Close Assault:

Attackers succeed on their Quality Check to assault. Defenders decide to Flee.

The rules state that if the Attackers "take no casualties [from Defensive Fire] or passes any Morale Checks" (3rd paragraph, right column, p.83), that they move into base contact with the defenders.

The last paragraph in that section says, "If the defending unit doesnt flee, the assaulting figures are moved into contact with the defenders and the Close Assault is resolved.

What happens if the Defenders flee? So many options are covered except this!

I'd say they move into base contact with the defenders, who then move their 12" move away (it says "one full Rapid Movement away, so I read this as not less than 12"), leaving the attackers occupying the defender's former spot. Am I right?

Id say it was good to go except the defending unit would imeadiately flee one rapid move, and then the attackers would occupy their (enemy) position....Had the defending unit failed its roll it would then have to choose between taking the CA with no Defensive fire or fleeing one full rapid move and becoming pinned.....Mikey

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

Hmmm, I thought of "Fleeing" as a "Pull Back" move of some sort. Because "rapid move" doesn't define the direction or, the exact distance. Intriguing...

_________________
ad astra per aspera
liber et infractus

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." –- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

Falling Back is clearly defined in direction. Rapid Movement is just a faster move than Tactical, but also is how far you move under a Flee. I think it is a clear 12" move, no more, no less.

I just need to know where the Attackers end up in this case!

Jeasus guys the Tactical and rapid moves are clearly spelled out in the infantry movement part of the rules. On pages 45-46 of the TW rules . Under Movement rates ....Tactical ....Rapid it even gives the rates for mounted troops and reminds you that rates may be affected by terrain or scenario specific conditions.
Which are spelled out in the scenarios or as written in your own scenarios......Mikey

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

In the close assault rules it states That the defending unit after it takes its quality check if it passes it may choose to try to break the assault by fire or flee. It then goes on to describe that if it fails its quality check it may then choose to take the CA with out being able to fire or flee and then become pinned .
When fleeing it may make UP to one full rapid move YOU decide how far but you can not go beyond the rapid move distance for your unit type. See page 82...as for what the attacking unit does it moves to the now vacant enemy position and stands fast as it declared an assault.
on page 88 you can find the effects that terrain may have on fire and movement........Mikey

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

Thanks, Mikey...however the only part of the OP that was in question was what the attackers do after having their prey flee from them. Thanks for finally getting to that

But since we're on the topic of Falling back...

p.83, left column, 4th paragraph under "Close Assault Quality Checks", it states that the defenders may "flee one FULL Rapid movement away".

p.83, right column, 4th paragraph from the top, it states that a defender that fails its Quality Check "can flee UP TO one full Rapid move..."

Emphasis added.

Per the text, it seems that failing the QC and choosing to flee gives the defender more choices in movement, whereas making your QC reduces you to moving the FULL 12" if on foot. Interesting.

And don't point out intent in a rebuttal. Im looking for law here

p.83, left column, 4th paragraph under "Close Assault Quality Checks", it states that the defenders may "flee one FULL Rapid movement away".

p.83, right column, 4th paragraph from the top, it states that a defender that fails its Quality Check "can flee UP TO one full Rapid move..."

They pretty much say the same thing .
The rules are based on intent its a living game nothing is written in stone there is no law anarchy reins supreme.
I think folks overcomplicate it by fualt or accident.
Yes you always have options but the situation limits you some what if your being close assualted and don't want to be you have to sort of rapid move away as the rules clearly state that any unit with in rapid move distance may declare a close assualt.
If you dont move out of CA range you will just get chased until you decide to fight ,run out of table or fail a quality check.
By the way the emphasis was mine not the rules......The only difference between choosing to flee when you fail your quality check is that you become pinned. ........Mikey

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

Thanks for the replies.

I dont mean to be a stickler, but Im going to first tell you what happens in my local gaming community, and then maybe you can understand why the English words IN PRINT in the above examples are actually NOT the same, and why they matter...

Game Lawyers.

