Would cc be more viable if the retreating unit had to take a round of attacks to retreat? Would it nullify the whole retreat from combat strategy? I was wondering this as people seem to have problems with close combat and the core rules seem to favor shooty vs combat lists.
I think the biggest problem currently is the number of units (or whole armies) who can completely ignore those mechanics. The penalty associated is fine, but as it stands, anyone who can fly, Space Marine, IG, and a bunch of armies I'm forgetting (most Eldar vehicles?) Have ways to completely ignore the otherwise fair penalty.
Yes it is strange, they singled out large amounts of units ignoring universal rules in 7th as an issue, and then they did it again with FLY in 8th!
I think every unit taking a single attack from models with an inch would be fair, a whole round of free attacks would be too much and no-one would ever retreat.
Alternative you could do a 'reverse overwatch' where you get a round of free attacks but they hit on 6's.
I think both those ideas would slow down the game. Doing something like any unit who retreats takes D6 mortal wounds (FLY units get a reroll) would be best imo.
My personal favorite is to make falling back only work half the time, but improve the odds for mobile units.
Roll a D6 whenever a unit falls back. Add 1 to the roll if the unit can FLY. Add 1 to the roll if the unit has a higher movement stat than all other units within 1". Add 4 to the roll if the unit falling back is a VEHICLE or MONSTER. On a 4+ the unit falls back successfully. If the roll is failed, the unit does not fall back. A roll of 1 always fails. In addition, VEHICLES and MONSTERS may move though enemy non-VEHICLE models and non-MONSTER models when making their fall back move as if they were not there.
This way mobile, aerial units are able to hit and run effectively and not get bogged down, while units that should be able to disengage by disregarding the enemy entirely also get to fall back most of the time. Grots should in no way EVER prevent a Land Raider or Carnifex from just ignoring them and moving away.
"When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
There should at least be some sort of roll-off, something like "Roll a D6 and add your Move characteristic, if the retreating unit scores higher they may retreat, otherwise they remain locked", with possible boosts to the roll for Fly units and other such modifiers.
Doesn't make sense that you have fast hunter squads like Raptors, Howling Banshees etc, and the poor grunts they've just charge can just go "Sod this, I'm off", leaving the whole unit vulnerable for a turn.
Valkyrie wrote: There should at least be some sort of roll-off, something like "Roll a D6 and add your Move characteristic, if the retreating unit scores higher they may retreat, otherwise they remain locked", with possible boosts to the roll for Fly units and other such modifiers.
Doesn't make sense that you have fast hunter squads like Raptors, Howling Banshees etc, and the poor grunts they've just charge can just go "Sod this, I'm off", leaving the whole unit vulnerable for a turn.
Because Screw Orks, amirite?
Seriously though, the divide between movement values for some units is so vast that this would not work at all.
Jump infantry could tie down infantry forever. Bikes could tie down jump infantry. Fast vehicles tie down bikes.
Another alternative would be to allow a unit that's suddenly free after having been Fall Back'd from can make a consolidation move. This would allow assault units to run into cover, move into another nearby unit, or even catch the unit trying to run away.
Personally, I just let them lock my meat-puppets in melee, and drive right past in tanks to go get the objectives. Or I take advantage of the new Valhallan rules to still get a shooting phase in melee. (Or just bring superheavies that get to do that anyway)
combatcotton wrote: "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
This might be the best suggestion I've seen. You allow for tactical withdrawals but at a cost if you've got multiple units engaged, and it doesn't screw over the assaulting unit by letting the entire army *dakkadakkadakka* them into oblivion. It also makes for some interesting options if people interrupt turn order with Command Points in order to get a more valuable unit out of combat before the enemy can punch them in the face.
combatcotton wrote: "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
This might be the best suggestion I've seen. You allow for tactical withdrawals but at a cost if you've got multiple units engaged, and it doesn't screw over the assaulting unit by letting the entire army *dakkadakkadakka* them into oblivion. It also makes for some interesting options if people interrupt turn order with Command Points in order to get a more valuable unit out of combat before the enemy can punch them in the face.
I strongly, *strongly* disagree. This lets basically any shooty unit Nope! out of combat with very, very little penalty - if any. Tau especially come to mind as an army that would be broken levels of unfair against Melee - They shoot at you, then overwatch, you get to hit them once, they fall back, they shoot you again.
For units that are bad in melee, and who don't use Heavy weapons, this provides no drawback.
Why should I ever leave my Hellblasters locked when they can just fall back and double tap with Plasma instead?
combatcotton wrote: "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
This might be the best suggestion I've seen. You allow for tactical withdrawals but at a cost if you've got multiple units engaged, and it doesn't screw over the assaulting unit by letting the entire army *dakkadakkadakka* them into oblivion. It also makes for some interesting options if people interrupt turn order with Command Points in order to get a more valuable unit out of combat before the enemy can punch them in the face.
I strongly, *strongly* disagree. This lets basically any shooty unit Nope! out of combat with very, very little penalty - if any. Tau especially come to mind as an army that would be broken levels of unfair against Melee - They shoot at you, then overwatch, you get to hit them once, they fall back, they shoot you again.
For units that are bad in melee, and who don't use Heavy weapons, this provides no drawback.
Why should I ever leave my Hellblasters locked when they can just fall back and double tap with Plasma instead?
Hm, I read the suggestion as being "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase during your turn", with the bolded part obviously not being there. If they'd be forced to back up during their own turn they could still back up before the melee unit got to swing, giving them some sort of incentive to back out, but it wouldn't allow for the entire army to just delete the poor melee unit in the shooting phase, as that would already be over by then. This obviously wouldn't work if they'd be allowed to back out during the opponent's fight phase, though.
Kroem wrote: Yes it is strange, they singled out large amounts of units ignoring universal rules in 7th as an issue, and then they did it again with FLY in 8th!
I think every unit taking a single attack from models with an inch would be fair, a whole round of free attacks would be too much and no-one would ever retreat.
Alternative you could do a 'reverse overwatch' where you get a round of free attacks but they hit on 6's.
I think both those ideas would slow down the game. Doing something like any unit who retreats takes D6 mortal wounds (FLY units get a reroll) would be best imo.
Love this idea! Although I would say D3 Mortal wounds. D6 just seems brutal, however you are retreating from combat.
Kroem wrote: Yes it is strange, they singled out large amounts of units ignoring universal rules in 7th as an issue, and then they did it again with FLY in 8th!
I think every unit taking a single attack from models with an inch would be fair, a whole round of free attacks would be too much and no-one would ever retreat.
Alternative you could do a 'reverse overwatch' where you get a round of free attacks but they hit on 6's.
I think both those ideas would slow down the game. Doing something like any unit who retreats takes D6 mortal wounds (FLY units get a reroll) would be best imo.
Love this idea! Although I would say D3 Mortal wounds. D6 just seems brutal, however you are retreating from combat.
I think if you wanted to go this way the way to do it would be something like "When a unit falls back Roll a D6 for each model within 1" of an enemy unit on a 6+ the unit suffers a mortal wound."
Maybe make it +1 to this roll for every additional model within 1" of that model.
My favorite solution is:
"When activating a unit in the fight phase, you may have them prepare to flee instead. This unit may not attack for the rest of the phase, and suffers a penalty to leadership on the upcoming morale phase equal to double the models lost this turn, rather than the normal amount. Additionally, any ability that makes a unit immune or resistant to morale is reduced in effectiveness. Such a unit instead takes a morale test as normal instead of at double penalty. (Retreating while vicious monsters swipe at your heels is very disquieting, and this also represents the chance that some unit members may be cut down while trying to move away, rather than fleeing the field.)
On the following movement phase, any unit that prepared to flee may move out of combat (as long as all models can leave normal movement rules etc etc) and the unit may not shoot or assault this turn."
Kroem wrote: Yes it is strange, they singled out large amounts of units ignoring universal rules in 7th as an issue, and then they did it again with FLY in 8th!
I think every unit taking a single attack from models with an inch would be fair, a whole round of free attacks would be too much and no-one would ever retreat.
Alternative you could do a 'reverse overwatch' where you get a round of free attacks but they hit on 6's.
I think both those ideas would slow down the game. Doing something like any unit who retreats takes D6 mortal wounds (FLY units get a reroll) would be best imo.
Love this idea! Although I would say D3 Mortal wounds. D6 just seems brutal, however you are retreating from combat.
I think if you wanted to go this way the way to do it would be something like "When a unit falls back Roll a D6 for each model within 1" of an enemy unit on a 6+ the unit suffers a mortal wound."
Maybe make it +1 to this roll for every additional model within 1" of that model.
I could live with this, but maybe a 4+ to suffer a wound?
4+ would be far too much, it would result in most units taking 50% casualties just to fall back. I prefer the 6+, then +1 to the roll for every other model within 1 from the attacking unit if it needs to be stronger. Or +1 for every model with 1" that exceeds the number of enemy models.
That way single big models are almost guaranteed to take a wound when surrounded by smaller models, but a single grot that is in base with a land raider isn't wounding it on a 4+.
I mean against larger squads wounding on a 4+ is way stronger than even a D6 for mortal wounds.
jeff white wrote: How about the unit falling back counts as having shot during its next shooting phase?
But, let it move as normal?
But, no assaulting?
...I see what you did there...
Maybe let units with the Fly keyword shoot as normal after falling back? And maybe let harlequins shoot and assault as normal? We could even give guard an order that lets them get back in the fight after they opt to fall back. ;D
combatcotton wrote: "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
This might be the best suggestion I've seen. You allow for tactical withdrawals but at a cost if you've got multiple units engaged, and it doesn't screw over the assaulting unit by letting the entire army *dakkadakkadakka* them into oblivion. It also makes for some interesting options if people interrupt turn order with Command Points in order to get a more valuable unit out of combat before the enemy can punch them in the face.
I strongly, *strongly* disagree. This lets basically any shooty unit Nope! out of combat with very, very little penalty - if any. Tau especially come to mind as an army that would be broken levels of unfair against Melee - They shoot at you, then overwatch, you get to hit them once, they fall back, they shoot you again.
For units that are bad in melee, and who don't use Heavy weapons, this provides no drawback.
Why should I ever leave my Hellblasters locked when they can just fall back and double tap with Plasma instead?
Hm, I read the suggestion as being "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase during your turn", with the bolded part obviously not being there. If they'd be forced to back up during their own turn they could still back up before the melee unit got to swing, giving them some sort of incentive to back out, but it wouldn't allow for the entire army to just delete the poor melee unit in the shooting phase, as that would already be over by then. This obviously wouldn't work if they'd be allowed to back out during the opponent's fight phase, though.
Throw in the "during your turn" part, and I'm on board. This gives you a reason to take melee units that can step in and "block" for escaping units. My scorpions and banshees aren't great, but they might be my means of letting a squad of guardians escape an enemy melee unit. Would we still allow units with Fly to fall back in the movement phase as normal in this system?
jeff white wrote: How about the unit falling back counts as having shot during its next shooting phase?
But, let it move as normal?
But, no assaulting?
...I see what you did there...
Maybe let units with the Fly keyword shoot as normal after falling back? And maybe let harlequins shoot and assault as normal? We could even give guard an order that lets them get back in the fight after they opt to fall back. ;D
combatcotton wrote: "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
This might be the best suggestion I've seen. You allow for tactical withdrawals but at a cost if you've got multiple units engaged, and it doesn't screw over the assaulting unit by letting the entire army *dakkadakkadakka* them into oblivion. It also makes for some interesting options if people interrupt turn order with Command Points in order to get a more valuable unit out of combat before the enemy can punch them in the face.
I strongly, *strongly* disagree. This lets basically any shooty unit Nope! out of combat with very, very little penalty - if any. Tau especially come to mind as an army that would be broken levels of unfair against Melee - They shoot at you, then overwatch, you get to hit them once, they fall back, they shoot you again.
For units that are bad in melee, and who don't use Heavy weapons, this provides no drawback.
