"Beat Back" and choosing not to push

[Kiwidru]

Hello all, first post! I did a good amount of searching and couldn't directly address my question:

Can a model with Beat Back opt not to push a target and still advance?

Real World Example:
1. Bronzeback uses animus and charges the left side of a beast.
2. Bronzeback hits, chooses not to push, and then advances 1" around the front arc.
3. Repeat untill bronzeback has advanced to the right side of the beast.

I know of the ruling when you can advance even if a model is killed, as well as the infernal ruling stating that you may advance even if the model cannot be pushed based on the fact that it doesn't require a successful push. I believe the exact Infernal ruling is "'After the push' is a Sequencing rule not a Conditional rule.". This implies that rather than being conditional on the outcome of the push, all it requires is that a push was attempted prior in the sequence.

However, both of those situations have the "Pusher" attempting to trigger the Beat Back ability. If a player opts to not trigger the push, it stands to reason that they also forgo the advance as no push was attempted to trigger the "after the push" sequencing rule.

Thanks in Advance!
Dru

[baronvonchaos]

As I read and understand it, It does say "CAN" so you can choose to push or not push with beatback, however the last line denotes that "after the model is pushed" that's when you can advance up to 1". Thus if you don't push, you don't get to advance.

I'll let other people confirm or tweak what I say. I have been wrong before.

[captainspud]

No push, no advance.

[PG_Minted1985]

To clarify,

You can choose to push the target back, then you can advance after resolving the attack. If you choose not to push the target you do not get the extra advance.

Choosing to push the target seems to be the crux of the ruling, as you can choose to push a model you have killed as well as being able to choose to push a model that cannot be pushed.

[solkan]

If you destroyed the target model, you didn't push it, either. :-/

And there's the ruling about if you do elect to perform the push attack but the target can't be pushed:
http://privateerpressforums.com/show...l=1#post342072

The push occurs after the complete attack is resolved. A destroyed model is no longer there to be pushed but Beat Back still allows you to move after the attack that destroyed the model. This should tell you that the actual push is not what triggers the move.
Yes, you can make your Beat Back move even when you hit an Immobile model.

Doesn't seem to make any difference whether you choose to push an immobile object. Not very far from there to concluding that it doesn't make any difference whether you choose to cause the target to "be pushed". (Note: Beat back doesn't cause the model to push the other. It literally just causes "being pushed" to apply to the model, as differentiated on page 77 of Primal Mk II.)

[Rynth]

While the commonly given answer is likely correct, there is an Infernal ruling that suggests otherwise:

The push occurs after the complete attack is resolved. A destroyed model is no longer there to be pushed but Beat Back still allows you to move after the attack that destroyed the model. This should tell you that the actual push is not what triggers the move.

We've, to my knowledge, been told what the actual trigger for the move is.

EDIT: Ninja'd

[captainspud]

It doesn't matter if the model actually gets pushed or not, whether because it's dead or because it can't be pushed. What matters is that you chose to push. Essentially, you resolve the attack, and then the game asks, "So, are you going to use Beat Back?" If you do, you resolve as much of it as you can-- you push the model away, then you get to move. If you choose not to resolve it, then nothing happens-- neither the push nor the advance.

Beat Back is a package deal. You invoke all of it, or none.

[vintersbastard]

It doesn't matter if the model actually gets pushed or not, whether because it's dead or because it can't be pushed. What matters is that you chose to push. Essentially, you resolve the attack, and then the game asks, "So, are you going to use Beat Back?" If you do, you resolve as much of it as you can-- you push the model away, then you get to move. If you choose not to resolve it, then nothing happens-- neither the push nor the advance.

Beat Back is a package deal. You invoke all of it, or none.

I'm really not convinced by that. It doesn't say "you can push the other model, and after that make an advance." It says "you can push the other model. After that, you can make an advance." There are two times that the word "can" shows up, and each seems to imply an independent choice.

[Valander]

Checking...

[Bishop84]

double post...

[Karchev_the_Terrible]

In most cases, it depends on whether the two conditions are seperated by a comma, or a period, if it's "push a model, after that advance one inch" then the push (or attempt) is required, if it's "push a model. After that, advance one inch" then the push attempt isn't, but let's wait for infernal ruling.

[Bishop84]

There are two times that the word "can" shows up, and each seems to imply an independent choice.

I agree that both are optional. If you push the target, you don't have to move. However, the part about "after the model is pushed" seems to set up a prerequisite to the move. It's obvious through the tactical tip and Infernal rulings that the target in question doesn't actually have to be pushed, but the attempt to push sounds like the trigger to the possible move.

[vintersbastard]

However, the part about "after the model is pushed" seems to set up a prerequisite to the move. It's obvious through the tactical tip and Infernal rulings that the target in question doesn't actually have to be pushed, but the attempt to push sounds like the trigger to the possible move.

Nope. TacTip as well as rulings indicate that no attempt to push is necessary: you cannot attempt to push a model that is not there (because it was destroyed), yet you get to move.

[captainspud]

There are two times that the word "can" shows up, and each seems to imply an independent choice.

The first is independent, but the second is dependent. So, it isn't structured like this:

• You may [push]. Then, you may [advance].

...but rather, like this:

• You may [push. Then, you may [advance].]

The first "may" determines whether you ever get to the second decision point. At that point, you can decline to do the second part. But you'll never even reach the blue "may" unless you first agree to the red one.

[PG_dungeongod]

The first is independent, but the second is dependent. So, it isn't structured like this:

• You may [push]. Then, you may [advance].

...but rather, like this:

• You may [push. Then, you may [advance].]

The first "may" determines whether you ever get to the second decision point. At that point, you can decline to do the second part. But you'll never even reach the blue "may" unless you first agree to the red one.

It depends on how you are parsing "Then" - is it "After you choose to push, you can then choose to advance" or is it "After you choose to push, IF you push you can then choose to advance."

Both are correct parsings of English grammar, and both are perfectly valid. Beyond that, the infernal ruling linked directly contradicts what you are claiming, which trumps anything written in the text. Also, Valander is currently checking for double verification (Thanks for that Valander!)

[Valander]

Answer is: if you choose not to push, you do not get to advance.