No one likes them. Everyone has them. You cannot ignore them, however, if you play against them. They arent always bad sports, or even bad people, but they can be. And our gaming store has them like New York has bed bugs. The 40K scene is FULL of them, and the 40K players dabble in lots of other things too (like I do). And a lot of them are my friends, and I will continue playing with them, but I need to prepare because yes, arguments over semantics and intentions come up daily. I dont really mind it with my friends, but I need to be ready for it.

With that understanding, saying that the statements above are BASICALLY the same is like saying Vanilla is BASICALLY like chocolate. They really aren't.

I am NOT trying to attack you, insult you, or anything demeaning like that, but simply trying to convey that here, in my gaming circle, sentences like those make a difference. The "stone" you claim isnt there is perceived here as the In-Print book, something that was written, edited, proofread, playtested, and put into print, requiring money to buy and models to play with. "I can show you, in black and white, where it says that," someone might say, and until an officially recognized errata comes out, that will stand.

I'm just saying. It makes a difference, and game writers need to recognize that (and this is why the ommission of what happens to the attackers if the defenders flee is important too...it WILL come up and it has no black-and-white to clarify the situation).

K
I'm sorry to hear that you play with folks like that .
This game is different by now you know that, its a living game in that we expect players to make it their own.
If a Game mechanic is not to your liking or doesn't fit you play style we encourage you to change it and make it yours.
I do not play with folks that make it stressful or unpleasant whether friends or not.
The words Can and may both imply choice I don't know what more I can tell you .
This game simply will not appeal to everyone no matter how much we would wish it to.

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

Easy there, buddy, dont get defensive.

I'm not sorry about the friends I play with. I actually really like them. If you have never had a discussion with a rules lawyer, then you are truly blessed and I hope that always continues.

For those of us who do, we rely on game writers to be as clear and concise as possible. The English language is complex enough that some of us went to college to study it exclusively (well, not EXCLUSIVELY...they threw in all that other mandatory crap lol!).

"Can" and "May" DO both imply choice, but again, that isnt the point of my argument. The operational word in the first example is "FULL", and the operational words in the second are "UP TO."

That's all I'm saying.

I don't take anything personal partner , I have asked the Boss to take a look at your question to see if he can better provide you with an answer.
The reason I don't play with rules lawyers is i make a personal choice. like many of you i have only a limited amount of "Me " time and if I'm not having fun its time wasted.
The whole premise of the game and this forum is FUN having lots of it and helping others to get liberal doses as well. I won't address the educational requirements as they are not a factor to me unless combat related there is a college i can relate to......Mikey

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

Sorry guys, I didn't see this today - took the day off to take my kids to a corn maze about a couple of hours out into the boonies. And no, not to LOSE them.

We made a typo there, pure and simple.

It should read "a full Rapid Move" in both instances.

I'll make an errata entry!

_________________
Shawn Carpenter
Game Designer, Ambush Alley Games

"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

Hope the corn maze was fun! My kids arent old enough for such fun yet, but in a few more years, its on!

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like, if a unit flees, it MUST move a full 12" (assuming an Infantry unit). No more, no less...

And I'd like to clarify that this measurement is made from the squad leader, and the rest of the unit is placed in coherency with him in any shape or fashion? I can appreciate the abstractness of this, but Im trying to wrap my head around it.

NOTE: While I purchased Ambush Alley PDF YEARS ago, I mean, like back when it was first put out, I have never actually played a game, or even really analyzed one of your rulesets. This one is looking really, really good, but Im just making sure I have my ducks in a row since Im the one who will be doing most of the teaching...

Fair enough, plain and simple. Or is it? It would seem sensible to me that if a suitable piece of terrain (eg a wall, building or foxhole) was 'within' a full rapid move, the retreating unit would likely opt to seek cover in it.
I think what Kealios is getting at is that his group of 40K mates would read this as meaning a retreating unit would HAVE to make EXACTLY one full rapid move.

(Warhammer and 40K players have been subject to an unfortunate rules statement from Rick P. known as RAW - rules as written. The letter of the written rule must be adheard to - even when its plainly a typo. Hence the rules lawyers in abundance).

So allowing for the fact that the rules are living, and we are free to play as we choose (and I think I would allow a fleeing unit to bunker down within a full rapid move if the terrain is suitable; Shawn would you see this as within the intent of the rules?
Or is it EXACTLY one full move, each and everytime?