Why should I ever leave my Hellblasters locked when they can just fall back and double tap with Plasma instead?
Hm, I read the suggestion as being "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase during your turn", with the bolded part obviously not being there. If they'd be forced to back up during their own turn they could still back up before the melee unit got to swing, giving them some sort of incentive to back out, but it wouldn't allow for the entire army to just delete the poor melee unit in the shooting phase, as that would already be over by then. This obviously wouldn't work if they'd be allowed to back out during the opponent's fight phase, though.
Throw in the "during your turn" part, and I'm on board. This gives you a reason to take melee units that can step in and "block" for escaping units. My scorpions and banshees aren't great, but they might be my means of letting a squad of guardians escape an enemy melee unit. Would we still allow units with Fly to fall back in the movement phase as normal in this system?
demontalons wrote: What about just saying that units who retreat from combat suffer d3 mortal wounds for every 10 models? This would help hurt blob units.
You could have fly units just suffer d3 wounds, to show their ease of getting into and out of combat.
I'd like D3 every 5 models, or D6 every 10. Losing 30% of the squad while falling back seems fair to me.
Alternatively units that want to fall back should roll a D6 and on a 4+ they can escape, otherwise they can't. Or maybe change that 4+ with other results that are based on the unit WS, high WS should let you escape easier.
I think that would make it too complicated by introducing ws comparisons. A straight d3 mortal wounds gives the attacking side a "victory" for forcing a retreat while the other side has to weigh the benefits/losses of retreating.
30 conscripts suffering d3 wounds per 10 would lose 6 models on average, which doesn't sound like a lot but even a 5 man raptor squad is going to kill on average 4, so you've now doubled your wound output.
Why not JUST a straight D3 mortal wounds? We don't need to overcomplicate everything. Most units not being able to act is already pretty good and the D3 really hurts the units that can.
D3 regardless of the number of the unit? No thanks. Falling back from CC should be something that even shooty units might want to think about it twice before doing that.
4+ to allow the retreat and suffering D6 mortal wounds every 10 models seems fair to me.
With the insane amount of firepower available, close combat should be more efficient. If a choppy unit actually manages to reach combat don't penalize it with letting the target automatically go away with just a few wounds.
In my ideal game a unit that decides to disengage combat and to fall back should be completely destroyed It would be a tactical sacrifice a player may choose to have the enemy charging unit exposed to firepower.
p5freak wrote: When a unit falls back the enemy unit should have a overwatch like attack. They can attack as usual in CC, but they only hit on 6+.
That's several more steps of dice rolling than some of the other ideas proposed though. An "overwatch" attack would mean you would...
*Roll the attack for each model in the unit.
*Roll to wound for any hits
*Roll saves as applicable
*Possibly roll damage
Compare that to the automatic dX per Y models mechanic which calls for you to only roll dice once or the "fall back in the assault phase" suggestion that doesn't add any dice rolling at all and encourages you to bring counter charge units.
Also, as with actual overwatch, getting to make a few parting shots that hit on 6s would likely result in a lot of dice rolling for not much reliable damage.
How about this. Roll a dice, add or subtract the difference in WS skill. On a 4+ you can fallback, if not you remain in CC. You may sacrifice models to modify the roll. For one model you can subtract one from the roll, you may sacrifice as many as you like.
Example, your WS4+ unit tries to fall back from a WS3+ unit. You roll a 3, which is modified to 2. The enemy is better at CC, therefore its harder to fall back. You decide to sacrifice 2 models, modifying your roll to 4. Your fallback is successful, but at the cost of two models. If there are units with different WS skills, you roll against the best enemy WS skill.
p5freak wrote: How about this. Roll a dice, add or subtract the difference in WS skill. On a 4+ you can fallback, if not you remain in CC. You may sacrifice models to modify the roll. For one model you can subtract one from the roll, you may sacrifice as many as you like.
Example, your WS4+ unit tries to fall back from a WS3+ unit. You roll a 3, which is modified to 2. The enemy is better at CC, therefore its harder to fall back. You decide to sacrifice 2 models, modifying your roll to 4. Your fallback is successful, but at the cost of two models. If there are units with different WS skills, you roll against the best enemy WS skill.
Eh. Maybe, but I don't love it. Some thoughts:
*For starters, comparing WS feels slightly awkward now that we have "#+" instead of just "#". I know it's basic math, but it still trips my brain up a bit.
*Most units have WS 4+, 3+, or sometimes 2+. That means that you'd very rarely be looking at more of a WS modifier than 1 or 2. Which feels insignificant enough not to bother with.
*At best, I'll roll a 6 as you try to run away while you roll a 1. So we're looking at you killing 5 models + the difference in WS to get away. Depending on what unit I'm chasing down, my opponent could be losing anywhere from ~85 points of tactical marines (plus upgrades) to ~15 points of conscripts. So when this mechanic does kick in, it's going to be pretty punishing to elite armies, but really forgiving for hordes. Which feels weird. Am I missing a mechanical or fluff reason that guardsmen should be better at escaping the enemy's clutches than marines?
*It will be common for the escapee to roll higher than their enemies. Even if I'm WS3+ to your 4+, d6s are swingy enough that I'll frequently get away little or no damage. Which makes this whole process feel a little pointless. "Oh no. I had a to kill a bolter marine to escape your melee unit that I will now proceed to blast off the table."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Why not JUST a straight D3 mortal wounds? We don't need to overcomplicate everything. Most units not being able to act is already pretty good and the D3 really hurts the units that can.
d3 mortal wounds can be brutal to a marine squad, to a blob of conscripts not so much. Not scaling with model quality/model count is the #1 issue with mortal wounds.
The difference being that elite low model count armies don't really have a problem with being bogged down in combat. They are usually the ones to engage in the CC.
The D3 mortal wounds is more to give a little bite to a unit retreating. I think d3 per ten models would be enough. This also makes vehicles think twice before charging.
At the moment it takes a lot to get units into close combat. But not a lot for units to get out of combat. D3 mortal wounds makes it a choice instead of a no brainer.
You could even modify it to be d3 models per unit engaged with. This would balance msu with hordes.
demontalons wrote: The difference being that elite low model count armies don't really have a problem with being bogged down in combat. They are usually the ones to engage in the CC.
The D3 mortal wounds is more to give a little bite to a unit retreating. I think d3 per ten models would be enough. This also makes vehicles think twice before charging.
At the moment it takes a lot to get units into close combat. But not a lot for units to get out of combat. D3 mortal wounds makes it a choice instead of a no brainer.
You could even modify it to be d3 models per unit engaged with. This would balance msu with hordes.
I disagree with you about those first and last points. Sternguard, battle suits, and dark reapers are all units from elite, low model count armies that would strongly prefer to be shooting than stabbing. How much damage to do to a unit that runs away in this system is really a question of what you want the goal of that damage to be. Shooty squads that are going to lose combat are still generally going to fall back when they can because they're as good as dead if they stay locked in anyway. So you can either get beat up and not hurt the enemy, or you can fall back, get beat up, and also have your friends shoot the unit that was stabbing you. So units that were going to retreat are probably still going to retreat. If you want a chance at crippling or even destroying the unit, sort of like old sweeping advance but without the chance of wiping a 30boy mob out after kiling one ork boy, then something like "d3 mortal wound for every 5 models in the unit" makes more sense. Making it a flat d3 wounds to the unit regardless of size, power level, etc. is more of an annoyance than a genuine detriment.
I don't think falling back needs a direct nerf. What I can get behind is that too many models ignore the (pretty steep) penalty for doing so. Ultramarines do it, and Fly is a really common keyword.
One thing to think about is that you pretty much have to let Flyers fall back, or you could suddenly kill hundreds of points just by having one jetbike or something engage a plane.
I agree with you but even in those example armies they either have other units with huge amounts of fire power (tau) other highly maneuverable units (eldar) or other dedicated CC units like SM.
The goal here is to reward CC based units for making it into CC. As it is just stopping a unit from shooting after being charged if it falls back isn't enough. I'm not sure GW factored in how beat up most pure CC units are by the time they get into CC.
For instance a noise marine with sonic blaster can fire 6 strength 4 shots per turn (with a strat) from 24 inches.
A berserker on the other hand can hit 6 str 5 shots from within 1 inch. The difference in points is 3.
I'm trying to concoct a rule that rewards players with dedicated CC to be rewarded for getting them there. Usually to make it into CC you had to chew through a lot of chaff and take at least 2 turns of shooting.
I want retreating to be a genuine option and not a no brainer. D3 mortal wounds in most cases will be an annoyance, except for characters and vehicles and elite units. Large chaff units won't care but large chaff units usually disintegrate pretty easily as is. ( conscripts problems is their point cost not game mechanic)
Combined with morale i think it gives a little help to assault units.
Why automatic mortal wounds, or flat 20% losses ? How is a bunch of conscripts dealing mortal wounds to a land raider ?? Why should terminators lose 20% if they retreat from grots ??
The problem I have with automatic mortal wounds (and why I suggested doing mortal wounds on a 6+ is that auto mortal wounds means that if you charge a tank with say a squad of gretchin to stop it from shooting, now if it falls back it auto-takes mortal wounds? Sounds bad to me as it already cannot shoot (assuming it doesn't ignore the rule). It also means that falling back with small units risks losing a ton of models. People suggesting D3 per 5 models, that is losing 20-60% of a unit if you fall back, that is crazy powerful against shooty units. It becomes how to kill a conscript screen, charge it with a rhino, and see if they fall back.
why can a lasgun hurt a land raider? The cc retreat penalty should be slightly harsh because the other side had to cross through a few turns of fire to get there. D3 mortal wounds doesn't really hurt a tank unless it's already damaged.
Right now shooting is far superior and retreating from combat from 30 orksl has no penalty, except not being able to shoot and move, which may be a penalty for the unit that got charged but is in fact a huge penalty for the charging unit who is now exposed to enemy fire.
On a 1 to 1 basis it would be fine but army wide the assault units are quickly shown to be ineffective.
Blackie wrote: Because cowardice must be harshly punished
This.
And keep in mind that last edition you COULD NOT RETREAT. Unless you had a special rule.
Even with hit & run, there was still a chance you could fail.
And unless you were SPESS MERRENZ, if a unit tried to escape combat via 'our weapons are useless', you risked losing the WHOLE SQUAD. Now that same squad waltzes out of combat, often with little to no penalty.
An initiative test would be the perfect test for getting out combat this edition, if it still existed.
demontalons wrote: why can a lasgun hurt a land raider? The cc retreat penalty should be slightly harsh because the other side had to cross through a few turns of fire to get there. D3 mortal wounds doesn't really hurt a tank unless it's already damaged.
Right now shooting is far superior and retreating from combat from 30 orksl has no penalty, except not being able to shoot and move, which may be a penalty for the unit that got charged but is in fact a huge penalty for the charging unit who is now exposed to enemy fire.
On a 1 to 1 basis it would be fine but army wide the assault units are quickly shown to be ineffective.
Which is why I said it should be Roll a D6 for every enemy model within 1" of the retreating unit. ON a 6+ that unit takes a mortal wound. So if there are 30 boyz engaging a unit it will take 6 mortal wounds on average to withdrawal. The issue with the auto-D3 is situations like 1 grot charges a land raider, which now cannot shoot, and takes D3 mortal wounds unless it kills the grot. The D3 wounds per 5 models in the withdrawing unit means that a single Rhino Charging a squad of ork boyz can lock them down for potentially 2 turns, or they can try to leave combat and move forward and take 12 mortal wounds on average. Especially with deepstrike assaults I think doing things like that is far too powerful.
And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.
And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.
Deepstrike assaults depend on the units, but there are also infiltrate assaults.
So instead hordes should evaporate by default if they choose to withdraw? I'd rather see blender units have rules to make withdrawal more punishing than to make it the default for every unit in the game, makes it less of a penalty and more of a way to hurt big units with little real effort.
