Coherency while Falling Back

[usa_supersonic]

So the rules say that you must restore unit coherency as soon as possible in the movement phase.

So if I am falling back towards my table edge and i am out of coherency ,I must try first to restore my coherency and then move toward the table edge with the rest of my movement ( example 3 marines are falling back one is 5 " away behind them,I roll 8" to fallback/Must I move them in coherency and then move 3-5" to my table edge,or they can not restore unit coherency when they are falling back)

[SonicPara]

I have never encountered this scenario so I'm not sure on the exact way to carry it out but I can at least lend an opinion. If your Marines are falling back 8" but are 5" apart then I think the two separated parties would each move 1.5" towards each other (so that they would be 2" away and in coherency) and then fall back 6.5" towards the table edge. If I was the opponent I may be inclined to call cheese if someone were to burn 5" of their fall back by moving one party completely to the other before retreating instead of the two groups meeting each other in the middle.

[Wildeybeast]

No you are not required to maintain coherenecy when falling back. The fall back rules state that units "fall back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest route possible". So you do not need to move them back into coherency, each model moves back in as straight a line as possible (the diagram on p45 of BRB gives a good illustration of how this works). This is why the rules on unit coherency allow you to move back into coherency in subsequent movement phases, since casulties from shooting, assult and pile in moves and such like can lead to you being out of coherency. This is fine, so long as you restore it in your subsequent movement phase.

If the unit falling back regroups in it's subsequent movement phase, it must use its 3 inch regroup move to get as close as it possibly can to being in coherency. If it can't make it, you restore coherency in the subsequent movement phase. If you fail to/cannot regroup, they keep moving directly towards the table edge, out of coherency (they are running for their lives, doing so in an orderly fashion isn't high on their priority list!)

[AbusePuppy]

Actually, you are not allowed to regroup when not in coherency (not even Space Marines, although Fearless units still will do so automatically), so I have always been under the assumption that units falling back were allowed to move together to attempt to restore coherency, albeit while still falling back (i.e. move some models diagonally, not directly towards the table edge, in order to regain coherency.)

Otherwise once you have lost coherency it is impossible to ever regroup unless they are assaulted or suffer casualties in such a way as to restore coherency, which is not an entirely unreasonable interpretation, but seems over-strict on a part of the game that realistically only affects a few units.

[Tynskel]

yeah, the rules may state fall back to the board edge--- but it doesn't state individual models must fall back directly to the board edge. The unit must do so.

You are still bound by stipulation of the movement phase, ie. maintaining coherency.

[Wildeybeast]

Abusepuppy makes a good point I forgot about, you can't test to regroup whilst not in coherency.


yeah, the rules may state fall back to the board edge--- but it doesn't state individual models must fall back directly to the board edge. The unit must do so.

You are still bound by stipulation of the movement phase, ie. maintaining coherency.

Actually they do state that. Read p45 properly and it says "each model in the unit is moved directly towards their own table edge by the shortest route possible". They do not move back up together, and then make their remaing move, each model is moved directly (they have even put in a picture to show how to do this properly). So if you get out of coherency in an assault and the fall back, you are stuffed as you won't be able to regroup. Something to keep in mind when removing casualties in the assault phase.

Also, there is nothing in the rules specifiying that fall back and regroup moves are covered by the movement phase rules. They are a special type of movement rule, hence why they are in their own section and have their own rules. They are the same as assault and pile in moves, which are covered seperately to the movement rules and have their own set of criteria that must be followed (p34) rather than the rules just saying 'they must follow all the normal movement rules'. Given that assult move rules state that you must maintain coherency, it follows that GW would also add this clause to the fall back rules. They have not

[thecactusman17]

Easy solution: Run your fleeing models and move those towards coherency. Running models do not necessarily have to move full distance or even at all, so running at the right moment can steer units back into coherency for the next movement phase.

[SeattleDV8]

Abusepuppy makes a good point I forgot about, you can't test to regroup whilst not in coherency.



Actually they do state that. Read p45 properly and it says "each model in the unit is moved directly towards their own table edge by the shortest route possible". They do not move back up together, and then make their remaing move, each model is moved directly (they have even put in a picture to show how to do this properly). So if you get out of coherency in an assault and the fall back, you are stuffed as you won't be able to regroup. Something to keep in mind when removing casualties in the assault phase.

