p. 12 is quite emphatic that units must attempt to restore coherency in their next movement phase. p. 45 is key. It says each model moves 'directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route' This does not necessarily mean models travel perpendicularly to the table edge. After all, you move around impassable terrain, etc. If a unit must restore coherency as soon as possible, and they must fall back towards their table edge in the shortest possible route, the fall back move should aim to both restore coherency and move as far towards the table edge as possible. To my mind, a unit moving in such a way as to not attempt to restore coherency is moving in an illegal way, and therefore is not moving in a possible way, so to speak. Well, that's my position. Interesting question this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I have to agree with pingo, thats been my take on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I was going to disagree, but that is a great point pingo. The 'must' trumps the falling back rules. Still the unit would have another round they could not rally {until they are back in coherency at the start of their turn}. This would still stop Marines from regrouping as it is one of the 'other criteria' that still applies, like an enemy within 6". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehoel Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Thank you Pingo, you said it better than I did. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 I can agree with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algesan Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 pingo FTW with reading and reasoning skillz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.