How about a mishmash of everything proposed? If the unit falls back, the assaulting unit makes melee attacks that land on a 6+, and for each landed they give a Mortal Wound.
And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.
Deepstrike assaults depend on the units, but there are also infiltrate assaults.
So instead hordes should evaporate by default if they choose to withdraw? I'd rather see blender units have rules to make withdrawal more punishing than to make it the default for every unit in the game, makes it less of a penalty and more of a way to hurt big units with little real effort.
Perhaps a compromise. D3 mortal wounds per 5 models, but can't do more mortal wounds than the total attacks of the enemies.
And roll a d6, each 6 does a mortal wound favors hordes even harder. My Wulfen, elite killing machines that are basically blenders with hammers, do, on average, less than a single mortal wound under your system to anyone fleeing. That's not going to deter ANYONE.
Deepstrike assaults depend on the units, but there are also infiltrate assaults.
So instead hordes should evaporate by default if they choose to withdraw? I'd rather see blender units have rules to make withdrawal more punishing than to make it the default for every unit in the game, makes it less of a penalty and more of a way to hurt big units with little real effort.
Perhaps a compromise. D3 mortal wounds per 5 models, but can't do more mortal wounds than the total attacks of the enemies.
Still way too powerful IMO, I could go with the suggestion to roll a dice for each attack for each engaged model and on a 6+ it deals 1 mortal wound. Mortal wounds are just too powerful to be able to deal that easily. I could do d3 per 5 if they were AP 0 wounds, but not mortal wounds.
So, a squad of 5 Assault Marines charges a squad of 30 Conscripts. They have 5 attacks total.
The Conscripts take 5 mortal wounds if they retreat, assuming all Marines live.
Guard player loses 15 points.
Now, I hear you saying that some things are more valuable than Conscripts. Marines, for instance, lose 13 points per wound, or up to 65 points... Assuming all 5 tacticals lived through the initial assault, and wish to retreat.
Terminators, as another example, are even more valuable. Only, Terminators ROCK in close combat, so they aren't likely to want to run away.
I do agree, this is punitive to people trying to run away. That is the point, though.
yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?
It should not be the case where fleeing combat could result in 60% of the squad dying. Which is somewhat mitigated by number of attacks, but it doesn't account at all for multi-assaults. Say my 10 khorne berzerkers hit 2 of your conscript squads, and with their rules consolidate into 2 more should all of them take 12 mortal wounds to fall back So one khorne berserker unit should in 2 turns kill all the conscripts in my opponents army. Essentially this rule is, large units never fall back. What about 5 assault marines into 5 dark reapers. The reapers get charged and take ~2 wounds, then if they want to leave combat they risk essentially losing the rest of the unit? These are 36 point models. So falling back risks losing 108 points. So it makes falling back not an option, if they get assaulted they essentially die. To which I assume your response is "don't let them get assaulted."
You cannot base every rule around "conscripts aren't murdered by it"
In your tactical squad example they likely will also never fall back because they likely lose a model or 2 in the assault, so a fall back is death, which maybe they are ok with if the rest of their army gets to shoot you, but the rule shouldn't become "you can remove your unit from the table to get assault units into the open."
It needs to be a measured risk, which is why I prefer Roll a dice for each engaged model. Now maybe it needs to be a 5+, but it should never be "if you fall back x models auto die with a chance of x times 3 models dying." With a roll it might be likely that most of the time you only take 1 or 2 mortal wounds, but you risk taking way more.
Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.
Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.
Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.
macluvin wrote: Would cc be more viable if the retreating unit had to take a round of attacks to retreat? Would it nullify the whole retreat from combat strategy? I was wondering this as people seem to have problems with close combat and the core rules seem to favor shooty vs combat lists.
This is the 2nd suggestion in a short amount of time that actually used to be a rule
Back in 2nd ed if you wanted to break from combat and fall back you played out a round of CC except that the person falling back was reduced to a WS of 0 (meaning they couldn't hit) so essentially, exactly as you mentioned, take a round of attacks.
After falling back, no psyking, advancing, shooting or charging.
This doesn't really address any of the concerns raised in this thread. This punishes elite armies way more than horde armies. Not putting out any offense when you fall back doesn't really matter when the whole point of falling back is to let the rest of your army unload onto the unit you just escaped from. I can get behind "no psychic powers on the turn you fell back" though. No advancing actually seems a little weird. If you're trying to run away, shouldn't you try to do so quickly? XD
JNAProductions wrote: Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.
Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.
Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the topic. If the idea is to punish units for falling back with a sort of toned-down sweeping advance, then d3 wounds per 5 models feels about right. You won't have your unit wiped out entirely (unless you only had 3 wounds left in the unit), but you'll lose a chunk of points in exchange for getting out of combat.
If the idea is to make it a "calculated risk," then losing an average of 1 in 6 models isn't the way to do it. I'll gladly give up 1 out of 6 wounds from a screening unit to shoot up an expensive assault unit. What do I care if I lose ~17% of the remaining squad's points value if it means I can shoot 100% of my opponent's assault unit off the table?
As someone who uses Dark Reapers frequently, I can confirm that I will pretty much always opt to fall back in that scenario. If I'm not going to manage to hold the enemy unit up until the end of their own fight phase, I may as well run away (and die) so that my other units can shoot the melee unit up.
Losing 1 wound for every 6 models in a unit is... barely even worth rolling most of the time.
If the real concern is that things like rhinos can tarpit enemy units and encourage them to fall back (thus taking mortal wounds), then I think I'd rather address that as its own issue. People are already a little meh on tarpitting vehicles under the current rules anyway.
Cream Tea wrote: You already can't advance when falling back. I justify it as needing to parry and turn around, and thus not moving at full speed.
Yea. The only difference I propose is nerfing fly so it can't shoot, eliminate psyking (although that is a weird one because you can currently smite in CC) and adding mortal wounds to the unit leaving.
Yes, it hits small units hard, but it seems at least vaguely realistic. If 30 ork boyz are fleeing, the chance of hurting the ones in the back would be slim. If there were 3, they are all probably going to die.
Breng77 wrote: yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?
The point is to let other units shoot the charging enemy squad. Units that fall back should be crippled or destroyed but their move allows other units to delete a melee enemy squad that can't be targeted by firepower while locked in combat.
JNAProductions wrote: Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.
Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.
Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.
yes sometimes, but in the case I mentioned where you kill 2 of them, it really isn't a choice, so it is a bad suggestion. If I'm risking losing 3 models worth 100 points, that might live otherwise I just end up stranded.
JNAProductions wrote: Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.
Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.
Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the topic. If the idea is to punish units for falling back with a sort of toned-down sweeping advance, then d3 wounds per 5 models feels about right. You won't have your unit wiped out entirely (unless you only had 3 wounds left in the unit), but you'll lose a chunk of points in exchange for getting out of combat.
If the idea is to make it a "calculated risk," then losing an average of 1 in 6 models isn't the way to do it. I'll gladly give up 1 out of 6 wounds from a screening unit to shoot up an expensive assault unit. What do I care if I lose ~17% of the remaining squad's points value if it means I can shoot 100% of my opponent's assault unit off the table?
As someone who uses Dark Reapers frequently, I can confirm that I will pretty much always opt to fall back in that scenario. If I'm not going to manage to hold the enemy unit up until the end of their own fight phase, I may as well run away (and die) so that my other units can shoot the melee unit up.
Losing 1 wound for every 6 models in a unit is... barely even worth rolling most of the time.
If the real concern is that things like rhinos can tarpit enemy units and encourage them to fall back (thus taking mortal wounds), then I think I'd rather address that as its own issue. People are already a little meh on tarpitting vehicles under the current rules anyway.
Not every unit is a screening unit, and for your dark reapers you are ok with them getting tarpitted by a single marine that charges them then, or you'd still be happy to lose potentially 3 models for the opportunity to kill a single marine. I just think the auto mortal wounds for falling back encourages chump charges into things far too much. Especially when you are talking about killing potentially 60% of a squad (and 50% on average). The other issue with the suggestion is that it suggests a single Grot does the same amount against a falling back unit as 30 ork boyz.
Breng77 wrote: yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?
The point is to let other units shoot the charging enemy squad. Units that fall back should be crippled or destroyed but their move allows other units to delete a melee enemy squad that can't be targeted by firepower while locked in combat.
Sometimes that is the point, sometimes the point is to get a unit away from a tarpit, or move on to an objective with that unit.
Giving it some thought I think the following could work ok.
Falling back deals 1D3 mortal wounds per 5 models in the retreating units. This cannot exceed the number of attacks from units engaged with this unit. IF the engaged unit has S = 1/2 of enemy T or less it cannot deal fallback wounds to an enemy.
But including a general stratagem
1 or 2 CP: hit and run, select a unit during your movement phase. This unit can fall back without penalty.
I'm going to be the impopular guy and suggest that if your unit opts to fall back from melee, it dies. Full stop. Give stuff like Land Raiders, Monoliths, Tyrannofexen and the like some rule to let them back out without dying.
This forces an actual choice: do I sacrifice my unit to shoot the assaulty guys to pieces, or do I keep them in combat to bog them down while I deal with other units? No more free passes for shooting-heavy armies, if someone manages to get into CC with you there should be reprecussions, and heavy ones at that. You'd STILL be better off compared to previous editions because at least you could sacrifice a unit that's already dead anyway.
I'll write that again, just for emphasis: even if you had to sacrifice the entire unit that is locked in combat, you'd STILL be better off than you used to be in previous editions, because you can still punish the melee unit with the rest of the army.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm going to be the impopular guy and suggest that if your unit opts to fall back from melee, it dies. Full stop. Give stuff like Land Raiders, Monoliths, Tyrannofexen and the like some rule to let them back out without dying.
This forces an actual choice: do I sacrifice my unit to shoot the assaulty guys to pieces, or do I keep them in combat to bog them down while I deal with other units? No more free passes for shooting-heavy armies, if someone manages to get into CC with you there should be reprecussions, and heavy ones at that. You'd STILL be better off compared to previous editions because at least you could sacrifice a unit that's already dead anyway.
I'll write that again, just for emphasis: even if you had to sacrifice the entire unit that is locked in combat, you'd STILL be better off than you used to be in previous editions, because you can still punish the melee unit with the rest of the army.
No just No, it is way too easy to lock multiple units in combat. Oh I touched you with pile in, guess you are either dead...you would need way too many exceptions to the rule. This just turns combat back to always locked in combat and the game becomes the big scrum it was in 7th, only earlier.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm going to be the impopular guy and suggest that if your unit opts to fall back from melee, it dies. Full stop. Give stuff like Land Raiders, Monoliths, Tyrannofexen and the like some rule to let them back out without dying.
This forces an actual choice: do I sacrifice my unit to shoot the assaulty guys to pieces, or do I keep them in combat to bog them down while I deal with other units? No more free passes for shooting-heavy armies, if someone manages to get into CC with you there should be reprecussions, and heavy ones at that. You'd STILL be better off compared to previous editions because at least you could sacrifice a unit that's already dead anyway.
I'll write that again, just for emphasis: even if you had to sacrifice the entire unit that is locked in combat, you'd STILL be better off than you used to be in previous editions, because you can still punish the melee unit with the rest of the army.
That's exactly the rules I'd like to have about retreating from combat. Units that fall back are completely destroyed unless they're vehicles or monsters.
so you like games to be over turn 1 then? I have routinely tied up half my opponents army turn 1. So then the game would be decided at that point? Sorry bad rules are bad, combats that have no way out other than death are bad for the game.
Excepting vehicles and monsters just makes those the only units you'll end up seeing in shooty armies.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why is it that it is perfectly fine to absolutely murder units by shooting them to pieces turn one, but not to do the same with melee?