Also, there is nothing in the rules specifiying that fall back and regroup moves are covered by the movement phase rules. They are a special type of movement rule, hence why they are in their own section and have their own rules. They are the same as assault and pile in moves, which are covered seperately to the movement rules and have their own set of criteria that must be followed (p34) rather than the rules just saying 'they must follow all the normal movement rules'. Given that assult move rules state that you must maintain coherency, it follows that GW would also add this clause to the fall back rules. They have not

Not so, If you read pg 45 Trapped you see that we follow the movement rules for impassable terrain , you can't move to within 1" of an enemy model and
"....in such a way to get back to their table edge by the shortest route, maintaining unit coherency"
The coherency rules are not over turned by fall back.
You 'must' regain coherency while falling back the shortest 'possible' path.

[SotonShades]

Easy solution: Run your fleeing models and move those towards coherency. Running models do not necessarily have to move full distance or even at all, so running at the right moment can steer units back into coherency for the next movement phase.

I don't believe models falling back are allowed to run, though I can't get to my rulebook to check.

Edit; yep found my rule book and checked, do please ignore this post :)

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg. 46. Firing while falling back
".....choose to run instead of firing, but if they do so it must be towards their own table edge."
BRB FAQ
"Q: When a model that can move outside of the
Movement phase, for example jet pack infantry, is
falling back, can it use this move? (page 45)
A: Yes, though it must follow the Fall Back! rules to
determine the direction it will move in."

[Wildeybeast]

Not so, If you read pg 45 Trapped you see that we follow the movement rules for impassable terrain , you can't move to within 1" of an enemy model and
"....in such a way to get back to their table edge by the shortest route, maintaining unit coherency"
The coherency rules are not over turned by fall back.
You 'must' regain coherency while falling back the shortest 'possible' path.

1) That applies to rules regarding the trapped scenario where models are called on to make unusual mocves to get round obstacles, not the standard fall back move.
2) If it was important that they maintain coherency whilst making that standard fallback move, that would be mentioned in the rules for making a fallback move. It is not. RAW seems very clear to me - you move each model directly back towards its own table edge by the shortest route possible. Moving back into coherency is not the shortest route possible, nor is it directly towards the table edge.

I should perhaps point out that I don't actually play this way, we simply move one model the full 2D6, then move the rest of them up around him maintaining coherency as it's much easier to play this way (and it means youactually have a chance to regroup). However, according to the rules, you do not do this, you simply move each model directly towards its own table edge.

[SeattleDV8]

The coherency rules are not ignored or over-ruled .
Nothing in the Fall Back rules state that.
The only changes are direction, distance and no difficult terrain tests.
The trapped section of the rules is part of Fall Back and as such points out that it is still in effect.
The models 'must' regain coherency while falling back as short a path to the table edge 'as possible'.

[Wildeybeast]

1) You have missed the key word - maintain. They are not in coherency to start with, therefore they cannot maintain it. Hence why the movement rules allow you to regain coherency at the start of your movement phase.
2) The rules on coherency apply in the movement phase, hence why they are covered in the movement rules. There are also seperate entries in the run rules and the assault moves, stating that they apply there. No where does it say that they must be maintained throughout the entire turn, hence why you can end up out of coherency through things such as removing casulties. If they were intended to apply throughout, there would be no way you could get out of coherency in the first place. Again I come back to the RAW point that no where in the fall back rules does it say that you are compelled to regain coherency. The coherency rules on p12 state that you must move to regain coherency at that start of your next movement phase, not asap.

[SeattleDV8]

So you are suggesting that we only follow part of the coherency rules?
You have not proven that fall back ignores coherency, there are only 3 changes in the Fall back movement and coherency isn't on that list.
Just like we can't move through impassable terrain, freindly model bases and move within 1" of enemy models ,the coherency rules are still used in fall back.
The only ways one can move out of coherency is the permission given to IC's.
In all other cases it occurs due to casualties.
That is why the fall back rules use the wording 'possible' for cases like impassable terrain, enemy units and being out of coherency.
In the next movement phase we 'must' regain it.

[Wildeybeast]

Conversely you have have not proved that it applies throughout the whole turn, rather than just moves made in the movement phase. Again I lay down the challenge, show me where in the rules it says that coherency must be maintained throughout turn, or that coherency applies to every single type of move made, not just standard moves made in the movement phase, or indeed that models making fallback moves must first regain coherency, rather than doing so at the start of the next movement phase, as the rules clearly state.

[Caldera02]

This is pretty simple guys really. You cannot regroup if you are out of coherency. You fall back again while moving to be within coherency and moving towards the board edge. If you are still out of coherency you cannot regroup until that is attained. There are ways around this. Moving units in the way or vehicles to cause the unit to move in way to recover unit coherency.

This is almost the same thing as not being able to regroup while an enemy is within 6'in. If that enemy keeps following you then you can't regroup. If you kill that enemy then that limitation is no longer there. So if you can regain coherency whilst falling back then you can regroup.