It is if that is actually what happens. It isn't when you assault with tarpits and negate other units without actually killing them and give them the option to die or do nothing. So if a unit is killy enough to kill a unit in a single turn in close combat fine, but that is not what you are suggesting, you are suggesting allowing a unit to pile into multiple units and essentially kill all of them in a single turn. This can easily happen turn 1. Further terrain should mitigate some ability to delete whatever you want in a single turn with no effort.
You are suggesting something akin to: a unit gets shot by a unit but doesn't die. Now it cannot move again, but if it does it dies.
And proper positioning will stop your opponent from spreading into multiple combats. You're STILL better off against melee than previous editions, and the only melee units that saw competetive play in 7th were Deathstars like the Wulfen that could survive the comically powerful shooting units.
If you don't have something to rein in the massively lopsided power balance between shooting and melee, the units that are meant to be melee threats will have to become ludicruously powerful in order to be worth it. That's what we saw happen in 7th with the Thunderwolf Cavalry. With the loss of sweeping advance, the general reduction in attacks across most units, and the ability to back out of close combat at will shooting has, for the fifth edition in a row (!!) been given yet more legs up over melee. Instead of trying to bandaid this by throwing more and more ridiculous rules at melee units, leaving most melee units that haven't been massively buffed in the dust, making shooting units actually have to think beyond point-and-click is by far preferable.
Again, under my suggestion a shooting unit would STILL be better off than it was last edition, because you have the choice between staying to tarpit or sacrificing your unit to shoot the unit in combat with it. Last edition you had the "choice" of tarpitting, and that's it. Sure, it's easier to get into melee this edition, and you can consolidate into other units, but melee was already weaker than shooting by a massive margin to the point that most melee units were completely irrelevant. Shooting is already more lethal this edition than it used to be, there really needs to be something to rein that madness in.
It never happened in one of my games that an entire army is locked turn 1 and the game is screwed because of that.
Charging turn 1 is also not that easy and every army that can be screwed by a massive turn 1 charge has access to cheap units that screen whatever you don't want to get assaulted. Yes you need expendable units, but I think cheap units should be something normal, or you can bring some tanks for that purpose, they won't die in close combat but they'll also screen the army from charges. Some elite oriented armies with just a few models like harlequins can handle close combat very well so it wouldn't be a problem.
You are suggesting something akin to: a unit gets shot by a unit but doesn't die. Now it cannot move again, but if it does it dies.
No, the comparison isn't fair. You can shoot from distance but to get into combat you need 1-2 turns of movement at least and a good dice roll for charge. Assaulting stuff is not that easy, while you can shoot just staying in the same position the entire game.
If my unit gets shot at, the survivors can retreat freely during my turn.
If my unit gets charged, they can retreat during my turn, but not for free unless they fly or somesuch.
You don't lock units in shooting, you lock them in close combat. This is a strength of close combat compared to shooting.
Close combat is also something you can do in addition to shooting, there are pure melee units but most melee units do have ranged weapons.
I think many people are accustomed to how it worked in previous editions, and get upset when it's different. Close combat is more viable than it was in 7th, and it really shouldn't be as orevalent as shooting. This isn't a Bronze Age setting.
I do think ignoring the falling back penalty is too common, but much of this thread just seems to be close combat fanboys who want it to dominate the game.
It is absolutely fair, 1st turn charges are fairly trivial for some armies/units.
Take CSM. Alpha Legion infiltrate berserkers, 9" away, move 6" turn 1. Make a 3" charge. Pile in twice. Kill screen in combat, pile into units behind screen. Now it won't always happen, but it will happen. Doesn't require 2 turns of movement, or a good dice roll for a charge.
Marines can do the same, as can ad mech I believe.
Orks can "deepstrikes" with a bunch of units that re-roll charge range which means some will get in. GSC can and deploy closer.
Heldrakes can move far enough as to make turn 1 charges trivial.
You can also move up behind LOS blocking terrain and assault through walls.
Assaulting stuff isn't as hard as you make it out to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And proper positioning will stop your opponent from spreading into multiple combats. You're STILL better off against melee than previous editions, and the only melee units that saw competetive play in 7th were Deathstars like the Wulfen that could survive the comically powerful shooting units.
If you don't have something to rein in the massively lopsided power balance between shooting and melee, the units that are meant to be melee threats will have to become ludicruously powerful in order to be worth it. That's what we saw happen in 7th with the Thunderwolf Cavalry. With the loss of sweeping advance, the general reduction in attacks across most units, and the ability to back out of close combat at will shooting has, for the fifth edition in a row (!!) been given yet more legs up over melee. Instead of trying to bandaid this by throwing more and more ridiculous rules at melee units, leaving most melee units that haven't been massively buffed in the dust, making shooting units actually have to think beyond point-and-click is by far preferable.
Again, under my suggestion a shooting unit would STILL be better off than it was last edition, because you have the choice between staying to tarpit or sacrificing your unit to shoot the unit in combat with it. Last edition you had the "choice" of tarpitting, and that's it. Sure, it's easier to get into melee this edition, and you can consolidate into other units, but melee was already weaker than shooting by a massive margin to the point that most melee units were completely irrelevant. Shooting is already more lethal this edition than it used to be, there really needs to be something to rein that madness in.
It is comical that you think melee units are somehow worse in this edition. Most have equal or more attacks, not less. The only difference is no +1 on the charge, but to make up for that most melee units hit on 3s instead of hitting on 4s. They get to strike first, which is different for some units. They have longer charge range, they get to pile in to other units.
Positioning such that pile ins can hit nothing is tough for many gunline armies.
I agree that fall back shouldn't be free, but nor should it be death to the unit. That is just too open to abuse.
Martel732 wrote: Hence, I think the best answer is that fall back only happens on a 4+, and not at all vs Wyches.
The issue I have with that solution is it leaves a big portion of the game up to a 50-50 roll. I think that could work if there were a penalty to failing (otherwise why not try) like taking mortal wounds if you fail to get away. Then allow for modifiers on the roll (units with Fly could get +1 to their roll, larger units cause a -1, tanks give opponents +1 if they are the only unit engaged etc.)
I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)
If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.
Not every unit is a screening unit, and for your dark reapers you are ok with them getting tarpitted by a single marine that charges them then, or you'd still be happy to lose potentially 3 models for the opportunity to kill a single marine. I just think the auto mortal wounds for falling back encourages chump charges into things far too much. Especially when you are talking about killing potentially 60% of a squad (and 50% on average). The other issue with the suggestion is that it suggests a single Grot does the same amount against a falling back unit as 30 ork boyz.
I'd probably leave my dark reapers tied up with a marine because he's not likely to wipe the reapers out on my own. Thus the "pretty much always" instead of "always" in my post. But if my reapers aren't likely to survive the turn against whatever they're in melee with, there's not much downside to falling back and letting the rest of my army shoot the enemy unit up. I'll stay in melee with a grot. I won't stay in melee with a daemon prince.
As for "chump charges," if the unit charging me is a small, weakened unit with no real chance of hurting me... chances are good that I'll win that fight anyway. A lone space marine charging a 30 boy mob is going to struggle to hold them up for even a single turn (good chance the orks kill him on the charging marines' own turn). If the enemy unit doesn't have much chance of killing me off but is itself relatively durable, then that's a tarpit unit. Tarpitting in general warrants a discussion all its own, but I'm not convinced people should just be able to walk away from dedicated tarpit units leaving them to get blasted off the table.
As for the one gretchin being as lethal as an ork mob thing... I wouldn't be opposed to your "wounds capped out by the number of attacks in the 'chasing' unit" suggestion. Although I will point out that this is the first edition in a long while (ever?) where a lone gretchin wasn't potentially able to kill 29 boyz in a sweeping advance after getting insanely lucky and killing just one of them. So compared to that, losing about half your wounds when you (intentionally choose to) fall back doesn't seem so bad.
Breng77 wrote: yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?
The point is to let other units shoot the charging enemy squad. Units that fall back should be crippled or destroyed but their move allows other units to delete a melee enemy squad that can't be targeted by firepower while locked in combat.
Sometimes that is the point, sometimes the point is to get a unit away from a tarpit, or move on to an objective with that unit.
As a guy who plays a lot of fast-but-squishy assault armies, being able to just walk away from a unit and then have your friends blast it off the table kind of stinks. :( Regardless of whether or not you're in a position to unload on the exposed assault unit, being able to more or less opt out of every other fight phase and give yourself the option to shoot at said squishy assault units is pretty annoying.
Giving it some thought I think the following could work ok.
Falling back deals 1D3 mortal wounds per 5 models in the retreating units. This cannot exceed the number of attacks from units engaged with this unit. IF the engaged unit has S = 1/2 of enemy T or less it cannot deal fallback wounds to an enemy.
But including a general stratagem
1 or 2 CP: hit and run, select a unit during your movement phase. This unit can fall back without penalty.
I wouldn't hate that. It has a lot more fiddly bits than most rules in 8th, but I think it would work just fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: I would say falling back should be tied to the size of the squad.
5 models or less = automatic fall back. You charged something that is small. It doesn't take a coordinated effort to retreat.
6-10 = fall back on a 2+
11-15 = fall back on a 3+
16-20 = fall back on a 4+
21+ = fall back on a 5+
It would take more coordination to fall back as a larger squad. Also, units that fall back are subject to full morale losses.
Vehicles should also be able to fall back through charging models.
Wait, are you suggesting that units falling back have an easier time doing so if they're smaller? I get that it's easier to coordinate fewer guys, but smaller squad sizes also imply that you're more likely to be outnumbered by your opponent. It seems weird that 5 guardsmen running away from 10 marines should have an easier time getting away than 30 guardsmen. After all, the marines have fewer targets to gun/chase down as they flee.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kaotkbliss wrote: I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)
If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.
Leadership tests don't quite work that way these days. They're taken on a 1d6 test, usually adding modifiers (like the number of bodies you lost) and comparing that to your (lower than it used to be) leadership value. So unless you introduced a "new" 2d6 leadership mechanic, most units would never be able to fail such a test.
I'm not a huge fan of a test to fall back anyway though as it doesn't really create any interesting decisions. It just adds more rolling. If you want to fall back, you want to fall back. You'll try to fall back no matter what, and whether or not you succeed is just a matter of luck. It's either, "Well, I'm stuck here, and that stinks and there's nothing I can do about it," or else it's, "Well, I got away through no skill or effort of my own. Guess you're stuck with your loin cloth blowing in the wind, friend."
As someone who plays wyches, I personally don't love the 50/50 shot of keeping units from falling back. Sure, it's nice to tie people up when they want to run away, but it basically boils down to me having a 50/50 shot of losing my wyches next turn. Either I keep you in melee or you run off and shoot my squishy wyches to bits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why is it that it is perfectly fine to absolutely murder units by shooting them to pieces turn one, but not to do the same with melee?
I think the main issue here is that once you hit the enemy lines, the game is mostly decided based on how many bodies you have left and how many times you accidentally finish off a unit on your own turn instead of your opponent's. Once you're in your opponent's face, if he doesn't have the mobility to absolutely sprint away from the melee (assuming you don't have even more assault units coming to catch those fleeing), then he's pretty much just standing there waiting for you to roll fight phase after fight phase.
You know how it really stinks when a gunline blasts your assault army off the table before it even gets to charge in and do its thing? This is the melee version of that. Where you prevent huge chunks of your opponent's army from ever getting to fire more than an overwatch shot.
Actually, this is kind of the crux of this topic, overwatch topics, and a lot of other discussions that we see here in Proposed Rules pretty often. Assault has always had something of a "lock down" element to make up for the fact that assault units have to spend the first half of the game jogging across the table. But if the assault units get across the table too quickly or without taking enough casualties, then the game quickly switches from "My gunline has fun while your assault army just moves forward" to "My assault army has fun while your gunline just runs away and/or dies." This is a big part of why armies with both shooty and assault elements tend to be more interesting for me; they're less prone to this extreme swing.
kaotkbliss wrote: I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)
If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.
Leadership tests don't quite work that way these days. They're taken on a 1d6 test, usually adding modifiers (like the number of bodies you lost) and comparing that to your (lower than it used to be) leadership value. So unless you introduced a "new" 2d6 leadership mechanic, most units would never be able to fail such a test.
I'm not a huge fan of a test to fall back anyway though as it doesn't really create any interesting decisions. It just adds more rolling. If you want to fall back, you want to fall back. You'll try to fall back no matter what, and whether or not you succeed is just a matter of luck. It's either, "Well, I'm stuck here, and that stinks and there's nothing I can do about it," or else it's, "Well, I got away through no skill or effort of my own. Guess you're stuck with your loin cloth blowing in the wind, friend."
As someone who plays wyches, I personally don't love the 50/50 shot of keeping units from falling back. Sure, it's nice to tie people up when they want to run away, but it basically boils down to me having a 50/50 shot of losing my wyches next turn. Either I keep you in melee or you run off and shoot my squishy wyches to bits.
Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of - the player decides to fall back, makes a quick roll (more disciplined troops should have a better chance than wild, erratic ones). If they pass the test, they fall back without issue, if they fail then they still fall back, but the opposing unit gets a free round of attacks on them as they flee.
Since LD no longer works the same, there's got to be another method of testing.
kaotkbliss wrote: I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)
If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.
Leadership tests don't quite work that way these days. They're taken on a 1d6 test, usually adding modifiers (like the number of bodies you lost) and comparing that to your (lower than it used to be) leadership value. So unless you introduced a "new" 2d6 leadership mechanic, most units would never be able to fail such a test.
I'm not a huge fan of a test to fall back anyway though as it doesn't really create any interesting decisions. It just adds more rolling. If you want to fall back, you want to fall back. You'll try to fall back no matter what, and whether or not you succeed is just a matter of luck. It's either, "Well, I'm stuck here, and that stinks and there's nothing I can do about it," or else it's, "Well, I got away through no skill or effort of my own. Guess you're stuck with your loin cloth blowing in the wind, friend."
As someone who plays wyches, I personally don't love the 50/50 shot of keeping units from falling back. Sure, it's nice to tie people up when they want to run away, but it basically boils down to me having a 50/50 shot of losing my wyches next turn. Either I keep you in melee or you run off and shoot my squishy wyches to bits.
Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of - the player decides to fall back, makes a quick roll (more disciplined troops should have a better chance than wild, erratic ones). If they pass the test, they fall back without issue, if they fail then they still fall back, but the opposing unit gets a free round of attacks on them as they flee.
Since LD no longer works the same, there's got to be another method of testing.
I'd be alright with something like that, but it suffers from all the above critiques of a "make some attacks against them" suggestions. Specifically that it's an all-or nothing deal and that it ends up being a fair bit of rolling for not a lot of effect (unless you get really lucky/unlucky). Doing something like the "dX mortal wounds per Y models in the fleeing squad" suggestion means that you will reliably do at least some damage and that you can resolve that damage with a single roll.
Fall back occurs at the end of the movement phase. Unless a specific rule allows you to fall back first (i.e. fly, doctrines/orders)
Swift units will be able to make a tactical back step for your shooty guys to dakka. If they are regular infantry they can't move out as fast out of combat to give your shooty guys dakka.
I mean this could potentially give jump pack squads a new life as proper counter assault units that are able to deny grounds for advancing enemy
Fall back occurs at the end of the movement phase. Unless a specific rule allows you to fall back first (i.e. fly, doctrines/orders)
Swift units will be able to make a tactical back step for your shooty guys to dakka. If they are regular infantry they can't move out as fast out of combat to give your shooty guys dakka.
I mean this could potentially give jump pack squads a new life as proper counter assault units that are able to deny grounds for advancing enemy
Fall back occurs at the end of the movement phase. Unless a specific rule allows you to fall back first (i.e. fly, doctrines/orders)
Swift units will be able to make a tactical back step for your shooty guys to dakka. If they are regular infantry they can't move out as fast out of combat to give your shooty guys dakka.
I mean this could potentially give jump pack squads a new life as proper counter assault units that are able to deny grounds for advancing enemy
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Are you proposing that only certain units (like units with Fly or certain chapter tactics) be able to fall back at all? I don't see how just moving Fall Back to the end of the movement phase changes anything...
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Are you proposing that only certain units (like units with Fly or certain chapter tactics) be able to fall back at all? I don't see how just moving Fall Back to the end of the movement phase changes anything...
Sorry I meant shooting phase.
The current predicament with fall back is that it is extremely disadvantageous for assault units that weathered this and that just to get into combat, onlyfor the target to simply retreat.
By tying up fall back move with shooting (like the old run move), and allow fall back to occur at the end of shooting phase, it only allows the player who fell back chance to 'switch out' the target of charge. They will no longer be able to bait out a storm of fire but only counter charges.
If the model has fly keyword, that unit can disengage from the fight anytime during the shooting phase. It will be a tactical usage of units with fly, given that the changes made to 'interceptor' like rules gave another potential weakness to non-flyer units that also have 'fly' keyword.
It could also make pistols more relevant as they will be allowed to make normal pistol shots when locked in combat, before the fall back is allowed.
Say, you have a group of nob bikers with PKs storming at you from the flank, one turn away from charging your vindicators harrassing his boys. You have a unit of jump pack marines, and your assault termies happen to be two turns worth of movement away. You block his bikers advance with your assault marines, whom get charged by the nobs. next tur, your assault termies are in range for optimal assualt range to the nobs. The assault marines now shoot their pistols and disengage, for the termies to get their charge in to deal with the bikers.
To male it simpler, it can also be tied to charge phase where models locked in combat are allowed to make a 'charge' move out of it as discussed earlier.
Has anyone thought of using morale like in previous editions?
If a unit falls back from close combat, it must make a morale test. Each model falling back counts as if it were a "casualty" for the purpose of this morale test. Units with Fly can take an automatic success (but the retreating unit cannot shoot in the owner's following turn)or roll normally (and the retreating unit may fire in their following shooting phase), and fearless units get to halve the modifier to the d6 roll.
Talinsin wrote: Has anyone thought of using morale like in previous editions?
If a unit falls back from close combat, it must make a morale test. Each model falling back counts as if it were a "casualty" for the purpose of this morale test. Units with Fly can take an automatic success (but the retreating unit cannot shoot in the owner's following turn)or roll normally (and the retreating unit may fire in their following shooting phase), and fearless units get to halve the modifier to the d6 roll.
How's that sound?
Eh... Makes it easier for smaller models to run away. And a lot of people have morale immunity, or as good as that.
Talinsin wrote: Has anyone thought of using morale like in previous editions?
If a unit falls back from close combat, it must make a morale test. Each model falling back counts as if it were a "casualty" for the purpose of this morale test. Units with Fly can take an automatic success (but the retreating unit cannot shoot in the owner's following turn)or roll normally (and the retreating unit may fire in their following shooting phase), and fearless units get to halve the modifier to the d6 roll.
How's that sound?
Eh... Makes it easier for smaller models to run away. And a lot of people have morale immunity, or as good as that.
Simplify...roll a d6, that many mortal wounds hit the unit. Small units really are in a pickle, but that seems correct. 3 marines left after being besieged by 30 orks? They shouldn't be able to just walk away while the orks do nothing.
Dudes like g-man or Morty get a few scrapes but survive. Perfectly fluffy.
Units with fly get d3 mortal wounds. Nobody may advance, shoot or charge.
This fix is so easy, fast and simple I would think many of us could agree to it (except for the fellows who dislike mortal wounds... )
Simplify...roll a d6, that many mortal wounds hit the unit. Small units really are in a pickle, but that seems correct. 3 marines left after being besieged by 30 orks? They shouldn't be able to just walk away while the orks do nothing.
Dudes like g-man or Morty get a few scrapes but survive. Perfectly fluffy.
Units with fly get d3 mortal wounds. Nobody may advance, shoot or charge.
This fix is so easy, fast and simple I would think many of us could agree to it (except for the fellows who dislike mortal wounds... )
Right, G-man suffers 6 mortal wounds and dies (he already lost some wounds) when he falls back from some hormagaunts. He tripped on some dry wood lying around and went head first to the ground hitting a stone
Want an easy fix ? Is your WS higher than the enemy ? You can fallback no problem. Is the WS equal ? Both players roll a dice, higher number wins. Is your WS lower than the enemy ? You cant fallback.
Have the retreating unit roll a d6 for each model in the unit. For each 6 the retreating unit takes a MORTAL wound. Retreating Vehicles, SHV, 10+ wound monsters and characters(etc) instead roll a d6 for each model they are engaged with and take a REGULAR wound on a 6. Vehicles, SHV and the like engaged with a similar unit take d3 (d6?) MORTAL wounds.
Primarchs won't get murdered by lone grots, hordes can still multi charge lots of units and increase the likelihood of capturing lots of opponents, small elite units don't get instantly murdered if they opt to fall back, but still could if they roll badly. S2 models will get a large buff against tanks, but the tanks will at least be able to use their bumper. Mortarion deciding to run away from a Knight is going to get stung a bit.
Adding non-combat wounding system feels redundant as the new morale phase does just that.
Lessening the punishment on the units left behind is going to be a better fix than punishing those who are leaving combat. The new fall back works really well of rank anx fire AM. Theres something really tactical about it imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimOnMars wrote: retreating after the shooting phase sounds great...but which players among the shooty armies (GW's favorites) would agree to this?
It would force them to include a few units with FLY for screening, or to spend CPs.
It really wouldnt be a big change from now.
The unit that fell back would be able to overwatch again if the unit decides to chase them down. It only removes the potential suicide element to the charged units.
Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.
Simplify...roll a d6, that many mortal wounds hit the unit. Small units really are in a pickle, but that seems correct. 3 marines left after being besieged by 30 orks? They shouldn't be able to just walk away while the orks do nothing.
Dudes like g-man or Morty get a few scrapes but survive. Perfectly fluffy.
Units with fly get d3 mortal wounds. Nobody may advance, shoot or charge.
This fix is so easy, fast and simple I would think many of us could agree to it (except for the fellows who dislike mortal wounds... )
Right, G-man suffers 6 mortal wounds and dies (he already lost some wounds) when he falls back from some hormagaunts. He tripped on some dry wood lying around and went head first to the ground hitting a stone
Want an easy fix ? Is your WS higher than the enemy ? You can fallback no problem. Is the WS equal ? Both players roll a dice, higher number wins. Is your WS lower than the enemy ? You cant fallback.
A hormagaunt could snap g-man's neck, if it got a lucky grip on it. You get that, right?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.
I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.
Maybe instead of d6 mortal wounds, just let the other unit attack at WS6+. That way it is exactly like overwatch in reverse. They would get to use all of their attacks, however.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.
I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.
I've previously thought it could work during charge phase, but I think it happening at the end of shooting phase gives more purpose to <infantry> <fly> units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.
I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.
I've previously thought it could work during charge phase, but I think it happening at the end of shooting phase gives more purpose to <infantry> <fly> units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.
I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.
I've previously thought it could work during charge phase, but I think it happening at the end of shooting phase gives more purpose to <infantry> <fly> units.
Same thing?
As suggested, units with FLY keyword may fall back at any time during your own shooting phase - this means that certain units (i.e. units with FLY keyword or any other special rules) can fall back out of the way for your other units to shoot at the enemy units left behind.
If the unit doesnt have these certain special conditions, they can only fall back at the end of shooting phase.
If fall back were to occur at the charge phase (post shooting phase), there would be no benefit for these specialist units.
Furthermore, fall back in charge phase may potentially interact with how overwatch happens - this in itself is going to open up a HUGE can of worms.
Thinking on this I wonder if the following would not be a way to fix fall back.
A unit may attempt to fall back in the movement phase, This move is 1D6". This distance is modified by the difference in movement values between it and the unit engaging it.
IF a unit falls back all units engaged with it get to make a 3" consolidation move.