[SeattleDV8]

Conversely you have have not proved that it applies throughout the whole turn, rather than just moves made in the movement phase. Again I lay down the challenge, show me where in the rules it says that coherency must be maintained throughout turn, or that coherency applies to every single type of move made, not just standard moves made in the movement phase, or indeed that models making fallback moves must first regain coherency, rather than doing so at the start of the next movement phase, as the rules clearly state.

BRB pg. 34 Moving Assaulting models mentions coherency 3 times.
To be fair nothing is stated in the rules for Run or Consolidation

Your last line is confusing in that your next movement phase is when you would be making your Fall Back move and is where I have said you must regain coherency.
I don't have to prove that it is used in the other phases , although I have.
It is used in the movement phase and is used with the fall back rules.

[Wildeybeast]

BRB pg. 34 Moving Assaulting models mentions coherency 3 times.
To be fair nothing is stated in the rules for Run or Consolidation

Your last line is confusing in that your next movement phase is when you would be making your Fall Back move and is where I have said you must regain coherency.
I don't have to prove that it is used in the other phases , although I have.
It is used in the movement phase and is used with the fall back rules.

My point is, when you lose combat, you are compelled to make a fallback move. This involves moving each individual model 2d6 inches directly towards its own table edge, as the rules on falling back clearly state. If these models have ended up out of coherency due to removing casulties in the assault phase, so be it, you move each model directly back, out of coherency. No where does it say that they have to move in coherency. Then, in the subsequent movement phase, you can regroup and use the regroup move to get back into coherency (except you can't test to regroup as you are out of coherency!) The rules for fallback moves explictly over rule coherency as it clearly tells you to move each individual model directly - if coherency was relevant, it would be mentioned as per the moving assault models. This is special type of move that over rules the normal movement rules - it tells you clearly & simply exactly how you should move your models.

[Tynskel]

you are mistaken. The rules do not have to state that they must be moved in coherency, because the movement rules state that they must be in coherency. The only way to override that is to explicitly state that the models can move out of coherency.

To further support this, later the rules state that the squad maintain coherency.

[Caldera02]

I think that is pretty rich to assume, since you are falling back and out of coherency that you automatically are not allowed to regroup ever. The only thing that explicitly states that is if the squad is under 50%.

Think of it this way. The three ways you can't regroup are under 50%, enemy within 6, and out of coherency. Think of the later 2 as temporary limitations that can be overcome wihtin the rules. the under 50% is the only exception because it specfically says so.

So try to bend the rules however you like, I don' believe that's how it works at all.

[chicop76]

Wow, very interesting stuff going on here.

1. This situation rarely comes up first of all.
2. When it does come up it's when a player spreads out his models to excape template death and they get assaulted from 2 units from two different ends.
MM
The. MM is a monsterous creature and the M is marines. C is for chaplain and P is for powerfist.

Before the assault you have a 10 man squad set up like this.

MMC........ M............. M............M...........M............. m
MM................................................ ...............MM
M..........M...........M............M............. ..PMM

In the above scenerio you have two Monsterous creatures assaulting from different sides, on the left the Monsterous Creature is engaged with a marine and the chaplain, while the other one is engaged with the power fist marine, due to the nature of the charge you can't move the 3 models in base and you must try to get in base contact when the defender reacts.


mCm............................................... ................mm
MMm............................................... ..........PMM
MMm............................................... ........mMM
m................................................. .............m

With the top scenerio as you can see the marine unit is out of cohenrency. The proble with removing casulties is that you want to keep your chaplain and your power fist guy alive. Also if the Monsterous Creature player ignores the Chaplain to help win combat you might get something like this if both monsters manage to kill 8 marines.


Cm.
MM................................................ ..........PMM
MM................................................ ............MM

The problem now is that you fail leadership and run, the powerfist model is roughly 12" away from the nearest model. If the models run up or down they have to take the shortest route so they have to go strait up or down, running towards the center to get within 2 is not going to work because it's not the shortest route towards the board edge.

If you run left or right I don't see how you can justify fuging 10" to get withing 2". I'm going to hav to look at the re group rules when I get a chance. As far as it looks if you're not within 2 you can't regroup.

[SeattleDV8]

You fall back the shortest possible path.
In some cases you may even move away from the table edge , for example BRB FAQ

Q: If a unit making a fall back move can only move its
full distance by moving away from its board edge due
to enemy troops and/or impassable terrain does it
count as being Trapped! (p45)
A: No, a unit will only be Trapped! if it is completely
surrounded and is unable to move its full fall back
move in any direction without doubling back on itself.

So you don't always move your full distance towards the edge.
In the case you lay out the models must regain coherency and so move their full distance towards each other until back into coherency and then move to the table edge.
You are not given permission to ignore the coherency rules.