So for instance if a unit of Boyz (M 5) were engaged with a unit of conscripts (M 6), the Conscripts would get a 1D6 + 1" move to break away, the boyz would then consolidate 3". If the conscripts did not get far enough away they would still be engaged. This means that if the boyz were base to base the Conscripts would need to roll at least a 4+ to get away (5" move), if they were not base to base then the conscripts could get away on a 3+.
This would make fast units very effective at disengaging/staying engaged and slower units much less so.
For instance if the boyz above had charged a Rhino with M 12, the Rhino would roll D6 + 7" for its move and automatically get away. However, the Boyz could potentially consolidate into another unit.
Whenever a unit or a single model falls back roll a number of D6 for each enemy models within 1". For each result of 6 the unit suffer a mortal wound counted for the next morale phase. Only model that have a specific fled back move (like flyers) could shoot during their next shooting phase, if they do so they will suffer -1 to hit rolls.
This is a GREAT reason why they should have kept the Initiative (I) stat!
Roll a D6
If it is greater than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit falls back.
If it is equal to the I of the opposing unit, then the unit remains in combat.
If it is less than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit suffers a round of close combat without striking back for this turn. (I was tempted to say it is destroyed but it might be a little harsh)
Initiative modifiers would be very handy here, and there's nothing more annoying than seeing an Eversor Assassin having to strike second against a Guardsman Platoon Commander with a Power Fist, just because he charged...
Slayer6 wrote: This is a GREAT reason why they should have kept the Initiative (I) stat!
Roll a D6
If it is greater than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit falls back.
If it is equal to the I of the opposing unit, then the unit remains in combat.
If it is less than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit suffers a round of close combat without striking back for this turn. (I was tempted to say it is destroyed but it might be a little harsh)
Initiative modifiers would be very handy here, and there's nothing more annoying than seeing an Eversor Assassin having to strike second against a Guardsman Platoon Commander with a Power Fist, just because he charged...
ONLY if initiative isn't applied like it was in the past. Why would a guardsman be able to calmly saunter away from a maniacal, enrage ork army, just because some book says he has faster than the ork? There is no way, on Mork's green earth, that orks would have I2.
ONLY if initiative isn't applied like it was in the past. Why would a guardsman be able to calmly saunter away from a maniacal, enrage ork army, just because some book says he has faster than the ork? There is no way, on Mork's green earth, that orks would have I2.
No, they would not, that's for sure... At least on par with IG... Maybe if we use the following examples and base Initiative on the perceived agility for each unit:
Initiative - Example Units
1 - Ratlings, Gretchin, Scarab Swarms, Tau Drones
2 - Imperial Guard Conscripts, Ork Shoota Boyz, Chaos Cultists, Tau
3 - Imperial Guardsmen, Ork Slugga Boyz, Necron Warriors, Terminators
4 - Space Marines, Eldar Guardians, Hormagaunts
5 - Genestealers, Death Cult Assassins, Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Khorne Berserkers
6 - Imperial Assassins, Harlequins, Solitaire, Lictor, Celestine
7 - Various insane close combat heroes - Lelith Hesperax, Swarmlord
During your movement phase you can choose to have a unit "fall back" from combat if they were within 1" of any enemy models. You and your opponent roll a D6, adding +1 for every unit you have engaged in said combat. If you beat your opponent you have successfully fallen back and your unit may move (not advance) towards your closest deployment edge but may not pass through any enemy models. This unit may not cast psychic powers targeting your opponents models, shoot, or charge for the rest of the turn.
Every unit that falls back suffers -1 leadership for the rest of the battle (as their morale is weakened). This penalty stacks up to half of their starting leadership value if they continue to fall back over the course of the battle.
Note this means its easier to fall back if you have more units engaged in combat (which makes sense) and also means that if you position in a bad way only 1 or 2 units might be able to get out but probably not all of them. The leadership penalty cannot be more than half their leadership so a unit with 5 base will only go down to 3.
The problems I have with units retreating from combat willy nilly is the unit that charged them is now left out in the open to get dakka'd to death and the retreating unit often does so risk free.
I propose something like any unit that starts the turn in CC receives a +1 bonus to saves (or imposes a -1 to hit on enemy units) until the end of the current turn (so no falling back and imposing these penalties on the non-falling back army). Mitigates the standing out in the open a bit but doesn't completely remove the enemies ability to deal with that unit. Also could help against those crazy abilities like soul-burst when I delete your unit and then get shot to pieces or noise marines shooting everything out of phase.
I also like the idea of CC overwatch for units without fly or some other special keyword (UMs and anyone else who gets some special fall back rule) Round of CC for all engaged models, only hitting on 6s.
I feel these changes would address the two biggest problems I have with units fall back from CC without breaking the system.
bananathug wrote: The problems I have with units retreating from combat willy nilly is the unit that charged them is now left out in the open to get dakka'd to death and the retreating unit often does so risk free.
I propose something like any unit that starts the turn in CC receives a +1 bonus to saves (or imposes a -1 to hit on enemy units) until the end of the current turn (so no falling back and imposing these penalties on the non-falling back army). Mitigates the standing out in the open a bit but doesn't completely remove the enemies ability to deal with that unit. Also could help against those crazy abilities like soul-burst when I delete your unit and then get shot to pieces or noise marines shooting everything out of phase.
I also like the idea of CC overwatch for units without fly or some other special keyword (UMs and anyone else who gets some special fall back rule) Round of CC for all engaged models, only hitting on 6s.
I feel these changes would address the two biggest problems I have with units fall back from CC without breaking the system.
This is why I think the Initiative test (and stat) would be useful. A unit with a low Initiative would have a lower chance of escaping a higher Initiative unit and will remain in the combat, but if they fail their Initiative test, they will not be able to attack in that turn's CC round whilst the enemy can...
Allow to pursue/overrun the retreating units by charging them again after they move out of combat, if your overrunning unit is left out in the open (out of base contact with any enemy units).
The charge is still random 2D6 so the units have a chance to escape.
combatcotton wrote: "When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."
All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.
This actually would make shooting armies WAY stronger. Because vehicles can now just retreat on their opponent's turn, and fire on that players next shooting phase, or move. It would be a dramatic nerf to CC armies.
The better solution would be to have it be an unmodified leadership check taken on 2D6 to fall back. Leadership 9+ models would be disciplined and fall back appropriately. So necron warriors, genestealers, would have little trouble with this. Meanwhile, conscripts, or hormagaunts, wouldn't really be super smart when it comes to falling back. And there's always a chance for "insane heroism" when you don't want it. It would also give you a really strong reason to bring a commissar.
I have gone through this whol forum post and the same things have been suggested time and again
I will say this right now. It is not the unit that falled back that is the problem, it's the fact that falling back opens up the attacking units to a HUGE shooting counterattack
Considering the fact that the only penalty shooting armies suffer is that the one or two units that were charged cant shoot (unless you have fly, are IG, are SM, or have something that allows you to walk on by and then lay down some -1 to hit firepower) you are completely screwed as the charging character if you didn't wipe out the unit the turn before. Not to mention you have to go through the gauntlet of OVERWATCH all over again (Might i stress now that in order to attack something during the fight phase after charging you have to DECLARE a CHARGE at them. Even if you pile into them you cant atk them if you didnt declare a charge, and everyone whom you declared a charge for can do what now? MULTIPLE FRIGGIN OVERWATCHES)
So ill just say this. Make it that you can only fall back during your Close combat phase, unless the person has super fast things that still count as charging first then you cant really suffer much when you can react first, this means that you'll lose some people (Cause of the you only activate one unit ) but at this point this is damage control for the success of the enemy getting to you.
Tactical moves that the opponent do that are pretty hight risk (Multi charging, Piling into multi units after a good round of CC) Should be encouraged and rewarded
During the CC phase, allow the active player to have units in CC fall back "before" that player moves on to declaring charges. No freebie shooting at the enemy unit, no freebie kills on the unit falling back.
I too would like falling back to have some kind of downside, so that I might one day hear the sentence "These guys will use their pistols in close combat.".
I like the d3mw per 10 guys on fleeing option. It shouldn't be a horrible penalty, but enough to make you consider not running and sending in reinforcements instead.
I agree with the people who've suggested that you can only fall back in the fight phase.
With this idea, falling back still works 100% of the time, and in fact it should be penalty free with this change. This way melee units are still protected from being shot to hell, falling back is actually a tactical choice instead of a free option, and it gives the assaulters a chance to respond. The current falling back mechanic is too powerful, plain and simple.
Units within 1" of enemy models may choose to "fall back" during their movement phase. If they do so they must move their full move characteristic away from the enemy models they were engaged with. They can no longer choose to shoot or assault for the remainder of the turn. Any allied units now receive a -2 to hit the enemy unit they were engaged with in the following shooting phase as they do not want to hit their retreating allies. This penalty does not stack for retreating multiple units, but does stack with any other penalties to hit.
This is a small addition to the rules and does not cause much confusion. You can still choose to fall back and shoot with everything, only with a -2 to hit.
Units within 1" of enemy models may choose to "fall back" during their movement phase. If they do so they must move their full move characteristic away from the enemy models they were engaged with. They can no longer choose to shoot or assault for the remainder of the turn. Any allied units now receive a -2 to hit the enemy unit they were engaged with in the following shooting phase as they do not want to hit their retreating allies. This penalty does not stack for retreating multiple units, but does stack with any other penalties to hit.
This is a small addition to the rules and does not cause much confusion. You can still choose to fall back and shoot with everything, only with a -2 to hit.
This, too, could work. The main problem is the fact that the assaulting unit gets left completely naked, not that the retreating unit suffers no penalty.
Units within 1" of enemy models may choose to "fall back" during their movement phase. If they do so they must move their full move characteristic away from the enemy models they were engaged with. They can no longer choose to shoot or assault for the remainder of the turn. Any allied units now receive a -2 to hit the enemy unit they were engaged with in the following shooting phase as they do not want to hit their retreating allies. This penalty does not stack for retreating multiple units, but does stack with any other penalties to hit.
This is a small addition to the rules and does not cause much confusion. You can still choose to fall back and shoot with everything, only with a -2 to hit.
You would need to clarify what "away from the enemy" means when your units are spread out and wrapped in weird positions. Also, there will be weird edge cases like my dark reapers who would still shoot the enemy unit without penalty, but that's a rare exemption. Overall, I'd be okay with that solution, but it still isn't really ideal. Orks would basically never get to shoot an enemy after their, for instance, gretchin bubble wrap fall back. While the -2 to hit penalty does take a lot of the sting out of being left hanging in the wind, your opponent will usually still shoot you with whatever he was going to shoot before. Have some tactical marines or conscripts in the neighborhood with no better targets? May as well unload into those berzerkers over there. But yeah. That''s not a bad way to handle it overall.
I still like having non-flying units fall back in the charge phase. It doesn't add rules so much as it moves them, and it gives you a reason to take cheap troops and counter charge units. Kroot would be great for this, for instance. Dire Avengers wouldn't be bad either, and gretching fleeing just as a stampede of orks charges in seems fun.
Units within 1" of enemy models may choose to "fall back" during their movement phase. If they do so they must move their full move characteristic away from the enemy models they were engaged with. They can no longer choose to shoot or assault for the remainder of the turn. Any allied units now receive a -2 to hit the enemy unit they were engaged with in the following shooting phase as they do not want to hit their retreating allies. This penalty does not stack for retreating multiple units, but does stack with any other penalties to hit.
This is a small addition to the rules and does not cause much confusion. You can still choose to fall back and shoot with everything, only with a -2 to hit.
This isnt so great in terms of how it effects everyone, orks would never be able to shoot and anything that aint a 3+ to hit is flat overwatching. This sounds good in theory but would suffer badly in practice because of the large gap between godly shooting and cruddy shooting. a 2+ shooter would still hit on a 4, which is a huge distinct advantage to armies that can either
a: have really good base shooting
b: can somehow mitigate some of the dmg the penalty creates (+1 modifiers come to mind)
Not every army has access to this and some armies have a huge access to this. The idea of falling back during the fight phase is to give the player a simple choice:
Do i run from the battle, potentially exposing my other units into the line of fire that the now released enemy could potentially capitalize or
Do i let this unit stand and take one for the team so that i could utilize their martyrdom to benefit my army in the long run.
The person who was able to get into that close combat should be rewarded proportionally to the risk he/she had just taken. Having such a high risk maneuver rewarded with such a lackluster and mostly suicidal reward doesn't bode well for a game priding itself in 'strategic' fighting
Yeah the moving away would be clarified a bit to mabey:
must move as far away as possible without passing through any other units.
I understand it effects some armies differently, but tbqf armies that have higher BS are paying for it in some manner.
Even if they can still hit, a -2 is a huge nerf to the incoming damage potential. I wouldn't mind at all if they have to shoot their entire army into my squad with a -2 since they aren't shooting any of the rest of my army.
As for orks, they just have to shoot something else instead. It still lets them get the grots out of the way for the boys to charge in.
Make following changes to your battle primer. Discuss with opponent. Call it a day.
Page 3 – Movement
Add the following to the last paragraph:
‘Units starting the movement phase within 1” of an enemy unit cannot be selected to move during your movement phase.”
Page 3 – Falling Back
Remove the entire paragraph
Page 5 – Shooting Phase
Add the following note “Disengage”:
“At the end of your shooting phase, after all eligible units that you want to shoot with have done so, units that have started the turn within 1” of an enemy unit can either remain in combat or Disengage. If you choose to Disengage, the unit must end its move more than 1” away from all enemy units. If a unit Disengages, it cannot charge later that turn.
If a unit can FLY, it can choose to Disengage before you make any shooting attacks with eligible units that you want to shoot with.”
Effect:
Makes the traditional fall back a retreat (or potential slingshot) only move, does not grant retreating player benefit unless CP spent.
Eihnlazer wrote: Yeah the moving away would be clarified a bit to mabey:
must move as far away as possible without passing through any other units.
I understand it effects some armies differently, but tbqf armies that have higher BS are paying for it in some manner.
Even if they can still hit, a -2 is a huge nerf to the incoming damage potential. I wouldn't mind at all if they have to shoot their entire army into my squad with a -2 since they aren't shooting any of the rest of my army.
As for orks, they just have to shoot something else instead. It still lets them get the grots out of the way for the boys to charge in.
in other words, feth the orks. You do realize the Orks could already shoot another unit, right? And your argument about fleeing grots is mindless. The grots died in combat the previous turn.
Look I love orks, but since they already are limited by game rules to not be allowed to shoot into an ongoing melee (which they wouldn't give a rats a$$ about in fluff) then my proposition isn't really hurting them that bad.
If an enemy is in their face they aren't gonna sit back and shoot it to begin with. They would charge right into them, firing their guns up into the air.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look I love orks, but since they already are limited by game rules to not be allowed to shoot into an ongoing melee (which they wouldn't give a rats a$$ about in fluff) then my proposition isn't really hurting them that bad.
If an enemy is in their face they aren't gonna sit back and shoot it to begin with. They would charge right into them, firing their guns up into the air.
It doesn't matter if it's fluffy, it's a universal rule that orks cannot use whatsoever. This would absolutely hurt them because they would not be allowed to shoot at these units while literally every other army would.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look I love orks, but since they already are limited by game rules to not be allowed to shoot into an ongoing melee (which they wouldn't give a rats a$$ about in fluff) then my proposition isn't really hurting them that bad.
If an enemy is in their face they aren't gonna sit back and shoot it to begin with. They would charge right into them, firing their guns up into the air.
Eh. To play ork's advocate, not all orkz iz choppy. Lootas, bustas, and flash gitz all have compelling reasons to shoot a unit and not charge it. A -2 penalty literally prevents them from shooting an enemy unit. Although others have recently pitched the idea that orkz should always be able to hit on a 6 even if penalties would normally make hitting impossible. So if you implement both of those suggestions, your proposed to-hit penalty would be less problematic for orkz.
That said, I still rather like the "non-flying units fall back in the charge phase" suggestion. Does anyone have a compelling argument against that particular approach? I feel it does interesting things for oft-maligned "melee" units in shooty armies like ogryn and kroot, it prevents the unit that you fall back from from being exposed to a full shooting phase worth of damage, and it still lets you run away rather being forced to wait until your poor non-melee units finally get butchered by the assaulty unit.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look I love orks, but since they already are limited by game rules to not be allowed to shoot into an ongoing melee (which they wouldn't give a rats a$$ about in fluff) then my proposition isn't really hurting them that bad.
If an enemy is in their face they aren't gonna sit back and shoot it to begin with. They would charge right into them, firing their guns up into the air.
It doesn't matter if it's fluffy, it's a universal rule that orks cannot use whatsoever. This would absolutely hurt them because they would not be allowed to shoot at these units while literally every other army would.
I think what we should all be acknowledging right now is how cool an ork stratagem that lets you shoot at units locked in combat with gretchin (and only gretchin) would be.
1CP Dey'z Just Grots!
Use this in your shooting phase. An <ork> unit of your choice may shoot at an enemy unit even if that unit is within 1" of a gretchin unit.
argonak wrote: You guys seriously want to go back to where units could just hide in melee forever? That was one of the worst things about previous editions of 40k.
[citation needed] Most of the people here have actually argued for keeping Fall Back, but allowing for there to be some kind of cost or risk involved for doing so. The fact that there's no reason to NOT fall back removes any tactical choice and invalidates a number of positive choices that GW did made for assault
argonak wrote: You guys seriously want to go back to where units could just hide in melee forever? That was one of the worst things about previous editions of 40k.
[citation needed]
Most of the people here have actually argued for keeping Fall Back, but allowing for there to be some kind of cost or risk involved for doing so. The fact that there's no reason to NOT fall back removes any tactical choice and invalidates a number of positive choices that GW did made for assault
But isnt a penalty for falling back in itself suicidal and not in anyways tactical? All of the proposals for fall back are essentially sepuku maneuever where the units that fall back suffers some sort of damage, if not an elected wipe, so the rest of your army can shoot at the guys that fell back. I dont agree with that at all.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look I love orks, but since they already are limited by game rules to not be allowed to shoot into an ongoing melee (which they wouldn't give a rats a$$ about in fluff) then my proposition isn't really hurting them that bad.
If an enemy is in their face they aren't gonna sit back and shoot it to begin with. They would charge right into them, firing their guns up into the air.
You love orks, yet you are advocating for a rule that singles them out and locks them out of one phase of the game, with no compensation whatsoever?
That's like saying "I like the black pieces in chess, but I think the black queen should only move like a bishop, because reasons. The white queen can still move like a queen however, because fair is fair."
Really? Why would you deliberately advocate for a global rule that hurts one faction vastly more than the rest? Why?
skchsan wrote: But isnt a penalty for falling back in itself suicidal and not in anyways tactical? All of the proposals for fall back are essentially sepuku maneuever where the units that fall back suffers some sort of damage, if not an elected wipe, so the rest of your army can shoot at the guys that fell back. I dont agree with that at all.
The difference is that units those units taking damage are because there were assaulted, which is the end point of a LOT of effort for the other player which gets completely negated by being able to dance out of assault. Losing a few extra models is not "suicidal" since even losing the whole unit is preferable to not being able to shoot at a unit now sitting on it's thumbs in double tap range. Expecially if it's conscripts, cultists, drones, or any other chaft unit
argonak wrote: You guys seriously want to go back to where units could just hide in melee forever? That was one of the worst things about previous editions of 40k.
[citation needed]
Most of the people here have actually argued for keeping Fall Back, but allowing for there to be some kind of cost or risk involved for doing so. The fact that there's no reason to NOT fall back removes any tactical choice and invalidates a number of positive choices that GW did made for assault
But isnt a penalty for falling back in itself suicidal and not in anyways tactical? All of the proposals for fall back are essentially sepuku maneuever where the units that fall back suffers some sort of damage, if not an elected wipe, so the rest of your army can shoot at the guys that fell back. I dont agree with that at all.
With the current rule set, falling back is basically no risk at all, like someone setting up the table for the falling back army while the CC fighters give them a variety of things to F their stuff up.
If you had a position that got overrun in any other gaming system, that unit (or units) were dead men. It was an accepted reality of the ruleset.
But this is the only edition that actually punishes Close combat units if they don't wipe the unit they charged or if they wanted to tactically tie up multiple units at the risk of loosing their combat effectiveness. You must remember that tying up units in CC has always been a high risk move since 6th edition because of the ways that shooting got progressively better.
Now that overwatch got REALLY good and Multi charging became even more of a health Hazard. To basically say "ohh well done for not getting completely destroyed while capitalizing on your enemies mistake as he clumped his stuff together. Here's a small penalty for the units falling back and only those units. Have fun face tanking an entire round of shooting as you try to repeat this thing all over again"
Like i said before in a previous post, Risk has to equal the reward. If something is very high risk then you need to reward the player for achieving said high risk.
Cause as it stands falling back is the most low risk to massive reward you can get. It's basically a free get out of jail free card and 200$ for landing on a blank spot
Edit: And also... if anyone says not being able to shoot is a massive penalty You must be smoking something. If i were given the chance of falling back a unit or two from CC so my entire army can focus fire that target, i would gladly make them fall back. Cause it's only 2 units, while i have 8-14 units behind them ready to unleash hell. Why do you think last edition people took CC units that couldn't instant wipe the enemy unit in the turn they charged? Ill give you a hint, it's to stop the same thing that happening now
My recommendation. If a unit falls back from combat. The unit they were in combat with cannot be shot at in that same turn. This is to represent that in that turn, you have your own unit breaking away and running away from a general melee. So, it is still very messy with your own people mixed in with melee, and some or more only gradually breaking away. So, your other units simply wouldn’t be able to get a good shot in.
In addition to that. In order to fall back successfully, both sides roll and add their leadership. The unit falling back must get a score that is higher than the attacker’s roll plus leadership. This represents that only a well organized and well led unit who listens to orders well is able to properly disengage and fall back. Whereas a disorganized mob is likely to just fail to break away and keep on fighting. If you roll lower and fail to break away, you don’t get to fall back and combat continues.
This way, with all the inherent risks and overwatch that melee armies have to take. At least when they do finally get into combat, the ranged units they are fighting with do not get such an easy get out of jail card anymore. And even if they successfully fell back, the assaulting unit does not then eat the rest of his buddy’s ranged fire just for a successful fall back.
Does retreating from CC even need a nerf when you can currently lock an enemy unit in combat so they can't retreat? I play both Chaos Daemons and a close combat Space Wolves army and don't have issues with keeping my opponent locked in combat. It is all about positioning of your models and ensuring that when you consolidate that you surround at least 1 enemy model with 3 of yours.
The most important thing that I learnt is to ensure that you don't kill too many enemy models in your turn. You can do this by having a portion of your models outside of 1" after you pile in. When you go to consolidate you should aim to surround multiple models. If you have been successful you will have just locked the enemy in combat as they can't move through your models when they consider falling back.
JakeSiren wrote: Does retreating from CC even need a nerf when you can currently lock an enemy unit in combat so they can't retreat? I play both Chaos Daemons and a close combat Space Wolves army and don't have issues with keeping my opponent locked in combat. It is all about positioning of your models and ensuring that when you consolidate that you surround at least 1 enemy model with 3 of yours.
The most important thing that I learnt is to ensure that you don't kill too many enemy models in your turn. You can do this by having a portion of your models outside of 1" after you pile in. When you go to consolidate you should aim to surround multiple models. If you have been successful you will have just locked the enemy in combat as they can't move through your models when they consider falling back.
Unless they are one of the units that has the fly keyword, in which case they just move over you and fall back and then shoot you.
Sure, but then your problem is with fly - not units falling back out of combat. It's unlikely (outside of a few select builds) that your opponent has only fly units - so tie something else up in combat that can't fly so they can't shoot you.
My concern here is that all of the nerfing proposals exist to justify being able to shoot at the units it fell back from combat with.
Fall back was largely introduced to deal with situations like a 150 man platoon being locked in combat with a dreadnought they cant hurt for the rest of the game, not to provide means to punish assault oriented units.
Korbee11 wrote: How about the unit that was retreated from, gets a reactionary Consolidate move?
Maybe without the 'towards the closest enemy unit' restriction?
I really like this. It means that you have to get everyone away from the melee if you want out, not just back up 1.1 inches, otherwise you're still locked in combat again. It can force some very unwieldy move options for your opponents if you force them to fall back at least four inches, and create space around your assault units unless they want to have an entirely different unit consolidated into. It also makes it hurt more to get multi-assaulted, because if you want to leave that combat they get to consolidate twice or more. That makes things a lot more tactical without outright slaughtering any unit that wants to fall back, and makes the choice dependent on relative board position, which is definitely a good thing.
argonak wrote: You guys seriously want to go back to where units could just hide in melee forever? That was one of the worst things about previous editions of 40k.
People aren't asking for that. If you go back and reread, you can clearly see a lot of people want the fall back mechanic to stay, but are concerned with how easy and safe it is, as opposed to the assault unit having to get there in the first place while getting shot and possibly the entire unit tripping over their shoe laces once they get close.
The current way that fall back is implemented is one of the bigger design errors of the edition.
argonak wrote: You guys seriously want to go back to where units could just hide in melee forever? That was one of the worst things about previous editions of 40k.
People aren't asking for that. If you go back and reread, you can clearly see a lot of people want the fall back mechanic to stay, but are concerned with how easy and safe it is, as opposed to the assault unit having to get there in the first place while getting shot and possibly the entire unit tripping over their shoe laces once they get close.
The current way that fall back is implemented is one of the bigger design errors of the edition.
This guy/gal has the right idea
Breng77 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote: Does retreating from CC even need a nerf when you can currently lock an enemy unit in combat so they can't retreat? I play both Chaos Daemons and a close combat Space Wolves army and don't have issues with keeping my opponent locked in combat. It is all about positioning of your models and ensuring that when you consolidate that you surround at least 1 enemy model with 3 of yours.
The most important thing that I learnt is to ensure that you don't kill too many enemy models in your turn. You can do this by having a portion of your models outside of 1" after you pile in. When you go to consolidate you should aim to surround multiple models. If you have been successful you will have just locked the enemy in combat as they can't move through your models when they consider falling back.
Unless they are one of the units that has the fly keyword, in which case they just move over you and fall back and then shoot you.
I play against people who are actually smart and line up their mobs in single file lines, it's literally impossible to stop them from falling back because you cannot pile in behind them.
Normally how i mitigate this with daemons is with Skarbrand, which is Ironic because he went from worst bloodthirster to best this edition because of his aura. Still a pain to try and get him into an active fight with at least some combat effectiveness
But yea. Little tip for those who run mob style shooting armies, line them up single file and watch your opponent cry tears as your dudes fall back in a clean and almost trollish way
Single file set up isnt anything novel... Also, as per rules theres nothing preventing you from "falling back" in any direction as long as you move away 1" from thr enemy.
What if cc was just powerfull enough to punish shooty units that got themselfes in melee at the firstplace. I propose that all strictly melee weapons give +1 attack and some more specialized melee weapons like lightningclaw or power weapons and equalients get something like +2 or even +3 attacks depending on weapon. This way the fall back rule could stay as it is now since melee unit would get MUCH more wounds done in the fight phase and shooty units could get to retreat all they want (if there are any to retreat left). Afterall its just strange i think that for shooting weapons there are weapon profiles that dictate number of attacks but for melee weapons in most part its unit that dictates the amount of attacks.
Or hek there is other option too. Give melee weapons attack profiles like shooting weapons have. For example basic cc weapons could be something like
slashing (slashing weapons give x2 attack when chargin)
Or something like powerfist could be
high powered (when swinging with highpowered weapons substract 1 from hit rolls and enemy sawing throw rolls)
Or powersword could be like
rapid strike (rapid strike weapons give x2 attacks at any fight phase)
There could allso be very special weapons like manreapers having profile like below
High reach (when swinging with high reach weapon all dmg done pools to unit in addition this weapon can be used at shooting phase with following profile)
I play against people who are actually smart and line up their mobs in single file lines, it's literally impossible to stop them from falling back because you cannot pile in behind them.
You mean that even after they take casualties they manage to remain a perfect single line without room for you to consolidate through?
I play against people who are actually smart and line up their mobs in single file lines, it's literally impossible to stop them from falling back because you cannot pile in behind them.
You mean that even after they take casualties they manage to remain a perfect single line without room for you to consolidate through?
So in this example I run the extreme example of melee based army, flat khorne daemons (Loved KDK when it was a thing. Still do) Against a shooting / Melee heavy oriented army (Like orks or CSM) This tactic is a bit of a chance strat but the main principle is still there.
The idea is to have at least either 1 full line or two lines parralel for the squad, SM's cant really do this so they have to get a little creative, but horde based shooting armies. Or shooting based armies that can provide cheap, big number units can also do this strategy. IG have the easiest time doing this as infantry squads are your bread and butter.
With them you line up your units in a single file, using a piece of terrain or other means ( Vehicles, Other units, Meat shields) to cover the flanks. For a close combat army with shooting you try and either go for two line lineup units, or if your on the cheap have your multi units run single file behind each other. (Remember; for the charging army to charge the unit behind, they have to declare their charging, no declare = no melee for that unit, unless they pile in, then YOU get the melee) Piling in and Consolidate are your only big downsides to this strategy, but at most they will only tie up two units at max, then you just have the entire lines fall back in an orderly manner, keeping that composition. The units that were tied in CC cant shoot but the other line of units behind them have no such problems. Rinse and repeat till the charging unit is dead. When their dead then simply return back to your original position and reset
I play against people who are actually smart and line up their mobs in single file lines, it's literally impossible to stop them from falling back because you cannot pile in behind them.
You mean that even after they take casualties they manage to remain a perfect single line without room for you to consolidate through?
So in this example I run the extreme example of melee based army, flat khorne daemons (Loved KDK when it was a thing. Still do) Against a shooting / Melee heavy oriented army (Like orks or CSM) This tactic is a bit of a chance strat but the main principle is still there.
The idea is to have at least either 1 full line or two lines parralel for the squad, SM's cant really do this so they have to get a little creative, but horde based shooting armies. Or shooting based armies that can provide cheap, big number units can also do this strategy. IG have the easiest time doing this as infantry squads are your bread and butter.
With them you line up your units in a single file, using a piece of terrain or other means ( Vehicles, Other units, Meat shields) to cover the flanks. For a close combat army with shooting you try and either go for two line lineup units, or if your on the cheap have your multi units run single file behind each other. (Remember; for the charging army to charge the unit behind, they have to declare their charging, no declare = no melee for that unit, unless they pile in, then YOU get the melee) Piling in and Consolidate are your only big downsides to this strategy, but at most they will only tie up two units at max, then you just have the entire lines fall back in an orderly manner, keeping that composition. The units that were tied in CC cant shoot but the other line of units behind them have no such problems. Rinse and repeat till the charging unit is dead. When their dead then simply return back to your original position and reset
Sorry but this "first rank fall back, second rank fire" tactic is precisely why the post was started in the first place... What was meant to be a very tactical-ish maneuver turned disaster for assaults because it penalizes assaults so much.
nice to see some new people who are looking at this.
And i totally agree that the assault army has it REALLY bad in this edition because of the fall back mechanic, too much penalties for the offensive side while the defensive side walks away with next to no problems
niv-mizzet wrote: So I happened to be thinking about how the pistol ability in melee rarely comes up, and how fall back is just too good...
GUYS GUYS.
What about....
When a unit falls back, any enemy unit they were within 1" of may fire any pistol weapons at them. EH? EH?
Meaninglessly small buff to assault units. It doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is that the unit that managed to get into CC is completely fethed once the enemy falls back.
niv-mizzet wrote: So I happened to be thinking about how the pistol ability in melee rarely comes up, and how fall back is just too good...
GUYS GUYS.
What about....
When a unit falls back, any enemy unit they were within 1" of may fire any pistol weapons at them. EH? EH?
Meaninglessly small buff to assault units. It doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is that the unit that managed to get into CC is completely fethed once the enemy falls back.
I've actually found the biggest annoyance to be that the screen unit I just 90% deleted walks 1 inch away, spreads out as much as they can, and then continues to do its job as a screen unit, whether my unit gets shot or not.
I mean yeah this wouldn't really break much new ground, but 40k has too many "melee haters" yelling about how nothing should ever be anywhere comparable to shooting, so any real solution is never going to get past them.
niv-mizzet wrote: So I happened to be thinking about how the pistol ability in melee rarely comes up, and how fall back is just too good...
GUYS GUYS.
What about....
When a unit falls back, any enemy unit they were within 1" of may fire any pistol weapons at them. EH? EH?
Meaninglessly small buff to assault units. It doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is that the unit that managed to get into CC is completely fethed once the enemy falls back.
I've actually found the biggest annoyance to be that the screen unit I just 90% deleted walks 1 inch away, spreads out as much as they can, and then continues to do its job as a screen unit, whether my unit gets shot or not.
I mean yeah this wouldn't really break much new ground, but 40k has too many "melee haters" yelling about how nothing should ever be anywhere comparable to shooting, so any real solution is never going to get past them.
This is definitely true ^
But just remember, these issues have to be given light because they are such a core fundamental part of a game.
You don't go "maybe ill have half of my engine made of steel and the other half made of tin" and expect the engine to work just fine. In order to address the problems of a game, you have to give ALL parts of it the same scrutiny and coverage regardless if the idea is great or not.
This is why we have this forum. To not only discuss the problems with the game, but what can be done to provide solutions (as to wherever someone who can make a difference is watching. That depends on how loud the voice of concern is and if it's to the right people
Something definitely needs to be done, this is just a huge nerf to CC armies. Some penalty be it free attacks or only a chance to get out of CC would be fine with me, but something needs done.
The simple solution (albert the results may vary) is that fall back happens during the controlling players assault phase.
Some people think that is should happen at the end of the shooting phase (units with abilities that work in the current mechanics (such as fly) say these units do at the start.
Personally, i would go for the assault phase one because not only do you have to run damage control against the CC oriented units, but you also have to consider the fact you might need to use those who fell back as either screen units or sacrifical pieces to hold back the CC army, so when the unit is destroyed they cant re plie in to your army, giving you that one shot to wipe the units out.
Example:
Army 1 (orks) gets into CC with Army 2 (Tau)
Units are : 1x Boys mob (15-12 models)
2x Fire warriors(7-10), 2x Kroot Squad (15-20)
Orks get a good CC into the Kroot Squads, reducing them to 8-5 model squads
Tau Turn
He falls back with his first fire warriors,
Ork player takes out one whole Kroot Squad (Cause he wants to finish them off)
Second Fire warrior Squad falls back,
Other Kroots stay behind to hold the line, they do okay in CC, take out 6 orks
Units are: 1xOrk Mob(9 - 6models)
1x Kroot (8-5 Models)
Next turn Orks finish off Kroots, try and consolidate into another CC, but falling back units fell back to full movement
Next turn other army shoots orks, stopping them for good.
-------------------------
This is more strategic than just one army falling back and pressing delete button on unit, in this scenario he had to deliberately give up units so that the others could escape. And it fits in 40k, cause matyrs are a dime a dozen in 40k
It would be a tactical sacrifice a player may choose to have the enemy charging unit exposed to firepower.
Units that fall back are completely destroyed unless they're vehicles or monsters.
)
